Forum Post: Alcohol Indusrty Passes on Billions of Costs to American People!
Posted 13 years ago on Oct. 21, 2011, 1:39 p.m. EST by sclarke2727
(6)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
In 1998 the overall estimated cost of alcohol use in the US was $184.6 billion (Harwood, 2000). This 1998 estimate amounted to roughly $683 for every man, woman, and child living in the United States in 1998.
The Federal excise taxes collected on alcohol in 2002 totaled a mere $8.3 billion. This is only 4.5 percent of the $184 billion in alcohol-related costs sustained by Americans.
States are also not collecting this money. For example, in California, Big Alcohol pays a meager .8 percent in taxes to the state of the total cost of alcohol-related harms incurred.
Increasing taxes decreases traffic fatalities, injuries, underage drinking, etc.
The Distilled Spirits Council spent $24.6 million lobbying just on tax issues since 2005, according to the Sunlight Foundation, a nonprofit organization that tracks campaign contributions and lobbying.
Additionally, alcohol lobby groups collectively spent $35 million on state political campaigns in 2010.
In just the first three months of 2010, six of the biggest lobbying agencies for Big Alcohol spent nearly $3 million dollars lobbying both houses of Congress as well as other government agencies, according to various Associated Press sources.
All 23 proposed alcohol tax increases in key states went down to defeat in 2010.
When will Politicians force the Alcohol Industry to pay for their destruction and stop burdening the American People?
I'm no teetotaler and talk of prohibition and the Volstead Act is hyperbolic, and don't contribute to the conversation. There are a lot of things identified by the occupy movement that are desperately in need of funding. In My state - VA, the adjusted value of the tax has fallen by 72 % since the last increase 35 years ago.
(Source) - http://www.alcoholjustice.org/campaigns/charge-for-harm/450-neglected-and-outdated-state-beer-taxes.html
Harm taxes are nothing new and it makes since for the consumers of known harmful products to offset the real costs (ER costs, first responders, lost productivity, rehab, lost productivity) for participating in a known high risk behavior
Since 50% of the cost is already tax, I'm not sure the original poster has a clue. The vast majority of "harm" is that phony calculation is what abusive consumers do to themselves. The overwhelming # of consumers drink in moderation. They are already paying heavily in taxes for that right. Further, higher taxes will only lead to huge amounts of lost jobs among the people in the hospitality business who can least afford it--wait staff at the corner restaurant or bar. Dumb, simplistic solutions almost always lead to unintended consequence.
There would be little no no lost jobs in the hospitality industry. Sales would only decrease an estimated 1.9%. The amount of tax we are laking about is very small. As far as harm to self, we still pay for many of those costs in emergency rooms and higher health insurance. I suggest some research on your part. https://www.marininstitute.org/site/images/stories/pdfs/taxes_myth_vs_reality.pdf http://www.mills.edu/academics/graduate/ppol/student_research/student_research_09/Puliafico2009_ES.pdf http://www.mills.edu/academics/graduate/ppol/student_research/student_research_09/Puliafico2009_ES.pdf
What part of "50% of the bottle is already tax" did you miss. That is confiscatory. Also, the vast majority of the alleged harm you describe is produced by a small percentage of abusers. The vast majority of consumers drink in moderation. Don't tax them for the harm of others. Further, numerous studies--most recently from the CDC--have shown that moderate consumption contributes to the lowest all-cause mortality, particularly in the cardio-vascular area. Since heart attack and strokes seem to decline among moderate drinkers, and those diseases cost our country billions each year (according to the American Heart Association), should that benefit to society be accounted for? Higher taxes just drive away moderate consumers; abusive consumers will drink regardless of price. Another example of the counter-productive effect of higher alcohol prices was the 1991 increase the in Federal excise tax. After it went into effect, it took the government eleven years just to get back to the same level of revenue collected before the tax went into effect. And thousands of people lost their entry level jobs in the hospitality industry. Charge the abusers not the casual drinkers...
What part of "50% of the bottle is already tax" did you miss. That is confiscatory. Also, the vast majority of the alleged harm you describe is produced by a small percentage of abusers. The vast majority of consumers drink in moderation. Don't tax them for the harm of others. Further, numerous studies--most recently from the CDC--have shown that moderate consumption contributes to the lowest all-cause mortality, particularly in the cardio-vascular area. Since heart attack and strokes seem to decline among moderate drinkers, and those diseases cost our country billions each year (according to the American Heart Association), should that benefit to society be accounted for? Higher taxes just drive away moderate consumers; abusive consumers will drink regardless of price. Another example of the counter-productive effect of higher alcohol prices was the 1991 increase the in Federal excise tax. After it went into effect, it took the government eleven years just to get back to the same level of revenue collected before the tax went into effect. And thousands of people lost their entry level jobs in the hospitality industry. Charge the abusers not the casual drinkers...
If there's no booze in this revolution, I'm out
negative externality tax: people who drink get liver problems, heart problems, obesity, drunk driving, sensory impairments, all other kinds of illnesses as a result of alcohol consumption. excessive consumption of alcohol is considered a 'poisoning'.
let's just say you're paying when you consume alcohol so that when you go to a hospital for subsidized treatment of alcohol related problems, you've already paid your 'fair share'.
They will when they arent bought off with beer money
I agree, alcohol is incredibly destructive and the costs to society as a whole cannot only be quantified in monetary costs. Alcohol breaks up families, is responsible for countless violent crimes, and puts a massive burden on society. I think a 50% tax on alcohol just to address the monetary costs to society is more than fair. Perhaps additional taxes to pay for addiction treatment or therapy for trauma caused by alcoholic parents would be great.
What are you ... some kind of teetotaler who wants to bring back the Volstead Act and Prohibition?
Don't feel we should pay for the costs to society alcohol causes. Drink all you want.
I believe they funded the civil war on taxing alcohol? Thanks for that insightful post. This type of post should be complied with other scams that take place, and then present them to the 1% and the wannabe 1%. I Also agree with demonspawn79. What a shame.
Right...because Big Alcohol is responsible for "alcohol-related harms." Being the idiot that I am, I don't have the means to understand how alcohol works and its effects. Please tax it some more, and maybe I'll learn. I'm just an idiot, after all.
The point is they sell a dangerous product that we pay for. We have made the tobacco industry pay. Why should they get a pass? Alcohol taxes have not increased since the 70's. Your rebuttal is a little weak!
Right, being the idiot that I am, I am too stupid to figure out that smoking is bad for me. Therefore I need the government to come in and disincentivize me to smoke, because I'm a gigantic idiot. Being the idiot I am, I want to smoke even though it gives me cancer. I'm just so dumb that I smoke anyway. Thank god the government is here to impinge upon to make choices. We might as well tax fast food heavily, too, right? I'm just too big an idiot to stop eating it, even though I know it's bad for me.
Sorry you are such an idiot. Read this it may help you understand the issue... http://www.mills.edu/academics/graduate/ppol/student_research/student_research_09/Puliafico2009_ES.pdf
Taxing because of social costs in itself is stupid. Externalities are efficient; they don't need to be taxed, pollution being a lovely example.