Increase the Sales Tax on Food? (rentals, schools, universities)

[markg91359]

Like everywhere else in the USA, the recession has blown a huge hole in government spending. The state is obligated by law to have a balanced budget. We cannot run a deficit under our state laws. Unless something is done, we are talking about more and steeper budget cuts than we had last year.

One proposal to deal with this crisis is to restore the state sales tax on food to the level it was a few years ago. This would involve increasing the sales tax on food by about 3%.

I'm for it. I know there are plenty of poor people in Utah. However, I really don't leave anyone is going to "go hungry" because of a 3% increase in the sales tax on food. The revenue that restoring this tax to its previous level would generate would be considerable. Obviously, it can go to fund shortfalls in education and among state departments such as the Health Department, Natural Resources, and Environomental Quality.

What say you?

[hilgi]

Originally Posted by markg91359

Like everywhere else in the USA, the recession has blown a huge hole in government spending. The state is obligated by law to have a balanced budget. We cannot run a deficit under our state laws. Unless something is done, we are talking about more and steeper budget cuts than we had last year.

One proposal to deal with this crisis is to restore the state sales tax on food to the level it was a few years ago. This would involve increasing the sales tax on food by about 3%.

I'm for it. I know there are plenty of poor people in Utah. However, I really don't leave anyone is going to "go hungry" because of a 3% increase in the sales tax on food. The revenue that restoring this tax to its previous level would generate would be considerable. Obviously, it can go to fund shortfalls in education and among state departments such as the Health Department, Natural Resources, and Environomental Quality.

What say you?

Cut spending. I just left California, I don't want to feed a new beast here.

[SouthernBelleInUtah]

Hmmm. I don't think it's going to fly b/c it puts a disproprotionate burden on large families. raising the income tax is fairer to me.

[hilgi]

A tax on productivity or consumption is not the most efficient or fair.

The fairest taxes are those that were first proposed by Thomas Jefferson, Adam Smith, Thomas Paine and Ben Franklin. Later made famous by Henry George.

That is a single LAND tax (not a property tax). Plus a natural resource tax. The government protects our claims to land and resources, yet we don't pay for that protection. This would eliminate a lot of the battles regarding who deserves to be taxed etc. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_value_tax

This would appeal to many on the right and many on the left, except of course for people who own thousands of acres of land and keep it undeveloped so they can keep the prices of their other housing and rentals artificially high.

Here is a libertarian example and then a liberal example.
http://geolib.pair.com/

http://renegadeeconomist.com/ watch the Michael Hudson and Fred Harrison videos.

[skibarbie]

I think that the state should just tax the bejesus out of soda pop, chips/crackers and candy. I am going to disagree with Belle on this one about income tax as the large families in this state are already getting major tax deductions for the kids. If the state were to be bold enough to tax junk food items it may be a 2 fold benefit from a revenue generator all the way to a less obese/healthier Utah..just my thoughts..

[hilgi]

Originally Posted by skibarbie

I think that the state should just tax the bejesus out of soda pop, chips/crackers and candy. I am going to disagree with Belle on this one about income tax as the large families in this state are already getting major tax deductions for the kids. If the state were to be bold enough to tax junk food items it may be a 2 fold benefit from a revenue generator all the way to a less obese/healthier Utah..just my thoughts..

That is well meaning but if the byproduct is reducing consumption of these items, you will get a reduction in revenue. The programs the revenue is needed for will not be cut so more taxes will be increased and debt will rise.

This is called the California tax model. I just left that, it doesn't work. I like it here, I don't want another CA.

[markg91359]

My principal argument in favor of restoring the sales tax on food is that we all were used too it for decades. For that reason, it shouldn't be alot of skin off anyone's chest.

The state can and will cut its budget (again) after steep cuts last year. That's even if they do restore the sales tax on food to its previous level. Everyone needs to realize that we are talking about laying off school teachers, highway patrolmen, public health workers, and environmental quality department employees (in a state with some of the biggest air pollution problems in the country). Its an extremely serious situation. There will still be a need to increase tuition at all the colleges and universities in the state just to tread water.

I suppose if I had my choice, I might consider raising other taxes. However, politically I think that's impossible given the mindset of the legislature. No one wants to pay increased taxes, but the situation here is far from the mess that California got itself into.

[Arjay51]

Would you not consider an increase in food tax the same as a tax for living? Why not tax the air we breath? We already pay some taxes for water and food and, to me, these just don't seem appropriate.

Just my opinion.

[aussie_american]

Originally Posted by Arjay51

Would you not consider an increase in food tax the same as a tax for living? Why not tax the air we breath? We already pay some taxes for water and food and, to me, these just don't seem appropriate.

Any tax increase is going to impact some part of the community more than others. Food is a basic necessity so taxing it has a broader impact than taxing a "nicety" like cigarettes or snowmobiles but at the end of the day if there's a certain budget amount that needs to be met it can either be achieved by taxing a lot of people a little or by taxing fewer people a bit more. The general attitude seems to be "as long as it's not me".

Nobody likes paying tax and we all dislike the idea of the government taking more of "our money" and deciding how to spend it rather than letting us spend it all however we see fit. Unfortunately tax is the price we pay for living in a community. We cannot live as a community and provide EVERYTHING we need ourselves. We cannot secure our borders, police crime, build roads and bridges, educate our children to university level, negotiate international treaties etc on our own and it's not practical to just follow the "user pays" model e.g. just pay the policeman when you have to call him for help, or just pay to use the road when you drive on it. Soooo we have taxes and elect people to decide how they are distributed. It amuses me how people carry on about taxes but then are "up in arms" about whether the government is doing enough to protect us from terrorists or provide an education for our children.

Anyone who runs a household knows that there is only one way to fix a budget deficit - spend less or earn more i.e. cut funding for roads, schools, police etc or raise taxes. Pick your poison.

[Arjay51]

Originally Posted by aussie_american

Any tax increase is going to impact some part of the community more than others. Food is a basic necessity so taxing it has a broader impact than taxing a "nicety" like cigarettes or snowmobiles but at the end of the day if there's a certain budget amount that needs to be met it can either be achieved by taxing a lot of people a little or by taxing fewer people a bit more. The general attitude seems to be "as long as it's not me".

Nobody likes paying tax and we all dislike the idea of the government taking more of "our money" and deciding how to spend it rather than letting us spend it all however we see fit. Unfortunately tax is the price we pay for living in a community. We cannot live as a community and provide EVERYTHING we need ourselves. We cannot secure our borders, police crime, build roads and bridges, educate our children to university level, negotiate international treaties etc on our own and it's not practical to just follow the "user pays" model e.g. just pay the policeman when you have to call him for help, or just pay to use the road when you drive on it. Soooo we have taxes and elect people to decide how they are distributed. It amuses me how people carry on about taxes but then are "up in arms" about whether the government is doing enough to protect us from terrorists or provide an education for our children.

Anyone who runs a household knows that there is only one way to fix a budget deficit - spend less or earn more i.e. cut funding for roads, schools, police etc or raise taxes. Pick your poison.

Sure, but the government always seems to decide on increased taxes, especially on those that can least affort them. Their budget goes up every year and we receive less services every year. Perhaps a little fiscal respondsibility by the government, real respondsibility not just lip service to it, should be practiced by the government. After all, it is not their money, it is ours.