Nip / Tax

Remember back in '04, when a Diet Coke cost $1.39 and butt lipo was tax-free?\nThose will be the wistful words of fond reminiscence echoing 'round the suburban social circuit 20 years from now. That is, if Washington Senate Democrat Karen Keiser gets her way.\nAccording to The Associated Press, Keiser has proposed a 6.5 percent sales tax on elective cosmetic surgery procedures, suggesting that the revenue be used for poor children's health insurance. She's following the lead of New Jersey, which recently made itself the first state to tax plastic surgery procedures. Lawmakers predict the 6 percent "vanity tax" will bring in as much as $25 million per year.\nWell, that's great news for those pesky orphans, but where does it leave aspiring gold-diggers? Those colossal guts are more than just unsightly -- they're mountainous obstacles in the path toward marriage to an aging tycoon!\nPredictably, current and prospective plastic surgery patients have their bandages in a bunch over the matter. One such victim, Karen Wakefield, seems less upset over a possible cost increase on future surgeries than she is about the discrimination against people like her. You see, the "vanity tax" would only apply to elective procedures -- meaning that those pity-card-carrying burn victims and mastectomy patients would be allowed to skate right past the extra expense. \nWakefield railed against the injustice, asking, "Where does it stop -- massages, facials, teeth cleanings? Even having a baby is elective surgery. Why not tax that, too?"\nOh, snap! It's about time somebody called out those divas who've been getting their chic Caesarian scars tax-free all these years.\nWakefield actually does raise a critical issue, though. Washington's lawmakers are going to have to set some crystal-clear guidelines as to what qualifies as "elective" surgery, and even then, it will be tricky to anticipate all the possibilities for ambiguous cases in the future.\nLet's take breast reduction, for example. Assuming that Keiser's proposed plan would exempt the procedure for women with back problems caused by larger-than-average breasts, it will only be a matter of time before women start demanding tax-free breast augmentation to preserve their psychological health. Any exception to the rule will set off a domino effect leading to years of tedious debate, at best. At worst, the system will collapse entirely under the strain of constant legal setbacks.\nAnyone with a shred of empathy would support the plan's exclusion of mastectomy patients' reconstructive surgery from the vanity tax. And anyone with a fraction of a facility for rational thought would understand that the difference between taxed and untaxed procedures is akin to the difference between taxed liquor and untaxed orange juice. But inevitably, droves of ravenous plastic surgery addicts will fight capped tooth and manicured nail to ensure that if breast cancer survivors don't pay sales tax on their "cosmetic" procedures, no one will. And since procedures like post-mastectomy breast reconstruction and skin grafts for burn victims aren't necessary from a lifesaving standpoint, they're going to use such examples to back up their argument. \nIt won't just be housewives battling the courts, either. The proposal has plastic surgeons scrambling to convince voters that it's a bad idea, fearing that the added cost will deter possible clients from undergoing surgery. \nKeiser's plan could really prove beneficial to its intended recipients, and it appears to be quite solidly thought-out. In light of the successful installment of New Jersey's very similar program, it's likely that Keiser's version will be brought to fruition as well. But in order for it to be successful, Washington's lawmakers will have to be firm when faced with arguments from the Karen Wakefields of the world.\nCome on. Isn't the singular pleasure of a facial botulism injection worth a few extra bucks?