Comments on: Repeal of 1% Restaurant Tax Receives Unanimous Approval

By: bekkieann

bekkieann — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 19:26:16 +0000

I realize .1 is a tenth of 1%, but the new tax base under an increased sales tax becomes huge by comparison to only a restaurant tax.

If this tax helps to support convention centers and other cultural venues, then a restaurant tax truly targets the “base that makes more sense”, as you put it. Whether the restaurant tax is paid by instate or out of state visitors, makes no difference. It makes far less sense to begin spreading that tax over the entire population. Taxing food is always the easy way out. People will always have to buy food.

This is nothing more than bowing to the restaurant industry that is hurting in the tough economic times. One can’t blame them for trying. But this is just wrong.

Also, Rep. Frank, I don’t see where that KSL article says anything about the tax being ‘income neutral’, and I would think you would quote a different source besides KSL anyway. That’s a very circular reference. Please provide more information about the ‘income neutral’ claim.

By: JJL9

JJL9 — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 21:48:12 +0000

@bekkjeann

While just a subtle difference, there is a difference between 1% and .1%…

By: Rep. Craig Frank

Rep. Craig Frank — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 05:35:58 +0000

http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=8729456

By: bekkieann

bekkieann — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 03:47:23 +0000

Rep. Craig,

If the restaurant tax is replaced by a “general sales tax”, you are shifting a tax from restaurant patrons to grocery store customers and others. I don’t see how that can be revenue neutral. Can you provide the supporting data for that claim? It would seem that a general sales tax would raise significantly more revenue than a tax only on restaurant sales.

As I see it, this actually a SECOND proposal to raise sales tax on groceries. How is this good for anyone except the restaurant industry?

By: craig41

craig41 — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 03:21:48 +0000

there’s a lot of talk of upping the sales tax on unprepared foods, even if this bill does nothing on that front, you are aware of the other proposals. so how should this be seen as something other than shifting of tax from restaurant food to grocery store food.

By: Rep. Craig Frank

Rep. Craig Frank — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 01:54:05 +0000

The current restaurant sales tax (1%) is a County option. The revenue stream developed from this tax goes to pay for a number of different uses (i.e. Recreational, Community, Cultural, and Airport Facilities). The current tax will be “replaced” with a County option general sales tax (.1%). THIS PROPOSAL IS REVENUE NEUTRAL.

By: bekkieann

bekkieann — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 20:20:14 +0000

Rep, Frank,

How much income does the restaurant tax produce in a year now, and how would you propose to replace that income for the state?

By: Rep. Craig Frank

Rep. Craig Frank — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 19:27:58 +0000

This proposal doesn’t change the reduced sales tax on “non-prepared” foods. There are other proposals (by other legislators) out there to change that.

By: Adano

Adano — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 19:04:55 +0000

This is good as long as you don’t also raise the general food tax. If you’re going to tax food, it should be prepared (restaurant) food, not unprepared food.