Deseret News | 'Restoring' is just another way of saying 'tax hike'

Reader comments
Jay Evensen: 'Restoring' is just another way of saying 'tax hike'

Bob R. | 6:38 a.m. Nov. 15, 2009

1. In the Utah big-family state, the sales tax on food is truly regressive.
2. Stop social engineering with twisted tax schemes. I could watch a legislator go to the guillotine for even suggesting them.
3. Don't raise taxes; cut expenses. Private industry sins as much as government in incurring too many new expenses in good times but they are forced to use the axe or go under in bad times. They do not have the tax option which passes bad government management on to the taxpayer. Cut government which will cut government spending. And don't stick us with the tiresome bureaucratic answer that we'll have to cut police and fire fighters first. Start by cutting state salaries if need be.

Granny | 8:05 a.m. Nov. 15, 2009

As a voter I shall be happy to 'restore' my State legislators to civilian status come November 2010 should they increase my taxes. Cut waste from our State budgets. Lower administrators' salaries. Our schools and government are top heavy with administrators.

Better Idea | 8:16 a.m. Nov. 15, 2009

If the state needs to raise money so badly then increase the sales tax by a quarter of a percent on non-food items. That would hurt families less than doubling the tax on food and raise about the same amount of money.

Comments continue below

uncannygunman | 8:34 a.m. Nov. 15, 2009

I think "restore" is the appropriate word here. The sales tax used to apply to all sales, and then one category of sales was exempted. Returning that category of sales to the general group of taxed transactions is certainly "restoring" even if it could also be characterized as a tax increase.

Also, food and cigarettes really are apples and oranges when it comes to the tax debate. There is really no reason to bring cigarettes into the food tax debate except to demonize smokers and score cheap emotional points.

You go | 8:46 a.m. Nov. 15, 2009

Governor Herbert. Young families make decisions whether to buy food or diapers. It is immoral to raise taxes on them further.

Tobacco-tax First | 9:38 a.m. Nov. 15, 2009

Mr. Evensen is correct when he says the leigislature will be sending a message unworthy of a health-conscious state if they decide to raise the tax on food rather than on tobacco. Raising the tobacco tax will cause tens of thousands of Utahns to quit tobacco-use and improve their health and the health of others close to them as a result; decrease health care costs for everyone in the state; improve our business climate and economy by reducing tobacco-related direct and indirect costs for businesses; and will generate a stable and reliable source of revenue for the state. Few, if any of those benefits will accrue by raising the tax on food. In my mind the choice is clear when it comes to tax increases

Anonymous | 12:28 p.m. Nov. 15, 2009

The big flaw in the food vs. tobacco issue is that tobacco is already taxed to the hilt compared to just about everything, especially food. While tobacco use impacts non-users, non-users are already benefitting from tobacco users since tobacco taxes are used to fund CHIP and general state government expenditures.

Don't raise tobacco taxes until existing tobacco taxes are used to cover the costs directly associated with tobacco use.

Eating a Privilege | 12:51 p.m. Nov. 15, 2009

The "princes of the people" grind on the faces of the working poor.

They have made eating a privilege. They are tyrants. Throw the bums out!

Don't burden the Poor | 4:10 p.m. Nov. 15, 2009

Why are Utah republicans so eager to restore/raise a tax that hits the poor and middle class the hardest?

If we are going to raise a tax, do it on those who can afford it the most, --repeal the alternative Utah flat income tax.

If Utah companies don't come here it is because Utah is perceived as being a boring state, unless one is really into the outdoors.

When I-Omega left Utah for California, he didn't mention tax burden as the reason for leaving, but Utah liquor laws. I would imagine the night life also had something to do with this. Old perceptions die hard (with regard to liquor laws), and as to Utah night life, its still pretty much lame.

Put any tax burden on those who are most able to bear it, not on the poor.

Stan the Man | 8:22 p.m. Nov. 15, 2009

How about we "restore" all of the sales tax and other exemptions given to business?

Anonymous | 8:44 p.m. Nov. 15, 2009

Why not restore the higher tax brackets for the wealthy. Since most of them hoard their wealth, it does NOT "trickle down" to the poor, as Ronald Reagon incorrectly assumed. Taxing the poor more heavily just creates a lot more hungry people, including children, in our state, and that is wrong.

Add your comment

Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.

Words Remaining

E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.