Taxed to Death in Idaho
Have something to say? ADD A NEW POST!
If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to the newsletter or RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!
It’s ironic that Idaho, as one of the most densely-Republican states in the union, still employs oppressive, burdening taxes - especially when one considers that the Republican Party has traditionally been anti-taxation and advocates a minimum of government interference in individual lives.
So, if Idaho is allegedly so “red”, why are we one of the only 15 states in the union that charges a tax on grocery items? Why, then, the recent increase in sales tax? Why is the state government considering raising the state “sin tax” on beer and wine?
According to local news 8, “The excise tax in Idaho is 15 cents on a gallon of beer and 45 cents on a gallon of wine…plus six cents on the dollar for sales tax.”  As if that weren’t enough taxation already, our legislators are mulling raising this already absurd excise tax … how high the price may go, only our elected leaders know. It seems the cost of a good buzz is about to get even worse.
The justification? According to the same newscast, “Idaho’s bordered by six states, half of those have higher sin taxes than we do.” I guess if everybody else is doing it, it’s okay for us. In an interview, one of the legislators had this to say:
“Substance abuse in all of it’s forms results in a tremendous amount of cost to the state in our corrections department in our prisons, in our judicial division, in our county jails, in domestic violence cases. Â All of those cost the state a significant amount of money and substance abuse plays a significant role in any number of those social problems that we the taxpayer have to pick up,”
- Senator Stegner
If you follow Stegner’s logic, we are justifying higher taxes based on the result of abuse of a product, and thus, those of us who ingest alcohol responsibly and safely will soon be paying more for our liquor in order to keep our prisons full, our government apathetic, and our tax burden fixed solidly on the middle-class.
Am I the only one who sees a problem with this? In a state so convinced that low taxation is the way to go, we seem to be a bit over-eager to bleed the people of our state as “dry” as possible. Pun intended.
If you believe that Idaho should be a refuge from the American epidemic of over-taxing, let your legislators know! Let our leaders be aware that we will not be squeezed for more taxes, that we require more from our government than answering problems with more money. If we are to honor the tradition of Republican politics, we should strive to keep taxes at a minimum and make our government spend our money responsibly. New taxes are not always the answer.
If you enjoyed this post, please consider to leave a comment or subscribe to the feed and get future articles delivered to your feed reader.
Comments
Vote:
0 
0 Conservatives, yes. Neocons, no. The Republican Party of a Post-Reagan era bear little resemblance to the party of Abe Lincoln.
Vote:
0 0 The National average state and local tax burden is 10.1% and Idaho is at an even 10%. (these numbers were collected in 2005 when the sales tax was at 6% so the number will be a little less this year.) actually lower than the national average. does this really seem high to you?
Vote:
0 0 1st off the sales tax “Increase” is rather a tax shift. No Increase. The sin tax is a use based tax as is the gas tax. If you don’t use those items then you don’t pay the tax. Don’t drive don’t pay the gas tax.
They should and will reduce or eventually eliminate the food tax, which is good. If they could do it quicker by raising “sin” tax then by all means do it. I like it when I have the choice to be taxed rather than having no choice in the matter.
Vote:
0 0 Is not driving really a choice in Idaho, with our wide open spaces?
I could not afford homes within a mile of my workplace. I enjoy biking in the summer, but is it really a choice to not drive multiple miles to work in an Idaho blizzard?
I support extra taxes on tobacco products, alcohol, movie theaters, new automobiles and recreation vehicles, and especially higher taxes on homes that are a secondary residence.
But not on something you need just to get to work. That is too simplistic.
Vote:
0 0 Btown - I’ve heard the “shift” argument before, and I still don’t buy it. It may have been a shift for the wealthy sect, those who pay higher property taxes, but for the majority of Idaho, it was a straight-up increase in our sales tax.
Now, I find a great deal of fault with your argument for increasing “sin” tax - you favor raising taxes in one area to decrease them in another? Isn’t that just passing the buck onto another sect of society to benefit another? Other states have lower excise taxes and do without a grocery tax - Idaho, as an example of fiscal conservatism, should strive for the least amount of taxation possible - not just a shift for politics’ sake.
One Eyed - then do you see nothing wrong with the current tax system in America? I made a point in my original article about the over-taxing of Americans across the board, and saying that Idaho is on par with the rest of the nation brings me little encouragement - in fact, it bolsters my argument that our taxes should be lowered.
Vote:
0 0 The PR reports this morning that our uber-cheap legislators have watered down the proposed grocery tax credit to a mere doubling of our current $20 grocery tax credit. Seniors do not even get the full doubling, going from $35 to $60.
They must be victims of their own cheap education to think that the hundreds of dollars we spend more each year now due to their sales tax increase is offset by a measly $20 tax credit.
Why bother? I would say having no tax increase is better than this cheap gesture.
Their thinking that a lousy $20 is really going to help Idahoans significantly with groceries further indicates how far out of time these lawmakers are. Who do these dinosaurs think they are representing?
Whatever happened to their conservative philosophy to get people’s money back to them?
It would be funny and symbolic if one were to release crabs in the statehouse, to demonstrate the correlation between our legislators and the uber-cheap Mr. Krabs on the Spongebob television show.
Vote:
0 0 Who lives in a pineapple under the sea? BART DAVIS!
Good idea, Joe. I find the grocery tax absurd and ridiculous. It’s a straight-up assault on Idaho’s middle class to line the pockets of the state budget.
Vote:
0 0 Hold on to your butts. This is from Channel 3 today. Pay close attention to the fifth and sixth paragraphs:
BOISE, Idaho (AP) _ Legislative budget writers approved a 246 (M) million plan for ”Connecting Idaho” in the coming year, with more than half this latest installment going to improvements to U-S Interstate 84 near Boise, Nampa and Caldwell.
The plan _ crafted with the counsel of legislative leaders as well as Governor ”Butch” Otter _ won out over two competing alternatives, one for 287 (M) million dollars, the other for 211 (M) million dollars.
The vote was close, with 11 lawmakers favoring the plan that won, and nine against it.
Representative Frank Henderson, a Post Falls Republican who spent the last six weeks working on the plan, says ”the dollar amount reflects the best estimate of persons (he) talked to what they thought could be accomplished next year.”
Consensus was emerging within the Joint Finance-Appropriation Committee that even with ”Connecting Idaho,” the state is likely going to increase its gas taxes in order to keep up with future road-building needs.
Governor Otter said the same yesterday.
The funding still must be approved by the House and Senate.
Vote:
0 0 yeah, that’s exactly what Idaho needs - more freeways. I really need to get to atomic, ID in 45 minutes. Badly.
Vote:
0 0 The PR reports that Republican leadership have killed the increased grocery tax refund.
The grocery tax has been an issue since the legislature raised sales tax last year to ease property taxes (a tax shift, not a tax refund).
There were four options for the grocery tax, governor otter wanted the cheapest option, and I think the legislature passed the second-most watered down version.
Then the governor got into a tiff and vetoed the increased grocery tax credit. He initially admitted and furthered the tiff, snidely remarking on social engineering, but later backed off and stuck to his ‘too expensive’ fallback.
The legislature had the chance to override his veto. The house passed it with enough votes. The senate would have passed it with enough votes.
Instead, the senate leadership (Republican party leadership) routed the bill to a die in a committee.
This is another example of living under a one-political party government, how your representative vote does not matter.
What matters is the party leadership and what they want to do.
So much for democracy in Idaho, where the Republicans cannot even get their act together to pass a watered-down tax credit. Whatever happened to that fiscal conservatism?
Vote:
0 0 Governor Butch Otter has proposed new fees.
I always heard conservative principles focused on fewer taxes, but Otter must be one of those RINOs we hear about.
Otter feels that the $12 fee paid by boats at least 12 foot long (as I understand it) is a burden on those boat owners, and that small crafts (canoes, kayaks, rowboats, etc.) are getting a free ride.
How much of an impact do smaller boat craft have compared to the larger boats?
If Otter suggests usage and registration fees for kayaks and canoes, then he may as well suggest registration fees for bicycles and baby strollers. They are analogous.
How ridiculous can Otter get?
Vote:
0 0 We give up individuality and the power over our own lives every time we ask government to do something for us. If you want freedom, don’t complain that government is not doing anything or enough.
If you see things different than the majority, it matters not that your dictator has many names rather than one.
Vote:
0 0 I guess I am too dumb to understand what you are talking about, or how your statement relates at all to what was said before?
Vote:
0 0 Shhhh … it sounds intelligent and insightful, that’s all that matters. Oh, and he said “it matters not”, not “It doesn’t matter”, so you have to believe whatever he said.
Snarkiness aside, I didn’t follow how the comment applies to a discussion about taxes either.
Vote:
0 0 Anonymous was probably smoking marijuana before the government tried to tax that too! Give the poor guy a break he was just trying to distract himself from Big Brother reaching for his wallet again! haha
Vote:
0 0 The taxes really aren’t that bad in this state. I say keep the grocery tax and get rid of State Income Tax. Coming from South Florida and not having to pay state income tax was a beautiful thing. I move up here and now not only do I pay Federal, but now I have to pay State too, that sucks. I’d rather keep the grocery tax and get rid of the State Income tax.
Vote:
0 0 I’d rather keep the grocery tax and get rid of the State Income tax.
The two aren’t really comparible…
Removing the grocery tax entirely would reduce state revenues by as much as $280M. That’s a pretty huge number, though some would certainly be recouped from sales of other goods.
But it’s dwarfed by the Individual Income tax, which provides $1.25 Billion in revenues, with another $200M from Corporate income taxes.
Then there’s the issue of the grocery tax being regressive, while the income tax is progressive.
Vote:
0 0 I don’t think I understand progressive vs. regressive taxes.
Any explanations, or examples of other progressive vs. regressive taxes?
Vote:
0 0 I don’t think I understand progressive vs. regressive taxes.
Taxes are progressive when rates increase based, at least to some extent, on ability to pay. For instance, Federal income tax rates go up as taxable income goes up, so, ideally, high income payers pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes than the poor.
Idaho’s income tax is a single rate, but it recognizes the federal deductions, so that very low income people don’t pay much or at all.
Sales taxes, especially on necessities, are regressive in that, even though everyone pays the same rate, a higher percentage of low income people’s income goes to such a tax than that of high income people.
If one removed the sales tax from necessities, one could make an argument that the sales tax was relatively neutral since more well-off folks can afford to (and choose to) buy more and higher cost items. Since everyone must eat, take medicine, and wear at least basic clothing, though, on a percentage basis the sales tax hits the poor harder.
Those are, of course, broad strokes. Taxes hit everyone at least slightly differently, though, depending on income, family size, lifestyle, and other circumstances.
Vote:
0 0 Regressive or progressive compared to what? What’s the reference point? Liberal tax policy wonks coined those terms, using the premise that “neutrality” is a tax that is the same percentage for everyone. That way, any tax that is the same dollar amount for everyone can be castigated with a negative connotation, ‘regressive’, and any tax that imposes a higher rate on those that earn more is positively imbued with ‘progressive’. However, this use of the terms in the tax context in this way is not intuitive, as witnessed by JoeVandal’s query.
Vote:
0 0 Well it’s not intuitive, but it doesn’t sound like rocket science, either.
The way I understand it, a tax is progressive ‘in reference to’ increasing percentages assessed against higher income brackets,
and is regressive ‘in reference to’ a same percentage for all income brackets however is for an item needed to live (therefore causing the tax to have a bigger impact on lower income brackets).
So it would seem the ‘reference point’ is more of an income scale than a point.
Is that right?
These seem like generic economic terms to me rather than liberal inventions, whether you believe in the philosophy behind them or not is probably a left-right thing.
Vote:
0 0 Rocket science? Certainly not. Regressive is a three-syllable label used to stymie further discussion of the merits of new tax ideas–other than raising the rates on higher earners.
Vote:
0 0 Apparently it didn’t stymie further discussion in Idaho, where the regressive sales tax was increased last year.
Vote:
0 0 I get the feeling we’re not in Kansas anymore. We’ve suddenly moved from talking about actual tax policy into the mucky, irritating world of Culture War Politics.
Look, I don’t care what your views on liberalism are, so long as you can justify them with reason and logic. Hateful speech never pursuaded anyone.
Vote:
0 0 Yes, I suppose those whose position deflects critical, drill-down analysis by use of a label would also want to label as hate speech any suggestion that the issue be dissected further and discussed at it root merits and effects.
Vote:
0 0 What???? kind of mumbo jumbo was THAT?
Nobody’s “drilling” OR “dissecting” here!
Vote:
0 0 Back to the original point…government should do more with less…Republicans need to start acting like Republicans should and cut spending AND reduce taxes.
Vote:
0 0 Amen.
I can’t stand the Democratic party cuz they don’t seem to have direction or any great ideas.
I can’t stand the Republican party cuz I see how they renege on their own philosophies, yet try to still claim higher moral ground and a corner on the common sense market.
Vote:
0 0 I just got a newsletter from Newt Gingrich…he is proposing some really great ideas for a Second Contract with America. Check out his ideas at newt.com and Americansolutions.com . I was very impressed with alot of what he has said….if only Republicans could follow through and stop getting so power hungry again.
Vote:
0 0 So, I have been told so many freaking stories on this subject. Is it illegal to charge a sales tax on a newspaper? I work at Wal-Mart and they told me that they can legally do it for the fact that they are “retail” and if somebody didn’t want to pay the tax, they could just go to the outside ones. So, if that is the case, then what is the difference and why don’t the outside ones have a tax? I got my butt chewed out today because I was price over righting the newspapers so the total would come to either $.50 or $1.50. So, thus, no tax. Apparently I was mistaken, but I would love to know the truth… Thank you so much:)
Vote:
2 0 There is a sales tax imposed on anything sold in the state — it’s just simply part of the 50 cents the box outside the store charges for the newspaper. Papers sold inside the store either have to have the tax charged on top of the 50 cent price, if that’s the price the store sells them at, or the price has to be lowered to bring the post-tax price up to that 50 cents.
Leave Your Comment
Our Community's Comment Guidelines:- Please stay polite and on topic.
- Your email will never be published.
- No profanity or euphemisms for profanity.
- No personal attacks, name-calls, put-downs, or baiting other guests, races, genders, or religions.
- Express opinions, facts, logic, and reasoning; just don’t argue for argument’s sake.
- No commercial links (unless absolutely relevant to the discussion) and no religious proselytizing.
- No religious discussions (for or against). Go to http://religion.idahofallstoday.com for religious discussions.
- Use the "I" word as much as possible to demonstrate responsibility.
- Limit yourself to using one name per thread to demonstrate responsibility.
- If you think a comment is inappropriate, ask Joe to review it.
whew, slow day, time to all start commenting again!
Loading ...
Vote:
I’ve never understood this idea that conservatives support personal freedom. Look at any tax or law that attempts to regulate personal behavior and you’ll almost always find a conservative behind it.
Whether its who you have sex with in the bedroom, how you have sex, what you watch on TV, what you ingest in the privacy of your own home, or the like its always republicans pushing the charge to limit or tax these activities.
Liberals certainly have their own issues and I’m by no means a liberal. I actually consider myself a libertarian and as such am hyper liberal in some areas and hyper conservative in others. consider myself libertarian