Badmovies.org Forum

Saving Lives by Taxing Alcohol  (http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2010/10/24/saving_lives_by_taxing_alcohol/)


Ugh. Op Ed in yesterdays globe talking about how great the alcohol tax is. Meanwhile, there already is a tax on it!





Imagine having to read stuff like this in your local papers Op ED





probably because people are cutting OTHER purchases because THEY LOVE TO DRINK




if that program is so important why not cut something else to continue paying for it? and "dedicated" sounds like a weasel word. I kind of doubt every cent of that goes to these programs.



what do you hate kids, broke alkie ??





college kids party with their parents money.




if we didn't have cars there'd be no car deaths either.

bottom line: This thing was put in effect to make up for budget shortfalls not all this other stuff. This guys article is all window dressing.   :hatred:



 :cheers:



If you want to see some REALLY p**sed off people check out th comments on the article.

We had a pretty infamous moment a year or so ago where the government put a higher tax on alco-pops [you know, the mixed drinks of say vodka mixed with lemonade type drinks] so as to discourage kids from binge drinking as much.  They wanted it to stop teens drinking but all it did was encourage them to buy bottles of vodka and the like and mix themselves, therefore resulting in worse drinking, because at least the alcopops had a standard drink in them each, whereas it seems that kids mixed more alcohol faster.

In sum, it didn't work, and had the tax had to be taken back. Kind of reminds me of what's going on here.  Especially with kids, they will find a way to get drunk.

So the moral of the story is that people will continue to buy booze, no matter how much it is, or as you say, will probably cut other purchases for the love of the booze!

tax was overturned  :cheers:

 :cheers:

 prohibitionist LTTE in todays paper (http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/letters/articles/2010/11/05/yes_on_question_1_spells_misery_for_the_vulnerable/) .

This article reminded me of the time in South Africa where no one questioned the fact that Benson and Hedges sponsored a yearly cricket series or that Gunston cigarettes sponsored a surfing tournament. That is like a farting or coughing contest sponsored by a laxative product: you would be too scared to fart or cough.  :tongueout: :teddyr:

Actually, while not defending the structure of this particular tax (about which I know nothing), vice taxes make a lot of sense in theory.  Alcohol abuse creates third party costs to society, from lost productivity at work to dangerous highways to violent crime.  Yet prohibiting alcohol entirely is both unfair and counterproductive.  As a responsible drinker I don't mind helping to pay down those costs by paying a few extra dimes per bottle of beer.   :cheers:

I sincerely doubt the money was being used exclusively to fund rehab programs and such or to somehow make up for costs incurred by alcohol abuse. People drink so the state figured they aren't going to stop so it's safe to tax.

Doesn't matter to me.  Yeah, earmarking doesn't work. The idea is alcohol indirectly causes X dollars damage to society, ideally alcohol taxes raise exactly X dollars, then society spends the money on libraries or public schools or rehab centers or whatever it sees fit. 

They don't spend it on those things either, they spend it on massive pensions for themselves and junk no one needs. We ar talking about drinking problems but they have a spending problem, increased revenues make it worse.


Besides,  there is already an excise tax in place. I can appreciate the general sentiment of taxing us for the stuff we use sort of thing though. We pay taxes on gas to keep up the roads, that makes perfect sense.

Well correct me if I'm wrong, but the impression I got from the original post was that they were putting another tax on alcohol, on top of the one already on it.  Double dipping if you will/raising the tax.  Might be just a general goods and services tax though [not sure how the American system works sorry].

I don't necessarily object to raising the tax except for the fact that it raises prices which annoys me, but it was proven here that it doesn't stop people drinking so it's essentially a grab for more money, especially if, again, there was already a tax on it to begin with.

To be fair, Alcoholism is much more rampant than any other addiction in the U.S.

Werd...it did a number on my family as I have the disease on both sides of my family. 

I seem to to be the only one who really broke the chain and didn't succumb to it. I asked myself if I wanted to wind up like my parents and\or some of my relatives, and the answer was a resounding no. 

I get a lot of flack from these "don't judge it if you never tried it" types, but seeing what it did to my family (and how Hollywood stars drop like flies from their own addictions) I feel I have more that a right to an opinion.

old article on tax (http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2010/02/28/states_liquor_stores_feeling_ill_effects_of_taxes_downturn/)


if you read this article from february you see no mention of rehab programs.  




does anyone think they are going to spend 80 million dollars on rehab programs????



bob bliss ladies and gentlemen

I don't think you should be so hung up on the money going directly to rehab programs.  I'm not sure rehab is a very effective way to deal with the effects of alcohol abuse anyway. 

Are you upset because someone somewhere once claimed the money would be going exclusively to alcohol rehab programs, or because you think that's the only possible justification for an increase in alcohol taxes? 
 
Yeah, it sucked when the price of cigarettes went up here recently and I understand that some of the revenue will be wasted.  But I also understand smokers and drinkers indirectly cost society money and I feel we're fair game.  It's better than a hike in the general sales tax, for sure.

It's just not something I can identify with getting outraged about.

"Dear God, hope you got the letter and
I pray you can make it better down here:
I don't mean a big reduction in the price of beer..."

the guy in the first article is going on about how this is going to affect rehab programs, but the money doesn't go to rehab programs and I don't see it going towards anything even indirectly related to drinking. It's just another tax. What about the morality of governments spending too much? or can they just spend whatever they want with no limits?

at any rate, the people have spoken and there is now not an ADDITIONAL tax on beer on top of the one that was already in place.

Of course, many people are already in the habit of going over the border to New Hampshire and this will liekly continue so if you own a liquor store near the border the damage has likely been done.

Lester, you live in MA?  That's the worst possible place in the US to live for someone who hates big government.  Have you ever considered moving? 

alot of people ARE leaving but no I like it here. we have excellent sports teams and restaurants.


Not Yours to Give (http://mises.org/media/3199)

Well, lester1/2jr, or anybody else for that matter, if you are unhappy where you are living then come to Texas, as we're going to need all the money you all bring with you. For next year, 2011, when the Texas state legislature meets, they are going to have to reduce the state budget by $18 billion. The problem with that, is almost half of the reduction is unnecessary, for last year, when the Texas state legislature last met, to look good, the Texas state government reduced taxes. Actually, they reduced one tax and added another tax. But the problem with that was . . . many of those who supported a tax reduction knew that the new tax would not make up for the shortfall in the reduction of the other tax. Now instead of a shortfall in the state budget of $10 billion, we have a budget shortfall of $18 billion. And there is no way on God's green earth, in the long run, that size of a budget reduction won't negatively impact the Texas state government, which will in the long run negatively effect the citizens of Texas, who keep--for some reason--electing these people, who voted for the tax reduction, election after election.