There should be two taxes on alcohol: a tax on quantity, and a tax on quality. There should be a minimum tax, based on volume ($X per barrel, keg, etc), so that even super cheap alcohol contributes to the social cost of alcohol consumption, and an extra tax based on the price of the alcohol, so that rich people pay the same percent in alcohol taxes as poor people. If a rich person can afford a $100 bottle of wine, they can afford $5 in sales tax. It’s a good way to go after any “extra” money that people have, rather than going after money that people need and certainly isn’t extra.
Yes, there was a ballot question few months ago that got rid of the sales tax on alcohol, but ballot questions are not sacred, they aren’t immediately enshrined in the Constitution. The law they enact can be changed or replaced or repealed, just like any other law. But they should command a lot less respect than a law passed by the legislature, because voters are self-interested morons who can’t be expected to take a long view or a responsible view of anything. Heck, they’d vote Yes for Free Beer if that was a ballot question. Well, I guess it’s true we voted against lowering the sales tax to 3%, but that was somewhat miraculous, a result of fear tactics and over-reaching that reinforced the fear tactics. Usually we just vote for things that we think we want and would benefit us, like getting rid of the sales tax on alcohol.
Come on, expensive wine and alcohol ought to be subject to the sales tax!! How can you abide by a system that lets rich people skip out on paying a sales tax on some of the most discretionary, unnecessary and socially costly spending? I know why, it’s because rich liberals like to buy $40 bottles of wine for dinner every night, and they don’t want to have to pay $2 in taxes on it. They say “why should we pay tax on this, when it’s the poor winos who are causing all the social problems, we are just enjoying the good life up here in our penthouse apartment. Mmm, expensive wine is so much better, we should be rewarded for our support of the finer things in life” so that poor people can sometimes experience them. Gotta love those self-interested entitled suburban alcoholics, they just screw over the whole state to affirm their entitlement.
I voted to do away with the sales tax because I didn’t like being taxed twice on my $5.99 six-pack of ‘Gansett tall-boys.
All your blather about “rich liberals” and wine makes no sense. Brookline voted against that ballot question by a three to one margin. Newton? Two to one. Wellesley was a bit closer- about 53% to 47%.
Interesting about how those towns voted, I guess there aren’t as many selfish wine drinkers in those communities as I thought.
The double taxing objection is a farce though. There is a tax put on at the distributor level according to quantity, where a cheap wine is taxed the same as an expensive one. That is appropriate, because there should be a minimum tax based on alcohol content. Then the sales tax is not on alcohol content, but on luxury content (I believe non-alcoholic beers were also taxed? Or are they more like soft drinks, which are considered food?).
You only paid thirty cents tax on the ‘Gansetts, but rich people with extra money for expensive wine paid $4 (and often happily, as your voting data suggests). That means you don’t have to pay as much in your other taxes. They are going to get that money out of us somehow, why not sock it to the rich on the one obvious area where we can? Why let them off scott free on the most discretionary luxury items?