Concerned about economic development and taxes in Maine? Know two facts: ttttt t 1. Maine ranks dead last in research and development expenditure according to the Corporation for Enterprise Development. (Being 50th in R&D in the 21st century is like being dead last in railroad construction in the 1800s.)

2. Maine’s highest marginal income tax rate kicks in at $17,700 per year. That’s not a typo. The state of Maine gouges a single mom working full time, for not much over minimum wage, to the tune of 8.5 percent of her hard-earned $17,700 – the highest rate. Winston Churchill and Teddy Roosevelt were right to support progressive income taxation. Unfortunately, Maine’s income tax system is regressive, not progressive. It’s an injustice. A biting (and frequently spot on) Maine commentator wrote last year that: “Property taxes are not even close to being the biggest problem with Maine’s tax structure.”

In truth, the property tax relief package is a good step forward for which the governor and the special tax committee are to be highly commended. But, whether it’s property tax reform, income taxes, or R&D, the toughest question is not what to do (i.e. improve Maine’s bad rating). The real question is how to pay for it all.

Here’s an answer that works politically and in policy.

Some call taxes on alcohol, soda and cigarettes “sin taxes.” I don’t. A “sin” is cutting needed services to children with mental disabilities. A “sin” is cutting taxes for unemployed multi-millionaire trust-fund babies while millions of children with working parents are denied health care. Mentally ill children and people living with severe disabilities are easy targets come budget time because they are not represented by big-time lobbyists and campaign contributors. Harming vulnerable people is a “sin”. Having a pop, “a pop,” or even a smoke, is not a sin.

True, studies prove that excessive soda consumption is a key factor in increased obesity – leading to diabetes, cancer, and cardiac death. True, alcohol, in excess, leads to cancer, mental impairment, and, often, domestic violence. Yet moderation is possible. Cigarettes are addictive, but they are a dangerous, often deadly, mistake, not a sin. So let’s stop calling them sin taxes. Who’s a sinner anyway? A Rum & Coke drinkin’, Marlboro smokin’ lounge singer? Or tea-totaling shill who make excuses for corporations that exploit children and pollute our land?

‘Nuf said. Besides, the lounge singer is probably more fun at a party.

However, soda, alcohol and cigarettes are – most definitely – frills. Property taxes, by contrast, are imposed on a necessity, your shelter. Income taxes are imposed on a

necessity, the rewards of work to feed your family.

So here’s some economic theory: Hold down necessity taxes. Tax frills. Taxing these frills will generate enough revenue to: 1) allow Maine’s top marginal rate only to kick in at a much-higher income than $17,700; 2) decrease Maine’s too-high top marginal rate to 8 percent; and 3) have funds left over to protect abused children and people living with disabilities.

We all want frills. I do anyway, but we can pay a little more for frills in order to meet necessities. When taxes increase on alcohol, cigarettes, and soda, adults buy these items at much the same rate. But studies show youth consumption of these items decreases as the price at the counter increases. That’s a great result.

This has nothing to do with sin, and everything to do with public health and with meeting necessities integral to a just, economically thriving society. Remember: Obesity’s cost to our health system? Billions. Alcohol’s cost to our society? Billions. Smoking’s cost to society? Billions. If you’re a fiscal conservative, you love these taxes.

You’ve seen politicians hold press conferences calling for something popular – to be paid for with “economies” and “efficiencies.” Often, after the reporters have left, we find out “efficiencies” means hacking necessary services to the mentally ill, abused children, and people living with severe disabilities. These services are necessities. Are abused children worth less than a few cents on a soda can? Are abused children worth less than a buck or two when buying a round at the bar?

The frill tax concept is smart policy. For example, tax hotel visits. Millions of tourists visit Maine. And don’t tell me tourists analyze lodging taxes before deciding. At Christmas I went out of state. The lodging tax in that state was higher than Maine’s tax. When I decided on a vacation, I sought attractions and people to visit, not lodging

tax spreadsheets. So tax this frill too.

Now … research and development. Yeah, that’s where I started. It’s a necessity, and if you don’t think so, you probably still wear a fedora. Maine is either a state of the future, or a state of the past. Being last in R&D makes Maine a state of the past – for now. I’m confident our governor will lead us to invest Maine’s excellent bond capacity in research and development. Anything less is running blindfolded. Until Maine becomes competitive in R&D, we’ll continue to see more young people moving out of Maine than moving in. R&D is the path to a higher average state income. When average income rises, it is easier to hold down tax rates through a broader distribution of the burden.

Taxing frills can pay for a decrease in the income tax and protect the vulnerable. Got a better idea? Let’s discuss it over a beer. We may pay a few more cents on the bottle, but our income taxes will be lower, economy stronger and our children safer.

Now that’s a good deal! We cancelebrate with another round.

Sean Faircloth is a Democratic state representative from Bangor.