Should food and clothing be exempt from sales tax?

[they don't love you like i love you]

Yes. They are in Minnesota (well, most food at least. I still have to pay taxes on junk food.)

How any state could have a food tax and put more sales taxes on food than pointless stuff is beyond me.

[A18]

Food? Yes. Clothing? No.

[KEmperor]

Absolutely.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

How about make the first x dollars of a type of clothing be tax free, where x  is roughly the price of the cheapest you can get that new. Or allow you to buy a certain amount tax free per year. Make it so that some poor just trying to clothe themselves doesn't pay anything, but somebody buying lots of expensive clothing pays a bunch.

[Giant Saguaro]

Yep, unless we could do away with property taxes. Then I don't know, perhaps not.

[Emsworth]

Food: Yes
Clothing: No

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So now we have progressive sales taxes? I find the idea most unappealing.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Food: Yes
Clothing: No

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So now we have progressive sales taxes? I find the idea most unappealing.

I think NY sometimes has no sales tax on items under $100. I suppose their system is less complicated.

[patrick1]

Food? Yes. Clothing? No.

I agree but probably for some different reasons.  You can buy a Chinese made pair of Khakis or Jeans for like $15-20 at some places.  The extra couple bucks is not really going to kill the disadvantaged.  I don't really see the harm in taxing some botoxed broad for her $500 handbag.  Of Course, I am aware of my hypocrisy in selectively supporting one tax over another:)

[Speed of Sound]

they definetly should be. taxing necessities is a great sign that capitalism just got hit with a brick in the head in your country. (dont ask what that means. im not sure, but you get the point)

[KEmperor]

Food: Yes
Clothing: No

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So now we have progressive sales taxes? I find the idea most unappealing.

I think NY sometimes has no sales tax on items under $100. I suppose their system is less complicated.

That is not true.  Unless you are referring to specific items.

[KEmperor]

they definetly should be. taxing necessities is a great sign that capitalism just got hit with a brick in the head in your country. (dont ask what that means. im not sure, but you get the point)

I don't think anyone knows what you mean, and no, I don't get your point.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Food: Yes
Clothing: No

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So now we have progressive sales taxes? I find the idea most unappealing.

I think NY sometimes has no sales tax on items under $100. I suppose their system is less complicated.

That is not true.  Unless you are referring to specific items.

I meant no sales tax on clothing under $100.

[Emsworth]

they definetly should be. taxing necessities is a great sign that capitalism just got hit with a brick in the head in your country. (dont ask what that means. im not sure, but you get the point)

Well, you can tax necessities in a socialist system, or in a mixed system too. Taxation is (in this case, at least) independent of the type of economic system used.

[opebo]

I would abolish the sales tax entirely and replace it with income taxes.  In any case, the best way to make up for deficiencies in the income of the poor is not to exempt them from taxes on 'necessities', but to provide them with stipends.

[Inverted Things]

Sales taxes in general are loathsome regressive taxes. I can understand (although I do not agree with) disliking progressive taxes, but regressive taxes are clearly worse than them.

[Lunar]

Food Yes
Clothing No

Clothing can already be obtained for free if you're poor enough (clothing drives and whatnot).  If price is still an issue (like it is for me), thrift stores are wonderful.  My main jacket cost me $3 and the shirt I'm wearing now cost $1.

[© tweed]

I actually never thought about this before today, but I think it makes sense.  But any bill that would go through any governing body on this subject would dictate that sales tax be increased on other items to make up for this loss.

[patrick1]

Food: Yes
Clothing: No

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So now we have progressive sales taxes? I find the idea most unappealing.

I think NY sometimes has no sales tax on items under $100. I suppose their system is less complicated.

That is not true.  Unless you are referring to specific items.

I meant no sales tax on clothing under $100.

There are tax free weekends and the like but you still generally pay 8.75% on everything.

[Ebowed]

Food: Yes
Clothing: Yes, assuming it is under $100

[J. J.]

Food: Yes
Clothing: Yes, assuming it is under $100

Agreed.  If I want to by a $300 suit, that isn't really a necessity.  If I want to buy a pair of Timberlands ($80), that probably is.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Food: YES
Clothing: Depends. I think no sales taxes on childrens clothing and cheap basic clothing generally.
In addition to that, books should be exempt from sales taxes. Taxing knowledge is immoral and wrong.

[John Dibble]

Food Yes
Clothing No

Right.

[John Dibble]

I would abolish the sales tax entirely and replace it with income taxes. 

Problem is that county governments, which rely heavily on sales tax for revenue, don't have the resources to effectively administrate an income tax.

[MissCatholic]

Yes.

If things like this happen it leads to flat taxation and the burden on the middle class just gets to the point of ridiculous.

[MODU]

Food? Yes. Clothing? No.

Agreed.  And to some extent, not all food should be tax exempt.  Milk should be tax exempt, but not soda.  Sliced bread should be, but not Italian bread sticks.  Etc....