Help me understand this.  I choose to have a Botox injection.  You choose to have your hair cut and colored.  I save my discretionary income for my procedure as do you.  You don’t care if I have Botox and I don’t care if you color your hair.  Why should the government consider penalizing either of us for making the  choice of either option to blow our dollars?  Why would Botox be considered any more of a vanity procedure than haircare?  Are either of them necessary?  The answer to all of these questions is no.  Do they both make an individual feel better about the way she looks?  Absolutely.  So since when is it appropriate to judge a choice that hurts no one, does not influence the nations financial picture in the least and greatly contributes to the economy when looking at discretionary spending.

I have 2 daughters that are recent college graduates and currently exploring the difficult job market.   I  have had many discussions with both regarding the interview process and the image that is best received by an employer.  Most potential employers would expect an applicant to have a stylish haircut,  neat and well-tended nails,  pressed and freshly laudered clothing, etc.  Should we begin taxing all of these services since they could be construed as unnecessary and a reflection of vanity?  Nope.  The reality of plastic surgery and noninvasive cosmetic procedures is that most people that utilize the different options are like you and I.  They are middle class, responsible with their spending and view these procedures as maintenance.  Of course,  there will always be a few sensational bizarros like Michael Jackson and the Octomom  to tweak  negativity amongst  those that would never do any of these procedures anyway.  Then again, there are many of our politicos that I have noticed move almost nothing on their faces during interviews.

This sort of plastic surgery taxation has been tried in several states unsuccessfully already.  Currently only New Jersey still has a tax on cosmetic surgery and even the legislator that wrote the original bill has recommended canceling it.  Why you ask?  The  amount collected  by the state of New Jersey was 75% off the targeted amount.  Patients were crossing into nearby states to take advantage of nontaxable procedures.  The question of defining what was or was not a cosmetic surgery procedure became blurry.  Several examples of that are:  the woman that had a breast reconstruction requiring breast implants and required revisions,  the massive weight loss patient that required a tummy tuck to remove a large abdominal panice so that she could go on with a normal life and seek employment or the elderly patient with an upper eyelid fold that partially obscured vision.  I would guess that most of us have dealt with an insurance company that has ruled a medical procedure unnecessary.  Imagine the same group of uninformed individuals deciding on taxation.