No Sales Tax on Food!

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.

People in NH pay no sales tax on anything except a meals tax at restaurants.

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 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 shift the taxes on other things or cut their budgets.  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.

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.

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.

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.

About $200/mo. per person is probably a lot closer to average.  So a better estimate of the tax loss is about $345 million.

“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 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.

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

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. Missouri is just as bad but the schools are horrible.

Sales tax on food and meals is as regressive a tax as we can have. When you put Warren Buffet in the same tax category with a 69 year old widower/widow living on social security of less than $1,000 per month it is a very regressive and damaging tax.

In response to those of you who ask “where will the money come from to replace the money lost?” the reply is very simple. Increase the income tax rate in Kansas and remove the tax free benefits most corporations and the very wealthy individuals enjoy. Our taxing system on Kansas Income would be humorous if it wasn’t so sad. Wealthy taxpayers are the ones who finance political campaigns and they are the same ones who enjoy all the benefits when it comes to paying taxes on income. That’s why we will never be relieved of sales taxes.

Anyway, that is what my state senator told me. And, I believe her. Our legislature doesn’t have the spine to oppose the state"s wealthy. Her words not mine and she is one of them.

I’m appalled at how much tax I’m spending since moving here from Texas.  My average visit to the grocery store has me hand over around $20 to the state.  It makes me want to leave the state! ... or drive to Missouri for my groceries… at least it’s less there.

It is easy to calculate in which ways the tax is ‘regressive’. Simply total up the amount you spend on groceries in a year, figure out how much of that was ‘tax’, then figure out what percentage of your net income that tax amounts to. If you make over $100,000 per year, it’s negligible, but if you make UNDER $30,000 (and many people make far less than that) it is significant. To argue about ‘how’ this money is to be replaced is stupid, IMHO, as there are all of the other states that DON’T charge tax on food to emulate. I would NEVER live in a state that taxes food, as I believe it is contrary to our rights, both human and constitutional. Food isn’t a luxury, at least at the basic level. It is something we all MUST have, and it doesn’t matter what our income level. Without food, we die. It’s that simple.