Four conditions for raising food tax

Much will be said in coming months about state lawmakers' need to be fiscally responsible as they deal with a deficit that may be as large as $850 million. We hope just as much is said about their need to be morally responsible.

Among the ideas being seriously considered is a reinstatement of the full portion of the state's sales tax on food — back to 4.75 percent from the current level of 1.75 percent (local governments also add to the tax). This isn't the first time such an idea has been floated. A bill to that effect was written during the last legislative session, but it never emerged from the House. This time, however, lawmakers are running out of good options.

When he was governor, Jon Huntsman Jr. was resolved to completely remove the sales tax from food, for good reason. Few taxes are more regressive or more disproportionately harmful to the poor. Everyone needs to eat. On its face, restoring the state's full portion of this tax would be the wrong way to raise money, especially during hard times.

It is useful, however, to acknowledge some of the merits of such a move. For one, it would raise money without requiring the state to increase its cost for collection. For another, it wouldn't do much to harm the state's economic recovery. When he sponsored the bill during the last session, Rep. Kay McIff, R-Richfield, showed us figures that indicate spending patterns were virtually unchanged when the tax was reduced. It is reasonable to assume the same would be true if it were reinstated. Finally, the money such a tax would raise might make it easier to fund important programs that help the poor.

But that's a huge "might."

Back then, we said we would support reinstating the tax under four conditions. Our position hasn't changed, and it may be useful to restate those conditions.

1. The tax would have to have a sunset provision. That is, it would have to expire on its own after two or three years. As these are extraordinary times, this should be a temporary fix. It is important to remember that the sales tax itself was sold as a temporary fix during the Great Depression. Taxes tend to become permanent.

2. The state should not reinstate this tax until it has substantially increased the tax on cigarettes and used the Rainy Day funds. Lawmakers can't afford to send the message that it will tax green beans before tobacco.

3. The poor should be made exempt. This could be done either through a benefits card that would remove the tax at the register, or through a rebate at the end of the year.

4. Lawmakers should pledge to actually use the money generated by the tax to fund programs for the poor.

That last one may be the most problematic. A variety of state services and programs are headed for the chopping block in 2010. Few will impact the neediest citizens as much as social service programs, however, especially since some of them can use state funding to leverage federal funding.

That's where the part about moral responsibility comes in.