Alcohol-related auto crashes alone totals more than $51 billion and that's not counting the rest of the harm. A $1 per % of alcohol in the product will go to a common pool to pay for that damage so that we who don't drink don't have it come out of our pocket. That would add $5-6 per can of beer, $4-20 dollars per bottle of wine, and $50 or more to whiskey, rum and others. This will also encourage the manufacturers to not make such potent, dangerous products. If you don't agree with this then you are on the side of the drunk drivers who kill innocent people. You have their blood on your hands.
sort by best latest
Those taxes go into a general fund. I demand a special tax that will specifically pay for the damage that you drinkers do to society. It will pay for things such as about 1/4th of every police departments budget, and give us non drinkers a break.
The tax is not to get people to sober up, it is to make those who drink pay for the damage they cause society. And by your willingness to have a beer you're no different from the assault drinker.
So the next time you eat a donut, you are no different than someone who has no self-control over diet and drives up the costs of healthcare because of ensuing damage? It is the same argument.
Me eating a donut is not directly responsible for anyone dying, eh. No one needs a six pack of beer. Limiting people to purchasing one beer a week will go along ways towards stopping the carnage on our streets.
Jack, You thoughts on this issue are set in stone. I'll respectfully leave it at that. Most people, however, cherish the freedom to make their own choices rather than live in a government-imposed straightjacket.
Since alcohol only exists to get people drunk there is no functional difference between an alcoholic and a social drinker. Those who have a glass of beer after mowing the lawn are just as guilty as the person who plows into a car, killing all inside.
And I supposed those that carry a concealed weapon are just as guilty as the one that murders with a gun, right? Your comment here compared to your profile adds up to one hypocrite.
Perhaps, Idono, there is another reason for the post and question than being a "hypocrite."
The tax is not in any way supposed to "solve a problem" which you should be able to figure out from the post. It is a way to stop those of us who don't drink from paying for the damage caused by you who do.
There is a majority who do drink and cause no damage so should they be penalized for the minority who do?
It would be best to penalize those who do the damage harshly with fines or imprisonment.
Yes, if they drink one drink a year then they are part of the problem. Alcohol only exists to get people drunk. Those who drink it should pay the price for the carnage they cause... not the rest of us.
The UK government have taxed alcohol, and fuel to the hilt Jack and it still hasn't stopped the problem of drink driver or any of the Alcohol related problems.
How do you compensate a dead person if a drink driver kills them?
The money would go towards 1) pay for police time 2) increased medical costs 3) increased insurance costs 4) Loss of productivity 5) job replacement costs, etc. Lots of ways to use the money the drinkers will provide to cure the problems they cause
Is there no tax on alcohol at all then in the USA?
We pay taxes for the police for the use of all its time, crime is not specific to alcohol related incidents.
I do get your point though Jack i just didn't know it was so bad in the USA.
We pay taxes but that goes into a general pool. The people who cause the problem by buying alcohol are the ones who should pay for the cleanup of the problems alcohol will cause. If there was no alcohol we could probably cut our police in half.
You also penalize those who drink responsibly, and never drive drunk. I will never pay the tax regardless as I don't drink. I just don't see the idea as very practical.