Ravenwood - 07/29/05 06:30 AM
Oregonian leftists are pushing for a beer tax. Legislators claim that the 10-cent per beer tax would be diverted to anti-drinking and substance abuse social programs. Supporters are lashing out against big beer.
Cheap beer creates serious problems: teen binge drinking, alcoholism, homelessness, violence and driving deaths. Small cost increases drastically reduce these problems.How elitest can you get? We can save 100 lives by pricing the poor, the undesirable, and minorities out of the market. But why stop at 10-cents a beer? Why not make it a buck? If 10 cents saves 100 lives, a dollar might save thousands. Better yet, why not just make beer illegal?RAND estimates this dime-a-drink cost increase would save 100 Oregon lives each year.
Category: Pleasure Police
Comments (10) top link me
Tried that once. Didn't work
Posted by: Sarge at July 29, 2005 7:00 AMWant to stop drunk driving?
Why not just make pot legal??
Posted by: countertop at July 29, 2005 8:50 AMYou have to understand, a good parasite does not actually kill the host organism.
Posted by: Brian J. at July 29, 2005 11:59 AMAmericans who believe in this tiring philosophy should move to Europe, where it holds even greater sway. Taxes should be imposed to pay for government's necessary expenses. They should not be used to promote one citizen's idea of the good society over another's: that is tyranny.
No one speaks for society; one can only speak for some against others. So the argument that a policy will improve society is a lying opinion from the start.
Posted by: Brett at July 29, 2005 3:07 PMSarge: Taxation has less negative consequences than outright prohibition. Many people who would violate the law if the stuff was banned would prefer to pay more and get it legally if that option is open, so taxation is less of an encouragement to lawbreaking. Also, prohibition requires taxing other things to get the money to pay the cops enforcing prohibition, while taxing booze at any but the highest levels should produce more money than is needed for enforcement.
OTOH, taxation is probably even less effective than prohibition at getting people to cut back on consumption.
Posted by: markm at July 29, 2005 4:29 PMMark,
There is obviously a sweet spot for taxation. At some price point, people will start to evade the tax, just as they have done with cigarettes.
Higher taxes may mean more revenue or less revenue, depending on how hard it is to avoid the tax, and how much profit is in it. I would imagine that businesses in border towns will be hurt as people hop to the next state over to buy cheaper beer and bring it home.
If the tax is too high, the criminal element and organized crime will switch from running drugs to alcohol. The profit margins are probably still lower, but then so are the penalties.
Posted by: Ravenwood at July 29, 2005 4:56 PMHas it occurred to these asshats that beer is legal to produce without a license and that taxing legitimate business will simply drive people to make their own beer? The oldest known recipe in the world is a recipe for Ale. How hard do they think this stuff is to produce? A "ten-cent per beer tax" (times about 12 beers it might take you to get trashed is $1.20, plus sales tax, the cost of the beer itself and the mark-up you'll get in any bar) would be just enough to convince me to make my own, and I don't even like beer!
Posted by: matt groom at July 29, 2005 5:58 PMSo they just start taxing barley, hops, and yeast.
Posted by: Ravenwood at July 29, 2005 6:03 PMUmm . . . Yeah. I will continue to drink beer no matter what the price.
This is a stupid tax on the poor. I hate taxes!!!
Posted by: politicalpie at July 29, 2005 11:30 PMMatt Groom, I have one bit of good news for you. If you are like me, when you hit 50, it will no longer take you anywhere near 12 beers to get trashed.
(c) Ravenwood and Associates, 1990 - 2014