« Freedom works | Main | Was justice done? »
April 15, 2009
First they imposed the cigarette taxes, and I didn't complain because I wasn't a smoker
Actually, I did complain about those taxes in Nonsense at The Times. But in the category of low externality, high private cost and benefit consumption choices that the state decides to tax because they have a highly inelastic demand, I bring you the beer tax of Oregon.
Oregon ...plan to raise taxes by 1,900% on . . . beer. The tax would catapult to $52.21 from $2.60 a barrel. The money is intended to reduce Oregon's $3 billion budget deficit and, ostensibly, to pay for drug treatment. ... But Democrats who run the legislature are desperate for the revenues to help pay for Oregon's 27.9% increase in the general fund budget last year. If they have their way, every time a worker steps up to the bar and orders a cold one, his tab will rise by an extra $1.25 to $1.50 a pint. Half of these taxes will be paid by Oregonians with an income below $45,000 a year. Voters might want to remember this the next time Democrats in Salem profess to be the party of Joe Six Pack.This Tax Is for You
Is their a utilitarian theory of justice that would support a tax like this? Is there a theory of natural rights that would do so? These taxes are felt most by poor smokers and heavy drinkers. These sorts of people are disproportionately unhappy, unhealthy, in addition to their poverty. We may want to use these taxes to change behavior rather than revenue. That's not the case here. The point is to raise revenue. However, even if behavior modification were the motive we could not willfully ignore our knowledge that these customers have inelastic demand for products like cigarettes and booze. If we are to judge the tax by its consequences rather than its motives, as we generally should, this is a real loser, a regressive tax on the poor and unhappy. Judged by the stated motive of the proponents of the Oregon law, it appears even worse. The goal is not to improve the health of the poor, but to deliberately raise taxes upon them.
Posted by OneEyedMan at April 15, 2009 8:43 AM
Comments
Love the title to this post.
But what we should really worry about is not the taxes, but when they ban the consumption of alcohol in restaurants and bars.
After all, drinkers tend to be loud, rowdy, and can negatively impact the experience of non-drinkers in the same room. You don't even need to be sitting at the same table in order to have a group of frat boys energetically drinking near you ruin your night of meaningful conversation.
Posted by: Monk ![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.belligerati.net/nav-commenters.gif)
at April 15, 2009 11:09 PM
Post a comment
Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)
(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)