Alcohol tax - the necessary evil? 29 replies

Please wait...

WarHawk109

From the Austrian School

50 XP

21st July 2003

0 Uploads

2,926 Posts

0 Threads

#11 13 years ago

i hate how when politicians have budget difficulties they can only think "hmmm we must not be taxing people enough!" it's almost never "gee maybe we are spending too much money?"




SilentHitz

When in doubt...KILL IT!!

50 XP

24th June 2005

0 Uploads

937 Posts

0 Threads

#12 13 years ago
WarHawk109;3385920i hate how when politicians have budget difficulties they can only think "hmmm we must not be taxing people enough!" it's almost never "gee maybe we are spending too much money?"

Now why in the world would the govt. start thinking logically now???:lol: they haven't done that in decades!:rolleyes:




MrFancypants Forum Admin

The Bad

217,758 XP

7th December 2003

0 Uploads

20,029 Posts

9 Threads

#13 13 years ago
WarHawk109;3385873Okay 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.

Sure, but the companies can't pass on such taxes one to one to the customer without ruinig their business. As long as the government does it right and decreases consumption with taxes in such a way that damages from abuse are covered I don't mind such actions.

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

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.

Well, that depends on what kind of insurace-system your country has. In many European countries the government has to support health-insurances to keep them from falling apart, so they carry a good part of the costs that result from abuse of drugs. Besides, even if you wouldn't have state-funded health-insurance there would be some damage to an economy because of drug-abuse, especially if you happen to have a population that abuses them a lot. Things get really ugly if there is already a lot of abuse as taxes are less effective in those cases. Look at Russia, some weeks ago self-brewed vodka killed several hundred villagers as they'd rather risk poisoning themselves than paying the price of a standard-vodka. So what do they have to do now? Get back to producing a "people's vodka", which probably won't help them getting their problem under control either.

It just isn't moral or ethical. ;)

Neither are the companies who sell soft-drugs ;)




the1chaos VIP Member

I pretend to do stuff.

100,595 XP

16th January 2004

0 Uploads

9,047 Posts

0 Threads

#14 13 years ago

Well, there are two voices shouting in my head.

The first is the rational me. Alcohol taxes bring in a lot of money to the governament. Money which is needed a lot. Also, it reduces the number of people drinking a lot, which is good also.

The other voice is college student me, who wants his alcohol cheap and doesn't like having to pay €1,80 for a beer in some bar.

In the end, my rational side wins. Alcohol taxes are good. I don't want them to rise even more over here, though.




Cloak Raider

Awkward...

50 XP

12th March 2006

0 Uploads

3,398 Posts

0 Threads

#15 13 years ago

I guess if it stops people from buying as much alcohol as before and causing damage to property, then its good. But there is the possibility that it will eventually drive it underground. Or people just go to a country where there is no tax and alcohol.




Relander

Ambassador

50 XP

8th April 2005

0 Uploads

2,538 Posts

0 Threads

#16 13 years ago

PethegreatI 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.[/quote] Finnish studies concerning the alcohol consumption in Finland show that raising/lowering the alcohol tax has direct effect on the consumption of alcohol products and I believe this is a general trend in the world.

[quote=WarHawk109]i think people should be free to do as they wish as long as they aren't harming anyone.

But there's the catch: alcohol indirectly causes harm for other people in the form of domestic violence, fights in night clubs etc, drunken driving and extra payment for tax payers.

I fully support alcohol tax. It's a good way for the government to get money for important public programs such as education, motivate people for more healthy living habbits and pay for the treatment of the ones who abuse alcohol. Total ban doesn't work and isn't right for responsible users so I see taxation of alcohol as realistic option. The government must continue a strict stance towards alcohol now and in the future and taxing it is justified. Without any taxation, the consumption of alcohol would heavily increase like many problems surrounding it such as mentioned domestic violence, depression and falling out from the society.




WarHawk109

From the Austrian School

50 XP

21st July 2003

0 Uploads

2,926 Posts

0 Threads

#17 13 years ago
MrFancypants;3385970Sure, but the companies can't pass on such taxes one to one to the customer without ruinig their business. As long as the government does it right and decreases consumption with taxes in such a way that damages from abuse are covered I don't mind such actions.

That's not necessarily true. I don't believe consumers would stop buying alcohol just because of a sin tax, Canada has some of the highest sin taxes in the world, but people still buy a lot of booze. Still though, even if you are right that cost doesn't go nowhere, it still has to be paid by people either directly (investor's) or indirectly (the effect of having less money being freely traded in the economy).

Well, that depends on what kind of insurace-system your country has. In many European countries the government has to support health-insurances to keep them from falling apart, so they carry a good part of the costs that result from abuse of drugs.

You see though, if i had it my way there would be no such thing, hense my "people shouldn't have to pay for others mistakes" comment.

I don't think you should have to pay for my medical bill when i have a skiing accident for instance.

Besides, even if you wouldn't have state-funded health-insurance there would be some damage to an economy because of drug-abuse, especially if you happen to have a population that abuses them a lot. Things get really ugly if there is already a lot of abuse as taxes are less effective in those cases. Look at Russia, some weeks ago self-brewed vodka killed several hundred villagers as they'd rather risk poisoning themselves than paying the price of a standard-vodka. So what do they have to do now? Get back to producing a "people's vodka", which probably won't help them getting their problem under control either.

You are missing my point though, yes there are negative things that happen with the drinking of alcohol, my point is that people shouldn't be coerced into paying for them.

Neither are the companies who sell soft-drugs ;)

Why not?

But there's the catch: alcohol indirectly causes harm for other people in the form of domestic violence, fights in night clubs etc, drunken driving and extra payment for tax payers.

Are spoons indirectly responsible for making people fat?




Cloak Raider

Awkward...

50 XP

12th March 2006

0 Uploads

3,398 Posts

0 Threads

#18 13 years ago

He has a point, it is not the alcohol that causes violence, but the person himself/herself. If it is taken in moderation, there are no problems. Its only when people start drinking too much of it do the problems arise. Its all about self control.




Relander

Ambassador

50 XP

8th April 2005

0 Uploads

2,538 Posts

0 Threads

#19 13 years ago

WarHawk109Are spoons indirectly responsible for making people fat?[/QUOTE] Like it would be the same thing. People drink alcohol and some take it too much, causing many problems such as domestic violence. Without the use of alcohol, these kind of problems would occur less likely. Do you think these problems are "okay"?

[quote=Cloak Raider]He has a point, it is not the alcohol that causes violence, but the person himself/herself. If it is taken in moderation, there are no problems. Its only when people start drinking too much of it do the problems arise. Its all about self control.

It's always about the person him/herself, but it isn't so darn simple, people are influenced by various things. Guns make it easier to kill people. Stealing money without the risk of getting caught increases the chance of stealing. Depression makes it more likely people to not seek work. Nicotine dependency makes you want to smoke cigarette etc.

The point is that human isn't a machine or all mighty god of him/herself. The conditions and other people shape the life of an individual greatly and alcohol is one block in the big picture: it indirectly causes many problems in the society and turns some people to make stupid things. There's no problem with moderate use and over-use causes problems though your post didn't contribute anything new to my thinking. The issue is with the ones who can't/don't drink the alcohol properly, not alcohol in general.




WarHawk109

From the Austrian School

50 XP

21st July 2003

0 Uploads

2,926 Posts

0 Threads

#20 13 years ago

do you drink relander?