Making a Case Against Luxury Taxes

New revenue injections?

By Eric Seidel, CEO
The Media Trainers

Luxury tax: A tax placed on products or services that are deemed to be unnecessary or non-essential. This type of tax is an indirect tax in that the tax increases the price of the good or service and is only incurred by those who purchase or use the product.

You’ve no doubt heard about some of the “creative” taxes being talked about and—in some cases—perhaps even close to reality. They are ideas your local, state and federal representatives may be dreaming up to fill in the recession-led shortfall they’re experiencing .

There’s the sugar tax, ostensibly to combat obesity in kids while also thinning your wallet. Coca-Cola Company CEO Muhtar Kent thinks it’s a bad idea. No surprise there, but he supports his position with one particularly interesting fact:

A study that says an excise charge on products like his extensive line of colored and clear sugar waters would be about .02% effective in reducing Junior’s blubber. He recently made his case quite persuasively on CNBC. Watch for his proactive body language in this video, especially how he leans forward and punctuates points with his hands.

Then there’s the suggested Botax on Botox and related vanity medical expenses. Those ideas cut too close to home for plastic surgeons. To her credit, Dr. Jennifer Walden admits at the outset in a Fox News interview that any vanity tax would be bad for her business. She also makes a case for patients who need her services as a result of some kind of mishap, like an accident. And she takes it a step further, saying a Botax would be discriminatory (click on the video).

Dr. Walden definitely had her message prepared, and she probably rehearsed, too, which is advisable. But while turning away from her interviewer to face the camera may have seemed a cute little move, it came off as contrived and it was a distraction.

Leave a Reply