Candy tax bill full of flaws

As we all know, our state is facing a serious budget deficit. We need a comprehensive solution to the budget shortfall, not a band-aid approach. Unfortunately, the proposal to tax Washington-made products like Aplets & Cotlets, Almond Roca and Fran’s Chocolates, just to name a few, doesn’t come close to solving the deficit, yet it will hurt an already struggling local confectionery industry.

This discriminatory sales tax will have an immediate impact on our state’s many confectionery businesses like Liberty Orchards, Brown & Haley and Boehm’s Candies that have been manufacturing and selling confections in Washington for almost 100 years.

These economic times have been a great challenge for our company, and the same is true for many of our industry partners. Taxing our products at this time will increase the price of our products compared with other dessert and snack options and will only create a greater hardship – a hardship that will be shared with our 150 employees and our many customers.

In addition to the impact on the business of candy, the tax proposal is discriminatory as well as confusing. Some legislators are singling out candy because they say candy is not a food. Tell that to the producers of dairy products, peanuts, almonds, walnuts, cocoa, vanilla, apples, cherries, blueberries, strawberries, cranberries and the many other wonderful ingredients in our products that are absolutely foods, foods that in certain combinations provide a small, affordable treat in life. These same ingredients are also in ice cream, brownies, peanut butter cookies and cherry pie, yet those foods would not be taxed.

And to add further to this nonsensical tax, the legislation proposes a “definition” for candy products that’s not as simple as one might think. The line between “candy” and “snack” is becoming increasingly blurred. For example, our company is introducing a new healthy snack bar, which would be defined as candy by this legislation, and yet it’s mostly made with fruits (many of which are grown locally) and fruit concentrates, nuts, seeds and soy. The candy definition would also exclude candies made with flour, so while a chocolate-covered cherry made by Chukar Cherries in Yakima (using cherries grown in Washington) or a Liberty Orchard Fruit and Nut Delight would be taxed, a chocolate-covered pretzel would not.

The complexity of the definition will cause very real collection and enforcement problems at the retail level, especially for retailers lacking scanning equipment. It makes more sense from a tax policy standpoint to treat all food the same.

Finally, let’s face it, taxes on any food items are among the most regressive taxes in America. Low-income persons spend a larger portion of their income on food purchases than do the more affluent. Not surprisingly, food taxes are the least popular taxes with voters. Now we’ll have a regressive tax that targets consumers who enjoy an occasional Aplet, a Valentine’s box of chocolates or jelly beans at Easter.

It’s a stop-gap measure that doesn’t address the true budget woes facing our state.

Sadly, this tax is being pushed through the Washington Legislature before too many constituents know that one of their favorite, inexpensive small pleasures in life is about to become more expensive.