Time for the sales tax exemption on candy and gum to end
Tax free shows the power of the status quo
As the burden of governing rests upon my shoulders as a legislator, I find the idea of a candy and gum tax to help fund childhood obesity services, children’s dental services, health care, school nurses and/or other related education programs to be a moral imperative.
I’ve written about this before here and here.
Why? Because one of most serious structural economic problems in our state is that our policies fail to capture the true costs, the externalities, of our decisions. Simply, the general fund is required to fund programs that attempt to mitigate the effects of childhood obesity such as diabetes and other problems. The cost of some of these problems should be reflected more, and linked more directly, to the causes. It is similar on a macro level in our nation to the cost of oil. What would our nation look like if the true cost of oil, for example, was reflected in the price of gasoline?
Today candy and gum is considered ‘food’ the larger category of which we do not tax although that was not always the case. The Republican-led majority in the Legislature in 1982 temporarily re-added the sales tax to food, if my recollection of history serves me, a decision that was rough on them politically at the polls in following years.
Does it make sense to exempt candy and gum from the sales tax? No.
Adding the sales tax to candy and gum would raise $30 million a year or an estimated $62.40 million a biennium.
Is this idea being seriously considered this year? It’s hard to tell if it has much of a chance because there are some powerful folks who strongly oppose this provision. Not surprisingly, local companies with well versed advocates argue that this is unfair, unwise and bad policy, but is it? A strong case exists that it is, in fact, good public policy.
More than any one tax, or even the concept of common sense associated with realizing that candy and gum are not vital foods equal to milk, bread, meat and other staples, we must do a much better job of linking causes to effects in our tax policies. There are many other examples.
We spend a lot more than $62 million a biennium dealing with childhood diabetes and other health concerns linked with obesity and related health problems.
As a first term legislator there is little value in making idle threats about what I will and will not vote for on a budget or tax package. But the notion that we might leave proposals such as this off the table for purely political reasons does not feel right on any level, especially if a ‘compromise’ package somehow ultimately includes a broad-based sales tax increase, something I strongly oppose.
It is not radical leadership or systemic change, but it is a common sense tactical step for us to take.
And, as I have argued before, the systems issue that interests me is really about capturing the externalities of costs in our public policies. Let’s stop inadvertently or indirectly subsidizing policies that cause us harm in serious ways. Or, if we can’t stop the subsidy as in the case of oil, for example, let’s at least make it all more transparent. That allows us to have a courageously honest conversation about our tax and spend policies.
Let’s do a much better job of capturing the externalities in our public policies in Washington, and we’ll all be better off for it. This small decision is, in many ways, a symbolic representation of our willingness to take this policy challenge seriously. This is an important part of my work in Olympia and I try and stay true to this philosophical foundation.
Your partner in service,
Reuven.
Oh, good Lord.
This just ruined my first bite of my chocolate bunny.
Curses.
I would love to see something that addresses the government obesity problem we are facing.
You know what solves that, don’t you StillHopingForChange?
Every time they can’t balance the budget, they take a pay cut.
Reuven doesn’t wanna take me up on that one.
Now THAT is the utmost of Government accountability-if the Legislators can’t keep us from spending more than they bring in, they take a decrease in pay for the next fiscal year.
If they can reverse a voter-backed, tax-curbing initiative in “times of emergency”, why shouldn’t they take a pay cut to help the state in the same “state of emergency”?????
Can anyone on this board answer me that, cuz’ God knows my “Representative” can’t.
Don,
I’d like to invite you to make a guest post to present your views about how we can make better fiscal decisions. Seriously. Write up your thoughts in a genuine way and I’ll submit it as a guest post. My blog receives anywhere from 200-700 hits a day and I really believe in engaging directly with folks about how we can do better.
For what little it’s worth, I was among the first legislators to refuse any per diem for the Special Legislative session, and have returned most of my legislative budget to taxpayers (as a side note).
As you know, as a first term legislator I don’t exactly write the budget. But I’m proud of the aggressive work I’ve done to question spending on many fronts. The larger point of your argument is an important voice and I’m willing to give it more visibility.
Draft it up and let’s chat. Send to: reuven@groupcarlyle.com
Your partner in service,
Reuven.
Don,
Reducing the compensation of legislators will make the job even less attractive for non-lifetime politicians, like Mr. Carlyle, to give it a try.
As it is, it is very difficult for someone who is not retired or otherwise very well-off to take time out from their career to spend of few sessions in Olympia. Not to mention the time the job takes outside of sessions (including campaigning).
StillHoping-
As much as being a state legislator isn’t the most lucrative job out there, I still think it would be a good idea to make legislators financially accountable IN SOME WAY when they run deficits.
It just seems wrong to me that cost-of-living increases for legislator pay never seem to be a debate in Olympia, but there is never talk to adjust pay when deficits loom. Only talk to repeal voter-backed initiatives that limit taxing.
Yeah, it’s sad to me that only the wealthy can afford to run for state and federal office.
I understand what you are getting at; it’s a frustrating duel-edged sword to me.
Reuven-
I am glad to have shared some thoughts with you over e-mail. Here’s hoping this special session ends soon- I am torn between the appreciation of the checks and balances and the despair of watching taxpayer dollars go down the drain.