Don't tax food

The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette ^ | Thursday, July 10, 2003 | Berry Friesen

[Willie Green]

HARRISBURG - The little guy has few friends in government. This adage is again being demonstrated in the statehouse debate about taxes.

To relieve the burden of property taxes, fund improvements in early childhood education and close the deficit, Pennsylvania's General Assembly needs to raise more revenue. According to press reports, an effort under way would do that by broadening the scope of the sales tax. Transactions currently exempt from the sales tax -- such as the purchase of food, clothing and some services -- would be covered for the first time. Along with these changes, the tax rate would be cut from 6 to 4 percent.

[Willie Green]

While I don't necessarily agree with the author's suggested alternatives, I am totally opposed to the imposition of sales taxes on necessities: food, clothing, shelter and medicines. I have no problem with taxation of food "luxuries" such as that served in restaurants, but groceries purchased for home consumption should be totally exempt.

[Support Free Republic]

I'M BACK!!!

SUPPORT FREE REPUBLIC

Donate Here By Secure Server

Or mail checks to
FreeRepublic , LLC
PO BOX 9771
FRESNO, CA 93794

or you can use

PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com

STOP BY A BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD (It's in the Breaking News sidebar!)

[PhiKapMom]

I agree with you but here in Oklahoma they tax groceries at 4.5% -- was shocked when I moved up here from Texas and found out my milk was taxed!

Our local State Rep Thad Balkman (R-Norman) is trying to get this tax removed on groceries.

[Lorianne]

In Hawaii, we have sales taxes on food, prescription medicine, medical services.... in addition to consumer goods.

We also have an income tax and high property taxes. It is a tax hell.

[lelio]

Pennsylvania's General Assembly needs to raise more revenue
When I'm caught in a budget pinch the first thing I think of is "where is my money going" instead of "I'll just work more hours!"
If memory serves, doesn't the state there run the distribution of liquor? Sell that off to the highest bidder, collect a little less in tax per bottle, and don't employ the thousands of people in that industry.

[cajun-jack]

aw hell louisiana will tax the air you breathe......and then wonder why no businesses will locate here and why 20k+ citizens are moving away annually.

stop supporting the ne'er do wells..help folks that legitimately need help..make the others get off their ass and root hawg or die poor.

[Willie Green]

-- was shocked when I moved up here from Texas and found out my milk was taxed!

Good grief. One has to wonder what kind of idiot would suggest taxing milk to begin with.

[taxcontrol]

groceries purchased for home consumption should be totally exempt.

---

why?
What is so special about a candy bar or a steak that they should not be taxed. Should these special products be exempt from taxes during production?

What constitutes these special tax exempt foods?

[joesnuffy]

staples and medicine should be off limits to grind down the working poor is despotism

[Willie Green]

People need to consume food to survive. It's a necessity.

[alloysteel]

Why not tax basic foodstuffs? The base is much broader, and the lowest levels of the downtrodden have their opportunity to contribute to the Great White Father Who protects us all. Those who do not participate in government by contributing to its coffers are uncertain citizens indeed. And if in some future time, there are refunds made to taxpayers, should not those who pay no other taxes now be permitted to have refunds? For you see, by paying even a very small amount of taxes, the individual is established as a taxpayer, and therefore entitled to largesse from the State. Since anyone that badly off would be recipients of food stamps anyway, and food stamp purchases are exempt from sales taxes, the problem for the very poor is solved. The rest of us are fairly taxed on the basis of our most conspicuous consumption. Eat less, or at least more cheaply, and reduce your tax liability.

[Mark was here]

The "Little Guy" is your typical democrat, who voted for their democrat governor, having a tax added to their food bill is Just Deserts!

Maybe they will be a little smarter next time around!

[goldstategop]

I reminded when they tried to tax twinkies the outrage led voters to repeal it at the next election.

[freekitty]

I suppose they expect us to stop eating too.

[taxcontrol]

People need to drink water to survive - we (or at least I) pay taxes on water.

People need shelter against the elements, I pay property tax, hotel tax, building taxes and I'm sure that I pay a bunch of other taxes that I'm not aware of.

People need clothes to protect themselves from the elements yet I pay taxes on that as well.

So why is food any different?

[Willie Green]

So why is food any different?

I never claimed that food was any different.
In fact, my statement made it clear that I don't believe ANY of the necessities should be taxed, food, clothing, shelter or medicines.
The fact that some government entities currently impose a tax on those necessities doesn't justify the practice.

You're not much of a conservative, are you?

[gonzo]

Hmmm ----- Never any talk of lowering spending, is there, Willie?..............FRegards

[Willie Green]

Hmmm ----- Never any talk of lowering spending, is there, Willie?

Sadly, it seems to have become a taboo subject.

[taxcontrol]

Actually I'm very much a conservative.

I asked you why and the best answer you could give was "its for the poor".

It is from the LIBERAL camp that I hear such arguments. We cant tax XXX because the POOR cant afford it, and then the give this reason or that reason. This line of thought stems from the idea that people (an therefor the products they consume) are NOT EQUAL. It is class warfare all over again.

The law, including tax law, needs to treat all people and products the same. If you open the door for one type of products to be exempt from the tax then the next chum with a "need" will want releif as well.

Is a telephone a need? I might need to call 911.
Is an airconditioner a need? I might die from heat stroke.
Is a heater a need? I could freeze to death.
Is gas a need? I need to get to work.
Is a gun a need? I might need to defend my life.
etc. etc. etc.

Any excuse (liberals will call it a reason) will do for such a thought process. Liberals will tend to use the justification "its for the poor" or "its for the children" or for some other socially disadvantaged group of the month.

I'm in favor of taxing consumption not income. Taxing consumption does two things that taxing income can not. First, it encourages people to save and/or invest there money. It also will over time, modify consumer behavior so that consumers are not running out and buying on credit those things that they can not afford.

Second it shows to the taxpayer how much their government is costing them. One only has to look to the recent tax fights (I believe Tenn was the state) over imposing a sales tax to see the kind of impact such a tax system can have.

That is why LIBERALs are so desperate to prevent such a, treat everyone the same, kind of tax system. It would require their voter base to carry their share of the cost of government and would turn those individuals into conservatives.

What I would like to see is a repeal of the income tax and then the establishment of a sales tax. I would also like to see Congress ability to increase spending linked to the previous fiscal year.

For example:
If the budget was balanced the previous year, Congress only needs a majority to increase spending up to last years inflation rate. If Congress wishes to increase spending greater than the rate of inflation, a "super majority" of 60% would be require.

If the budget was NOT balanced the previous year, Congress would be allowed to pass a spending bill with a majority vote ONLY if the current spending was LESS THAN the previous year. To pass ANY increase a "super majority" of 60% would be required and any increase beyond last years rate of inflation would require 66%.

No Sir, I am a conservative, maybe not a compationate conservative such as yourself, but a conservative none the less.