No Sales Tax on Food
Last edited: July 20, 2008
Rising food and gas prices are affecting us all.
While most Americans pay no state sales tax on groceries, Kansans are paying more than people in other states. We apply our full sales tax to food. Kansas has one of the highest tax rates on food in the nation.
Only 14 states charge sales tax on food, and most of those charge a lesser rate than the regular sales tax. Kansas, however, charges 5.3 percent tax at the state level. Some counties and cities also charge sales tax on food, raising that percentage to over 7 percent.
Taxing food is a bad idea.
It’s a regressive tax. As a percentage of income, lower-income families pay much more than upper-income families.
It’s anti-family. Households with several dependents are taxed more heavily as a percentage of household income than those without dependents.
As times get more tough financially, we feel like we’re being squeezed. We’re looking for places where we can scale back our expenses. There are people in Olathe who are having to make the terrible choice between buying gas to get to work and buying food at the store. Kansas does offer a tax credit to lower-income people, but few people take advantage of this. You shouldn’t have to file paperwork to eat.
Join me in my fight to end the Kansas Sales Tax on Food.
I want to know your thoughts on this. Together we can make this happen.
I had no idea that Kansans have to pay taxes on food that people in other states don’t have to pay. That’s just not fair. When times are tough you can cut back on a lot of things, but food is such a basic need.
How much money does Sales Tax on Food raise for the state? Where do you plan on getting the money to replace that raised by ending this Tax?
“While most Americans pay no state sales tax on groceries, Kansans are paying more than people in other states.” More than others? This has to be more strongly worded.
@Alecks
How about, “The cost of s-----g food for most Kansans is higher than the cost of eating it”?
People in NH pay no sales tax on anything except a meals tax at restaurants. That’s why all the massholes shop here.
If you want to show you’re not the typical politician, explain how you’ll pay for tax cuts when you propose them. THAT is the harder part.
I have to join wtih Tenn Ted. What revenue sources would you study to determine the best way to make up this lost income to the state?
I think that the image should read:
In Kansas, if your groceries cost you:
$100
In 36 other states, they would cost:
$94.97
94.97 = 100 / 1.053
Before I get a response saying I missed the point, I definitely agree that Kansas needs to drop sales tax on food. Good luck Sean, and thanks for inspiring the hordes of us who can point out the wrongs but are not bold enough to make them right.
Not from Kansas is right about the math.
I’m glad I’m not the only one who wanted an answer to this point. What do you intend to replace that revenue with?
Do you know where that revenue is going to now? How would justify nixing it altogether?
I applaud what you are doing, because the strength of our system lies in the bi-partisanship of it...and I don’t like Kansas’ current rep any more than you do, but I think maybe you need to do a bit more polling on the issues, and then lay down some good plans to address those issues. What you have are good ideas, that have little to no plans of execution.
That being said, I’m still rooting for you!
Come on, Sean - I’ve talked to you, and asked you this myself. You have a great answer to “So where does the lost revenue come from?” - please post it here!
You’ll have to do what the states that don’t have a sales tax on food do, they raise the sales tax on everything else. 5.3% state slaes tax isn’t bad considering the fact that in California the state sales tax is 8%, but none on healthy food, junk food is still taxed. We’d like to think that it would encourage healthy eating, but the people that generally need to eat better aren’t smart enough to understand that they pay extra tax on junk. Only taxing consumer goods, not food, and at a higher rate is actually what we like to call the fair tax, it is progressive. The person that can afford to buy the boat buys the boat and he pays all the associated taxes with it, the guy that can’t buy the boat doesn’t buy the boat and doesn’t pay the tax. Of course in a consumer happy society like the USA is great because we as a nation are obsessed w/ stuff, we gotta keep up w/ the Joneses so we spend more than we make, see the benefit, the Gov would actually rake in more base on consumption then they do based on income.
I bristle at the concept of “regressive” taxation. It’s none of my concern how much money you make just as it’s none of your concern how much I make.
Yet we both pay the same taxes on the choices we make.
Irrespective of whether food is taxed or not, you pay the same tax on that bagel that I would.
If you consider taxation unfair because someone makes less than someone else, then it’s also unfair that someone who makes more pays more, yes?
Using percentages to call something “regressive” as an insult (rather than the mathematical concept it is) is using statistics to support a pre-chosen point.
So end the sales tax on food if you want. It’ll end it for everyone. And then your state sales tax will rise, overall, for everyone.
In my state, we pay 10% in sales tax. All of us. Equally.
Chris, please bristle away, but there is more than one definition for the word “regressive”.
100-94.7=$5.3
~100/person per week for food.
5.3 x 52 (~52 weeks in a year.)= about $275.6/year.
~2,688,418 people in Kansas. Some buy more groceries, some buy less.
2,688,418 x 275.6 = 740,928,000.80
Am I doing this right?
Instead of asking where the money is going to be made up, would it not be wiser to ask what bloated government project could be cut or minimized? Must we always spend every dime we have, just to ensure that we get the same amount or more next year?
I don’t know about the rest of you, but I’d like to keep more of the money I earn and decide how to spend it, as opposed to having government decide and spend it for me.
So, are people suggesting that the “lost” $740M in food sales tax will just vaporize? It seems to me that it will be available for people to put otherwise into the economy, stimulating it, providing jobs for Kansans and myriad tax dollars for the State.
Doesn’t that make sense?
I know most people don’t think of North Dakota on even an annual basis, but you should include us in the “4 - 5%” category, with some cities and counties adding up to an additional 1-1.5% local tax. We’re taxed on everything, no exceptions (bottled water used to be tax-free for some reason, but no more).
y’know, Oregon doesn’t have a sales tax at all.
The numbers in the graphic have been corrected. Thanks Not From Kansas!
As for how much it would cost, I do have a plan based off of a similar calculation Arkansas used to decrease their sales tax last year. lol’s math isn’t correct in this instance. That’s good, hard reasoning, though. We need more of that.
As for the details of the plan… I don’t want to go into specifics until later in the election season (and after a couple of economists have taken a look at it) so that it doesn’t get beaten to death before it gets off the ground.
christopher says “you pay the same tax on that bagel that I would.”
I’ve got news for you - THERE ARE NO BAGELS IN KANSAS...you may be told they’re Bagels, they may look like Bagels and you may think that they’re Bagels but they are NOT Bagels!
In New York (the only place on the planet to get a REAL Bagel, despite the fact that they’re baked by LEGAL Mexican/Guatemalan/Sri Lanken immigrants) there is NO TAX ON BAGELS...or any non-serviced food.
For those of you (greedy clowns) who think that you’re going to lose massive amounts of revenue by not taxing food there is a solution; REMOVE THE REAL ESTATE TAX EXEMPTIONS FROM RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS THAT PROMOTE DOGMATIC IGNORANCE FROM THE PULPIT! (and the laws already exist for that!)
And to “bahua” congrats, you’re one of the three people in in the country who know the correct use of the word ‘myriad”!
Yes end the sales tax on not only non-restaurant food, but also baby supplies. And once you’re in the legislature, work to amend the state constitution so there shall be NO sales taxes from other government levels on these necessities. As far as lost revenue, make up the revenues somewhere else. Put a freeze on new professors at KU or something. Or ask them to make $110,000 instead of $150,000 a year. Or a global reduction in increased funding across all state programs.
lol, you’re not doing it right. Very few people spend $100 per person per week on groceries. My wife and I have three kids, and we certainly spend far less than $2000 per month on groceries. And we live in San Francisco, where prices are probably at least 150% of Kansas.
About $200/mo. per person is probably a lot closer to average. So a better estimate of the tax loss is about $345 million.
thanks!
“Put a freeze on new professors at KU or something. Or ask them to make $110,000 instead of $150,000 a year. Or a global reduction in increased funding across all state programs.”
Why would you want to kill off the one thing that has any chance of pulling us out of this mess - that being an educated electorate - ? Freezing new hires at KU will “save” almost nothing, but will result in an implosion of your higher education system. This will result in corporations staying even further away from Kansas. This will result in job loss (both current and future). This will result in a drop in the tax base. This will result in higher taxes for you while at the same time a loss of services.
For the second of your suggestions to work, Robin, there would have to be 8,625 KU profs willing to take a cut from $150k to $110k. I doubt that there are that many profs in the entire KU system, and of course such a cut would result in an immediate meltdown of the system, with results as described above.
For your third suggestion, given that your legislature has been Republican for many years (currently enjoying a Super Majority in both Houses), and a Republican executive prior to Sebelius, surely, SURELY, they have already cut all fat from the system. Right? So there couldn’t possibly be more than a few dimes saved by trimming further.
I applaud getting rid of sales taxes on food, and I think cutting taxes on baby supplies is a good idea, too (though I can hear Rush now saying “Hey Robin, nobody told you to have babies. What are you, some sort of welfare queen driving a Cadillac around town?). However, I suspect that state services are already pared pretty much to the bone and I think dinging education is just about the last place to you want to hit as it signals to the rest of the world not to move money or people to Kansas.
I think no sales tax on food is a great idea! There shouldn’t be sales tax on products that you need in order to survive. I am sure there are many other ways to make up the loss of revenue. If other states have successfully found away to end sales tax on food than so can we! It has already been modeled.
I will support your cause!
@Jeff Boatright: What makes you think that just because the legislature is Republican, and Republicans typically campaign on *promises* to trim fat, that spending couldn’t be significantly more efficient? Keep in mind that political promises from *any* politician remain fundamentally suspect regardless of their political party.
@Mark Kalan: I hate to break it to you, but there is more than one technically correct usage of “myriad”, and the noun form is older. This was a pet peeve of my own for a long time as well, until I was gently corrected by a more linguistically-aware friend.
@Christopher: There’s a lot of emphasis in your comment on things being “the same” or equal, but from what perspective? Everyone may pay an equal percentage, and yet the dollar amount is decidedly unequal. If everyone pays an equal dollar amount, the percentage is the variable. And to say that setting either the percentage or the dollar amount above the other in terms of which equal is *more* equal is a lamentably simplistic approach that does nothing to consider the comparison between two individuals or families that work equally hard but come from different circumstances, under current vs. proposed systems of taxation. This is the point Mr. Tevis is making about regressive taxation; that neither equal percentage nor equal dollar amount necessarily results in equal impact on, or treatment of, Kansan families and citizens.
@Mr. Tevis: Regarding my response to Christopher just now, I think you would do well to hammer this point (of the difference between equal numbers and equal impact) home in explaining the serious dangers of regressive taxation. There are many whose first reaction will be the same protest, “But everyone pays the same!” They will need to see through specific examples, preferably from actual Kansas families but potentially hypothetical examples, how the equal numbers create an inequal playing field.
Any campaign promise to lower taxes runs the risk of coming across to some as empty and cynical---an attempt to buy votes, with no intention of delivering in a meaningful way. By sending the message that this proposal is intended **first and foremost to assist those most in need**, but is still an across-the-board change which does not give preference to any one group or another, you might better show the personal side of this measure and ameliorate voters’ cynicism about politicians promising to lower taxes solely to get votes. Everyone feels the crunch when they go to the supermarket and see milk $4 a gallon, whether they make $30,000 or $130,000, so a wide range of people will self-identify as one of those who are in need, as part of the group that you are addressing.
I am neither a Kansan nor a political scientist, but I find your campaign refreshing and potentially very powerful, not only for the state of Kansas but for the state of local campaign financing across the country. I worry, though, that you might shake things up just enough for the incumbent political institution to make an effort to impose much stronger restrictions on donations solicited from out of state. Good luck, and keep your eyes open.
Alex Huth
Massachusetts
(via xkcd forum)
5,3% tax on food, and it should be lowered??
Try 17%, that’s what we pay. On the upside, University is free of charge 
Mr. Tevis,
I agree that reducing sales tax on food is a smart idea ahead of globally forecasted cost increases for food production. However, you can also address public health issues by removing tax on healthy food items (lean meats, fruit, vegetables, anything low in fat/sugar, unprocessed foods) whilst leaving the tax in place on less healthy items.
By influencing the cost of healthy vs. non-healthy items at the checkout you can encourage the citizens of Kansas to make healthier choices about the food they eat, and lessen the burden on your state’s health services that result from unhealthy lifestyles (heart disease, diabetes, obesity, and some forms of cancer). Everyone can benefit from improved eating habits.
Best of luck in the upcoming election!
Andrew M
Australia
I lived in Johnson County Kansas for a lot of years. The property taxes are astronomical, the food tax is a joke considering the farmland that surrounds them, The weather sucks, the car license are way too high. The schools are great but what else is there-nothing.The taxes on a $300,000 house in JC Kansas are a high as a $3,000,000 house in Arizona,does that make sense? and the schools are just as good. I feel like an idiot that I took so long to get out of Kansas. Missouri is just as bad but the schools are horrible whats their excuse.
