A state Senate subcommittee is studying ways to cut property taxes and give homeowners relief. So far, the focus has been on substituting a higher sales tax to make up for cuts in property taxes.

Senate President Pro Tem Glenn McConnell said last week that a bill will be written by year's end that would increase the state sales tax by two or three cents on the dollar. It also would decrease the sales tax on food, increase the sales tax cap on cars and eliminate property taxes on vehicles altogether.

We agree that the sales tax on food should be reduced and that the sales tax cap on cars should be raised. In fact, why not eliminate both?

But we fear that shifting the burden from property taxes to sales taxes would hit lower-income taxpayers hardest. It has long been established that the poor pay a higher proportion of their family income on sales taxes than middle- and upper-income taxpayers. That is the case even if sales taxes on food and medicine are not factored in.

Supporters of property tax relief point to the plight of elderly homeowners on fixed incomes whose property taxes continue to rise as the value of their homes increases. That is a genuine problem for many, especially those who live in cities where property values have skyrocketed in recent years.

But, as a group, retirees rank among the more economically well off segments of the population. While they may be on fixed incomes, many no longer are making mortgage payments, or supporting children, expenses borne by many younger taxpayers.

While taxpayers at all levels might welcome a reduction in property taxes, they might soon balk at paying higher sales taxes. And, with an increase in the tax of two to three cents on the dollar, over the long haul, customers will take notice at the cash register.

Supporters of a sales-tax hike also note that it would ensure that tourists and illegal immigrants help foot the bill for public services. But the existing sales tax already ensures that. Furthermore, in addition to state sales taxes, the cities of Rock Hill and York also collect a 2 percent levy on food prepared in restaurants and by caterers. Taxpayers in York County pay a penny sales tax for road improvements. And those who stay in local hotels and motels also pay an occupancy tax.

At least some disinterested experts say that South Carolina's tax burden is about average. One welcome aspect is that the Palmetto State's revenues are based on a "three-legged stool": Property taxes, sales taxes and income taxes. Of the three, the property tax is the least affected by fluctuations in the economy, which is another reason why we shouldn't be in a rush to do away with it altogether. Alternatives are available for reducing the pain on residents who have problems meeting their tax bills. One way is to create exemptions for citizens whose property taxes exceed a certain percentage of their income. The state already grants partial exemptions from school taxes.

The sales tax also comes with its own headaches. The state of New Jersey, for example, recently redefined several items to determine whether they would be taxed or not. Halloween costumes now are considered clothing, which isn't taxed, but masks sold separately will be. A Tootsie Roll is no longer taxed as candy, but iced tea and Gatorade are taxed the same as carbonated soda.

Who needs disputes like that?

Finally, higher sales taxes are likely to drive consumers to the Internet, where they can avoid sales taxes altogether. That would be bad news for both the state Treasury and for South Carolina merchants.

The fact is, there is no free lunch. Lowering property taxes and raising sales taxes presents a whole new set of problems and increased burdens on certain segments of the population.

Lawmakers need to be frank about whom this so-called tax relief will help and whom it will hurt.