Alcohol tax - the necessary evil? 29 replies

Please wait...

Relander

Ambassador

50 XP

7th April 2005

0 Uploads

2,538 Posts

0 Threads

#1 11 years ago

Alcohol is great enjoyment or the great satan for many and some people simply don't care about it. As it's consumed much and as the government is interested about it, alcohol is taxed. Taxing alcohol and other soft enjoyment products (like cigarettes) is quite popular source of income amongst western democracies & it reduces the use of it but for many people, taxing alcohol is just wrong.

Is the alcohol tax the necessary evil? Is drinking a problem in your country? What the government could & should do regarding the negatives & positives with King Alcohol? Tell your thoughts




Pethegreat VIP Member

Lord of the Peach

70 XP

19th April 2004

0 Uploads

20,892 Posts

0 Threads

#2 11 years ago

I don't see a problem with a tax on alcohol. It is not something you need like food or clothes, so I don't see a problem with taxing it. The more money people choose to give the goverment, the less the govmerment has to pry from my paycheck.

I don't think it reduces the number of people drinking. Beer is cheap. Unless you only have $10 to your name, you can afford a case of beer or a bottle of hard alcohol.

The only chage I would have made to the US goverment's policy on alcohol would be to lower the drinking age to 18. You can get drafted and die for your contry 10,000 miles from home, but you can't have a beer.




WarHawk109

From the Austrian School

50 XP

21st July 2003

0 Uploads

2,926 Posts

0 Threads

#3 11 years ago

if it's just the same consumption tax as everything else i'm fine with it, but i am totally against sin taxes, it's just another form of social engineering. i think people should be free to do as they wish as long as they aren't harming anyone.




Pethegreat VIP Member

Lord of the Peach

70 XP

19th April 2004

0 Uploads

20,892 Posts

0 Threads

#4 11 years ago
I think people should be free to do as they wish as long as they aren't harming anyone.

It does not cost the government nothing to replace the liver of some old guy on medicare who likes to drink alot. With the current system, they need money.

If a consumption tax would come up, then I would remove the special tax on alcohol.

Rebemer warhawk, you can legally make your own beer or dago red and not pay a cent in taxes




WarHawk109

From the Austrian School

50 XP

21st July 2003

0 Uploads

2,926 Posts

0 Threads

#5 11 years ago

Pethegreat;3385670It does not cost the government nothing to replace the liver of some old guy on medicare who likes to drink alot. With the current system, they need money.

If a consumption tax would come up, then I would remove the special tax on alcohol.

Rebemer warhawk, you can legally make your own beer or dago red and not pay a cent in taxes

what business does the gov't have to replace livers?

If you drink a lot and you need a new kidney others should not be forced to pay for your own mistake.




MrFancypants Forum Admin

The Bad

216,579 XP

7th December 2003

0 Uploads

19,982 Posts

6 Threads

#6 11 years ago
WarHawk109;3385680 If you drink a lot and you need a new kidney others should not be forced to pay for your own mistake.

That's the idea behind sin-taxes. The costs for rehabilitation of addicts and operations necessary because of abuse are even higher than the income from the taxes in some countries.

I think it depends how much of a problem alcohol represents in a country, taxes should at least cover the damage done to society by abuse of drugs as many soft-drug-companies have to kind of morality of their own (specifically targeting children etc.).




WarHawk109

From the Austrian School

50 XP

21st July 2003

0 Uploads

2,926 Posts

0 Threads

#7 11 years ago
MrFancypants;3385801That's the idea behind sin-taxes.

I don't see how. The tax is doing exactly what I said it does, forces people to pay for someone else's stupid mistake.




MrFancypants Forum Admin

The Bad

216,579 XP

7th December 2003

0 Uploads

19,982 Posts

6 Threads

#8 11 years ago
WarHawk109;3385822I don't see how. The tax is doing exactly what I said it does, forces people to pay for someone else's stupid mistake.

The general idea (/justification) was that the companies pay additioal taxes on the soft-drugs they produce instead having the people paying additional taxes to repair the damage caused by soft-drugs. Even so the costs for sending teenagers to clinics is higher than the income from those taxes.

You have of course people paying for it in both cases, but the general idea isn't so bad.




WarHawk109

From the Austrian School

50 XP

21st July 2003

0 Uploads

2,926 Posts

0 Threads

#9 11 years ago
MrFancypants;3385839The general idea (/justification) was that the companies pay additioal taxes on the soft-drugs they produce instead having the people paying additional taxes to repair the damage caused by soft-drugs.

Okay well here is the problem; companies will pass the cost on to the consumer, so in the end people still end up paying for other's mistake.

Also note that I do not think there is any damage caused that people should be compelled to pay for.

Even so the costs for sending teenagers to clinics is higher than the income from those taxes.

Another problem, note how I said earlier that it shouldn't be the business of gov't to replace kidney's, you're on your own if you mess up. I don't see your point here.

You have of course people paying for it in both cases, but the general idea isn't so bad.

It just isn't moral or ethical. ;)




Reno

The professional.

50 XP

21st March 2006

0 Uploads

1,312 Posts

0 Threads

#10 11 years ago

So everyone who likes to drink responsibly should be forced to pay for the one dumbass who needs a liver because he doesn't? Sounds like taxation without representation. In my state they're about to raise taxes on cigarettes up to $3 per pack. They're not doing it because its a sin or they need more money to take care of cancer patients. They're doing it because we have a problem funding the budget this year and the politicians don't think anyone will raise a fuss over a higher tax on cigarettes.