5 ms·
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
by 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 agoUsually 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 agoYes, 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 agoIf alcohol were taxed on public health concerns it would be a tax based on the percentage of alcohol, not CO2 content.
- pantalaimon 5y agoThere is a tax on CO2 in drinks?
- Retric 5y agoIndirectly, 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 agoAbsolutely. While I didn't address that point in my reply, yes, taxing beverages based on the CO2 content is ridiculous.