I mean...a lot of these states have balanced-budget amendments. But it appears that to almost every legislator and governor, those requirements mean nothing about keeping spending in check; no, they're about a need to raise taxes. Sin taxes. Regressive taxes. I know the cries: "It's only a nickel!" (It never is: either it's a producer tax that ripples and expands, or it's a direct tax that's more by the time it gets to someone drinking good stuff) "Drinking is a luxury!" (So's candy, but there's no special tax on that. (Actually, there is: Illinois taxed that, too; see comments, below) Okay, pets are a luxury, and there's no tax on them!) "Drinking costs billions!" (Really? Check your figures. The whole booze biz also puts billions back into the economy.) "Drinking is a sin!" (Who let him in? I thought we got rid of you back in 1933. Anyway, your mom's a sin, but we don't tax her.)
Here's a cry for you: booze taxes unfairly tax lower-income citizens. Is that the kind of thing you want to do during the worst recession in decades? Way to go, Mr. Progressive.
Meanwhile, Pennsylvania has apparently dodged the bullet again, if Governor Rendell's latest lame joke is any indicator.
"The media's low-paid and high consumers." - Gov. Rendell, joking in a Harrisburg news conference this week about the state budget and the politics that determined that an increase in beer taxes would not find support.
The good side of the Illinois tax (to look on the bright side), beer will hardly see a bump. Yay!
Didn't I hear you saying you liked that liquor I sent you? Man don't live by beer alone, Steven. Solidarity, my friend!
You could almost subtitle this "Illinois and North Carolina further subsidize neighboring states budgets". More Illinoisans will be crossing into Indiana for certain. They'd probably generate more revenue by lowering excise taxes.
True enough, Rob: people in Mass were calling the increase there the "New Hampshire Stimulus Package." Booze tax increases do NOT have a good record as revenue gainers.
*&%*&$ I forgot this kicked in so soon. I'll do my best to remember these bozos come election time (yes I made my feelings known to ALL of my politicians!). But thank goodness they haven't figured out how to tax homebrewing supplies that badly yet :-)
I did notice how cheap beer was in Indiana when I was there so I won't quibble but to say that this is a regressive tax, not progressive.
Yeah, I'll never forgive Bush the Elder for making "liberal" a dirty word (referred to at the time as "the 'L' word" you may recall).
"Didn't I hear you saying you liked that liquor I sent you?"
Oh, I hear you loud and clear Mr. Wawensa, but I honestly don't indulge in the hard stuff that much any more. "That liquor" is bound to last a long time.
Now, if we start talking the bump in wine tax, I'm on the grumbling line -- which is why I stocked up on the Wife's fave yesterday.
But I was really just looking for a bright spot in all the gloom.
I partake in all three (cider, too), and write about two of them, and it pains me to see the three industries' schadenfreude when one of the others gets hit. Taxing any booze is just another step towards taxing your booze. I don't like any of it.
"You could almost subtitle this 'Illinois and North Carolina further subsidize neighboring states budgets'."
That's for sure, except my straight line leads right to Wisconsin -- where their cigarette tax just jumped a whopper too.
Maybe I can work some trades, just like the Berlin Black Market after the war! ;)
in your post you wrote so is candy and no one wants tot ax that
here is a link to an article where lawmakers want to do just that
Actually... Illinois also enacted a tax on candy yesterday. Holy crud. IS NOTHING SACRED?
Post a Comment