Comments on: Punishing Drinkers With Taxes http://brookstonbeerbulletin.com/punishing-drinkers-with-taxes/ Jay R. Brooks on Beer Thu, 24 May 2012 14:07:02 +0000 hourly 1 http://beerzine.com/?v=3.3.2 By: California Pete http://brookstonbeerbulletin.com/punishing-drinkers-with-taxes/comment-page-1/#comment-1326 California Pete Wed, 16 Jan 2008 16:09:52 +0000 http://www.brookstonbeerbulletin.com/punishing-drinkers-with-taxes/#comment-1326 As usual, J, I agree. But, I do think there is something reasonable to argument #4. As a drinker, I'm willing to bear some of the social costs of our drunk driving epidemic via an alcohol tax. A case publicized last year in Orange County (Calif.) illustrates the point: two joggers were taken out by a criminally drunk driver and left paralyzed. Given the driver's limited assets, they sued the City on rather ridiculous grounds that the bike lane (not, mind you, a pedestrian path) they were jogging in was "too wide". As a cyclist, I was appalled that the City buckled and settled the case for millions of dollars. But as a human being, I also sympathize with the victim's plight, and if I were in their shoes, I would have gone after any source of money myself to offset a lifetime of medical bills. So what's my point? Well, we tax payers ended up footing the bill for another individual's criminal action anyway--if not through an alcohol tax, then through our property/sales taxes and the City's general fund, to pay off the settlement. Rather than forcing victims to seek compensation wherever they can get it through litigation, I'd much rather there be a victims' fund set up just for that purpose. And it wouldn't bother me if that fund came from an alcohol tax, as well as our vehicle taxes since, as Brian points out above, the car is just as much to blame as the booze. Here's the rub: while I don't have a problem with an alcohol tax being collected for that specific targeted purpose, I very much DO have a problem with such a tax simply being funneled into a general fund to pay for who knows what--like our state's chronic budget deficit. That, as you point out, is just not fair. Couldn't one make the same argument, for example, that we should tax fast food because of all the social costs related to the obesity epidemic--which, by the way, is far FAR more costly in the aggregate than drunk driving. As usual, J, I agree. But, I do think there is something reasonable to argument #4. As a drinker, I’m willing to bear some of the social costs of our drunk driving epidemic via an alcohol tax. A case publicized last year in Orange County (Calif.) illustrates the point: two joggers were taken out by a criminally drunk driver and left paralyzed. Given the driver’s limited assets, they sued the City on rather ridiculous grounds that the bike lane (not, mind you, a pedestrian path) they were jogging in was “too wide”. As a cyclist, I was appalled that the City buckled and settled the case for millions of dollars. But as a human being, I also sympathize with the victim’s plight, and if I were in their shoes, I would have gone after any source of money myself to offset a lifetime of medical bills.

So what’s my point? Well, we tax payers ended up footing the bill for another individual’s criminal action anyway–if not through an alcohol tax, then through our property/sales taxes and the City’s general fund, to pay off the settlement. Rather than forcing victims to seek compensation wherever they can get it through litigation, I’d much rather there be a victims’ fund set up just for that purpose. And it wouldn’t bother me if that fund came from an alcohol tax, as well as our vehicle taxes since, as Brian points out above, the car is just as much to blame as the booze. Here’s the rub: while I don’t have a problem with an alcohol tax being collected for that specific targeted purpose, I very much DO have a problem with such a tax simply being funneled into a general fund to pay for who knows what–like our state’s chronic budget deficit. That, as you point out, is just not fair. Couldn’t one make the same argument, for example, that we should tax fast food because of all the social costs related to the obesity epidemic–which, by the way, is far FAR more costly in the aggregate than drunk driving.

]]> By: Jane http://brookstonbeerbulletin.com/punishing-drinkers-with-taxes/comment-page-1/#comment-1325 Jane Wed, 16 Jan 2008 14:41:02 +0000 http://www.brookstonbeerbulletin.com/punishing-drinkers-with-taxes/#comment-1325 I couldn't agree more that these taxes are a bad and a misled idea for a solution. I couldn’t agree more that these taxes are a bad and a misled idea for a solution.

]]> By: Brian http://brookstonbeerbulletin.com/punishing-drinkers-with-taxes/comment-page-1/#comment-1324 Brian Wed, 16 Jan 2008 09:11:22 +0000 http://www.brookstonbeerbulletin.com/punishing-drinkers-with-taxes/#comment-1324 It is not drunk drivers that cause traffic deaths, it is, in fact, the vehicles that do most of the harm. If we taxed cars high enough to keep them off the roads, and even spent the revenue to subsidize alcohol consumption, there would be no drunk driving hazard. Equally goofy logic. It is not drunk drivers that cause traffic deaths, it is, in fact, the vehicles that do most of the harm. If we taxed cars high enough to keep them off the roads, and even spent the revenue to subsidize alcohol consumption, there would be no drunk driving hazard. Equally goofy logic.

]]>