Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

  • Shop
  • Subscribe to BMG
  • Contact
  • Log In
  • Front Page
  • All Posts
  • About
  • Rules
  • Events
  • Register on BMG

Herald trots out the old “double taxation” shibboleth re Question 1

October 18, 2010 By David

Surprise!  The Herald is for Question 1, which would repeal the sales tax on alcoholic beverages.  Its principal argument appears to be that alcoholic beverages are already taxed via the alcohol excise, and it would be wrong to “double tax.”

Massachusetts consumers have always paid one tax on beer, wine and liquor purchased in a package store. Yes, it was assessed at the wholesaler level but it was baked into the shelf price and felt at the register.

Now those same consumers pay two taxes on that same bottle of wine or case of beer….

So Question 1 on November’s ballot really boils down to whether voters believe it’s fair to pay a tax on top of a tax – at a time when unemployment is high and small businesses are struggling.

It isn’t…. Question 1 is as much about fairness – about the principle of double-taxation – as it is the effect on shopping habits.

That might not be a terrible argument, if the amount of double taxation that’s actually happening were significant.  But it’s not.  

The excise tax, as of now, is 55¢/gallon of wine, or about 11 cents per standard (750 ml) bottle; and $3.30/barrel of 31 gallons or beer, or 6 cents per 6-pack of standard (12 oz.) bottles.

So how much “double-taxation” are we actually paying?  Well, the sales tax is 6.25%, so to get the amount of “double tax,” you multiply the excise by 0.0625.  Results: for wine, less than 0.7¢ per bottle.  For beer, less than 0.4¢ per six-pack.  In other words, in both cases, less than a penny of “double tax” – and that’s the case even if the wine or beer is quite expensive, since the excise is assessed only by volume.

Now, I’m generally not one to trivialize how much people spend on taxes.  But the fact is that in this case, with respect to the amount of “double taxation” we pay on beer and wine under the current system, we are talking about truly trivial amounts of money.  Even on stronger liquors, which are subject to a higher excise ($4.05/gallon) than beer and wine, a typical 750 ml bottle will have a “double taxation” component of about a nickel.

If you want to argue against Question 1 on the ground that alcohol should, on the merits, be exempt from the sales tax, great – knock yourself out.  Let’s have that debate.  But don’t give me this “double taxation” shibboleth.  It sounds scary, until you look at the numbers.  Then you realize that it’s just silly.

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0
0

Filed Under: User Tagged With: herald, question-1

Comments

  1. illwill781 says

    October 18, 2010 at 10:15 am

    The premise is we’re taxing a tax. This double taxation, despite however insignificant you think the dollars are, is a detriment to our fellow citizens who run package stores near our states borders. We do not need to be making it harder for businesses to function in this state by making their merchandise cost far more than it does just a couple miles away in New Hampshire.

    • david says

      October 18, 2010 at 11:03 am

      The problem for the package stores near the border is emphatically not the double taxation.  The problem, if there is one, is the sales tax itself.  We could solve the “double taxation” problem by repealing the excise tax, right?  No more double taxation.  But we’d still have the issue of 6.25% being added to the price of alcohol near the border, and the package stores would still be unhappy.

      <

      p>Like I said, argue about the sales tax on its merits, if you want.  But don’t pretend that “double taxation” is the issue.  It’s not.

      • bostonshepherd says

        October 19, 2010 at 11:46 am

        It’s the feeling that our leaders don’t care if they “tax the tax.”  It’s arrogant.  It’s more “can I have another, sir!”  It’s insult added to injury.  Where’s it stop?

        <

        p>THAT’S the issue.

    • petr says

      October 18, 2010 at 12:08 pm

      *[new] So they said its double taxation, and you agree that it is double taxation.. (0.00 / 0)

      The premise is we’re taxing a tax. This double taxation, despite however insignificant you think the dollars are, is a detriment to our fellow citizens who run package stores near our states borders.

      <

      p>If I have two jobs, one at a wealthy hedge fund that pays me in excess of 1 million per annum and the other at Home Depot at minimum wage, I do not have a double salary.

      <

      p>If I run you over with my car, and then run you over with my skateboard… I have run you over twice, but I have not inflicted the same damage in each instance.

      <

      p>When I go to a bar and order a double martini, the bartender puts twice the amount of gin.

      <

      p>There are transactions and there are quantities. The quantities have to be equal in both transactions to fulfill the definition of the word ‘double’.  

  2. bob-neer says

    October 18, 2010 at 12:45 pm

    The Herald wants the citizens of the Commonwealth to subsidize alcohol purchases by giving booze a special tax break relative to everything else subject to the excise tax.

    <

    p>Why should paperback books be taxed, for example, but alcohol, by contrast, given a massive relative tax break and freed from the excise tax.

    <

    p>

    And frankly Question 1 is as much about fairness – about the principle of double-taxation – as it is the effect on shopping habits.

    <

    p>Fairness is indeed the issue. Sellers and purchasers of alcohol should take responsibility for the costs their actions impose on society and pay their fair share. Even with one normal tax plus one tiny tax, the costs of alcohol to everyone far exceed the tax revenues generated.  

  3. beergoggles says

    October 18, 2010 at 1:02 pm

    just curious, but why can’t they just increase the excise tax instead?

    • david says

      October 18, 2010 at 3:05 pm

      The problem is that since the excise tax is per-gallon, it doesn’t vary as the product gets more expensive. So, as I have argued before,

      We could increase it, but is that really the best idea? For instance, the excise on wine is 55 cents per gallon – that is, roughly 11 cents for a typical 750 ml bottle. Let’s say a typical bottle of wine costs $10. 11 cents is just over 1% of the price of that bottle. So if we want to bring in something like the revenue that the sales tax would get us on a $10 bottle, we’d need to nearly sextuple the wine excise so that we bring in something like 60 cents per bottle.

      But wait – now what we’ve done is increase the tax in a very regressive way, because Joe Moneybags who likes to buy $250 bottles of wine is paying exactly the same increased excise (60 cents per bottle) as is Joe Regularguy, who buys $10 bottles. Furthermore, Joe Moneybags is still not chipping in his fair share of tax revenue, because the whole point of increasing the excise was to bring in revenue that roughly approximates the sales tax, and we have failed to do that for expensive bottles.

      • beergoggles says

        October 18, 2010 at 5:19 pm

        If that’s the case, wouldn’t a better solution be to move the whole alcohol tax to a higher sales tax and do away with the excise tax?

        • stomv says

          October 18, 2010 at 5:25 pm

          What’s inherently wrong with taxing alcohol in a hybrid system, both (a) per content since cheap booze results in all the same social problems as expensive booze, and (b) as a percentage, so it’s not so regressive?

          <

          p>As a side note, I’m surprised the Herald didn’t proclaim a treble tax due to the bottle deposit on beer cans and bottles.

          • beergoggles says

            October 18, 2010 at 7:09 pm

            because of 2 reasons:

            <

            p>1. we start losing the framing debate when we have to go back and point out how it’s technically taxed twice and not really double taxation which just comes across as splitting hairs.

            <

            p>2. as has been pointed out, making it a % makes it lose the regressive structure and it loses out on a lot of potential revenue when when the flat tax part remains.

      • marek says

        October 20, 2010 at 1:16 am

        … does the $250 bottle of wine impose more “societal costs” than the $10 bottle?  Frankly as a guy who buys the $10 bottle of beer I’d rather be charged on volume, and think that it would be more fair if I were.

        <

        p>To the extent the excise tax is regressive, it is not a good example of a regressive tax.  No one has to buy alcohol.  

  4. nopolitician says

    October 18, 2010 at 2:47 pm

    I have heard that most states subject alcohol to both an excise tax and a sales tax (except, obviously, states that don’t have a sales tax). Does anyone know if this is true?

    <

    p>If so, then I would agree that exempting it from the sales tax simply to gain NH sales is a foolish decision — because then why wouldn’t you apply that logic to everything that has a sales tax?

    <

    p>I did find it interesting that the excise tax is a per-gallon tax — I wonder what the rationale for it is? It also seems to be a fixed amount — Massachusetts is 55 cents per gallon of wine, 11 cents per gallon of beer, and $4.05 per gallon of spirits. I wonder what the rationale is for 3 different rates.

    <

    p>Leaving the excise tax aside, I don’t see a reason to exempt alcohol from the state sales tax. The sales tax taxes all sales except for items that are deemed “necessary” such as food and clothing. Alcohol is not a “necessary” item. Case closed for me.

    <

    p>Beyond the sales tax, I can see value in adding additional taxation to alcohol. It does cause problems which our state must treat. Countless court cases. Death by accident. Jail space. Patrolling for people who are driving drunk. Yes, the problems are caused by a small subset of alcohol users, but it wouldn’t be practical to assign the entire cost of the impact of reckless use of alcohol to those who use it recklessly — imagine getting a $25,000 ticket for drunk driving, or if you get drunk and take a swing at someone, a $10,000 fine to support the cost of alcohol-related problems?

    <

    p>In fact, I think that such a zero-tolerance system would cause more damage to the package store industry than a 6.25% sales tax. Plus, MA package stores already enjoy limited competition due to the “you can only own 2 package stores” law.  

    • stomv says

      October 18, 2010 at 5:07 pm

      and I’d love to see the lege take a crack at them too…

      <

      p>

      The sales tax taxes all sales except for items that are deemed “necessary” such as food and clothing.

      <

      p>That’s not quite right.  Periodicals aren’t sales taxed, nor are comic books.  Gasoline isn’t sales taxed.  American flags aren’t sales taxed.

      <

      p>Those are four additional sales tax exemptions I’d like to see eliminated, as they too aren’t necessary in the same sense that food, clothing, prescription drugs, and diapers are necessary.  On the flip side, I think that non-prescription drugs (FDA approved or whatev) should be tax free.  I’m talking about Robitussin, not those lame-o Airborne “created by a teacher” nonsense pills.

      <

      p>

      <

      p>It’s true, this stuff is “on the margins” with respect to total revenue, but it’s also a matter of creating a fair tax code, and simpler is better too.

      • chilipepr says

        October 19, 2010 at 7:17 am

        That’s not quite right.  Periodicals aren’t sales taxed, nor are comic books.  Gasoline isn’t sales taxed.  American flags aren’t sales taxed.

      • bostonshepherd says

        October 19, 2010 at 11:50 am

        Let the lege start creating lists of what’s necessary and what isn’t?

        <

        p>I sense that’s a blueprint for more back-room lobbying and special interest skulduggery.  We need less, not more, of that.

        <

        p>Unless ammunition is exempted.  I’m  all for that.

Recommended Posts

  • No posts liked yet.

Recent User Posts

Predictions Open Thread

December 22, 2022 By jconway

This is why I love Joe Biden

December 21, 2022 By fredrichlariccia

Garland’s Word

December 19, 2022 By terrymcginty

Some Parting Thoughts

December 19, 2022 By jconway

Beware the latest grift

December 16, 2022 By fredrichlariccia

Thank you, Blue Mass Group!

December 15, 2022 By methuenprogressive

Recent Comments

  • blueeyes on Beware the latest griftSo where to, then??
  • Christopher on Some Parting ThoughtsI've enjoyed our discussions as well (but we have yet to…
  • Christopher on Beware the latest griftI can't imagine anyone of our ilk not already on Twitter…
  • blueeyes on Beware the latest griftI will miss this site. Where are people going? Twitter?…
  • chrismatth on A valedictoryI joined BMG late - 13 years ago next month and three da…
  • SomervilleTom on Geopolitics of FusionEVERY un-designed, un-built, and un-tested technology is…
  • Charley on the MTA on A valedictoryThat’s a great idea, and I’ll be there on Sunday. It’s a…

Archive

@bluemassgroup on Twitter

Twitter feed is not available at the moment.

From our sponsors




Google Calendar







Search

Archives

  • Facebook
  • RSS
  • Twitter




Copyright © 2025 Owned and operated by BMG Media Empire LLC. Read the terms of use. Some rights reserved.