The topic of the day, both in Washington, D.C. and in the states, is how to cut the deficits. One of the best ways to proceed, which has so far received scant attention, is for the federal government and most states to change the peculiar way they tax liquor, wine and beer. With the exception of those 18 states that sell alcohol themselves, all the other states and the federal government impose a specific fee on each bottle or barrel of alcohol rather than collect a percentage of the take. As a result, as the price of booze rises, as that of most products does over time, the amount the government collects stays the same. Moreover, the effect of the tax on deterring alcohol abuse is diluted.
The federal tax on beer was set at $9 a barrel in 1951. As the price of beer increased, the federal tax remained the same. It was finally increased to $18 in 1991, and that is where it stayed. David Jernigan and Hugh Waters, two researchers at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, figured out that just to keep with inflation, by 2007 the tax should have been $71 per barrel. They showed the same for hard liquor. It was $10.50 per gallon in 1951 and $12.50 in 1991, and it should have been $82.87 by 2007, just to keep up with the rising prices. As a report by the Center for Public Interest notes:
Any way you look at it, revenues from federal excise taxes on beer and other alcoholic beverages have declined dramatically: as a percentage of retail sales, as a percentage of federal revenues, and as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product. As a result, beer is far cheaper today, relative to other consumer products, than it was twenty and thirty years ago.
A review of 72 studies and reports published in The Journal of Preventive Medicine found "strong evidence that raising alcohol taxes is an effective strategy for reducing excessive alcohol consumption and related harms." The authors noted that "increased alcohol taxes are associated with decreased overall consumption, decreased youth consumption, decreased youth binge drinking, reduced alcohol-related motor-vehicle crashes, reduced mortality from liver cirrhosis, and reduced violence."
There are strong arguments to raising taxes on alcohol more rapidly than its costs rise to discourage people, especially the price-sensitive youth, from buying it. Excessive consumption -- alcohol abuse -- is strongly associated with a whole plethora of ills, including car crashes, gun violence, loss of productivity at work and illness. According to the CDC, there are more than 97,000 alcohol-attributable deaths in the U.S. each year. And alcohol abuse costs the U.S. about $185 billion each year. Some critics who oppose such so-called "sin taxes" argue that consumers should be allowed to determine for themselves if the benefits of drinking outweigh the costs. Others may add that if it is truly harmful, it should be banned altogether rather than merely taxed. But consuming alcohol in moderation is reported to have medical benefits.
Moreover, one should not allow the unattainable best to block the way to the good. The U.S. tried to ban the consumption of alcohol during Prohibition, which had well-known disastrous results. Discouraging excessive boozing by at least updating the taxes is the best that can be done. For starters, the tax on alcohol should be based on a percentage of the price at which the product is sold, not on a fixed fee that lags behind rising prices. In this way, those who insist on gulping it down will contribute more to cutting the deficit and will stop benefiting from the fact that as most costs rise, booze costs can be kept down, as the government taxes become less burdensome over time.
Amitai Etzioni is a University Professor at The George Washington University and the author of "New Common Ground" (Potomac Books, 2009).
Benjamin R. Barber: No Representation Without Taxation!
Sima Gandhi: Slay the Sacred Tax Cow: It's Time to Say No to Wasteful Tax Credits
Diane Francis: America's Tax Crybabies
Politics & MoneY
They sell them on the Internet and they again are shipped over our roads and bridges
NO SALES TAXES ARE COLLECTED -- Local BUSSINESSES WITH EMPLOYEES LOSE SALES
Taxes go up the support the City, County and State.
The prercentage of the Working Poors income goes from 24 % to 26 % of just for taxes here even more in other states .
Why won't Your State use the Stimulus Money to BRIBE Businesses to bring jobs to your state like Texas does ?
Grover Norquist is referred to as the "man behind the throne" of the Republican Party, Just look at how many have signed up for his "no new taxes" pledge.
Republicans aren't out to balance the budget, they're out to "starve the beast". They don't want to make government work better, in the words of the man himself ""I don't want to abolish government. I simply want to reduce it to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub."
"Reagan Proved Deficits Don't Matter" (Dick Cheney) and they DIDN'T, until Democrats gained a majority, then the debt became a CRISIS.
Talking about the debt as a national disaster........AFTER extension of the Bush Tax Cut, is IMPO the height of hypocrisy.
Debt is only a problem, when they can blame someone else for it. Not when they are the ones who create it.
34 Million are now Unemployed in China because Americans ran out of money because of War .
Alcohol and cigarette taxes are, in some ways, tyrannies of the majority. we justify them, I guess, by claiming their affiliation with higher health care costs.
By that logic, we should already be taxing junk food, fast food, and soda, as these products are a leading cost of obesity, the number 1 cause of morbidity in the U.S..
A "twinkie tax" would go a long way in helping the states relative to their health care expenditures.
Re-structuring the health care delivery system itself gets us the biggest bang for our bucks, but the AHA won't allow it.
On the other hand Funeral Homes will make a fortune with all the people getting killed by High Flyers !
Links please
I have never seen any reputable study showing an increase in violence associated with pot.
Do unstable people smoke dope? Sure. But they also use and abuse a great variety of substances, some legal and some illegal.
In 37 years of working in ER's, I have seen 2, yes 2 patients who came in for pot.
Stop with the bumper stickers and try using facts.
Medical care, rehab, regulation enforcement for standardization, testing and licensing, etc.
And, the extra costs of incarceration when added to use when driving, use in public, etc.
Do whatever you like. In private.
Take whatever you like. In private.
Stick whatever whereever. In private.
No small furry animals.
No underage anything.
No forced anything.
Just pay for it. All of it.
Every last bit of it.
In advance.
'cause I KNOW you won't have the money later.
Oh, and, of course, sales tax or VAT.
Not the job of the federal government and local governments shouldn't really be paying for any of that either.
As for legalization... legalize everything including making prescriptions suggestions and all prescription drugs OTC. Now insurance shouldn't be forced to pay for anything that isn't prescribed but anything one chooses to take should be available.
Until then, not enough taxes.
Play all you want.
Pay as you go.
Now it is like 85 %
Let's go after a completely new revenue source: Marijuana.
The only Marijuana related deaths I've ever heard of are due to shoot-outs over 'deals gone bad', deals that would be unnecessary if it were legal.
But what a cute way of accusing the poor of being drunks...
"When economic power became concentrated in a few hands, then political power flowed to those possessors and away from the citizens, ultimately resulting in an oligarchy or tyranny." John Adams
"As riches increase and accumulate in few hands . . . the tendency of things will be to depart from the republican standard." Alexander Hamilton
"I hope we shall . . . crush in [its] birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations." Thomas Jefferson
Vote for the CPC Progressive caucus Kucinch folks in the primaries and the dems in the general.
http://cpc.grijalva.house.gov/
Not theObama Clinton Rahm Blue dog new dem DLC corporatist anti-populist folks:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Leadership_Council
Consumption taxes should always fall heaviest on non-essential items, especially on things that carry an external cost, like alcohol and tobacco. Weed should be right in there too. Simply legalizing and taxing pot would save us billions.
But why not the same argument for pot? The debt would be paid off in three years. The country would be a more pleasant place to be.
Who cares about sin.
The state has an interest in recovering adequate money to pay for the users costs to society.
We will pay for healthcare with medicare and ACA - those should be included.
We have to pay for legal costs, incarceration and medical care for those that drink in inappropriate places or times - driving, etc.
We have to pay for costs to victims when drunks kill people.
We have to pay for law enforcement to prevent drunks from doing incredibly offensive things in public.
We have to pay for law enforcement and medical care when drunks get in fights.
All those costs can be estimated and allocated into the cost of booze.
There's no reason for the rest of us to pay to subsidize booze makers or consumers.
You play. You pay. In advance. 'cause once your liver goes, you won't be able to pay.
And who are the "rich" you folks always talk about? Define please