Tuesday, November 16, 2010
Can a Bigger Booze Tax Reduce Disease, Crime?
I stumbled on this article and though it was quite interesting. It may not concern us as high school student, but I picked it to share on the blog becuause it reminded me of the prop 19 debate. Similar to prop 19 if marijuana were to be legalized there would be a tax for it, people were arguing whether that would help or hurt our economy. But what about alcohol? Accoding to this article it would have a significant effect on, just 50 cents on a bottle of wine can reduce alcohol related deaths by 35% and fatal car crashes bby 11%. What would this tax on booze do to your economy? Help or Hurt it?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
Eventhough this tax increase isn't a MAJOR tax increase i think it will help our economy. There is many people who consume alcohol and most likely will not stop purchasing it because a 50 cent tas incease.
When I read this, I thought "Wow, a small increase in taxes can do so much!" But, I went searching online about this and other people have found that this argument is very similar to one they had for tax increase on cigarettes. While the increase proposed that it would help the economy and lower health care cost, it apparently there is no results that show that it made as large an impact as it says. I still think this should pass, for it will help, but I think that we need to keep our expectations at a reasonable level. If anyone wants to read about the cigarette tax here is one of the pages that I read: http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2010-08-12/news/bs-ed-alcohol-tax-20100812_1_cigarette-tax-alcohol-tax-tax-hike
I think this tax would definitely be beneficial to our economy- reduced crime and disease rates are only extra perks of this tax. The way I see it, we don't really have much to lose from this tax, we can only gain as Kelly mentioned in the previous comment. The only people who would really lose from this are corporations/businesses that sell wine and the people that drink it (although in the long run it would be better for them too).
It would definitely help the economy since alcohol will be consumed despite any slight changes in price, but aside from that, what I'm concerned about is how it is possible to calculate the decrease in crime and alcohol-related death rates based on a slight increase in alcohol tax. It's not that I'm arguing against the numbers here, but I'd just like to know how this is determined, and not just in relation to alcohol, either.
This is one of those articles where you need to read between the line. This isnt a 50 cent tax increase, this is a bill that will DOUBLE the tax on alcohol. This is a dramatic difference compared to 50 cents for a 6 pack of beer. Hard alcohol, which is more expensive (and I assume more popular to college students), can be taxed up to 3 dollars. by my calculations this is about a 10% tax on alcohol. For heavy drinkers this can be a huge difference.
I agree that this tax will help lower the amount of alcohol related deaths and transmission of STDs, but I dont believe it will help lower it as much as the article predicts. I am not so sure how this would help the economy though (the article does not say what the tax is going towards)
This sounds crazy.
Referring to Kelly's statement about the similarity between tax on booze and tax on cigarettes, the tax on alcohol would do nothing but benefit society, BUT doubts arise when the legislation comes to passing it. Here are some facts: cigarettes DO lead to diseases and what not and alcohol DOES have an impact on car crashes and other negative things, BUT they both are still around. Despite all these, society still desires alcohol. The U.S. even made alcohol illegal at one point in time, but every day people consumed it illegally. So I'm pretty sure we will be consuming alcohol for a very long time.
How long has some of society been fighting to put an end to smoking cigarettes? It definitely has been a while, and it is still around. So coming to a conclusion, bigger booze tax is indefinitely beneficial, but it just won't pass.
I believe that overall, it could ultimately benefit our economy. But I agree with some of the comments; the numbers seem too hopeful. Such law isn't necessary if the gains aren't too significant.
It's only right to infer that a bigger tax would decrease the number of consumers on alcohol, thus reducing crime and all other alcohol-related accidents, but I think this is all just wishful thinking. Taxing alcohol isn't going to stop consumers from buying it, if alcoholics want their drinks, they'll definitely get them, disregarding the price.
Post a Comment