jump to last post 1-15 of 15 discussions (32 posts)

Should those who drink alcohol pay a special tax to cover the damage it causes t

  1. Jack Burton profile image81
    Jack Burtonposted 5 years ago

    Should those who drink alcohol pay a special tax to cover the damage it causes to society?

    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.

  2. Team Wiseman profile image81
    Team Wisemanposted 5 years ago

    That would be reasonable, however, if it did happen I don't think the increased tax would properly be used. Greed rules our government, peoples lives would still be in danger...and to me that means more than property. The illegal trade of alcohol would rise once again and more problems than solutions would come from the tax increase.
    The only solution in my opinion is to simply quit drinking the product and that requires individual self-control...

  3. IDONO profile image81
    IDONOposted 5 years ago

    Should we tax Big Macs? They cost us more than your example. So do prescription drugs, tax cheats and the list goes on.  No one is on the side of the drunk driver. That statement is ridiculous. If you knew anything about alcoholism, you would know that a tax would make absolutely no difference if a person decided to get sober or not.
         Pick a vice of yours; and don't tell me you don't have any. Then let's tax it. That seems to be the remedy of a lot of people. Tax the vices that they don't have. Or better yet, let's cut programs; as long as it isn't mine.
         I don't have anyone's blood on my hands. I am only responsible for my own actions. So next time you tell someone not to have blood on their hands, I hope they tell you not to have your hands in his pocket.

    1. Jack Burton profile image81
      Jack Burtonposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      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.

    2. cat on a soapbox profile image97
      cat on a soapboxposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      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.

    3. Jack Burton profile image81
      Jack Burtonposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      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.

    4. cat on a soapbox profile image97
      cat on a soapboxposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      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.

  4. duffsmom profile image61
    duffsmomposted 5 years ago

    Although I do not drink any alcohol, no, I am against everyone paying for the sins of a few. If a person drinks and it causes damage, then that person should pay the price.  But taxing a community is the beginning of a slippery slope.   You and I may like chocolate but if chocolate is abused by me and it causes me to be fat and have health problems, should you, one who ate it judiciously have to pay for it. No.

    And to say the if we do not agree with your proposal than we are on the side of drunk drivers is highly insulting and a very manipulative tactic and not true at all.

  5. joanwz profile image76
    joanwzposted 5 years ago

    No. how on earth would such a tax be calculated? what about the people who drink at home? how do you distinguish between someone who's an alcoholic and someone who only drinks a glass of wine with dinner on rare occasions?

    1. Jack Burton profile image81
      Jack Burtonposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      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.

    2. IDONO profile image81
      IDONOposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      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.

    3. Jack Burton profile image81
      Jack Burtonposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Perhaps, Idono, there is another reason for the post and question than being a "hypocrite."

  6. Lisa HW profile image73
    Lisa HWposted 5 years ago

    I don't happen to believe that taxing stuff is always the answer to a lot of problems; and I don't believe that everyone who buys something should essentially be expected to pay for some of those problems.

    It was a long time ago now, but I was sitting about six inches away from one of those innocent victims who was killed by a drunk (and speeding) driver.  I was absolutely covered in more than my share of my own blood, from the top of my head to the top of my boots.  It's pretty offensive to me to have someone suggest that because I don't believe taxing stuff is the solution to some of the most challenging problems society faces, I have "blood on MY hands".

    I have my own ideas about some of the things that need to be done to drastically turn around the whole drunk-driving, but also speeding-driving, problem.  Those ideas don't include believing that the government should even try to control, punish and/or manipulate people (and manufacturers) through the use of taxation.

  7. cat on a soapbox profile image97
    cat on a soapboxposted 5 years ago

    It's terribly tragic when lives are lost due to drunk drivers, and we already seriously target these people. If we started charging exhorbitant taxes like we do on cigarettes, then we would need to do the same for drug addicts, obese people, those who text when driving,  those w/ anger management issues and anyone else who shows self-centered or irresponsible behavior. What is wrong with moderation and personal responsibility?  We as a society already pay for the bad behavior of the minority, and many of us resent it.
    btw: I do NOT have blood on my hands because I don't drink and drive nor do I let my party guests leave to drive under the influence.

  8. ahorseback profile image59
    ahorsebackposted 5 years ago

    Well now ! You asked and then answered your own question , seems soo typical today in these forums , doesn't it ?  Let me ask you this , What about personal responsibility !  This is how our culture has been moving lately ......forget about impulse controls on the personal levels , Lets let someone else be responsible , pay the costs and be accountable  for our actions !   The statement you made at the end " If you don't agree...... blah blah blah !" Shows your lack  of maturity !

  9. JimTxMiller profile image78
    JimTxMillerposted 5 years ago

    Alcoholic beverages are taxed, making this question moot.

    1. Jack Burton profile image81
      Jack Burtonposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      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.

  10. MisterShives profile image62
    MisterShivesposted 5 years ago

    I don't see how a tax like this would even be calculated, let alone actually be put into a law. there are too many people that drink that would vote against it. However, I think that when people drink and do something stupid that they should definitely be paying for it.

  11. phoenixelliot profile image59
    phoenixelliotposted 4 years ago

    As someone who has had a problem with drug and alcohol abuse I can tell you that raising the price of alcohol wouldn't have stopped me. If I couldn't afford it I would have stolen it, or stolen money to get it. I think prohibition proved this point very well. If people want it they will get it, and still drive after. Also people have been distilling moonshine for decades to evade taxes on alcohol. I think placing higher taxes would  have very little effect.

    1. phoenixelliot profile image59
      phoenixelliotposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      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.

  12. nanderson500 profile image86
    nanderson500posted 4 years ago

    Well there are extra taxes on hard liquor already in my state. Personally, I don't think moderate drinkers who are responsible should have to pay any extra tax. But you have a point with the drunk drivers.

  13. sufyan rana profile image62
    sufyan ranaposted 4 years ago

    AS Every One know Alcohaol Damage the Humane health
    So there should a huge tax payment for Alcohol drinker and there should a jail for Alcohol Maker Because they are damaged the Society

    1. Jack Burton profile image81
      Jack Burtonposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Preach it, brother...

  14. byshea profile image87
    bysheaposted 4 years ago

    From Jack Burton: "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."

    Then I guess guns owner are guilty for all homicides by a firearm, cigarettes smokers are guilty for all deaths by cancer, and cars owners are guilty for all deaths from accidents because someone missed the red light.  Maybe more taxes is the answer to financially compensate those who are victims of these products.  Why not create a special tax for all consumer goods purchased in order to protect us from others?  That way no one has to be responsible for anything they do.  Isn't that the "forward way of thinking" these days? 

    Better yet, let's just give the government a good portion of our paychecks to do what they think is necessary.  After all, they know better than us anyhow.  Wait a minute..... I just realized - aren't we already doing that?

    While the question may have good intentions, the premise that if you don't agree you have blood on your hands just invalidates it.  Solutions to questions like that are only resolved through facts, not feelings.

  15. Silverspeeder profile image59
    Silverspeederposted 4 years ago

    Taxing alcohol will do nothing to alleviate the problem. Most drunk drivers are repeat offenders so increasing the penalties for driving drunk may have the effect of reducing the instances of drunk driving.
    Those who drive while intoxicated are as guilty of murder if they kill someone as someone who takes a gun and murders someone, they should be treated the same when they get caught.
    Governments can not be trusted with taxation, it all goes into the big pot and governments will use it whichever way they see fit..

    1. Jack Burton profile image81
      Jack Burtonposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      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.

    2. Silverspeeder profile image59
      Silverspeederposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      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.

    3. Jack Burton profile image81
      Jack Burtonposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      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.

    4. Silverspeeder profile image59
      Silverspeederposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      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?

    5. Jack Burton profile image81
      Jack Burtonposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      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

    6. Silverspeeder profile image59
      Silverspeederposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      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.

    7. Jack Burton profile image81
      Jack Burtonposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      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.

 
working