4 ms·
The thing is, alcohol taxes are too low. There are huge social costs of alcohol use and alcoholism, ranging from direct health risks, to drunk driving and assau
by hyperpape 10y ago
The thing is, alcohol taxes are too low. There are huge social costs of alcohol use and alcoholism, ranging from direct health risks, to drunk driving and assault. The taxes on alcohol (unlike the taxes on cigarettes) do not even come close to matching the social costs of alcohol. For references, look at Mark Kleiman's work.
So no, the taxes are not blood money, though I suspect adding methyl alcohol to industrial alcohol is indefensible.
Fwiw: I do still drink, typically 1-2 drinks, no more than 1-2 days a week, so I'm not a particularly heavy drinker (i.e. this would cost me money, but not as much as it would cost some folks). I also believed this when I drank more than I do now.
- mgleason_3 10y ago> ...alcohol taxes are too low Citation needed - seriously. Mark Kleinman the "War on Alcohol guy"?!? Arguments about taxation could go on for a very long time. Is the tax having the effect we wanted. Should taxes be used for social engineering? Is the govt even using the money to cure the social ills they promised theyd solve - apparently not for cigarettes because smokings coming back in a big way. > the taxes are not blood money Actually they are - here's the definition: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/blood%20money http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/blood%20money
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- wyager 10y agoThe higher you push alcohol taxes, the more people turn to black markets, the more people get injured by improper distillation.
- hyperpape 10y agoDefinitely true, but the important point is that's a measurable effect, and one that can be weighed against the people being harmed by the effects of alcohol consumption under the status quo. At the moment, there are already some alcohol taxes, but relatively limited black market consumption. And odds are that you can push the taxes somewhat higher before black market consumption starts to negate the benefits.
- baddox 10y agoAre alcohol tax revenues being used to mitigate these negative effects? Or are you simply suggesting that the tax should be increased to lower the amount of (legal) alcohol consumed?
- hyperpape 10y agoSome of those costs are paid by public funds, and money is fungible, so you could argue that alcohol taxes support mitigating the effects of alcohol use. But the second effect of lowering consumption is probably more important.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- bfuller 10y agoI think a good example of your point would be Singapore. It costs $20 minimum for a drink, but is one of the cleanest and most efficiently organized societies in history. I personally would not want to live there as I value my freedom of choice too much, but it is an extremely "utopian" society in some ways.