Gov. Jerry Brown vetoes tax cut for tampons

[President Johnson]

LA Times

LOL I never thought such bills would be under consideration. But correct decision Mr. Brown. This is what a fiscal conservative looks like.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

You forgot to mention that other items besides tampons were to be exempted from sales taxes.  I agree this is a good veto. I live in a state that has made such a Swiss cheese out of its sales tax that if we removed all the exemptions we'd either double the revenue or could cut the rate in half. (And that's not even considering our back-to-school sale tax holiday, the best time of the year to get a wedding dress since as clothing it's exempted then, but only if you buy, not if you rent your dress.

[DC Al Fine]

You forgot to mention that other items besides tampons were to be exempted from sales taxes.  I agree this is a good veto. I live in a state that has made such a Swiss cheese out of its sales tax that if we removed all the exemptions we'd either double the revenue or could cut the rate in half. (And that's not even considering our back-to-school sale tax holiday, the best time of the year to get a wedding dress since as clothing it's exempted then, but only if you buy, not if you rent your dress.

Agreed. The best way to deal with the regressive aspect of sales taxes, is rebates for low income citizens, not exempting necessities. That's a recipe for lobbying and arcane legislation.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Ugh, seriously?

[DC Al Fine]

You forgot to mention that other items besides tampons were to be exempted from sales taxes.  I agree this is a good veto. I live in a state that has made such a Swiss cheese out of its sales tax that if we removed all the exemptions we'd either double the revenue or could cut the rate in half. (And that's not even considering our back-to-school sale tax holiday, the best time of the year to get a wedding dress since as clothing it's exempted then, but only if you buy, not if you rent your dress.

Agreed. The best way to deal with the regressive aspect of sales taxes, is rebates for low income citizens, not exempting necessities. That's a recipe for lobbying and arcane legislation.

How do you put that kind of rebate into practice, though, without requiring onerous amounts of documentation for businesses or taxing people into poverty, homelessness, hunger, and debt while they wait months for a rebate check?

Is EITC and the like paid annually? Rebates and benefits are paid monthly in Canada.

Also, 'onerous amounts of documentation' isn't unique to rebates. Businesses have to maintain extensive documentation, since a favourite tax evasion scheme is to report a higher % of zero rated sales than what was actually sold.

[Slander and/or Libel]

You forgot to mention that other items besides tampons were to be exempted from sales taxes.  I agree this is a good veto. I live in a state that has made such a Swiss cheese out of its sales tax that if we removed all the exemptions we'd either double the revenue or could cut the rate in half. (And that's not even considering our back-to-school sale tax holiday, the best time of the year to get a wedding dress since as clothing it's exempted then, but only if you buy, not if you rent your dress.

Agreed. The best way to deal with the regressive aspect of sales taxes, is rebates for low income citizens, not exempting necessities. That's a recipe for lobbying and arcane legislation.

How do you put that kind of rebate into practice, though, without requiring onerous amounts of documentation for businesses or taxing people into poverty, homelessness, hunger, and debt while they wait months for a rebate check?

Is EITC and the like paid annually? Rebates and benefits are paid monthly in Canada.

Also, 'onerous amounts of documentation' isn't unique to rebates. Businesses have to maintain extensive documentation, since a favourite tax evasion scheme is to report a higher % of zero rated sales than what was actually sold.

You only do your taxes annually, and withholding is done up until then on a paycheck-to-paycheck basis, based on some estimate of how much will be due at the end of the year.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

You used to be able to get the EITC paid to you in advance as a negative deduction from your paycheck, but there was too much fraud and abuse so it was repealed in 2010.

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

Yes, this is an obvious necessity that should meet the qualifications. The tax is completely immoral, and Brown remains utterly terrible.

[Citizen (The) Doctor]

Dude's one of the stingiest governors in the country. What do you expect?

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

Yuck. ing 'fiscal conservatives'.

[Figueira]

I'm not a huge fan of the sales tax in general, honestly.

[Ban my account ffs!]

You forgot to mention that other items besides tampons were to be exempted from sales taxes.  I agree this is a good veto. I live in a state that has made such a Swiss cheese out of its sales tax that if we removed all the exemptions we'd either double the revenue or could cut the rate in half. (And that's not even considering our back-to-school sale tax holiday, the best time of the year to get a wedding dress since as clothing it's exempted then, but only if you buy, not if you rent your dress.

Agreed. The best way to deal with the regressive aspect of sales taxes, is rebates for low income citizens, not exempting necessities. That's a recipe for lobbying and arcane legislation.

Not taxing clothing, shoes, prescriptions, haircuts, or groceries is an excellent way to make the sales tax less regressive. 

It is much easier for businesses, for government, and for poor consumers, whose consumption is proportionately more in the tax exempt categories.  A sudden 6-7% increase in groceries in exchange for a means tested rebate up to 14 months later is just bad policy.  Poor people dont have the ability to just eat that cost throughout the year.

[angus]

LA Times

LOL I never thought such bills would be under consideration. But correct decision Mr. Brown. This is what a fiscal conservative looks like.

tampons were a tax-free item?  who knew?

I thought just raw vegetables and meat and stuff like that were untaxed.  Well, that and stuff you buy for universities and churches.  I guess if schools purchase tampons they don't have to pay the tax.

[Ban my account ffs!]

40 states tax the sale of tampons.

5 states don't have sales tax (AK, OR, MT, DE, NH)

5 states have sales tax, but do not tax tampons (PA, NJ, MD, MA, and MN)

2 states recently repealed tampon taxes (IL and NY) though I'm not sure if those laws are in effect as of yet.

[Rocky Rockefeller]

Necessities shouldn't be taxed. Period.

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

Who cares? We can't just start eliminating sales taxes for very specific kinds of goods without any clear method of determining whether or not this is justified. I support eliminating the sales tax for particular categories of OTC medications, hygiene products and the like, among other categories of goods, but eliminating the sales tax for tampons and diapers alone strikes me as a Shibboleth for being a Good Liberal that accomplishes nothing in practice. How much money would consumers save from this? How many more diapers would people be willing to purchase as result of this? The answer is that they wouldn't save much money and that this would have a rather negligible impact on anyone's life. This is cultural politics. If you want to help low income families, do something meaningful for them.

[Ebowed]

Who cares? We can't just start eliminating sales taxes for very specific kinds of goods without any clear method of determining whether or not this is justified. I support eliminating the sales tax for particular categories of OTC medications, hygiene products and the like, among other categories of goods, but eliminating the sales tax for tampons and diapers alone strikes me as a Shibboleth for being a Good Liberal that accomplishes nothing in practice. How much money would consumers save from this? How many more diapers would people be willing to purchase as result of this? The answer is that they wouldn't save much money and that this would have a rather negligible impact on anyone's life. This is cultural politics. If you want to help low income families, do something meaningful for them.

I understand what you're saying, but there is an additional element to this which probably depends on what other items are exempt from the sales tax.  Many states exempt medical necessities.  There's no question that tampons should be classified as medical necessities.  Women don't choose to have periods.

The fact is, by not deeming tampons and diapers to be 'necessities', California continues to require women to bear a disproportionate consumption tax burden.

[angus]

How many more diapers would people be willing to purchase as result of this?

Diapers too?  I just looked it up, apparently Pennsylvania and a few other states do not tax diapers.  We were not living in Pennsylvania when my son was an infant and we paid tax on diapers.  I remember our purchases not being based on price, because we bought the brand we thought was the most comfortable and the most effective rather than the cheap brand.  I don't think a few cents more or less would have affected our decision.

I agree with your post.  To tax or not to tax?  Certainly we should not base such decisions on what is politically correct or morally fashionable.  I just heard this morning that the city of Philadelphia passed a 1.5-cent per ounce tax on soda.  This means that a 12-ounce can of coca-cola will not have an 18-cent tax.  Talk about regressive.  Who is buying 12-ounce cans of coca-cola?  Not Donald Trump.  According to Gallup, non-white, the young, and Southerners drink the most soda per capita.  All low-income groups.  Moreover, when respondents are categorized by income quintile, soda consumption per capita decreases monotonically with each income quintile.

It's cultural politics, as you say.  It's also feel-good politics:  Let's increase the tax on soda because phosphoric acid rots your teeth, sugar makes you fat, carbon dioxide makes you belch, and caffeine makes you high.  It's all sinful so we'll tax the sinner.  It certainly will not help low-income families.  They'll still be high, fat belchers with rotten teeth; they'll only be more broke.

[Ebowed]

How many more diapers would people be willing to purchase as result of this?

Diapers too?  I just looked it up, apparently Pennsylvania and a few other states do not tax diapers.  We were not living in Pennsylvania when my son was an infant and we paid tax on diapers.  I'm remember our purchases not being based on price, because we bought the brand we thought was the most comfortable and the most effective rather than the cheap brand.  I don't think a few cents more or less would have affected our decision.

I agree with your post.  I just heard this morning that the city of Philadelphia passed a 1.5-cent per ounce tax on soda.  This means that a 12-ounce can of coca-cola will not have an 18-cent tax.  Talk about regressive.  Who is buying 12-ounce cans of coca-cola?  Not Donald Trump.  According to Gallup, low-income, non-white, and the young drink the most soda per capita.

It's cultural politics, as you say.  It's also feel-good politics:  Let's increase the tax on soda because phosphoric acid rots your teeth, sugar makes you fat, carbon dioxide makes you belch, and caffeine makes you high.  It's all sinful so we'll tax the sinner.  It certainly will not help low-income families.  They'll still be fat, high belchers with bad teeth; they'll only be more broke.

I'm not sure I know what your definition of 'regressive' entails.  If I understand you correctly, diapers should be taxed because it was your personal experience that you didn't necessarily pay much attention to the price when buying them.  But that is not everyone's experience.  And by the end of it all, you turn around and criticize taxing soda because it will make its consumers 'more broke.'  Where do you stand on those same consumers being 'more broke' thanks to medical bills?

What this boils down to is - if you think food, hygiene or medicine should be exempt from the sales tax - why wouldn't you include tampons?  Diapers?  Menstruation is not a consumer choice, for goodness' sake.

[angus]

My idea of regressive is that it affects the poor disproportionately.  I thought I made that clear.  In any case here's some Gallup polling data regarding the argument I was trying to make.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/163997/regular-soda-popular-young-nonwhite-low-income.aspx

My comment wasn't that certain things should or shouldn't be taxed, but rather about the bizarre method determining policies.  In some cases the politically correct response is to tax certain things, and in other cases it is to repeal a tax.  The driving factor seems simple:  whatever gets me re-elected is what I should be doing.  It seems like a governmental system lacking integrity.

I was thinking about the "meaningful" comment in DeadFlag's post.  Diapers and tampons.  Let's do tampons since the calculations are messy with diapers.  (More assumptions, therefore more slop.)  Let us assume that a box of 40 tampons costs $13.76.  (Tampax ad in last week's CVS circular.)  Let's round that to one-third of a dollar per tampon.  Let us also assume that the average menstruator consumes 240 tampons in an average year.  That would mean that the average menstruator in Pennsylvania (if there were a 6% tax on tampons) would spend $14.40 in taxes for tampons.  If we assume an average annual salary of $32000 for the average menstruator in Pennsylvania, we see that the tax on tampons represents 0.00045, or 45-thousandths of one percent of that person's salary.  Not exactly what I'd call a "meaningful" savings.  What effect for the state?  Let us assume that there are about 3.1 million menstruators in Pennsylvania and that they all use tampons.  (We can get population figures from the US Census bureau and assume that all females aged 12 through 50 are menstruators.  A severe approximation, but we have to make some.)  3.1x10⁶ X 240 X 0.33 = 2.45x10⁸.  That means that the state of Pennsylvania loses about 245 million dollars of revenue by exempting tampons from taxation.  Pennsylvania has an annual budget of around 32 billion dollars, so the amount of revenue uncollected represents about 0.007, or seven-tenths of one percent, of the state budget.  Not a huge hit.  

It seems that by sacrificing very little in terms of potential revenue (0.7%), and giving even less in return to consumers (0.045%), politicians are able to score political points.  The guy in Harrisburg who introduced the bill looks like a hero without creating or solving any problems, and without even getting his hands dirty.  That's pretty efficient politicking.

I understand the argument that a better approach might be to decide what sorts of items should be taxed.  If you think that medicines and medical supplies, for example, should not be taxed, then don't tax band-aids, aspirin, or a bag of ganga.  If you don't think cleaning supplies should be taxed, for example, then don't tax Windex, sponges, or soap.  I don't think of diapers and tampons as medical supplies, but maybe some people would think of them that way, or maybe that they span both of those categories, or others.  You could quibble about categories, but once they're settled then taxation could be assigned.

An alternative approach could be to figure out how much money the government needs to operate and collect that from individuals in the form of income tax, removing all sales taxes altogether.

Yet another reasonable approach might be to have a flat and relatively small sales tax that applies to all consumable goods, where the rate is informed by goals for spending.  This seems to be the approach that Governor Brown favors, although in California prescription drugs are not taxed, so the extant systems seems like a hybrid.

[mvd10]

FF

GST/VAT/sales tax bases should be as broad as possible, preferably with a single rate (idk how it works in the US but most European countries have different VAT rates).

[angus]

FF

GST/VAT/sales tax bases should be as broad as possible, preferably with a single rate (idk how it works in the US but most European countries have different VAT rates).

Sales tax varies by state.  In Pennsylvania, the tax is 6% and it applies only to certain items.  In Massachusetts, it is 5% and applies to certain (sometimes other) stuff.  In California it is 9% and it applies to whatever the CA legislature applies it to.  It also varies with municipality.  What might be taxed at 4.5% in Enid, Oklahoma is taxed at 11% in Norman, Oklahoma because the city council of Norman has imposed an additional 6.5% city sales tax on top of the state sales tax.  In Texas a gallon of milk is not taxed but a liter of coca-cola is taxed, statewide at 7.5%.

Income taxes also vary by state.  Florida and a few other states have none.  Pennsylvania has one which is 3.07%.  California has a rate which varies by income.  It's highest tier is 13.3%.  This is all on top of the federal government rate, which can be as high as 39%.

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

And you say the alleged "War on Women" is only a Republican thing.