Help fund health care public option with an increase in alcohol taxes.
I am having trouble finding accurate national alcohol sales numbers, but one site claimed that americans spend $77.8 billion on take-home alcohol. More, obviously, is consumed in restaurants and bars.
Tobacco has taken a huge federal tax increase, and some states have levied equal amounts in addition to boot. Why is alcohol not being considered? Or has it been, and gotten shouted down?
A percentage of total cost would make sense: a magnum of dom perignon would bring in more revenue than a bottle of coors lite. Jeez, louise, californians are advocating pot legalization often with the tax revenues possible as the main incentive.
Alcohol treatment costs are large. Drunk-driving accidents cause death and huge medical costs. Those are health-related...so why is alcohol such a sacred cow? I don't get it.
I disagree. Why put another tax in place that is targeted to the lower/middle classes? We already shoulder too much of the tax burden. I am not saying there aren't serious consequences due to our consumption of alcohol and tobacco but increasing taxes on it isn't the way to go.
A huge tax increase on the upper 2% of the wage earners is what is needed imho.
July 6, 2009 1:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree. Top .2% even.
July 6, 2009 2:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree! Let's call it the William McGuire tax.
July 6, 2009 4:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Taxes on tobacco are outrageous. But the number of smokers is so small and there is no support for them among non smokers that these exorbitant taxes are politically safe. The vast majority of the population drinks alcohol. If taxes on alcohol were raised to the level of tobacco taxes it would affect most everyone and the level of anger it would generate makes it unlikely that anyone identified with the policy could be reelected. Its simply not politically possible. Such extreme levels of taxation are only possible when the target is a disliked minority.
July 6, 2009 3:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
the number of smokers is so small
Daily smokers are 17.5% of the U.S. population; I think that includes all population including under 18:
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_dai_smo-health-daily-smokers
(That's a fabulous statistics site, by the way, a hat tip to Ellen for linking to it recently on another topic.)
and there is no support for them among non smokers
I'd say that was an understatement. Smokers are treated like sinners who must be punished and must feel guilt and shame at all times, constantly making excuses for their habit even if practiced completely privately. For example, even a movie director who decides to put in a scene of someone smoking suffers all kinds of shit.
July 6, 2009 4:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
As to my latter point, by contrast, politicians dare not tax beer too heavily, it is all American, wholesome, like apple pie. One is asked if one would enjoy sitting down for a beer with a politician, and one finds a sense of community at the local bar where "everyone knows your name," etc. Taxing wine heavily would raise different issues, class issues about yuppies and such, wine drinkers might pay it without much complaint, sort of like smokers out of guilt, guilt for not liking beer as much as they should. :-)
July 6, 2009 4:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
As they say . . . .
July 6, 2009 7:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm surprised its still that high. I would have guessed 10% or less. Yet society has successfully demonized smoking such that the high rate of taxation is politically viable. For the reasons you've pointed out I doubt that that level of taxation would be viable with alcohol.
July 6, 2009 5:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Many states already tax alcohol, and this is generally well accepted. In part, the tax is designed to offset the costs alcohol inflicts on society, in part to discourage excessive drinking, and in part, simply to raise revenue.
I believe a federal tax component may be under consideration as one of the means of financing proposed health care reform legislation. As long as the tax is not disporportionate to other measures, it may not provoke undue opposition. Although I agree that progressive taxes are the ideal solution to revenue shortfalls, political considerations dictate that they can't always be imposed at a level necessary to accomplish that aim fully, and must therefore be accompanied by other measures, even, regretably, regressive ones at times.
July 6, 2009 3:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
LET'S NOT GO COMPLETELY CRAZY HERE!!!
July 6, 2009 3:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
I can't see that a federal alcohol tax would disproportionatel affect lower and middle class folks. I do hear you about taxing the top 2%, but i don't know if that can be the only solution. They sure have their own lobbyists! Polls show people are willing to pay slightly higher taxes to fund public care. And i was picturing high-roller big bar bills and the ka-ching! of tax revenues. It may be so that people would scream too loudly, and politicians would balk. How did the current state liquor taxes get passed in the first place, then?
I've only been to a doctor once in thirty years, but i do want good publicly-financed care available for all who want it. It makes good economic sense, and good ethical sense.
July 6, 2009 4:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Taxes could be raised on alcohol but it would have to be a reasonable tax increase. You mentioned the recent huge federal tax increase on tobacco. I don't believe raising taxes to that level on alcohol is politically viable.
July 6, 2009 5:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't really like the premise that a "sin tax" is the appropriate way to fund something that all Americans need. One of the right-wing spins is to blame people for becoming ill.
July 6, 2009 5:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Don't tax you, don't tax me, tax that fellow behind the tree." (Louisiana Senator Russell Long, son of Huey)
July 6, 2009 5:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
From somewhere, I heard that a tax on sugar based soft drinks mentioned as one source for funding health reform. It kinda makes sense to me, considering the link between sugar sweetened soda and obesity which does lead to many preventable health concerns. If I remember correctly, it was a 3 cent tax on each can or bottle. I also remember the sugar beet growers were kinda pissed and would be lobbying against it.
I wish I could recall where I read about it.
July 6, 2009 5:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Have you tried Google? It's free, you know.
July 6, 2009 9:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hmmmm. Seems to me I have heard something about the Google. I will have to look it up on one of those search engine thingies. ;o)
I like this one about the sugar tax
http://www.businessweek.com/debateroom/archives/2009/06/tax_sugary_soft.html
from Business Week. It is not the one I originally was referring to, but good.
July 7, 2009 2:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
You say . . .
Sugar linked to obesity from soda consumption?
Some say it's the high-fructose corn sweeteners. Different animal molecularly than sugar from cane or beets.
Tax high-fructose corn sweeteners! It's in more consumables than just soda.
~OGD~
July 7, 2009 4:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, yeah! There is a big difference between high-fructose corn sweeteners and beet and cane sugar and the way the body handles each. Overuse of highly sweetened food/drink, no matter which type, is just not good for health.
Honestly, singling out soft drinks to be taxed doesn't seem do-able, to me. But, taxing the high-fructose corn sweeteners might be more feasible, OGD. Interesting point.
July 7, 2009 2:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey why not legalize marijuana and tax its consumption? That would generate a ton of money and save billions (tens of?) of dollars that are currently being spent on interdiction and incarceration of marijuana users and distributors. And marijuana is far less dangerous then alcohol, tobacco and most all prescription drugs used to alleviate pain.
I am not joking...I am serious.
July 6, 2009 8:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
I suggested this a while back in a comment on one of DickDay's blogs. Sign me up!
July 6, 2009 8:48 PM | Reply | Permalink