New Alcohol Tax Could Ease California's Budget Deficit by 20 Percent

"A simple 25 cents per drink increase would generate almost $3 billion in revenue," said Bruce Livingston, MPP, executive director of Marin Institute. "Raising the alcohol tax for the first time in 16 years is a commonsense and fiscally responsible option to help close the budget gap." ......The last alcohol tax increase in California in 1992 was only a penny on a glass of wine and two cents per can of beer and shot of spirits. Since that time, rising inflation has led to a 33% net decrease in state alcohol taxes. (See chart above.) At the same time, alcohol-related problems have increased dramatically and now cost the state tens of billions of dollars annually in criminal justice, illness, injuries and myriad other costs."

Questions:

Is this a fair solution to the budget deficit facing California? Why or why not?


If not, what is a better solution for the enormous financial crisis facing California?

Oooh, this is sweet, sweet sweet.

Normally, as a fiscal Repu.. well.. conservative, I am usually against taxing things. I will, however, make an exception to this for this one purpose.


California is the king of sin tax. They started the first cigarette taxes, and targeted only smokers. Despite the uproar regarding freedoms of enjoying happiness in small packages, they taxed the crap out of cigarettes. After all, smokers were suicidal jerkwads, and... and... the money generated could go towards helping improve schools!! (yeah, let me know how that worked out for them...)

Naturally, California passed this with overwhelming support from the pious non-smokers, and backed by the medical community.

My question was, "why not tax alcohol"? Not everyone smokes, but most everyone drinks alcohol - so why target the smokers? I was met with, "well, YOUR habit is stinky, and smelly and I care not your situation". It was a popular thing to hate by people who didn't partake themselves. It was a "tax them, and not us" situation, where the minority of smokers had no chance in hell of winning the ballot measure. It pit smokers against non-smokers in a battle of WHO to tax.

Well, drinkers-who-hate-smokers, now it's YOUR turn. Enjoy it, because once the State of California sees all that money pouring in, guess what! The same thing will happen to alcohol what happened to cigarettes - the tax will increase, and the price will be four times what it used to be, and MOST of that will be taxes.

No, this is perfect.

And when the alcohol companies start hurting financially because customers are paying more in taxes and, thus, buying less alcohol per consumer dollar, we can rail the entire industry for making a sinful product in the first place. And once again, have our moral superiority, and have it paid in full.

The new tagline: California! Let's DRINK ourselves into prosperity!

Well, Azwhitewolf said it well. California (and everyone else really) has 'sin taxed' smokers to death. They can't drain any more blood from that turnip by raping nicotine addicts anymore thoroughly than they have been for years, so now it's the drinker's turn.

Is this a fair solution to the budget deficit facing California? Why or why not?

Sure, why not? Alcohol is bad for you. There is no argument I can think of that justifies taxing smokers but not drinkers. The only one that comes to mind is weak, but it's an argument. When people drink too much, they lose track of their spending, so taxing drunks is a little like taking advantage of a mentally impaired person. But then, bars aren't supposed to allow people to drink themselves into oblivion anyway.

I admit, I am a pious non-smoker, but for good reason. I have a father and grandfather who are (and was) die-hard smokers. My grandpa died of lung cancer. He enjoyed smoking enough to forego meeting and getting to know some of his grandchildren. And my dad is still alive and still smoking. He has been a smoker since his teenage years and he is now 59 years old.

It's true, I am the type of person who looks at someone smoking (especially on a hot day in LA) and I say to myself, "What an idiot." That's how I see people who choose to partake in the act of smoking. Yet, it is their right and more power to them if I don't have to be around it.

As for drinking, my dad is also an avid drinker. He's a functioning alcoholic. So my disdain for people who like to waste their lives away at the bottle stems from watching a family member do it.



Yes, you are right, but remember, smokers and their smoking-related problems place a huge burden on the medical industry. That's not fair to non-smoking tax-payers. So to tax the living daylight out of smokers is arguably a solution that is a fair one.



I'm going to now admit to my piety on the subject of alcohol. I do not drink regularly, and when I do, it's never more than two glass of wine (or two drinks). But that is not too often. So, admittedly, for me this tax wouldn't be a big deal. The people who will feel it the most are regular, everday drinkers. The alcoholics will be hit the hardest, of course. Again, I see it as a fair solution. They also cause a lot of damage in terms of the medical industry and accident-related deaths by drunk drivers. Not to mention all the people sitting in jail for alcohol related manslaughter, homocide, etc. We pay for them to live away from society.

If a guy drinks and smokes excessively everyday, he's pretty much selfish or weak minded (or both), and that includes my dad (who doesn't use the internet in any regular way and won't see this hurtful but true description of him).




Another great solution would be to disallow illegal aliens and their children the use of free (to them, not to the taxpayers) public services, including school and hospital care. Or to make the illegals pay for school for their children and visits to the emergency room.

Can I get an "AMEN!"

Is this a fair solution to the budget deficit facing California? Why or why not?

I think so, yes. The "cost" of smoking has long been used as an excuse for that particular luxury tax (though if anyone can show me where a penny of tobacco tax money has gone toward cancer research, I'll be mighty surprised), so why not an alcohol tax to offset some of the massive financial burden that drinkers place on society? If, as the Reuters article states, "alcohol-related problems have increased dramatically and now cost the state tens of billions of dollars annually in criminal justice, illness, injuries and myriad other costs," then a mere 25 cent tax, resulting in $3 billion in annual revenue, is a drop in the proverbial bucket in terms of alcohol abuse paying for itself.

Like doomed, I'm a very occasional drinker, though I am "selfish and weak-minded" when it comes to the patriotic act of consuming tobacco products. I've never minded paying tax on cigarettes, so why should drinkers mind paying a relative pittance for their vice? I'd feel far better about such taxes, though, if the revenue actually went to offsetting the costs of related problems like health care or, in the case of alcohol, criminal justice - especially the criminal costs of, say, domestic abuse, disorderly conduct, assault, and vehicular homicide. Or, hey, how about using such income to finance rebates on health and auto insurance? It is, after all, the medical and insurance industries that are making a killing off of our "luxuries"...

Is this a fair solution to the budget deficit facing California? Why or why not?

Use taxes or sin taxes are much better than income taxes if you see them in terms of trying to discourage a behavior, especially if it costs the government money. Income taxes tend to discourage productivity (to some extent) while a sin tax like this will discourage "bad" or unwanted behavior.

Of course, what happens when the bad behavior is reduced? Tax revenues decline, forcing either a massive increase in the sin tax (see tobacco taxes) or else another revenue stream is needed.

In any case, this is a voluntary tax. No one is forcing you to consume alcohol. In those terms, this tax is as fair as any other.

Is this a fair solution to the budget deficit facing California? Why or why not?


Totally fair tax. I'll admit to being a holier-than-thou, save the clean air sterotype in terms of smokers. I hate when I travel away from CA and remember smoking is allowed in restaurants and bars. I totally advocated a large sin tax that I had hoped would go for lung cancer cre/research. That said, I am a moderate alcohol drinker and fully advocate a similar sin tax on booze. Why not? Alcohol-related problems cause just as many frustrations and costs to the system as smoking does. If I have to pay more or drink less, well, them's the breaks.

Is this a fair solution to the budget deficit facing California? Why or why not?

If not, what is a better solution for the enormous financial crisis facing California?
Hold the presses! I agree with a Republican. azwhitewolf said it well. CA has been taxing smokers into oblivion; it's about time drinkers got their due. And I love the tagline.

My brother nearly killed himself with alcohol. Alcohol is a leading cause of auto-related deaths, and who knows how many innocent people get killed as a result of an inebriated person's actions. I haven't heard of any cases of smoking related accidents. Alcohol is also a big factor in violent crime.


So, hell yah, tax booze.

I don't profess to have any great ideas for balancing California's budget. It's sort of like locking the barn door after the horse is long gone.

I'm going to have to say it all depends on several things.

A Sin Tax is not so bad if the purpose is to make discourage people from bad habits AND pay for the full cost of his/her habit. With an alchohol tax, the money could be used to run Alchohol Treatment Centers, provide medical care to alchoholics who wreck their health, and pay for the cost of prosecuting alchohol related crimes like DWI.

However, using a Sin Tax to fund schools or highway construction is NOT a legitimate purpose of a Sin Tax. For starters, it gives the state a profit incentive to encourage bad habits. Now, 1 or 2 cans of beer is not bad. But when the State relies on Sin Taxes to fund the general budget, the State in effect is encouraging people to throw away their rent and grocery money on things like booze, cigarettes, gambling, prostitutes, you name it.

I know that California is in a Bad Financial Situation. But the politicians are going to have to address the problem by first being honest about the state of the Economy. One of the unpleasant truths about the American Economy is that our good Factory jobs have been replaced by less productive service jobs like Walmart and McDonalds. In such an economy, you cannot expect people to buy houses and cars. California and the rest of the nation are going to have to downscale their living arrangements.

With the downscaling of people's living arrangements, California needs to legalize home-schooling and cut the funding towards school-districts that are already failing. With people unable to afford the rising price of gas, California needs to cut back on Highway spending.

It is a fair solution. An argument could not be made that it is unfair. If anything, the loss of 45% of the money due to inflation and stagnant taxation of the product, is all the more reason to keep it current. It wouldn't constitute an undue burden on those who use the product. They'll just grumble and pay it, much like they do housing, food, and car payments which have gone up since 1992.

doomed_planet:



If you are talking about services other than k-12 public education and emergency care, then you would be mistaken. Illegals pay on average $80,000 in federal coffers more than they expend. Health care is truly a dilemma and in that regard, you are more than on target as the feds are doling out some serious moolaha to cover illegal medical care. That raises some interesting questions. Given the fact that child birth is the #1 factor of illegal use of emergency services, are we going to turn pregnant women and their babies away at the emergency doors? how "pro-life" is that? yep, we value life, as long as you're white, otherwise, go crawl off and die.

What do you mean by, "as long as you're white?" The demographics of America and its CITIZENS are much broader than white. How about this: "If you are a citizen."

America does not owe the outside world a free pass. And those of you who think it does, open your homes and wallets and put your money where your mouth is. You can donate to the illegal immigration fund, if you feel your tax dollars aren't doing enough to help the illegals. Better yet, open up your home and take in an illegal family if you are so sympathetic.

By the way, it's easy for you to take your position as a Nebraskan. I come from the midwest myself. Maybe whites are still the majority there, but it's not the case in the big cities. And many of us who are against "illegal" immigration are living in very diverse communities and have an affinity and understanding of other cultures and ethnicities. And we do not base our position on illegal immigration out of xenophobia or racism, but out of the concern and loyalty to American citizens as well as legal immigrants.

Uh- but you, um, skirted the issue- do we turn away birthing moms and let them die in childbirth?

I am all for the tax, for the reasons listed by Amlord. I am for the legalization and taxation to the social cost of all currently "illicit" drugs. Alcohol costs more in lives and pain and money than all the illegal drugs combined. Time for it to pay it's way too. I dont' care if it goes to the "general fund" either- we are going to pay for the treatment of the social problems of alcohol from the "general fund" anyway- jails, rehab etc etc- those are all paid by most states by thier "general fund" without targeted monies now. Using this tax to pay back the losses to the general fund is fine by me.

I would say it's not fair due to how the CA criminal justice system is losing so much money. I think a dollar a drink would be more fair.

Sure a lot of tax-happy folks around here. And what better than a "sin tax", make those drunkards and air polluters PAY! After all the reasoning (a term I use loosely) goes, they're costing us money. They should PAY! Okay, by that logic (anther term I use loosely) let's look at other ways for the government to take our money... excuse me, THEIR money. See whatcha all think about this.

Show of hands here. How many of you sign on to the Internet for non-work related purposes during work hours? Those with their hands down are suspicious. Doesn't that cost your employer money in terms of productivity? Doesn't that cost us all in the form of reduced tax revenues paid by your employer? Why not an Internet tax? Whatcha say to that? How about a quarter every time you sign on to America's Debate? Maybe a nickel a post read and fifty cents for every one written (I would add a surtax for some here). And of course, there is the "excise tax" on links to other internet sites - dime each. and to download a video, forget about it. If you have to ask, you can't afford it. Anyway on to the questions.....

Is this a fair solution to the budget deficit facing California? Why or why not?


If not, what is a better solution for the enormous financial crisis facing California?


No, it's not a "fair solution" because it's not a "solution" at all. All this does is give those money-grubbing politicians more of our money to waste. The "financial crisis" facing California was brought about by these politicians and their reckless spending. So, the solution to this is to give them more money? You gotta be kidding! The solution to this is to give them less and force them to make the hard choices abut spending less. I know in my own case when times are a bit thin in my household, we stop eating steak and start eating chicken. I think it's about time the good people of California put their politicians on a diet.

Aquilla

And why should Alcohol, possibly the most destructive drug known to man, be given such privileged status over something much more safe and less costly to society, such as oh, crystal meth or heroin?

Why not a "user fee"? "Pay as you go"- I mean, alcohol is almost as destructive to lives as cigarettes- and why should PERSONAL income taxes go to subsidize the Alcoholic industry?

If you're talking about the fact that alcohol is legal and other substances aren't, that's a topic for another thread. This one is about the government raising taxes on alcohol, a legal substance in order to pay for government excesses. It's a tax and spend issue. Now, if you believe for one second that any of this money is going to actually go to address the problems caused by the "evil grain" as opposed to some politician's pet project or special interest group, then I've got a bridge to nowhere to sell you..... Oh yeah, you already had one of those.


Aquilla

Where does throwing money at politicians end and budgeting for costs associated with vices begin?

At the same time, alcohol-related problems have increased dramatically and now cost the state tens of billions of dollars annually in criminal justice, illness, injuries and myriad other costs.

According to Doomed's article there is a $14 billion budget shortfall. It's one thing to argue the state should reduce taxes and cut programs elsewhere to balance the budget, but you'd still have alcohol-related expenses to deal with.

Why do "fiscal conservatives" act like they're signing a peace treaty with liberals whenever raising taxes makes sense? "Not now, not ever!" is not an argument. It is principled pigheadedness.

Oh, do you think that the general fund is ALREADY paying for the high cost of alcohol related whatevers? Foster care, divorce, hospitalizations, homeless (who are almost exclusively alcoholic, though some meth heads make up this group- Alcohol is thier "drug of choice"-

in other words - the money had already been spent, it may be "tax and spend"- but it is better than "have no choice but to spend, and get no revenue from it anyway"

Bottom line is- we spend lots and lots of money related to the consumption of alcohol, and we don't get money back from this either.

I see it as no different than a toll road or park fees- it should support itself to some degree.

Incarceration for drunken driving, jails due to abusive drunkards, broken homes- a big chunk of all that is due to alcohol consumption.

As with the currently illegal drugs I mentioned- I would much rather see it "pay as you play" than foisting the entire problem on the general fund of states and cities and feds.

Let's do a cost analysis of cigarettes and Alcohol, and total up all the costs, direct and indirect, then simply divide them by the yearly consumption of those items, and charge that amount.

Fair, and better than using the general fund for these things.

right now, I am looking at four aging Alcoholics, with advanced dementia. They each cost over 2000 dollars a day for thier care, and it sometimes takes YEARS to discharge them to a less costly facility, especially when they are assaultive as well.

Should YOUR tax dollars go towards thier care Aquilla- because, you know, it is right now, as we speak- this facility is state run, federally funded. 99% of our patients are medicaid eligible. About 75% of them are here due to some Alcohol related incident.

Look in jails- I would be willing to bet over 80% of all the violent crimes are alcohol related. In fact, all but the white collar criminals and the drug distributers and possesors are probably there because they did something awful or stupid or both while drunk.

Alcohol is the most feared drug in the penal system, bar none. Pot, Heroin, meth, cocaine, none of them have the negative impact or danger to staff that a big run of Alcohol will have.

Think of the billions of dollars that is poured into the American correctional system, and just think about how much of YOUR tax dollars do towards incarcerating those folks - and understand how much of YOUR tax dollars go towards supporting Alcohol related issues.

Yes, lots and lots and lots of money, of YOUR money Aquilla, whether you drink or not, goes towards funding issues related to Alcohol.

Fetal alcohol syndrome- you know how much THIS costs you Aquilla? This is a cradle to grave problem- you are spending MILLIONS per child raising these kids. Around 4 the behavior problems and institutionalization begin. About 90% of FAS kids end up on jail, on serious charges- they have impulse control and learning deficits that cost society for thier entire lives- even though they have never drunk a drop voluntarily as a child.

Just try to wrap your head around this Aquilla- you are already paying HUGE sums of money, of YOUR money, for this problem as we speak.

Earmarking it for JUST alcohol is a head fake with no score- completely useless. All the money that goes towards so many of our societies ills, caused by alcohol, should go into the general funds of communities that have had to pay for Alcohol related issues, for decades, and it is about time they recouped some of this money back.

Oh please..... a tax is a tax is a tax.... It's just that some taxes are more popular than others and that's how the politicians get away with it. Let's tax those evil smokers and tell the people the money will go towards helping our children to learn not to smoke. Oh yeah, and while we're at it, let's build smoking cessation center in my district and name it after me and you can hire my brother to run the place.

I had a good friend I used to work with who refused to buy savings bonds because he said, "Giving money to the government is like giving dope to a junkie". That is all too true. Every election in California we have ballot measures for bonds for stuff like new parks, new schools, increased law enforcement... yada yada yada. All l"feel good issues". How in the Hell can you vote against a park? What kind of a cretin conservative are you anyway? Well, I vote NO on every last one of them. Why? Because I hate people. Actually it's because those kinds of worthy things are what we should be spending tax dollars that we have right now. You never see a bond issue for saving some obscure rodent or stupid fish that lives only in some god-forsaken creek. And, you never see a bond measure to pay for some marble columned building erected in some politician's name at UC Berkeley. No, that comes out of the general fund, no questions asked.

So great, let's come up with a new tax, give more money to the politicians and feed their spending habit. See where it gets us. I think I know.....



There's your government people.......

Enjoy

Aquilla

Clarify this for me then- how do you propose is the best way to pay for the things mentioned? Do you propose to NOT pay for them? Which ones do you think we shouldn't pay for, and where should the money come from that has to be spent just to maintain public safety to deal with the massive problems that Alcohol produce?

A little more head in the sand action there Aquilla?

Pay for it with the money they have now instead of some of the other stupid things they're spending money on. It seems to me that many here are kind of standing in a crowd and watching a pickpocket grab someone else's money. "Hey, that's ok, he's not taking mine'. Well, hold on to your wallet, you could be next. The big government monster is insatiable.

Aquilla

I hear you and agree- just look at the 480 billion wasted on another country already

That being said- niether you nor I like 'social programs" for the most part- correct? Don't like welfare, food stamps etc- well, got news for you- one of the underlying causes of the use of that is alcohol. Alcohol dependency effects every single social services budget in the nation.

I would be willing to bet money, that if booze disappeared tomorow, with the wave of a magic wand- we could more than halve our social programs budget.

Aquilla- you can not even imagine the money spent on alcohol related illnesses- that YOU and I spend our tax money on.

Taxing it to pay for itself is just plain common sense. I have no problem with toll roads, user fees for parks etc- this is just an extension of a very, very expensive habit that you and I spend a huge % of our tax dollars on.

Let's be clear as well- making it illegal is stupid as well- just as stupid as the other "hard" drugs being illegal- the drug war isn't WINNABLE- but it is very FUNDABLE.

Taxing alcohol to "pay to play", if the price actually reflected the true amount of tax dollars that go to alcohol related costs- might actually make it too expensive to drink, really, same with cigarettes.

But Aquilla- be honest- you are okay with Big goverment- as long as it is a program you are okay with. I mean, haven't seen you too up in arms about all the big goverment programs of RR or GW huh? Is it just poor people you hate helping?