Oops, meant to say " Casual indoor tanning does NOT cause cancer, but ...".
Also I learned of something called sunless tanning, which limits exposure to UV. It is documented in Wikipedia
Oops, meant to say " Casual indoor tanning does NOT cause cancer, but ...".
Also I learned of something called sunless tanning, which limits exposure to UV. It is documented in Wikipedia
That's an argument for why the government *can* tax alcohol stiffly. I think the question Pico Pico asked is why they
*should* tax alcohol stiffly.Because alcohol abuse and addiction are a major problem in our society, and the excise taxes on alcohol feed directly into programs to help prevent and treat them. That's why an excise tax is reasonable.
It's also why the fact that there is an excise tax has no relevance to the question of whether there should also be a sales tax, which is for a different purpose. If it's reasonable for Mass. (or any state) to charge a sales tax, which is a reasonable question to ask, then it's reasonable for the sales tax to apply to alcohol, whether or not alcohol also has an excise tax for the reasons outlined above.
It is my understanding that pretty much every state has an excise tax on alcohol. It is also my understanding that pretty much every state that has a sales tax charges it on alcohol. The decision of the legislature last year to return the sales tax to alcohol was putting Mass. into line with everybody else, not making Mass. abnormal.
My theory is that although people couldn't bring themselves to vote for the ballot question reducing the sales tax from 6.25% to 3%, they felt ambivalent about it, and the alcohol sales tax question was an outlet for their ambivalence. I have a feeling that if the 3%-sales-tax question hadn't been on the ballet, the alcohol-sales-tax question wouldn't have passed.
But it is something like 7% of the drinkers consume 70% of the alcohol. Why punish the 93% for the misdeeds of the 7%?
We need to find ways of taxing inappropriate behavior, not using a wide brush just to pretend it is the right thing to do.
What's new about double taxes? There are lots of double taxes out there. In CA we pay federal gasoline tax, and then sales tax on top of it. When we earn money we are taxed, and then when we die we are taxed on whatever of that we managed to save.
In which case the 93% buy much less alcohol and therefore the impact on them of the excise taxes is much less.
Any mechanism you might attempt to impose for taxing "inappropriate" alcohol use while not taxing "appropriate" alcohol use would be far more burdensome, expensive to operate, and big-brotherish than an excise tax.
I'm not claiming that the excise tax is an ideal mechanism for recouping part of the cost to society of treating alcohol abuse from the people who engage in it. I'm just claiming that there's no beter practical solution.
If a tax causes me to change my behavior, that change is itself an impact.
Or would you contend that a $10,000/pint tax on ice cream (which would cause me to eat none of it) would have "no impact" because I wouldn't pay any tax as a result?
Seth
1) There is little evidence that the excise tax on alcohol causes any significant change in the behavior of consumers of alcohol. In fact, in the "how to lie with statistics" department, proponents of not eliminating the sales tax on alcohol in Mass. claimed that sales of alcohol went UP after the sales tax went into effect. An argument could also be made that since consumers are accustomed to paying what they are paying for alcohol, should the excise tax be eliminated, the alcohol retailers would simply keep pricing at its current levels and pocket the difference. 2) I never said there was no impact. I said there was less impact on people buying less alcohol. This is a tautologically true statement, so the fact that you felt compelled to argue with it is somewhat humorous. 3) As I said in the part of my posting which you snipped, I am not saying that the excise tax is an ideal way to recoup some of the cost of alcohol abuse on society from the people who engage in it. I am saying that there isn't really a better way. If you wish to argue that point, then please, let's hear your suggestion for a better way to do it. 4) Every tax has an "impact." Unless you want to argue that all taxes are wrong by definition, which I'm under the impression is not considered an acceptable argument to make in this newsgroup, it is pointless to argue that a particular tax is problematic merely because it has an "impact." 5) This is an incredibly stupid and meaningless reductio ad absurdum argument. Clearly, the excise tax on alcohol is not comparable to "a $10,000/pint tax on ice cream," because people with a hell of a lot less than $10,000 to their names buy alcohol every day.
^ should be: Chris Rock
-Mark Bole
I misunderstood: I took "much less alcohol" to refer to what the 93% bought prior to the tax, rather than what the 7% bought.
That would work fine if there were a monopoly, not so well when there's competition.
Except it isn't. If nobody's behavior changes, and the only impact measured is the amount of tax paid, then it's true.
A tax aimed at affecting behavior, to lower the amount of alcohol abuse, would be a better way. (For instance, if the amount of tax was greatest for the drinks that had the lowest cost per unit alcohol, the effect would be larger.)
That wasn't my argument.
Reductio ad absurdum is a valid form of argument.
Affecting behavior is an impact.
Seth
Actually, I think that an excise tax that is based on the alcohol content will have exactly the effect of being "greatest" for the lowest cost per unit alcohol. At least in percentage terms. Adding a fixed amount per liter of alcohol would increase the price of the "most efficient" alcohol purchase by a larger percentage of its cost than pricier drinks.
For example, assume rot gut liquor has a base price of $2 per liter and fine brandy is $50 per liter. Imposing a $1 per liter excise tax would raise the price of rot gut by
50% while hardly affecting the fine brandy's price at all..
Yes, it's the greatest in percentage terms; one where it's greatest in absolute terms would have even more effect to discourage alcoholism.
Seth
But I would think that a tax whose rate was inversely proportional to the price would seem very odd. And it would be really difficult to administer. It would be like adding a regressive tax rate structure into a sales tax. The X dollars per liter of alcohol levy has the additional benefit of being simple to compute and also easy to administer at the wholesale or producer level.
I suppose that if the rate structure were steep enough, it could have the beneficial? side effect of driving low quality liquor out of the marketplace, leaving only the good stuff.
So? (There are such taxes used to set minimum prices: "The tax is
100% of the amount by which $X exceeds the price.")Why would it be harder than any other rate that depends on price other than proportionally?
Seth
BeanSmart website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.