Raleigh, N.C. — Republican legislative leaders are crafting a package of changes to North Carolina's tax code that they say will stimulate economic growth, including slapping a 6 percent sales tax on groceries.
Lawmakers phased out the state sales tax on food in the late 1990s, saying that scrapping the 4 percent tax would give low-income families a needed break. Counties continue to collect a 2 percent food tax.
The GOP, which now controls the General Assembly, is pushing to lower the individual and corporate income tax and use a higher state sales tax applied to more things to make up for the lost income tax revenue. Food should be taxed, they say, because grocery spending is dependable.
Senate President Pro Tem Phil Berger said Wednesday that the state's current tax model dates to the 1930s and doesn't really fit to North Carolina's changing economy. So, tax reform is critical to the state's future.
"It's important for us in terms of our competitive posture with other states," he said. "It's important for us in terms of making sure we have a fair allocation of the cost of government across the spectrum of economic activity."
Details of the tax reform package are likely to be rolled out later this month, but the prospect of a higher sales tax on food already leaves many shoppers with a bad taste in their mouths.
"Food is high enough now. Everything is taxed – taxes here, taxes there," Phyllis Branch said Thursday. "We've got to eat, so they kind of got us in a bind."
Raising the sales tax on food from 2 percent to 8 percent would add $312 to the annual grocery bill for someone who spends $100 a week on food at the supermarket.
"It's not a progressive tax, where those at the higher end pay more and those at the lower end pay less," said Bill Rowe, general counsel and director of advocacy for the left-leaning North Carolina Budget and Tax Center. "Everybody's paying the same amount, and so, if you're of modest means, you're going to be paying a lot more in taxes that way."
Republican lawmakers contend that those costs will be offset by lower income taxes. Rowe notes, however, that many low-income families don't owe any state income tax, so they won't benefit from a cut.
"It just really appears to be making up for cuts for folks at the higher end and corporations, which really does strike me as being a very unfair way to go," Rowe said.




![[READ STORY]](http://wwwcache.wral.com/asset/news/national_world/national/2013/05/14/12445890/12446751-1368816960-100x75.jpg)
![[VIEW PAGE]](http://wwwcache.wral.com/asset/news/local/2013/05/13/12441232/hahn-100x75.jpg)
![[READ STORY]](http://wwwcache.wral.com/asset/business/2013/05/06/12417151/2457a21a00d94324b6fc448c8ec173d0-Photo-1-100x70.jpg)
![[GALLERY]](http://wwwcache.wral.com/asset/entertainment/2013/03/28/12278304/LNL-100x75.jpg)
![[VIEW PAGE]](http://wwwcache.wral.com/asset/traffic/2009/07/23/5645694/beltline-100x75.jpg)
![[GALLERY]](http://wwwcache.wral.com/asset/entertainment/2013/03/04/12182235/12182236-1362457268-100x75.jpg)






WRAL.com welcomes your comments on this story. All comments are moderated prior to publication based on our posting guidelines. Please review them prior to posting and if your message is not approved.
This blog post is closed for comments.
He claims even with the increase in sales taxes from 7% in NC to 9.25% in TN that he got a $7200 pay increase just by not having to pay sales taxes.
It's hard for me to believe that working people are arguing against what the republicans are proposing.
Based on my friends experience, if the sales tax goes from 7% to 8% and the food tax goes from 2% to 8%, those in North Carolina who pay income tax will come out ahead.
The takers on welfare will come out behind because they will see a sales tax increase with no offsetting income tax decrease.
January 18, 2013 8:17 p.m.
January 18, 2013 7:47 p.m.
January 18, 2013 7:46 p.m.
January 18, 2013 7:38 p.m.
January 18, 2013 7:34 p.m.
That's somewhat the opposite of "sense" though when considering state or national policies.
Because those policies impact far more than you personally.
Thus a broad-based study that looks at many households is a much more useful set of data than "What you personally do at the grocery store" when considering questions like this.
At the end of the day healthy and/or homemade foods are more economical than "convenience" foods.- don't get me started
But they aren't you see. Because when they actually study this stuff they find that unhealthy foods are cheaper.
It sounds like you're just narrowing your defintions to find something be right about.."well, this SPECIFIC bad food cost more"
January 18, 2013 7:32 p.m.
No, actually, those things make the EXACT point smith was making.
If you DO tax the poor to the point they can't pay for basic necessities, the rich will end up paying for them anyway.
Here's a bit more of that quote-
"It must always be remembered, however, that it is the luxurious and not the necessary expense of the inferior ranks of people that ought ever to be taxed. The final payment of any tax upon their necessary expense would fall altogether upon the superior ranks of people"
In other words, if you tax basic needs of poor people, the rich end up having to pay that expense anyway.
So it's dumb to tax neccesities of the poor at all.
January 18, 2013 7:30 p.m.
"because it doesn't punish people for earning money. Morrigan
No, it just punishes the ones who earn less of it.
Which is an incredibly dumb idea, as even Adam Smith recognized. Why don't you?"
THAT kind of reply would be MY idea of trying to "project your personal opinion onto the other 300+ million of us".
Just saying...
January 18, 2013 7:29 p.m.
January 18, 2013 7:27 p.m.
January 18, 2013 7:26 p.m.
January 18, 2013 7:17 p.m.
January 18, 2013 7:15 p.m.
January 18, 2013 7:12 p.m.
January 18, 2013 7:06 p.m.
January 18, 2013 6:53 p.m.
I'll repeat myself: because it doesn't punish people for earning money.- Morrigan
How is being taxed at the LOWEST RATE a "punishment?" We are coddling the wealthy with our current tax scales, deductions, loopholes, etc. Somehow the Romney's can claim a 80,000 horse as a 'medical device' but I can't buy band-aides with my tax deferred health savings account. BTW, does your company pay your salary in stocks so your income is "capital gains" or do they pay you in dollars which are taxed at twice the rate?
January 18, 2013 6:51 p.m.
Yes, and I'm going by a comprehensive report from the national institutes of health considering food costs across a broad range.
The one I'm doing is called science.
The one you're doing is "projecting your personal experience onto the other 300+ million of us and assuming every person and situation is just like mine"
a bag of apples which will last several days will be around the same price.- dontgetmestarted
and a case of ramen will last a month for what a bag of apples cost.
Because unhealthy food is generally cheaper than healthy food.
because it doesn't punish people for earning money. Morrigan
No, it just punishes the ones who earn less of it.
Which is an incredibly dumb idea, as even Adam Smith recognized.
Why don't you?
January 18, 2013 6:51 p.m.
If you're scraping by, you don't have a baby.
January 18, 2013 6:48 p.m.
January 18, 2013 6:47 p.m.
January 18, 2013 6:44 p.m.
Remember, all that you "lose" is the taxes you would not have paid if you'd paid State income tax. Some people think a deduction is the same as a credit (dollar for dollar). It's not. It's a "pretend" reduction in the amount you earned, not an amount subtracted from the amount you owe the Feds. The additional money in the check will more than compensate. Good point though, and worth discussing.
January 18, 2013 6:42 p.m.
January 18, 2013 6:40 p.m.
I'll repeat myself: because it doesn't punish people for earning money.
January 18, 2013 6:38 p.m.
With the Fair Tax, the bits wouldn't be taxed, neither would the board, so you'd lower your price and add 29% sales tax, and in theory the price remains the same. Used goods would not be taxed a second time, as is my current Goodwill wardrobe. My used truck wouldn't have been taxed again, nor my used tractor. Does that shed any light on the big picture? Hope I got the math right this time!
January 18, 2013 6:33 p.m.
January 18, 2013 6:31 p.m.
January 18, 2013 6:27 p.m.
Just what I wanted in my retirement.
Don't get me wrong, I'll be fine, but there no way I can be in favor of this.
January 18, 2013 6:27 p.m.
Uh, no, just the opposite in fact.
That's one reason the poor eat so badly nutrition-wise.
Healthy, fresh, foods tend to COST MORE.
So jacking the tax on food makes it make likely they will eat BADLY.
But don't believe me... here's the national institutes of health saying the same thing-
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20720258
"These price differentials may help to explain why low-cost, energy-dense foods that are nutrient poor are associated with lower education and incomes."
January 18, 2013 6:26 p.m.
January 18, 2013 6:19 p.m.
January 18, 2013 6:14 p.m.
January 18, 2013 6:08 p.m.
January 18, 2013 6:05 p.m.
If not taken into account, this will cause these people to pay more taxes than they currently are paying. Will these individuals be given a different ID card that could be shown to the retailer, causing no sales taxes to be charged. This would not seem fair to the rest of us!
One of many items to be considered in changing to a sales tax basis. I also understand that they want to begin taxing services, which are not now taxed.
Is the proposed change to an increased sales tax and have no income tax thought to be a simplification of the tax revenue problem. Would this also mean the elimination of the NC Dept of Revenue and the firing of all their current employees??????????
Sound like a "can of worms" that should not be opened!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
January 18, 2013 5:58 p.m.
"It must always be remembered, however, that it is the luxuries, and not the necessary expense of the inferior ranks of people, that ought ever to be taxed."
That's Adam Smith. The guy who literally wrote the book on capitalism
Even Mr. Capitalism himself understood jacking up the tax on things like food was an incredibly dumb, regressive, and unwise idea.
January 18, 2013 5:55 p.m.
January 18, 2013 5:45 p.m.
They do. They pay sales taxes, among others. You'd have a difficult time finding anybody who doesn't have any tax liability - that animal doesn't exist. We don't subject them to income taxes for a variety of reasons - chief among these is that they barely survive as it is, and imposing an income tax just renders them unable to do so. In that instance, they have two options - turn to public assistance or turn to crime.
Beyond that- this directly impacts the elderly, and hard. Is that really a road we want to go down?
January 18, 2013 5:41 p.m.
January 18, 2013 5:38 p.m.
What do you do when prices go up? If you are, for example, a family with a newborn, you can't really buy less formula or fewer diapers. If you are the guy earning minimum wage, you are already spending a large portion of your income on a relatively small portion of food, so if the sales tax goes up, you have no choice but to eat less.
And eating less opens up a whole other can of worms - it can lead to health problems.
Final thought - this exposes you to a varying tax burden. There is a minimum quantity of food that you have to eat. I think we'd all agree on that, so as food prices fluctuate while your income remains constant, your tax burden also fluctuates.
And I'd wager that you aren't thinking about your tax burden at the checkout counter. You're thinking about how to obtain enough food to feed your family.
January 18, 2013 5:38 p.m.
Because unlike state income tax, this will bring money in from those who currently do not file a tax return, or have no state liablity. Illegals, those in the "shadow economy", wealthy folks that hide all their income with deductions, etc.
Collecting some tax on food is a great way to broaden the base, level out the swings in collections (food is recesion proof), and make the whole tax code more equitable (everyone buys food).
Income tax collect NOTHING from those who don't file a return, or work "under the table" for cash. Those folks need to pay some taxes....
January 18, 2013 5:29 p.m.
January 18, 2013 5:28 p.m.
This doesn't lower state taxes. It shifts them from income taxes to sales taxes. Sooooo at the end of the day it is an issue for federal taxes.
January 18, 2013 5:26 p.m.
January 18, 2013 5:22 p.m.
They aren't eliminating the income tax. They are proposing to reduce it. You'd still be paying both.
January 18, 2013 5:18 p.m.
That's untrue of course.
The percentage of people that pay NO taxes is vastly lower than 50%.
And a decent chunk of the much smaller % that covers are elderly/retired (and increasingly large percentage of our population- but I guess you want grandma to get back out there and work some more huh?)
January 18, 2013 5:15 p.m.
Give it's more than >90% of households earn, it is, by definition, well off.
January 18, 2013 5:13 p.m.
So they are shifting from a progressive tax model to a regressive tax model. Best of luck, folks.
January 18, 2013 5:13 p.m.
January 18, 2013 5:13 p.m.
January 18, 2013 5:09 p.m.
As noted, this would not reduce state taxes paid. The proposed sales tax rate is higher than the current income tax rates.
January 18, 2013 5:07 p.m.
You are confusing curve shifts and movements along the curve.
January 18, 2013 5:05 p.m.