It would be a palatable idea even in good times: Remove the exemption to the state sales tax from candy and gum, and dedicate the proceeds to critical public health programs that have been decimated in recent years.
If the recession and state revenue shortfall created the right political atmosphere for it, fine. Public health budgets were dwindling beyond reason when revenues were strong. Creating a dedicated funding stream, even a relatively modest one, is a good idea — especially one with such a rational link. Candy, and its obvious effect on obesity rates, helps create a need for public health programs.
The sales tax already applies to soft drinks and dietary supplements. Adding candy and gum to the list is no stretch.
Now, if lawmakers can just figure out what’s candy and what isn’t.
A bill under consideration defines it far too narrowly, exempting anything that contains flour. That definition is lifted from the multi-state streamlined sales and use tax agreement, which Washington joined in 2007. (It allows the state to collect taxes when residents make an Internet or catalog purchase from an out-of-state seller.) That deal, however, lets states come up with their own definition of candy.
Washington should do just that. If lawmakers struggle to come up a reasonable one, they should ask a class of third-graders to sort candy from cookies. It won’t take long — a quick stroll along the candy aisle of any store would be all the research most people would need. In cases where an item could be considered either candy or cookie, or both — think Twix bar — call it candy. How hard was that?
The bill, HB 2388, would raise an estimated $30 million a year for public health. An annual minimum of $100,000 would go to each public health jurisdiction in the state (here, that’s the Snohomish Health District), plus a per capita amount.
It’s not a huge infusion, but it would be helpful. Public health programs have been chronicly underfunded, and in recent months have been slashed or eliminated throughout the state. Here, the plug was pulled on Healthy Communities programs that encouraged healthier lifestyles in Marysville, Everett and Lynnwood, with the goal of reaping long-term savings in disease management and other costs. Other cuts affected hepatitis prevention, treatment of sexually transmitted diseases, and the district’s tuberculosis program.
Given the weakened state of public health agencies in rural areas, this minor and sensible change in tax policy is one even tax-averse lawmakers, including Republicans, should be able to support.
Talk to us
> Give us your news tips.
> Send us a letter to the editor.
> More Herald contact information.
