Nevada does not apply sales taxes to such necessities as food and medicine, so this sounds reasonable on its face.
But according to the Nevada Secretary of State, the state demographer notes there are approximately 867,000 females between the ages of 12 and 55 living in Nevada. Assuming the average monthly consumption of these feminine hygiene products is between $7 and $10 per person, this would generate total taxable sales of as much as $100 million each fiscal year, meaning the taxable revenue for the state and local government could be cut by as much as $7 million a year — money that doubtlessly would need to be raised some other way.
In addition, 13 of Nevada’s 17 counties (Carson City, Churchill, Clark, Douglas, Elko, Lander, Lincoln, Lyon, Nye, Pershing, Storey, Washoe and White Pine) impose additional sales taxes and thus the repeal could cut another $1.3 million in revenue to those counties.
The argument against passage of this tax exemption states: “Exempting feminine hygiene products from Nevada’s sales and use taxes will result in less revenue for the State and local governments, including school districts. This loss of revenue may adversely affect the provision of state and local governmental services. … Nevada’s sales and use taxes are not discriminatory and do not tax products based on sex. Rather, products sold in Nevada are generally subject to these taxes regardless of who buys or uses them. As a result, many products that are considered necessities, such as soap, toothbrushes and toilet paper, are not exempt from sales and use taxes.”
There is no evidence the current sales tax has in any way inhibited the ability of women to obtain these products. We need not shift the tax burden with another special carve out.
A version of this editorial appeared this week in some of the Battle Born Media newspapers — The Ely Times, the Mesquite Local News, the Mineral County Independent-News, the Eureka Sentinel, Sparks Tribune and the Lincoln County Record.
I remember you questioning the logic of “there’s no evidence” regarding voter fraud suggesting that the reason there was “no evidence” was because no one was looking for it.
Yep. This squeaky wheel has the responsibility to make the argument and show the evidence.
I think your economic philosophy provides all the evidence necessary though right?
Higher taxes means fewer purchases. You aren’t disputing that are you?
Nope, so make sure they fair and equitable.
So then the evidence can show that the taxes ARE making it more difficult or even impossible for women to buy these things but it doesn’t matter?
So then why imply that it does?
Since taxes are how we get people to pay for the government services they receive, everybody should pay their fair share, period, unless they do not have the means to pay. Carve outs, deductions, and loopholes of all kinds should be eliminated. In this case, it’s just as ridiculous for women of means to receive a tax dodge for feminine products as it is for people buying filet mignon.
I suppose then Rincon it comes down to what’s fair?
My definition of fair is most closely expressed by a parable from the Good Book.
It happened that Jesus received some relatively large contributions from some very wealthy people, and an old woman came and gave but two pennies.
Christ told those assembled how much more the woman gave than everyone.
An clearer expression of what we are discussing can hardly be made. While some very wealthy people may have to pay a little more for their filet mignon so that some people can pay a little less for something, this fits my definition of fairness.
I agree, but Conservatives believe that fair is making sure that billionaires get to keep all of the money they “earn”, so instead, they advocate squeezing those last two cents out of the paupers.
Fair is fair to all.
Ah bumper sticker philosophy;
Ah, a base canard.
Sales or use taxes are an excellent vehicle for gathering taxes necessary to fund government. They are based on consumption. No tax is incurred until a sale. They are generally low and unless filled with exemptions, they are broad based. They do not involve income re-distribution as do income taxes. If expanded to cover services, the result would arguably be a lower overall sales tax rate. In my opinion, the system would be better if there were no exemptions, even for necessities.
Sales taxes are regressive and should remain low and broad based.
If a sales tax is regressive, then why isn’t the capital gains tax break regressive against the middle class? Or are we only concerned about rich and poor here?
Who says it isn’t?
All taxes and fees should be progressive.
“For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required,” Luke 12:48
As long as you support the capital gains tax break, then is it not inconsistent to object to high sales taxes because they are regressive?
In a perfect world, everyone should not just the same percentage of income as tax, but the same amount of money. After all, we are merely paying for government services. Of course, in a perfect world, there wouldn’t be large numbers working hard, living in poverty, while others who don’t work at all live in mansions. Find a way for all of us to reasonably (not necessarily equally) share the bounty of this country’s tremendous productivity, and I would advocate a flat tax.