Kansas senator says reducing the sales tax on food is a form of social engineering

[proud2BlibKansan]

TOPEKA — The Kansas Senate on Thursday set up a showdown with the House over a tax plan that cuts income taxes along with sales taxes on groceries.

<skip>

Among the opponents in the Senate was conservative Republican Jeff Melcher of Leawood. He voted against the Senate plan.

Melcher said reducing the sales tax on food was a form of social engineering that would cause people to buy more food in lieu of other products with higher sales taxes. He suggested it would cause people to eat more.

“It seems to me we are encouraging the behavior of purchasing food and discouraging the behavior of purchasing anything else,” Melcher said.

Read more here: http://www.kansascity.com/2013/05/23/4253042/kansas-senate-passes-plan-to-cut.html#storylink=cpy

[PDJane]

1. Stupidity reigns.

[DetlefK]

2. Reducing the sales-tax of chairs will cause people to sit more.

[htuttle]

3. Household budgets are so tight in Kansas...

...that people are forced to choose between paying the sales tax on extra groceries or buying new calfskin seat covers for their Lamborghinis. Better not to tempt them with being able to buy enough food, I suppose..

[BuelahWitch]

5. Or extra Bling for our yachts

Wouldn't want the Bling industry to suffer, would you?

[Capt. Obvious]

4. A conservative in favor of higher taxes?

[liberal N proud]

6. That would be laughable but the moron is serious

[hfojvt]

7. I would oppose this as well

When I first moved to Kansas from places like Wisconsin and Iowa, I thought it was barbaric to have sales taxes on food.

But later, I saw it as actually progressive.

Because of one thing - the food sales tax rebate.

With the food sales tax rebate, that means poor families pay less sales tax on food than upper income families do. Rather than get rid of the sales tax on food - which would benefit upper income families more than poor ones, I would do two things 1) expand the sales tax rebate - right now it applies only to the elderly and those with children so that a retired person with a pension of $30,000 a year would get a sales tax rebate (and a Homestead credit) whereas a young person like myself, working part time and making $11,000 a year, gets nothing. 2) Increase the amount of the rebate, which stands now at $84 per exemption for those making less than $15,900 and $41 for those making less than $31,900.

This bill would cut the sales tax on food from 6.3% to 4.95%, a savings of 1.35%. For that to balance the food sales tax rebate, a person would have to spent $518 a month on food - per person or $253 a month for those with slightly higher incomes.

So basically combining this sales tax reduction with elimination of the food sales tax rebate will be
1) a tax increase on people making less than $15,900 a year
2) break even for those with incomes between $15,900 and $31,900
3) a tax cut for those making over $31,900 (and for non-residents who purchase food in Kansas)

Again, that tax cut for the upper incomes could be used instead to increase and expand the sales tax rebate.

Further, this measure adds a new level of complexity as now registers and scanners would have to be re-programmed for the different sales tax rates.

[ellenfl]

10. you get a food sales tax rebate? how do i get one? eom

[proud2BlibKansan]

14. I believe they did away with it this year.

I never got it. It was only for very low income tax payers.

[haele]

13. A rebate? Is that an "end of the year if you file taxes" type rebate like our renter's in CA?

or does the family that pays the sales food tax get a refund deposit once a month? Do they have to save receipts and submit them when filing taxes, or is it a blanket assumption of what the rebate should be based on income and household size?
You talk about registers and scanners - will everyone in Kansas be issued a "food rebate card" they can swipe before the final ring-up that will automatically register the rebate for their taxable income level (determined per what metric - the last year's state income tax filing?) every purchase?

I would disagree with your premise that Kansas' tax is set up to be progressive. It might be more progressive than the Compassionate Randian Conservatives in that state want it to be, but a food tax is still a regressive tax for those that work, whether poor and "almost comfortable", even if it's tiered to income and can be immediately applied to a purchase.
I spent my teen years in Washington State, another "no income tax but sales taxes and fees on everything else" state. We paid sales tax on all food items except the "basics", identified as plain milk, eggs, bread, plain butchered meat/fish/poultry (no shellfish), and raw vegetable/fruit produce.
Taxes were on on everything else - even the other foods in usually found the "poor folk's survival larder" such as nuts, dried fruit, flour, sugar, salt, pepper, cheese, lunch-meat, peanut-butter, jam/jelly, juice, powdered milk (at that time, even taxed powdered milk gave you more milk than buying milk in cartons), cereal, rolled oats, macaroni, canned tuna fish/vegetables, freezer-section fruit, meat or veggies, soup, beans, rice...
Trust me, even with no tax on "the basics", we had a couple serious months putting food on the table with two kids and an household income just above the food stamp level that would have gotten us most of above list of food items through the state.

While the system in Kansas might seem progressive if a person files a tax return to get the rebate, how does it affect someone who might only be passing through, or spending a month there taking care of a relative? Or a military person who grocery-shops at the Commissary once a month (not paying the state sales tax) but also shops out in town four or five times a month?

The problem with a tax on non-prepared food that includes staple groceries, is that it affects a serious ongoing community health issue and is still a regressive sales tax on the poor. Everyone needs to eat and by extension, most will need to purchase some sort of basic food items on a daily basis just to survive.
Food Insecurity and Malnutrition amongst those with lower incomes is a serious problem because they can't afford healthy food, and putting a tax on staples only increases the cost of those staples - especially the healthier alternatives - to the low-income but ineligible for food stamps working parent buying the groceries for their families.

So even if a household can get their tax "rebate" at the end of the year or quarter - that is, if they remember to save and keep legible all their receipts, or don't lose them in a flood or tornado, or to a moment of thoughtlessness while cleaning up for the holidays - it still decreases the amount a paycheck-to-paycheck family can purchase when they go to the store.
Smaller portions that might have to go farther so that everyone in the household can have a bite or two. Fewer options if there's a dietary issue where labels need to be checked and ingredients evaluated.

I could never understand why states would tax food that has not been prepared. An income tax is always far more progressive - at least to a worker - than a blanket sales tax that includes basic small-ticket items. The only time it might not be progressive is to someone who live wholly off investment income - and even then, it's still better than a blanket sales tax.

Haele

[proud2BlibKansan]

15. Yes. End of the year on your tax refund.

[hfojvt]

22. you don't have to keep receipts

it is a flat $84 per exemption if your income is less than $15,900 and $41 per exemption if your income is less than $31,900.

As I said, it should be increased and expanded. That would be progressive.

Getting rid of, or lowering the sales tax on food, will be a much larger benefit to those with incomes over $31,900 than it would for those with lower incomes.

[CTyankee]

16. I'm sorry but taxing food is regressive and it is unthinkable.

My mother used to regard it as she did the salt taxes that were so reviled and hated in the Bible.

[hfojvt]

21. it's not regressive with the rebate

sales tax rate is 6.3%, rebates are $84, and $41.

Consider three single people incomes
$11,000 (me)
$28,000
$45,000

assume they all spend $300 a month on food (it's even less regressive if they spend say 25% of their income on food).
total sales taxes on food = $226.8

but because of the rebates, their net tax bill is
$11,000 = $142.8 (1.3% of income)
$28,000 = $185.8 (0.66% of income)
$45,000 = $226.8 (0.5% of income)

Okay, not exactly progressive, but get rid of it and how are the benefits distributed? It's a bigger benefit to the higher income family. Total tax cut is $555.4 with 41% of it going to the richest person in the example. Whereas a mere $90 added to the food sales tax rebate would make it progressive. A $46 tax cut to the middle person and a $90 tax cut to the lower income person.

Increasing and expanding the rebate would give tax breaks to poorer people. Getting rid of the sales tax on food and the sales tax rebate will give most of its breaks to those with higher incomes.

[CTyankee]

23. soyou are saying the tax rebate is redistributive in its effect?

Whereas even no tax at all would still have a regressive effect, since the poor pay a greater share of their income for food than the rich? If that is the case here, I see the weird way the tax plus progressive rebates actually redistributes income. It's odd because you would think the state would just have a more progressive INCOME tax to make up the taxes it needs to meet its budget. That and get rid of any state tax loopholes that favor the rich. It would seem to me that that would be a better way of achieving the goal of lesser income disparity, because most certainly people quite naturally have an aversion to the state taxing basic necessities (or so I would think and hope!).

[hfojvt]

24. this is Kansas

the state just got done making the income tax much less progressive, and even before that it was relatively flat, with basically only two brackets. First a standard deduction of a mere $3,850 then exemptions of $2,250 per person. Tax rate 3.5% up to $15,000, then 6.25% up to $30,000 then 6.45% over that.

But that was before Brownback and company reduced it to, if I recall 3% for the first bracket and 4.9% for the second bracket.

My view is that switching from what we have to no tax on food, would be a larger benefit to those with higher incomes, who would save the most from such a switch. The state would also lose some revenue from out of staters who spend money on food here.

Of course, such a move would not be as regressive as the last income tax cut they passed, or than many of the other tax cuts they pass every year, usually for corporations.

[CTyankee]

32. You'd think that the people would rise up in rage against such a set up.

But I guess the electorate has drunk the kool aid that the repubs have been selling them...

[haele]

38. It might "give more benefit" to the higher incomes, but if you only have twenty dollars left -

How does a tax on food help anything at the time you need to buy food to get you and your family through the week?

I understand where these numbers can be justified as being "progressive" (due to an income-based rebate) in a state without income tax, but a sales tax on food is still a regressive tax on the poor, far more than a State income tax is the way it's set up in most states.

Assuming the number you gave above - the average food bill for an individual is $300, out of that, only $226.8 actually goes to food. There's 7% of food money - $75.2 a month that is going to tax. Putting aside the rebate situation, no matter what options the individual makes to try and save money, no matter what their income situation is, that's $75.2 per individual no matter what their situation, simply to purchase food.

I lived through that in Seattle in the 1970's. Between them, my parents made too much for food stamps or any other assistance, but there were significant periods of time where my parents were between work or there were emergency issues (fix the car necessary for dad to get to his job) and they didn't make enough to have three meals a day for a family of four - two active, growing children,no matter how careful we were buying food. There were three periods where for an entire month, my parents only ate once a day and my brother and I were unable to bring a lunch to school - occasionally a neighbor was nice enough to make extra sandwiches for one of her kids to give to us.
I remember once towards the end of a particularly bad month, with that tax on food, $2.00 on Wed. got us a 1 qt. carton of milk, a can of Quaker Oats from bargain bin, and four cans of tuna to last us with whatever was left in the larder and our kitchen garden until the next Monday when the banks opened and Dad's paycheck would clear. We paid tax on the Quaker Oats and tuna fish - I remember my parents complaining about that while they were trying to figure out what meals they could manage until the money was in the bank. We could have gotten some additional food - even if it was bargain bin - if we didn't have to pay that tax.
That's why a tax on food is so regressive. 7% of basic survival funds - money to purchase food for your family - goes away no matter carefully you shop for food.

Here in tax-happy California, you'd have to be making at least $15.00 an hour full time as a single person to be paying $40/$50 a month in state income taxes (depending on your dependent status), and you'd probably get most of that back after you filed your taxes (and if you rent, you'd get all of it back). So, pay $50 a month as a single person for income tax, and get pretty much the entire $600 back at the end of the year if you rent.
And if you're a smart shopper here, you can purchase $300 worth of food for $300 instead of $226.8 worth of food for $300.

Because of my luck in getting a good-paying job (finally) that I have been working at for the past 10 years, I make enough to pay a whole $80-$85 a month or so in CA state income tax - which I do so very willingly. Because I shop wisely and avoid most prepared foods, I purchase around $250 per individual a month - $750 or more - worth of food for everyone in my family (including one that doesn't live in the house and is between jobs) and pay probably around $20 give or take a couple dollars a month in food-based taxes total on that grocery bill.

I can see why the state of Kansas might think that a sales tax to ensure everyone "pays into the system" is fair - there are Californians, employers and employees, who game the system by working under the table so an income tax doesn't really catch State revenue from them. But still - taxing survival? And calling it "progressive" because they provide a relatively minuscule rebate at the end of the year for those poor who can file, and those making more don't get one.

Adding a 7% tax on people to buy staples to eat on is cruel beyond belief to those who aren't making $31,000 or above, even if they get that rebate. At least California's "renter's rebate" doesn't pretend to help the poor or be "progressive"; it's only there as a legality - a balance to the mortgage deduction that California home owners (many of them who get rental income from the properties they're getting deductions on) get on their income taxes. If the person you rent from pays property taxes and can deduct them from their taxes, you also get a deduction because that rent you paid includes the deducted property tax payments.

Haele

[hfojvt]

39. the sales tax is "only" 6.2%

so on $280 worth of food, you only pay $17.36 in tax. And if you get a $7 a month rebate, that is reduced to $10.36.

I wish I had real numbers, but getting rid of the sales tax on food would cost the state, say $100 million in revenue. Most of the benefits of that $100 million tax cut would goto people making over $35,000 a year - those too rich to get the rebate.

If you took that $100 million and instead used it to increase and expand the rebate, then most of the benefits of that plan would goto people making LESS than $31,900 a year.

I just will never buy an argument that says "we will help people living on the margins by giving big tax cuts to people making over $40,000 a year".

[haele]

40. The wealthy are going to call their kitchens a "catering operation" and get a bigger tax break.

Seriously, do you think that people making half-a-million dollars a year won't have their cook/caterers stock their kitchens and then write it off as a business expense?
I know people in that income range in Texas who do that very thing. Even though they only have a cook come in once and a while for special events, that cook would come in and do their pantry shopping so they could write those groceries off. Since they pay the cook and provide a work area for the cook, they get a full rebate on the tax the cook paid on the food.
Perfectly legal.

And giving big tax cuts to people making over $40K? What big tax breaks do most of those people have under a state income tax?

I make over $40K in an income-tax state (with no food credits) and get nothing but my standard household exemptions and a renter's credit, so I'm still paying the state a lot more than someone living on the margins get. (That renter's credit is not a "tax cut" as I explained above - it's the same as a mortgage deduction for the person who owns the house I rent.) I don't even get an education credit from the state for going to school to get a degree.

I could be making $100K a year (I have co-workers who do so) and also get nothing but my standard household exemptions and the ability to itemize my deductions, unless I made enough to start putting some of that money into retirement investments. (hint, I don't make enough to do more than live paycheck to paycheck)

In states where there is an income tax base for the majority of the revenue, there is no revenue
I'll tell you what I'd do, if I was lived in a sales-tax only state and made between $41K and $60K - I'd be eating out a whole lot more at the big chains - where they don't worry about paying taxes on their groceries, or can write it off as a business deduction, and usually have all sorts of benefits just to be located in that state.
That's what they do in Washington State. That's what they do in Texas. That's what I've seen them do in Florida.
I'd be paying less tax on my food that way - and the state would get less money. Washington State has that problem - and the problem going to a less regressive, more equitable way of collecting revenue is that there are too many $60K + people who want to "have as much of their paycheck as they can" where they can write off all the federal taxes they can and still cheat the state - and f** those who have to pinch pennies weekly just to have enough to eat. After all; those people can get food stamps or go to the food pantry if they don't make enough for food stamps...
While here in California, with only a tax on processed foods, it's cheaper to buy groceries and cook your own food at home. Also healthier and that's better for the state in the long run.

That's why a sales tax on groceries is regressive. People who are living on the margins are forced to pay into the system every time they want to have food at home, while people who aren't have lots of options to cheat the state out of those sales tax revenues.

The vision that supports a sales tax on food/staples is too narrow; heck, having a sales tax/user fee way of collecting revenue is too narrow - you're still giving the few wealthy too much of a tax cut in terms of revenue they provide, and the majority population - the poor and working people are still the ones that are providing the day-to-day higher percentage of their income supporting the state.
I don't care about a "rebate" once a year.
From long experience getting "tax rebates", that amount is not much and unless it's presented as a food-only "credit card", it will not go to help pay for groceries the rest of the next year. Maybe it will go to groceries for the month the rebate is given, but that's about it - and people can't just turn off their lives between paychecks.

Haele

[bunnies]

25. A rebate doesnt help those who cant afford the price increase to being with.

Does it? Disclaimer: I live in NH where we dont have sales tax on anything.

[hfojvt]

29. after one year - it does

they get the rebate in February which helps them with the higher prices all year and then they get another rebate next year.

You can imagine some families who are desperately pinched by $100 a year in taxes. Again, I would say that increasing the food sales tax rebate would help them.

On the other hand, eliminating the sales taxes on food is gonna provide a lot more help to people like the Romney family, with 4 kids and two adults. If they are spending $2,000 a month on food then eliminating their sales tax on that food would be a tax cut of almost $1,500.

Is it really smart or progressive to give big tax cuts to richer families in order to provide much smaller tax relief for poorer people? $1,500 for the Romneys, and $150 for the poorer family.

I say take that $1,500 that would goto the Romneys and use it to increase and expand the rebate.

[bunnies]

35. Thanks for spelling it out for me.

Makes sense when you put it that way. I think living in NH has given me an automatic reaction when it comes to sales taxes: Especially when I think about what it would do to my grocery bill. But the thought of the 1% getting another spending cut makes my blood boil. The rebate does seem like it would be beneficial for those who need it most in the long term.

[HiPointDem]

8. madness is the only explanation.

[sakabatou]

12. *insert lame "300" joke here*

In seriousness, I'm glad that this guy was arrested.

[Johonny]

9. but denying ex-felons food stamps isn't ;)

[ellenfl]

11. you'd think they'd eventually run out of morans. eom

[Socialistlemur]

17. I'm amazed at this guy's sheer stupidity

I thought most states exempted food from sales tax. If he's worried about it he can propose the tax exempt only healthy food. But I'm sure this turkey lives on Twinkies, he sure sounds like he has serious vitamin deficiencies.

[Rex]

18. Well LORD KNOWS we don't need healthy babies!

Even the GOP understands social engineering - keep people hungry and confused. Just the kind of people the GOP DEPENDS on to vote for them!

[KamaAina]

19. Food is soshulist.

[etherealtruth]

20. What's the Matter With Kansas?

[Pragdem]

26. Food taxes are regressive. Of course a Republican supports them. nt

[Malone]

27. Is there sales tax on food in other states??

In Texas there is no sales tax at all on food items in the grocery store like bread fruit soup cereal produce etc., only on fringe semi-food items like sodas and some processed snack foods. And it's interesting to check your receipt and see what was taxed and considered food and what was not.

I'm just now realizing this might not be the case in all other states.

[proud2BlibKansan]

28. Yes I've always had to pay sales tax on food

First time i was in another state and didn't have to pay it I was stunned. Had no idea it wasn't taxed everywhere.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

34. "Sales taxes in the United States"

Granted it's from Wiki, but it's a start.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sales_taxes_in_the_United_States#Summary_table

North Carolina sucks, and the Teabagger-dominated General Assembly wants to overhaul the tax code, which will only make it suck worse.

[TheOther95Percent]

30. No sales tax on clothes induces consumers to wear cashmere sweaters on hot summer days.

I'm only being logical and da gubmint has to prevent the misuse of cashmere - or in this case - food.

[bunnies]

36. So true.

Our past-time up here in NH is to wrap ourselves in bolts of cashmere and roll around in piles of food just for fun. If only we had a sales tax to save us from ourselves. Oh well... gotta run to the fabric store!

[TheOther95Percent]

37. LOL!

We have no sales tax on most food items. I can't tell you how many times I've heard people say they're buying carts of food just to have something to look at in their pantries.

[Drew Richards]

31. I've heard this meme before didnt a senator from kentuky say he wanted to abolish

Welfare because if you feed blacks just like animals they would breed? Or was that from that congresswoman named Fox the nut from SC?

[hunter]

33. A sales tax on food is unconscionable, even with a "rebate" for the poor.

The wealthy spend a much smaller percentage of their income on ordinary grocery store food simply because they eat out more often.

Even the poor, maybe especially the poor, deserve some nice food every now and again.

But I guess we'd rather feed them the same sorts of food slaves and people in the poor houses used to eat.

STFU, don't ask for seconds, and eat the corn gruel on your plate, you're lucky to get that.