According to a recent study, raising taxes on alcohol does not necessarily lead to reduced consumption, and in some cases may actually increase consumption. According to the study, if a "price increase" (that is, a tax) is even across the board, consumption is lowered slightly, and if the tax is weighted towards the lower end drinks, consumption is lowered even more. However, if the tax is weighted towards more expensive alcohol, consumption actually rises. Their suggestion? Target taxes at lower end drinks.
They said targeting cheaper drinks would be better than price rises across the board.
I have a better suggestion. Forget the tax. Let people drink if they want. It is really none of the government's business. It is not government's role to engage in such social engineering.
But the period has also seen a rise in alcohol consumption and alcohol-related deaths - more than 6,500 people die each year from conditions such as liver disease and alcohol poisoning.
Such problems are certainly a consequence of drinking. However, they are consequences that the person choosing to drink can determine if they want to accept. The corollary to that is that they are also a consequence that the drinker should expect to pay for themselves. If we truly want freedom from governmental social engineering attempts, we also have to take responsibility for our own actions, and not expect government to pay for our liver treatments and rehab.
This should apply equally to all sorts of dangerous activities. The argument often used to tax tobacco, or alcohol, or ban pot, or this that or the next thing is that it ends up costing the government a lot of money in medical expenses and such. That is a valid concern. However, the solution is not some sort of stupid social engineering. Rather, the solution is to make people pay for their own bad decisions rather than making the tax payers pay.
No comments:
Post a Comment