Alcohol tax - the necessary evil? 29 replies

Please wait...

Relander

Ambassador

50 XP

8th April 2005

0 Uploads

2,538 Posts

0 Threads

#21 13 years ago
WarHawk109do you drink relander?

Yes I do from time to time, used to drink more when I was at late classes of grammar school and high school. How about you?




MrFancypants Forum Admin

The Bad

217,757 XP

7th December 2003

0 Uploads

20,029 Posts

9 Threads

#22 13 years ago
WarHawk109;3386045That'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, the price dictates the consumption. It won't stop completly, but it will decrease in relation to the tax. I see your point, but it's impossible for me to say who of us has the better way as we don't have enough information.

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.

Well, that's another problem. State-funded health insurance has it's good and bad sides, the positive effect include that if I pay a part of your treatment if you have an accident this doesn't mean that you have to pay all of the costs which might destroy your ability to be of any advantage to the society in the future.

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.

The majority of companies doesn't know morality, so there is little you can do but coerce them.

Why not?

Because they seek profit, even if it's to the detriment of the population. An example would be targeting children, the most vulnerable target-group or adding sugar to cigarettes to make them more addictive.




WarHawk109

From the Austrian School

50 XP

21st July 2003

0 Uploads

2,926 Posts

0 Threads

#23 13 years ago

Yep I drink and I have fun with friends.

You see, if you drink and you do something bad while drunk, it's not the drink since you didn't have to have the drink in the first place, it's just a risk you have to accept and try to avoid.

MrFancypants;3386125Well, the price dictates the consumption. It won't stop completly, but it will decrease in relation to the tax. I see your point, but it's impossible for me to say who of us has the better way as we don't have enough information.

Please show me that it decreases in relation, because I just don't see it. Like I said, Canada has some of the highest sin taxes in the world (highest even, I think) yet I do not see this prevent people from drinking at all. It just isn't realistic.

Well, that's another problem. State-funded health insurance has it's good and bad sides, the positive effect include that if I pay a part of your treatment if you have an accident this doesn't mean that you have to pay all of the costs which might destroy your ability to be of any advantage to the society in the future.

So you admit that you will be paying for other's mistakes? :)

The majority of companies doesn't know morality, so there is little you can do but coerce them.

I don't see how it is the companies, they are just the vessel that meets a demand that is there. Drinking is a choice of the individual, not the company. If the demand was not there the company would not exist in the first place.

Because they seek profit, even if it's to the detriment of the population. An example would be targeting children, the most vulnerable target-group or adding sugar to cigarettes to make them more addictive.

As long as it is a free transaction with no coersion involved I cannot see how it is unethical or immoral.




Relander

Ambassador

50 XP

8th April 2005

0 Uploads

2,538 Posts

0 Threads

#24 13 years ago
WarHawk109You see, if you drink and you do something bad while drunk, it's not the drink since you didn't have to have the drink in the first place, it's just a risk you have to accept and try to avoid.

I still don't see a reason why we should not try to limit the negative sides or take advantage over pernicious product. Many people don't use alcohol properly which contributes to many issues in the society, even directly leading to them such as domestic violence: when a person is sober he comes along with his wife but once he takes too much alcohol (because he likes to drink it), he becomes violent and beats his wife.




MrFancypants Forum Admin

The Bad

217,757 XP

7th December 2003

0 Uploads

20,029 Posts

9 Threads

#25 13 years ago
WarHawk109;3386148Please show me that it decreases in relation, because I just don't see it. Like I said, Canada has some of the highest sin taxes in the world (highest even, I think) yet I do not see this prevent people from drinking at all. It just isn't realistic.

Well, find out how many people drink cheap beer and how many drink expensive beer and you have a relation. That gives only a crude measurement of course. I don't want to claim that the relation is the same for every country or linear, but it is there, for every product.

So you admit that you will be paying for other's mistakes? :)

I never denied it, as I said, both ways mean that you have to pay. Either a tax on alcohol or a tax on rehabilitation. Rehabilitation is more expensive, so a tax for the compaies is the way to go in some cases.

I don't see how it is the companies, they are just the vessel that meets a demand that is there. Drinking is a choice of the individual, not the company. If the demand was not there the company would not exist in the first place.

That's partially true (companies also influence demands), but doesn't mean that you can trust compaies to act in the best interest of a country. A tax can, if the preceding calculations were accurate, push customers and companies into a direction that creates a better end-result for everyone involved.

As long as it is a free transaction with no coersion involved I cannot see how it is unethical or immoral.

Trying to turn teenagers into alcoholics doesn't seem very ethical to me. Sure, the teenager agreed, but the company is abusing social factors and lack of information on the customer's side to create profit even though it's bad for society.




WarHawk109

From the Austrian School

50 XP

21st July 2003

0 Uploads

2,926 Posts

0 Threads

#26 13 years ago

MrFancypants;3386188Well, find out how many people drink cheap beer and how many drink expensive beer and you have a relation. That gives only a crude measurement of course. I don't want to claim that the relation is the same for every country or linear, but it is there, for every product.[/quote] proofplz

I never denied it, as I said, both ways mean that you have to pay.

Then my point is proven.

Either a tax on alcohol or a tax on rehabilitation. Rehabilitation is more expensive, so a tax for the compaies is the way to go in some cases.

What, no other choices?

I don't think we should have either.

That's partially true (companies also influence demands), but doesn't mean that you can trust compaies to act in the best interest of a country.

I never said we should.

Conversely I don't think you can trust gov't bureaucrats to act in the best interests of a nation either. :lol:

The point I am trying to make is that we shouldn't hand over the power to decide what is best for a nation to politicians. And that is exactly what taxation does, it takes away the choices of the individual.

A tax can, if the preceding calculations were accurate, push customers and companies into a direction that creates a better end-result for everyone involved.

And what is this "better end-result"?

Perhaps my better end-result is to be just left the **** alone? Maybe one of the reasons people go on rampages is because they just get tired of being backed into the corner with all these intrusive laws?

Trying to turn teenagers into alcoholics doesn't seem very ethical to me. Sure, the teenager agreed, but the company is abusing social factors and lack of information on the customer's side to create profit even though it's bad for society.

And in such a case it is the parents fault, not the business's.

[QUOTE=Relander;3386158]I still don't see a reason why we should not try to limit the negative sides or take advantage over pernicious product. Many people don't use alcohol properly which contributes to many issues in the society, even directly leading to them such as domestic violence: when a person is sober he comes along with his wife but once he takes too much alcohol (because he likes to drink it), he becomes violent and beats his wife.

The reason why we shouldn't is because it's intrusive in people's lives, it takes away choice.




Amy

Naughty

50 XP

28th October 2004

0 Uploads

3,443 Posts

0 Threads

#27 13 years ago

In the US, just think is pot was taxable, maybe I wouldnt smoke it as much lol. But tax on that other shit, people are gonna drink no matter what, just like if gas was 10 bucks a gallon, they would still drive. Right?




SilentHitz

When in doubt...KILL IT!!

50 XP

24th June 2005

0 Uploads

937 Posts

0 Threads

#28 13 years ago
AmySue;3386250In the US, just think is pot was taxable, maybe I wouldnt smoke it as much lol. But tax on that other shit, people are gonna drink no matter what, just like if gas was 10 bucks a gallon, they would still drive. Right?

Only if I was driving to ur' house.:naughty: Yea, yea, I'm off topic...again, sorry LOL:lol:




MrFancypants Forum Admin

The Bad

217,757 XP

7th December 2003

0 Uploads

20,029 Posts

9 Threads

#29 13 years ago
WarHawk109;3386214proofplz

I'm not so keen to work through reports of Canadia beer-companies, but maybe we can take a subsitute: German beer consumption per head is 131.7 l (http://www.xs4all.nl/~patto1ro/gerstats.htm). Wine consumption is 25l per capita(http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3723/is_n8_v9/ai_19948627)

Like I said, that is very crude, but most products have a relation between price and number of sales.

Then my point is proven.

Congratulations!

Conversely I don't think you can trust gov't bureaucrats to act in the best interests of a nation either. :lol:

Good point :) It really depends what kind of people you have in the companies or the government, if there are amoral bastards in both cases it gets really tricky.

The point I am trying to make is that we shouldn't hand over the power to decide what is best for a nation to politicians. And that is exactly what taxation does, it takes away the choices of the individual.

I agree, but you can't trust the individual or company to make the right choices either. The government-option works better if it's not politicans that make the decisions but independant institues that analyze the problem and come up with a solution.

And what is this "better end-result"?

In this case no damage or additioal costs for the nation because of soft-drug abuse. In an ideal scenario at least.

Perhaps my better end-result is to be just left the **** alone? Maybe one of the reasons people go on rampages is because they just get tired of being backed into the corner with all these intrusive laws?

Individual frustration about taxes shouldn't be the deciding factor though.

And in such a case it is the parents fault, not the business's.

I'm always open to new suggestions, how about a tax on bad parenting? ;)

Seriously though, not all parents can be good parents and peer-pressure or irresponsible kids can't be avoided.

Besides, it's not the fault of parents that the companies abuse the weakness., so their behaviour still seems rather unethical to me.




WarHawk109

From the Austrian School

50 XP

21st July 2003

0 Uploads

2,926 Posts

0 Threads

#30 13 years ago

MrFancypants;3386296I'm not so keen to work through reports of Canadia beer-companies, but maybe we can take a subsitute: German beer consumption per head is 131.7 l (http://www.xs4all.nl/~patto1ro/gerstats.htm). Wine consumption is 25l per capita(http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3723/is_n8_v9/ai_19948627)

Like I said, that is very crude, but most products have a relation between price and number of sales.

that's not exactly what I wanted, I wanted you to prove the relation between sin taxes and alcohol. Like I said, I don't see it. People are still going to drink a lot.

Congratulations!

My point was that people would be forced to pay for others mistakes, your point was that a sin tax addresses this...and now you admit that I am right. :uhoh:

Good point :) It really depends what kind of people you have in the companies or the government, if there are amoral bastards in both cases it gets really tricky.

That's why I think it should be just left up to individual choice. Sure people will stumble, but the important thing is that there isn't coersion.

I agree, but you can't trust the individual or company to make the right choices either.

I'm not saying we should, i'm just saying that if they make bad choices that's the crime they should pay for, not drinking.

The government-option works better if it's not politicans that make the decisions but independant institues that analyze the problem and come up with a solution.

I really don't see a difference.

In this case no damage or additioal costs for the nation because of soft-drug abuse. In an ideal scenario at least.

I don't see how a sin tax would prevent this, since like has been said, it won't stop people from drinking. people will still drink a lot, they'll just be a bit poorer.

Individual frustration about taxes shouldn't be the deciding factor though.

My point was that intrusion in peoples lives is not a "better end-result for everyone" it certainly isn't for me. i won't be going around shooting people but eventually I will move to where there is more freedom to live my own life, not everyone has that option though.

I'm always open to new suggestions, how about a tax on bad parenting? ;)

So you think it's ethical for gov't to profit from bad parenting? ;)

Seriously though, not all parents can be good parents and peer-pressure or irresponsible kids can't be avoided.

No not all can be good parents, but we can have laws designed to deter bad parenting. Let's have parents liable for any damage or harm their kids cause. (maybe they have that already, probably do)