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

[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