I know it’s not at all the same thing, but when I read that Representative Catherine Mulholland from Grafton has a proposal to tax candy in the state of New Hampshire, I conjure up images of Mr. Goodbars floating in Portsmouth Harbor.
While Mulholland’s proposal is intended to bring revenue into the state (she also wants to increase taxes on beer, cigarettes, bottled drinks, and show admissions), not everyone is thrilled by the idea.
My favorite reaction came from a live-free-or-dier by the name of John Babiarz, who said:
The ultimate insult is now some poor grandmother is going to have to pay tax on candy to give to the grandson. I think there’s something wrong with that. You might as well have a Santa Claus tax at that.
Taking the opposite view:
‘Yes I’d support the candy tax,’ said another resident, ‘because it’s a discretionary item. Kids don’t have to eat candy; they can eat cantaloupe, apples and bananas.’
Note that we don’t get that New Hampshireite’s name. That’s probably to protect him or her from being egged on Halloween.
Other residents point out that as stamps would have to be affixed to each individual piece of candy, putting this idea into effect would be quite laborious. However, the bill’s proponents have a view that the state’s current tax situation is unfair, and note, “It’s the opening of a dialogue. There has to be some method of funding this state other than property taxes.”
Maybe they can make root canals taxable?
The idea of a physical stamp tax on candy seems ridiculous. But unless there’s something in New Hampshire law that forbids it doesn’t seem unreasonable to create a variable sales tax based on price that applies to candy. Our national sales tax in Canada applies only to certain junk food items and not otherwise to groceries, and stores are perfectly capable of charging the different tax amounts for different types of items.
The ultimate insult is a 2 cent tax on a packet of m&m’s?