6 ms·

You know what's even dumber? Having a product that can vary in price 1000x or more...and taxing it by volume, instead of by its price. Yet another way the rich

You know what's even dumber? Having a product that can vary in price 1000x or more...and taxing it by volume, instead of by its price. Yet another way the rich shift more tax burden away from themselves. They pay a pittance of a tax on a $5,000 bottle of wine, while everyone buying "two buck chuck" at Trader Joes ($3-4/bottle) is getting hit with a huge tax percentage-wise. Even taxing alcohol at different rates just because it's made with specific fruits is idiotic. It smacks of lobbyists buying off their congressional reps to get a rival sub-industry slapped with a higher tax. Just tax alcohol by its value, across the board at the same rate.

jabl 5y ago
If alcohol is taxed based on public health and safety concerns, it makes sense that the tax is proportional to the amount on neat alcohol contained in a product rather than the price of the product. Or maybe even a "progressive" tax, if we consider things like distilled spirits to cause more rowdy behavior and other kinds of disturbances.
- thedrbrian 5y ago
  Usually the people getting rowdy are drinking cheapo lager or whatever as they know you’ll get more alcohol per unit currency that way.
  - jabl 5y ago
    Yes, but there is an argument to be made that if the best 'bang per buck' would be distilled spirits, the problem with rowdy drinkers would be even worse, as a bottle of cheap vodka/whisky/whatever is more portable, and particularly for younger more inexperienced people it's much easier to drink it too fast and end up in the ER getting your stomach pumped.
- IshKebab 5y ago
  If alcohol were taxed on public health concerns it would be a tax based on the percentage of alcohol, not CO2 content.
  - pantalaimon 5y ago
    There is a tax on CO2 in drinks?
    - Retric 5y ago
      Indirectly, the difference between ciders and sparkling wine is CO2 content but it’s a binary difference where in rising CO2 within each range has zero tax implications.
  - jabl 5y ago
    Absolutely. While I didn't address that point in my reply, yes, taxing beverages based on the CO2 content is ridiculous.
    - afiori 5y ago
      it is not taxed on CO2 content, it is taxed by marketing category and those categories have CO2 as a factor.
      - IshKebab 5y ago
        Ha, coincidentally they just announced they are finally fixing this in the UK.
ashtonkem 5y ago
> You know what's even dumber? Having a product that can vary in price 1000x or more...and taxing it by volume, instead of by its price. To be fair, this is just an excise tax on production. In most jurisdictions you'll also pay a percentage based sales tax on that as well. If you buy a bottle costing 2x as much, you'll pay 2x as much sales tax. Everywhere I've lived has had a pretty high sales tax on alcohol, in my current state I pay sales tax plus a volume based supplementary tax, the latter can get pretty high at $11.28 per gallon of distilled liquor. Sales tax on discretionary and luxury products like this tend to be one of the few taxes that's actually somewhat progressive, given that the rich tend to consume a lot more in terms of dollar amount. Although in the case of alcohol, this would also hit addicts pretty hard. > Even taxing alcohol at different rates just because it's made with specific fruits is idiotic. It smacks of lobbyists buying off their congressional reps to get a rival sub-industry slapped with a higher tax. Just tax alcohol by its value, across the board at the same rate. Honestly, I think this is more about class than anything else. There is a long, sordid history of societies deciding that one type of alcohol is acceptable and classy, while another is base and to be suppressed. Usually the actual amount consumed doesn't seem to be a factor; nobody ever seems to get too mad at middle class and rich people for day drinking mimosas for example. My favorite cultural representation of this is "Beer Street and Gin Lane", which is both entertaining to me in its absurd hyperbole, and because I'm rather partial to gin. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beer_Street_and_Gin_Lane https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beer_Street_and_Gin_Lane Personally, I'm mixed on what I think an ideal alcohol tax would be. It seems to me that we now have the ability to track the actual volume of pure ethanol created and sold, something that recently post-prohibition regulators probably were not capable of doing[0]. On the flip side I do think that there is some social utility in driving up the cost of high proof distilled alcohol via tax; the time before prohibition really shows that cheap distilled spirits tends to make a bit of a mess of things. This could probably be accomplished by a progressive taxation system per gram of ethanol based on the ABV above a certain point. Thankfully most cider is pretty damned good at 2.5 to 3 volumes of CO2. 0 - The inputs into the fermentation process are a pretty good way to estimate what percentage of alcohol you'll get back out on average, which can be used as a rough means to regulate based on ABV if you lack the technical or governmental capability to test, track, and tax such things. Not all alcohol tax rules seem to use it this way though, such as the difference between cider and sparkling wine based on CO2 volumes, even if it's created by artificially carbonating it.
WalterBright 5y ago
Even dumber is the practice of banning things. For example, California is banning gas powered leaf blowers and chain saws. This is going to cause a problem for people who need to clear downed trees during a power outage after a storm. The usual solution is to carve out a bunch of exceptions. These exceptions tend to be incomplete and don't evolved with the times. A far better solution is to just tax the ICEs that drive these things. Make it so that for most mundane uses, the electric ones will be cheaper. But the people who really need them can get them without mounting a lobbying campaign at the politicians.
- smileysteve 5y ago
  > California is banning gas powered leaf blowers and chain saws. The state is doing no such thing, it is however > California is banning [the sales of new] gas powered leaf blowers and chain saws [after 2024] There is a significant difference.
  - WalterBright 5y ago
    I know. People will be buying them from out of state, until other states ban sales, too.
  - bluGill 5y ago
    The engines in those wear out after a time. A home owner can use the same saw for years, but a pro using it for a full workday will replace it every few years.
    - micromacrofoot 5y ago
      battery powered versions work fine, and tend to be quieter as a bonus
      - nmcfarl 5y ago
        Perhaps for leaf blowers that it's all upside - but for good size chainsaws say something that can drive a 24" bar, electric just isn't available. I love my electric 18"er, but most all of the ponderosas I have to fell on my property require my 24" gas Husquavarna. And if you look for electric alternatives you find nothing for actually for sale.
easytiger 5y ago
Is there not sales tax on it then?

jabl 5y ago

If alcohol is taxed based on public health and safety concerns, it makes sense that the tax is proportional to the amount on neat alcohol contained in a product rather than the price of the product. Or maybe even a "progressive" tax, if we consider things like distilled spirits to cause more rowdy behavior and other kinds of disturbances.

thedrbrian 5y ago
Usually the people getting rowdy are drinking cheapo lager or whatever as they know you’ll get more alcohol per unit currency that way.
- jabl 5y ago
  Yes, but there is an argument to be made that if the best 'bang per buck' would be distilled spirits, the problem with rowdy drinkers would be even worse, as a bottle of cheap vodka/whisky/whatever is more portable, and particularly for younger more inexperienced people it's much easier to drink it too fast and end up in the ER getting your stomach pumped.
IshKebab 5y ago
If alcohol were taxed on public health concerns it would be a tax based on the percentage of alcohol, not CO2 content.
- pantalaimon 5y ago
  There is a tax on CO2 in drinks?
  - Retric 5y ago
    Indirectly, the difference between ciders and sparkling wine is CO2 content but it’s a binary difference where in rising CO2 within each range has zero tax implications.
- jabl 5y ago
  Absolutely. While I didn't address that point in my reply, yes, taxing beverages based on the CO2 content is ridiculous.
  - afiori 5y ago
    it is not taxed on CO2 content, it is taxed by marketing category and those categories have CO2 as a factor.
    - IshKebab 5y ago
      Ha, coincidentally they just announced they are finally fixing this in the UK.

ashtonkem 5y ago

> You know what's even dumber? Having a product that can vary in price 1000x or more...and taxing it by volume, instead of by its price. To be fair, this is just an excise tax on production. In most jurisdictions you'll also pay a percentage based sales tax on that as well. If you buy a bottle costing 2x as much, you'll pay 2x as much sales tax. Everywhere I've lived has had a pretty high sales tax on alcohol, in my current state I pay sales tax plus a volume based supplementary tax, the latter can get pretty high at $11.28 per gallon of distilled liquor. Sales tax on discretionary and luxury products like this tend to be one of the few taxes that's actually somewhat progressive, given that the rich tend to consume a lot more in terms of dollar amount. Although in the case of alcohol, this would also hit addicts pretty hard. > Even taxing alcohol at different rates just because it's made with specific fruits is idiotic. It smacks of lobbyists buying off their congressional reps to get a rival sub-industry slapped with a higher tax. Just tax alcohol by its value, across the board at the same rate. Honestly, I think this is more about class than anything else. There is a long, sordid history of societies deciding that one type of alcohol is acceptable and classy, while another is base and to be suppressed. Usually the actual amount consumed doesn't seem to be a factor; nobody ever seems to get too mad at middle class and rich people for day drinking mimosas for example. My favorite cultural representation of this is "Beer Street and Gin Lane", which is both entertaining to me in its absurd hyperbole, and because I'm rather partial to gin. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beer_Street_and_Gin_Lane https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beer_Street_and_Gin_Lane Personally, I'm mixed on what I think an ideal alcohol tax would be. It seems to me that we now have the ability to track the actual volume of pure ethanol created and sold, something that recently post-prohibition regulators probably were not capable of doing[0]. On the flip side I do think that there is some social utility in driving up the cost of high proof distilled alcohol via tax; the time before prohibition really shows that cheap distilled spirits tends to make a bit of a mess of things. This could probably be accomplished by a progressive taxation system per gram of ethanol based on the ABV above a certain point. Thankfully most cider is pretty damned good at 2.5 to 3 volumes of CO2. 0 - The inputs into the fermentation process are a pretty good way to estimate what percentage of alcohol you'll get back out on average, which can be used as a rough means to regulate based on ABV if you lack the technical or governmental capability to test, track, and tax such things. Not all alcohol tax rules seem to use it this way though, such as the difference between cider and sparkling wine based on CO2 volumes, even if it's created by artificially carbonating it.

WalterBright 5y ago

Even dumber is the practice of banning things. For example, California is banning gas powered leaf blowers and chain saws. This is going to cause a problem for people who need to clear downed trees during a power outage after a storm. The usual solution is to carve out a bunch of exceptions. These exceptions tend to be incomplete and don't evolved with the times. A far better solution is to just tax the ICEs that drive these things. Make it so that for most mundane uses, the electric ones will be cheaper. But the people who really need them can get them without mounting a lobbying campaign at the politicians.

smileysteve 5y ago
> California is banning gas powered leaf blowers and chain saws. The state is doing no such thing, it is however > California is banning [the sales of new] gas powered leaf blowers and chain saws [after 2024] There is a significant difference.
- WalterBright 5y ago
  I know. People will be buying them from out of state, until other states ban sales, too.
- bluGill 5y ago
  The engines in those wear out after a time. A home owner can use the same saw for years, but a pro using it for a full workday will replace it every few years.
  - micromacrofoot 5y ago
    battery powered versions work fine, and tend to be quieter as a bonus
    - nmcfarl 5y ago
      Perhaps for leaf blowers that it's all upside - but for good size chainsaws say something that can drive a 24" bar, electric just isn't available. I love my electric 18"er, but most all of the ponderosas I have to fell on my property require my 24" gas Husquavarna. And if you look for electric alternatives you find nothing for actually for sale.

easytiger 5y ago

Is there not sales tax on it then?