[Gunnair]

I should think that it will hurt small business, breweries, vineyards etc and drive people towards the u-brew/wine kitz markets to make their own at a fraction of the cost.

[Lemmy]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

I'm sure the Mohawk Nation will deeply appreciate the new business opportunities presented by the higher alcohol taxes.

I read an article on the relationship between tobacco taxes and smuggling some years ago. I wish I could remember the title or author's name. But I remember it concluded that there was a knowable "threshold price", below which most smokers would pay the tax and enjoy the convenience of retail tobacco purchase, and above which most smokers would turn to the black market. There'd certainly be a similar price-point with alcohol. There are also measurable Laffer curve effects with excise taxation. Increase the tax too much and people will avoid the tax altogether by turning to the smugglers. So it's important to know that threshold price, both in terms of tax generation and law enforcement.

The notion that people will consume less of an addictive good just because the price goes up ignores the concept of substitution effects. There's only a narrow price range over which taxation will reduce consumption. Beyond that narrow tax range, consumers will avoid the tax altogether by turning to untaxed substitutes (which would also include, as Gunny noted, home brewing).

[Canadian_Mind]

Delwin Delwin:

I believe that raising the price of alcohol will not only reduce the degree of alcohol abuse but will also deter young people from beginning to drink.

I also believe that smoking is a good model of the elasticity of addictive controlled substances and the impact that raising their prices will have on their consumption, as it is far more highly addictive than alcohol.

I don't think anyone can argue that the consumption any product, including heroin, crack, crystal meth, are totally inelastic. At the very least if if all disposable income is being spent on alcohol, there will be less consumed based on price per volume.

That being said, I do also think that this will have an overall negative impact on the economy as less people will be inclined to go out to bars or dinner when wine and beer is too expensive, and tourism would be significantly impacted since people travelling often like to enjoy the occasional drink.

Why do you believe it will be a succesful scheme?

[Unsound]

The people who can take or leave a drink will just leave it if it's too expensive. The actual alcoholics and problem drinkers will just spend what it takes, or possibly just steal the booze they need.

Addict quit drinking/smoking/drugging because they're ready. beacause they've found a good enough reason to fight the addiction. Money is almost never a good enough reason to an addict.

[Canadian_Mind]

Unsound Unsound:

The people who can take or leave a drink will just leave it if it's too expensive. The actual alcoholics and problem drinkers will just spend what it takes, or possibly just steal the booze they need.

Addict quit drinking/smoking/drugging because they're ready. beacause they've found a good enough reason to fight the addiction. Money is almost never a good enough reason to an addict.

This sums it up for my viewpoint as well. Even at current prices I've seen people spend money on liquor to the point where they have litterally no money for anything else.

[Public_Domain]

[Delwin]

Canadian_Mind Canadian_Mind:

Why do you believe it will be a succesful scheme?

Again, I think it would be successful in terms of preventing alcohol abuse in the same way that raising the price of cigarettes has been successful in curbing the number of smokers.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/story/201 ... anada.html

I think the argument that alcoholics might find other sources is valid. I do not believe that raising the price of alcohol will turn law abiding citizens into thieves. If they are thieves they are probably already stealing their alcohol.

I would also assert that all alcoholism begins as social drinking so if you can agree that raising the price of alcohol will curb social drinking then it stands to reason that you should also be able to see that less social drinkers over time will lead to less abusive drinkers.

Again I would like to emphasize that I do not think this would in any way be a successful policy because as mentioned, substance abuse is not about the substance itself but more about self abuse and so I think if people could not afford alcohol they would find alternatives.

I also think that the revenue lost by raising the price would do more harm than good.

I just don't see how people are arguing that raising the price would not lower alcohol abuse in and of itself in the long run.

[andyt]

dino_bobba_renno dino_bobba_renno:

Raising taxes on alcohol is nothing more than a tax grab. If they were really serious about curbing abuse then they would allocate some of the money collected from this sin tax towards treatment. The resources available for addictions recovery is a sad joke in this country.

Yes and Yes. It's a tax grab, and they should use those taxes for treatment. But, even going into general revenue, health care is the biggest part of a provincial budget, so these sin taxes are still going towards treatment in a fashion. Grab some more, reduce the use, and put the xtra towards treatment.

[Gunnair]

andyt andyt:

dino_bobba_renno dino_bobba_renno:

Raising taxes on alcohol is nothing more than a tax grab. If they were really serious about curbing abuse then they would allocate some of the money collected from this sin tax towards treatment. The resources available for addictions recovery is a sad joke in this country.

Yes and Yes. It's a tax grab, and they should use those taxes for treatment. But, even going into general revenue, health care is the biggest part of a provincial budget, so these sin taxes are still going towards treatment in a fashion. Grab some more, reduce the use, and put the xtra towards treatment.

I'd submit that they'd be better off focusing on the foods that make people far as opposed to booze if this us a legitimate concern about the costs if healthcare.

Make pop $20 a litre and pizza pockets $10 each and watch consumption of shitty food and drink come down.

[Zipperfish]

I think if they are going to decide that certain people pay higher health care taxes, then just privatize the system altogether and be done with it. I don't see why I should be paying for an alkie's treatment everytime I feel like a beer.

[andyt]

Gunnair Gunnair:

I should think that it will hurt small business, breweries, vineyards etc and drive people towards the u-brew/wine kitz markets to make their own at a fraction of the cost.

That would be a good thing. Cleaner booze that people put effort into making themselves. Doubt if too many of the over consumers are or would be in this market - takes too much self-discipline, which addicts do not have.

[andyt]

Gunnair Gunnair:

I'd submit that they'd be better off focusing on the foods that make people far as opposed to booze if this us a legitimate concern about the costs if healthcare.

Make pop $20 a litre and pizza pockets $10 each and watch consumption of shitty food and drink come down.

Submission accepted. Focus on both, ie tax both more, would be my submission.

[andyt]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

I think if they are going to decide that certain people pay higher health care taxes, then just privatize the system altogether and be done with it. I don't see why I should be paying for an alkie's treatment everytime I feel like a beer.

You realize you pay for an alkie's treatment either way, right? The idea is that with higher taxes, there would be less alkies needing treatment. Seems to be true for street drugs - as prices go up, use goes down.

[Gunnair]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

I think if they are going to decide that certain people pay higher health care taxes, then just privatize the system altogether and be done with it. I don't see why I should be paying for an alkie's treatment everytime I feel like a beer.

Yep. Nor do I feel like subsidizing some dumbass mountain biker who runs out of talent and does a face plant into a tree or the 400 pounder piling it in in McDonalds nor the idiotic driver with no seat belt who wraps his camero around a tree.

However if I am going to be compelled to subsidize them then also jack up the taxes on mountain bikes, skateboards, junk food and gas then and drop the taxes on helmets, fruits and vegetables, and running shoes and safety gear in order to promote a safe and healthy lifestyle.

Want to smoke, drink, eat crap, and participate in high risk activities then you'll be taxed accordingly. Want to eat healthy and participate in low risk healthy activities then low taxes all around.

[Zipperfish]

andyt andyt:

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

I think if they are going to decide that certain people pay higher health care taxes, then just privatize the system altogether and be done with it. I don't see why I should be paying for an alkie's treatment everytime I feel like a beer.

You realize you pay for an alkie's treatment either way, right? The idea is that with higher taxes, there would be less alkies needing treatment. Seems to be true for street drugs - as prices go up, use goes down.

What I realize is that I pay disproportionately more to the health care system with higher alcohol taxes, even though my alcohol use costs the system zero dollars per year. Even so, the cost of alcoholics is being downloaded to me. Besides, we already have the highest alcohol taxes in North America.