Advertisement

Letters to the Editor

Costs whom?

March 19, 2012

Advertisement

To the editor:

I read with interest a news item from the AP Wednesday regarding a Kansas bill to eliminate sales tax on food. The story reported that it would “cost the government” $250 million a year. Is the reporter ignorant or just biased? How can it “cost” the government? To say so presumes that it is the government’s money to begin with! Eliminating this tax allows Kansas families to keep more of their own money. Only the liberal ideology assumes that when people get to keep what’s theirs, it “costs” the government. Since women are the primary shoppers in the family, blocking this bill is a direct assault on women. Some might say it appears that someone is “waging war on women.”

Comments

FalseHopeNoChange 2 years ago

Just "tax" the fatties like the "smokers" are "taxed". They are the ones along with smokers that are costing the most for medical treatment . Money that could be better spent on fixing potholes or trash collection.

0

George Lippencott 2 years ago

Mr C I might also observe (again) that eliminating the food tax requires another tax or a big hit in education. Where is your proposal to avoid the latter

0

Roland Gunslinger 2 years ago

Some of the neocons above seem to be under the impression that the liberals on this forum are against this proposal. Maybe if they read some of their comments on the topic they wouldn't look like such fools.

Some posts on the subject from the original article: optimist (anonymous) says…

This is a good plan. Many other states made this change years ago. The tax on food affects those with lower incomes more than anyone else. This is the simplest and most logical way to help the poor, by allowing them to keep more of what they earn.

KS (anonymous) replies…

DITTO!


misterlee (anonymous) says…

If the sales tax is removed from food, which I belive it should be

RonHolzwarth (Ron Holzwarth) says…

Eliminating the sales tax on food is a very good idea and should become the law in Kansas as it already is in many other states.

pace (anonymous) says…

I have always thought sales tax on food was a good one to stop.

0

Richard Heckler 2 years ago

Pennsylvania offers no sales tax on food,clothing/shoes

Products Subject to Sales Tax

Nearly all products in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania are subject to the sales tax. Most books and paper products with the exception of textbooks sold by schools, toilet paper, feminine products and diapers are subject to the sales tax.

All jewelry, luggage, hobbies, toys, games, religious products, hair products, home goods, soaps and cleaning supplies are subject to sales tax.

Most business supplies, cosmetics and home garden supplies are subject to the sales tax.

Most clothing (except non-essential clothing or luxury clothing), pre-packaged or prepared foods, farming supplies, baby supplies and medicines are exempt from the sales tax.

Read more: Pennsylvania Sales Tax Law | eHow.com http://www.ehow.com/about_6314252_pennsylvania-sales-tax-law.html#ixzz1pbOHyZSw

http://www.ehow.com/about_6314252_pennsylvania-sales-tax-law.html

0

classclown 2 years ago

voevoda (anonymous) says…

Mr. Jambor, If you are so concerned about direct assaults on women, please make you next letter to the editor an impassioned objection to the legislation to complicate women's access to abortion and limit their access to contraception and well-woman health care. If you don't choose to do so, I must conclude that you actually don't care a bit about women's well-being, but just threw in the last segment of your letter to shock and offend female readers. March 19, 2012 at 3:49 p.m.

=======================================

That is really stupid. I like animals. There, I've said it.

Now do you suppose that gives you the right to dictate what my next post will be? If I don't make a post about your particular animal concern, then you will conclude I don't like animals and only made that statement for some nefarious reason?

To me, your post looks really looks like an I D Ten T form that you've taken the time to fill out..

Got any more I D Ten T conclusions that need filing?

0

voevoda 2 years ago

Mr. Jambor, If you are so concerned about direct assaults on women, please make you next letter to the editor an impassioned objection to the legislation to complicate women's access to abortion and limit their access to contraception and well-woman health care. If you don't choose to do so, I must conclude that you actually don't care a bit about women's well-being, but just threw in the last segment of your letter to shock and offend female readers.

0

Gotland 2 years ago

The left doesn’t want to help the poor, or any else for that matter. They want to control and dictate. They can only do that when they have tax revenues to pass to their special interest groups. Issues like bring it to light. They believe that feeding government and its union workers is more important than helping poor folks afford food.

0

classclown 2 years ago

"Is the reporter ignorant or just biased?"

==================================================

Yes.

0

George Lippencott 2 years ago

What hypocrisy. The liberals (my call) do not want to end sales tax on food - a very regressive tax. Why not argue in counter to the governator that we should add at least three new income tax brackets at maybe $50K, $100K and $200K and end sales tax on food. That will not happen either but at least there will be an alternative

0

Jimo 2 years ago

You'd have to be a person of remarkable dimwittedness to not grasp the basic principles of mathematics. But then we are talking about wingnuts so there's nothing so remarkable about it.

Only wingnut theology assumes that when people get "to keep" their money that the peoples' government isn't reduced to the effectiveness of the Somalian state.

May Mr. Jambor depart for his Utopia of Somalia on the next airplane instead of making everyone else's life miserable with his complaining. It's one of the few places on earth where "people get to keep what’s theirs" and enjoy all the benefits thereof!

Abandon your hypocrisy, Mr. Jambor, and have the courage of your convictions. Act today!! Mogadishu is quite charming in the springtime.

0

observant 2 years ago

It was published because it fit Dolph's philosophy. Along with now writing LTE, check Jon's forum posts to see his philosophy.

0

none2 2 years ago

This is such a lame letter to the editor. Was it published because so nobody else wrote anything?

0

its_just_math 2 years ago

"..engagement of Republican class warfare..." haha---good one bozo! Your party has the market cornered in that respect.

So you really believe the elimination of a food tax is intended as a smoke screen to cut income tax for the wealthy? Wow! What a conclusion to draw.

The real intent is to ease the pain at the grocery check-out for struggling families and/or single people, and "build-in" other taxes for the rest of us. Most likely those that spend on other things (the better-off out there) will absorb the deficit.

0

Gandalf 2 years ago

Another message from an Evilsam minion! It's safe to push for a sales tax decrease, since it has -0- chance of passage. Especially as part of a "deal" to get the tax increase on the working poor. Anyone with more than 2 brain cells knows it would get a line item veto if it made it that far.

I love the lack of intellegience the letter exhibits in implying liberals are the ones who would stop it. News flash, we have a republican dominated Senate, House and a teapub guv.

Now tell me again it''s the democrats who are stopping it's passage.

0

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 2 years ago

No amount of playing semantics can disguise the idiocy expressed in this letter.

0

Lynn731 2 years ago

One very strong reason I am considering moving to TX, is that they have no sales tax on food. In addition, they have a very small property tax on cars. When you turn 65 they freeze property taxes at what they are and never raise them.

0

Matthew Herbert 2 years ago

Way to destroy your letter's credibility with your own brand of sexism

0

tomatogrower 2 years ago

I was agreeing with the letter writer until the last part of the letter. Women may have to do most of the food shopping, but I doubt that they eat most of the food. What a ridiculous, shallow statement. What other stereotypes is this guy pushing?

0

FalseHopeNoChange 2 years ago

Dear Jim,

There are people all over the state. Heck. There are people all over the the country that "need" what you make. They will "say anything" and "do anything" to get it.

The government (which btw are people to) are filled with "takers". They "take" what you make. They call it a tax to "help" the poor. As if the "poor" are better than you.

Let's face it. The "poor" are better than you and I. Even The Obama thinks the "poor" are better than you and I. Look at everything he is doing for them...The Obamacare, spread the weal...

gotta go. gotta make more money to the government can "take" it to give to the poor.

Your fellow patriot

FalseHopeNoChange

0

Kendall Simmons 2 years ago

Excuse me???

"Since women are the primary shoppers in the family, blocking this bill is a direct assault on women"???

There are a lot of "direct assaults on women" by far too many politicians today...but the food sales tax, which effects everyone in a family, is NOT one of them!!

On the other hand, condescending attitudes like this guy with his specious "waging war on women" argument ARE.

0

cato_the_elder 2 years ago

Hard to believe in Lawrence - two for two today on logical, soundly-reasoned LTEs, both of which are spot-on.

Excellent letter, Mr. Jambor. Your discussion exposes one of the two greatest frauds routinely perpetrated by tax-and-spend liberals, the other being the political ploy of telling the public that increasing government spending on a particular item but increasing it less than advocated by proponents of even greater spending is a "cut" in spending on that item, rather than the increase that it is. Liberal Democrats have regularly practiced each of these frauds for decades. It's what they do.

0

its_just_math 2 years ago

Good points, Jon. The thing is, if they don't get $250 million from groceries, they'll get it somewhere else. Kansans are already some of the most heavily taxed people in the nation. I recently purchased a new Nissan Titan and was offered almost $10k in rebates (and the reason I went ahead and took the plunge---on a 2011 leftover I bought on January 3) and guess what? I had to pay sales and personal property tax on the rebated amount. I never paid the money to Nissan---- Nissan "excused" the amount on the sale, but Kansas said, "Ummm, not so fast---pay up on that $10K". Our property tax on our house and ten acres has slightly more than doubled in a little less than ten years. Oh yeah, Kansas will get it from you one way or another----you can take that to the bank, er, well you get what I mean.

0

Commenting has been disabled for this item.