Senate advances phased rollback of state food sales tax after extended debate

The Utah Senate on Feb. 16 advanced a second substitute to Senate Bill 22 that would phase out the state portion of the sales tax on food over three years. Under the floor substitute described by the sponsor, the first year would provide a $40 per-person credit against state income tax, the second year a $80 per-person credit, and the third year would remove the tax at the cash register.

Sponsor arguments: Senator Waddups (floor sponsor) said the change would put money directly back into citizens' pockets and could spur the state's economy at a time of slowing growth. "This is one step that we can do that with," the sponsor said on the floor, urging colleagues that the cut would be visible to constituents.

Opposition and equity concerns: Opponents stressed that the proposal is regressive and that many large, low‑income families do not pay state income tax and therefore would not benefit proportionately. Senator Yolster argued: "This is a tax on whether you're poor, rich, or in between. There's no way to get away from it. It's a tax that the lowest of our member of society do pay because they have to eat." Senator Petersen, offering a sardonic take, said simply, "I eat. And I therefore pay sales tax on food," to underscore the universality of the tax.

Fiscal figures: During floor debate senators cited fiscal‑note estimates. One floor speaker cited an $89,000,000 estimated impact in the second year and roughly $140,000,000 in the third year; senators debated whether the state could absorb those reductions without cutting programs or adjusting growth assumptions. Committee and leadership remarks on the floor emphasized the need to prioritize fiscal-note bills before the end of the week.

Vote and next steps: The second substitute was advanced to the third‑reading calendar as announced by the clerk on the floor; the announced roll-call (as recorded on the floor) was 16 'aye', 10 'nay' and 3 absent. The bill will return to the floor for third-reading consideration where final passage or further amendment would occur.

Why it matters: The measure would materially affect state revenue projection and household spending if enacted. The Senate debate centered on trade-offs between immediate consumer relief and longer-term budgetary constraints, and it drew sustained floor attention because of the fiscal magnitude cited during debate.

What remains unresolved: Final fiscal reconciliation, distributional analysis for low‑income households and any implementing language for local sales-tax shields (the substitute removed local budget impacts from the substitute as presented on the floor).