Issues

SAMPLE LETTER #1 (short, contains all important points):

SUBJECT: Opposition to LB 1244 – Sales Tax on Tattooing & Piercing

Dear Senator [Last Name],

My name is [Your Name], a (…Nebraska small-business owner…), and I respectfully urge you to oppose LB 1244, which would impose a sales tax on tattooing and body piercing.

Tattoo and body modification businesses are already heavily taxed and regulated. We pay taxes on supplies, equipment, and income, and we operate under strict licensing, inspection, training, insurance, and safety requirements to protect public health. Adding a sales tax is not cost-neutral: it creates ongoing administrative work, bookkeeping and software costs, filing requirements, and compliance risk, including audits, penalties, and interest. These burdens fall on small shops and independent artists with limited margins.

Nebraska has already shown strong opposition to this idea. In a prior hearing on similar legislation, the vast majority of testimony was opposed, with minimal support. Suggestions that artists can simply lower prices misunderstand the nature of tattooing, which is skilled, labor-intensive work already priced to meet safety and regulatory standards. Further price reductions are not sustainable for legitimate, compliant businesses.

Tattooing is also often mischaracterized as a “luxury.” For many Nebraskans, it is not. Tattoos frequently mark grief, recovery, sobriety, survivorship, identity, or major life transitions. Treating these services as luxury spending dismisses their personal and cultural significance and stigmatizes clients.

Raising the cost of legal, regulated tattooing also risks pushing some demand toward unlicensed, underground work, where health and safety standards are harder to enforce. If public health is the goal, the regulated path should be supported—not made less accessible.

Finally, this tax functions regressively. Many clients are working-class individuals who save to afford meaningful work. Adding tax makes access harder for them and threatens small shops, artists, conventions, and local economic activity tied to regulated body art.

I am proud to operate a small business in Nebraska and want our communities to thrive safely and responsibly. For these reasons, I urge you to oppose LB 1244 and any effort to impose sales tax on tattooing and body modification services.

Respectfully,
[Your Name]
[Business Name]
[City, Nebraska]
[Phone] | [Email]

SAMPLE LETTER #2 (longer version):

Dear Senator [Last Name],

My name is (   your name  ) . I’m a (…Lincoln, Nebraska small-business owner…), and I’m writing to strongly urge you to oppose LB 1244, the proposed sales tax on body modification services, including tattooing and piercing.

Tattooing and body modification businesses already carry significant tax and compliance burdens. Practitioners pay taxes on supplies and equipment, and we pay income taxes like other Nebraska small businesses. Tattooing is also licensed and regulated, which is exactly what we want for public health—but it also means operating legally requires serious, ongoing expense: compliant facilities, sterilization and safety protocols, training, insurance, and other requirements that can’t be met “on the cheap.” And while sales tax is collected from the customer and remitted to the state, it is not “free” to administer: it requires ongoing bookkeeping, accurate rate application, additional recordkeeping, reconciling sales, preparing and filing returns, and paying for accounting help and/or software. It also creates compliance risk—mistakes can lead to audits, penalties, and interest—plus real time costs for owners and artists who are already stretched thin. Adding a sales tax layer on the service increases pressure on already-thin small-business margins and on the independent operators who make up most of this industry.

There is also clear evidence that Nebraskans have pushed back on this idea before. During a hearing on similar legislation last year, 111 people testified in opposition, five were neutral, and only four spoke in favor. At that time, Senator Brandt suggested that if providers dislike the tax, we should simply lower our prices. With respect, that reflects a misunderstanding of the work. Tattooing and body modification are highly skilled, labor-intensive services. Many of us already work hard to keep pricing reasonable for clients while meeting strict health and safety standards. Further price reductions are not sustainable without jeopardizing the survival of legitimate, compliant businesses.

Some senators have characterized tattooing as a “luxury.” I can tell you unequivocally that for many Nebraskans it is not. Yes, some clients get tattoos because they look cool—but many come in for reasons that have nothing to do with status or indulgence. Tattoos are often a coping tool and a deeply personal milestone: a memorial after loss, a marker of survivorship, a sobriety landmark, a reclamation of identity after hardship, or a meaningful rite of passage. In those moments, tattooing functions like a personal ritual or ceremony—a way to create control, meaning, continuity, and connection after life has been painful or uncertain. Framing that as “luxury” can erase what clients are actually doing, and it can stigmatize people who are simply trying to heal and move forward.

This proposal also risks creating incentives that undermine safety. Because tattooing is regulated, it must be done in licensed, commercial facilities—it is not something legal operators can simply do out of their homes. When the legal, inspected path gets more expensive and complicated, it increases the risk of pushing some demand toward unlicensed, underground tattooing, where health and safety standards are harder to enforce and clients can be put at risk. If we care about public health, we should support the regulated path—not add costs that make it less accessible.

Finally, a sales tax on tattooing functions as a regressive burden. Many clients are working-class people who save for months to afford meaningful work. Adding tax on top makes it harder for them to come in, and it makes it harder for small shops and working artists to keep their doors open. Nebraska should be a place where small businesses and skilled trades can thrive—where our cities can host healthy, professional tattoo events and conventions that bring people in and support the local economy—without adding extra hurdles onto already-regulated services.

I love Nebraska. I’m proud to own a small business here, and I want to see our communities succeed. I also want tattooing to continue being done safely, in licensed, regulated environments that protect clients. For these reasons, I urge you to oppose LB 1244 and any effort to add sales tax to tattooing and body modification services.

Respectfully,
( your name)
[Business Name]
(location)
[Phone] | [Email]

SAMPLE LETTER #3:

Subject: Opposing the Proposed Sales Tax on Body Modification Services

Dear Senator,

I am writing to strongly urge you to oppose LB 1244, the proposed sales tax on body modification services, including tattooing and piercing. Practitioners in these industries already pay taxes on their supplies, equipment, and their income. Adding yet another layer of taxation is not only unnecessary but creates an undue burden on small businesses and independent operators across Nebraska.

During a hearing held on similar legislation last year, 111 people testified in opposition, five were neutral, and only four spoke in favor. At that time, Senator Brandt suggested that if service providers dislike the tax, we should simply lower our prices. With all due respect, this statement reflects a misunderstanding of our work. Tattooing and body modification are highly skilled, labor-intensive services. Many of us already strive to keep pricing reasonable for our clients while maintaining the high standards required by law and professional ethics. Further price reductions are not sustainable without jeopardizing the survival of our businesses.

Moreover, this tax will not serve the greater good of Nebraska. It risks driving skilled practitioners, most, if not all, of whom are small businesses out of the state. And it would impose additional financial burdens on taxpayers. Many of our clients require multiple sessions to complete their body modifications, meaning they would be taxed repeatedly for the same piece of work.

Some senators have characterized body art and modifications as a luxury. I can tell you unequivocally that for many Nebraskans, it is not. Body art is a vital part of self-expression, healing, and community. Additionally, body modification is strictly regulated by Nebraska law and must be performed in licensed facilities. By that logic, body modification cannot be reasonably classified as a luxury.

If enacted this bill would harm small businesses, limit access for Nebraskans seeking body art, place added burdens on taxpayers, and offer no meaningful benefit to the state’s economy.

For these reasons, I urge you to oppose LB 1244 and the taxation of body modification services. It is unfair, unnecessary, and contrary to the best interests of the people and small businesses of the great state of Nebraska.

Respectfully,
(your name)
(your business name (optional))
(City), Nebraska
(email/ phone (optional)