When will Washington decide to screw domain investors?
When the U.S. health care bill passed, one of the provisions that got some attention is a tax on indoor tanning salons. The 10% tax goes into effect in July.
When I saw this provision, I realized right away why this particular provision was added. Sure, it raises some money (defrays the cost of the health care bill). And it is somewhat related to health, since tanning can have some negative health consequences. But the first thing that popped into my mind was how the tanning salon business got picked on because it’s not big enough to put up a good defense.
Just about everyone else in the health care debate threw millions of dollars at shaping the policy. But the Indoor Tanning Association couldn’t keep up with that. It reminds me of the domain name industry, which can’t beat the big pockets of sometimes competing interests.
Last night I read an article in Forbes (Pole Dancing and Other Sins, May 10) that shows how another medical interest threw the tanning salons under the bus:
Dermatologists, arguing that heavy use of indoor tanning has been linked to a higher risk of deadly skin cancer, convinced the Senate that revenues from the tanning tax should replace a tax on cosmetic surgery (the so-called Bo-Tax) adopted by the House. “We were rolled by the doctors,” laments John Overstreet, executive director of the Indoor Tanning Association.
That’s how Washington works.
The domain industry doesn’t have a lot of money, but fortunately it still has a presence in Washington. We should support that.