Idaho taxes

Last night we attended a "Pizza and Politics" get together of Bonner County Democrats (Bonner County being immediately south of our Boundary County). They have lots more people and lots more money but you couldn't really tell it from the turnout (there was also no pizza). Anyway, there were a number of our Idaho Congresspersons in attendance and they gave us some idea of the problems facing a small minority, as well as some idea of some of the problems they were discussing. One of these problems has to do with the Idaho tax on food. Idaho is one of only a few states that actually taxes food. I don't know the history of this tax or who the sadist was that conceived of taxing food. It reminds me of the England of Robin Hood where no matter how poor or hungry you were, you couldn't kill or eat the King's deer. Here it doesn't matter how hungry or poor you are, you have to pay taxes on your food. I suspect the originator of this (in my opinion immoral tax) was probably the same as whoever decided we should pay our property taxes just before Christmas (but I digress).

Apparently, back in the dim, dark and limited recesses of their Republican minds they have decided to do something about this unjust tax (remember, here in Idaho we also have income taxes and property taxes). There has been some discussion of this for some time now. As I understand it, the present tax credit is $20 for residents, and $35 for those older than 65. The Senate Local Government and Taxation Committee has a bill that would increase the income-tax credit on food to $50 for most Idaho residents and $70 for seniors. When this suggested bill went forward someone wanted to reduce it to $40. Our new governor, Clement Leroy "Butch" Otter, wants to provide $90 to low income residents. There would be some kind of sliding scale as income increases from the lowest levels. You know, if you earn $25,000 per year you would pay fewer food taxes than if it were $25001. Think what this might do for income tax preparations. There are apparently a few sensible individuals who think we should just eliminate the tax on food entirely (no one takes them seriously).

I think there are unlimited possibilities here for changing the food tax, as well as unlimited problems. If we are worried about helping the poor with this tax, why not just tax expensive foods they can't afford to eat? If they are really poor they probably don't pay any food tax to begin with. So why not taxes on beluga caviar and filet mignon, to say nothing of lobster tails and wild boar? That ought to raise a lot of money in Idaho. If they insist on eating why don't they just eat stuff like liver, pigs' feet, tongue, heart and tripe? Those are relatively inexpensive and wouldn't require too much tax. And how about food stamps? Do those on food stamps have to pay food taxes or are they exempt (I confess I have no idea).

Still another problem here in North Idaho is the business of hunting. Lots of people here hunt every year and many of them live pretty much on the results of their hunting. There is no tax on deer, bear, elk, or moose meat. Nor is there any tax on ducks, geese, pheasants, grouse or wild turkeys. That doesn't seem fair. Why should some people be allowed to eat without paying any food taxes at all? This also discriminates against those who are too old or infirm or morally opposed to hunting. Is that fair? And how about fishing? You go out and catch a few trout or bass or walleye and you don't pay any tax. This seems like a really disgusting loophole. People should have to report what they kill and consume and pay taxes. Of course there should be an exemption for those trophy hunters that don't consume what they kill and just leave it to rot. Why should you have to pay a tax on something you don't eat? Then there is the problem of what is considered edible. Like, most everyone eats bear, but I don't think most hunters eat cougar. So somehow we should be able to distinguish those who eat cougar from those who don't. If you eat it, pay taxes. If you don't eat it, well, never mind.

Wolves are a separate matter. I haven't heard anyone say they want to eat wolves. They just want to kill them. Indeed, they can't even wait to kill them. They have already decided that a tag to shoot a wolf should be $9.75 (how they arrived at this figure would make an interesting research project). Our governor boasts that he would like to be the first one to shoot a wolf (at the moment it is illegal to hunt them but he and his ilk can't wait until it is possible). Maybe we should have a law that says it you shoot one you should have to eat it (and pay taxes).

The food tax also discriminates against the obese. If you are unconscionably fat you no doubt eat more that those who are not. Thus you also pay more in food taxes. Is that fair? Why should fat people have to pay more taxes than skinny people? There is also the question of age discrimination. Why should old people pay fewer food taxes than others? Old people don't eat as much food to begin with, so aren't they already getting a tax break? Maybe we could have a system wherein you pay more food taxes on foods that are not good for you than on those that are good for you. Pork ribs would have a big tax, salmon not so much. We could have a special committee down there in Boise to determine which is which. One other observation, if they can tax us for a basic necessity like food, why not tax us for water, or even the air we breath? Good grief! Don't give them any ideas (I'm sure they already have these ideas, they'll be coming along soon under the Bush/Cheney privatization conspiracy. When you hear the word privatization, guard your wallet with your life.

I hope you can see the potentials here for more and more bureacratic nonsense and a continuation of an absolutely ridiculous and discriminatory tax. The possibilities are endless. I have a simple suggestion: GET RID OF THE FOOD TAX COMPLETELY, COME TO YOUR SENSES, STOP DISCRIMINATING AGAINST THE POOR. How to do this? Well, how about a tax on services? Poor people don't require as many services. How about an increase in property taxes (no, don't die of heart failure), poor people don't own much property. I'm certain there are other possibilities as well. Whatever you do, don't allow them to kill the King's deer without paying taxes!

Would someone kindly explain to me why our local rag, The Spokesman Review, saw fit to have a front page headline and story entitled "Lobbyist takes Bible to Boise?" Some absolute nitwit ultra rightist fool believes the bible is going to tell us how to run our country?" He actually claims that "If you've got a question about science or even math, they'll (the bible) give you an answer." "Religion can guide all policies, he says," is the subheading. It's bad enough that such people actually exist, but to give them front page coverage is, as far as I now, totally unprecedented (to say nothing of stupid beyond belief). Why do I continue to subscribe to this piece of crap? It's the only game in town.

This fits in nicely with Cheney's claim that the Iraqi "war" is a "remarkable achievement." It certainly is that. The worst foreign policy blunder by far in all of U.S history by the worst gang of war criminals ever assembled in the Western world.