In many ways, a single statewide sales tax rate would make commerce much simpler than it currently is in Utah. But there is one huge problem with the plan that was floated recently by the Legislature's Tax Reform Task Force. It would break faith with many of the state's voters.

In Salt Lake County and elsewhere, voters have approved several special sales-tax levies to fund everything from the arts to mass transit. Salt Lake County voters, for instance, reauthorized the Zoo Arts and Parks tax during the last general election. They did so trusting specifically in the promise that the money would be collected from sales taxes — levies placed on voluntary purchases by consumers.

If, as has been proposed, those special levies are switched to property tax bills, that would be a different thing all together. All taxes are not equal. As any politician, especially on the local level, can attest, there is no tax as universally hated as the property tax. It is doubtful many of the current sales tax levies would have been approved or reauthorized if they had been sold as property tax levies. ZAP tax proponents, including those affiliated with the zoo, arts organizations and parks, would not relish having to sell a property tax levy the next time the tax is up for reauthorization.

Voters tend to see their homes as something approaching the sacred, and rightfully so. A person needs a home, and the thought of government being able to raise taxes and force them to leave is repugnant. Property taxes are subject to escalating real estate costs, and even though state law keeps inflation from leading to inevitable tax hikes, people feel vulnerable. But this plan would definitely raise the rates on many homes in the state.

To have any real meaning, the move to make the state's tax system simple must first be defined in terms of how taxpayers themselves see it. Most of them do not have to calculate sales tax rates at the checkout stand. But they do have to labor over income tax forms, and they do, if they own a home, have to pay property taxes.

Secondly, it must keep faith with the voters who already have agreed to allow certain levies for worthwhile projects. Third, it must hold public education harmless. The current proposal has problems on all three counts. It would create a tax cut that ultimately could affect school funding.

The worst thing lawmakers could do at this point is count on the current rosy economic picture to continue indefinitely. To shift taxes right now and lower the overall burden could prove disastrous if economic conditions change. Taxes should indeed be made simpler, but this proposal is not the answer.