Wasting nary a moment studying the difference between a Butterfinger and a Nestle Crunch, Initiative 1107 promoters are trying to repeal a law that taxes the former but not the latter. I-1107 targets what is known more popularly as the soda pop tax, largely because the American Beverage Association has pumped more than $1 million into supporting it. But for reasons described by Cami Joner in a Sunday Columbian story, the new law might just as well be called the candy tax.
For a month now, sales tax has been applied to many (but not all) candy products as well as bottled water. On Thursday, the sales tax will be applied to soda pop. This will yield about $300 million over three years for a state facing chronic budget shortfalls. I-1107 supporters say they’ll turn in 340,000 petition signatures on Friday, to cover the 241,153 required to get on the Nov. 2 ballot.
It’s easy to understand why so many people would sign I-1107 petitions. In addition to surging the state into the food-taxing arena, there’s the unfunded mandate. At the Plaid Pantry chain, staff members spent several days entering 2,000 candy bar codes into point-of-sale equipment. At Fred Meyer, 20 workers from three departments worked long hours setting up the stores for taxable candy. This unfunded mandate of private-sector work is caused by the fact that candy that contains flour is exempt, but others are not.
Beyond the big boys, imagine the burden this places on mom-and-pop stores. “It’s really complicated,” said Yong Kim, owner and operator of a convenience store in east Vancouver. Some help has been provided by candy sales representatives, but Kim said, when in doubt, he rings up the tax. Obviously that’s unfair to the consumer, this clumsy over-collection of taxes, but who can blame the overworked store operator?