should government tax alcohol out of the reach of the poor?

Question

and uneducated of a country, to save itself a massive health bill

Answer 1

Alcohol is frequently a distraction for other things that are bothering people. Pricing/taxing it so that poor people cannot afford it will not remove the things that are bothering people, it will merely remove one way they have of coping with those things.

Nearly all people use distractions like alcohol, smoking, overeating, drugs, gambling, etc. to try to cope with unrelated things that are bothering them. If you remove one distraction, people will either find a different distraction or they will find a way to illegally obtain their preferred distraction.

If you want to save a massive health bill, teach people (poor, rich, and anywhere in between) how to identify and deal with the actual things that are bothering them, rather than using distractions that make the hurt go away temporarily before it comes right back because the distraction does nothing to the actual problem. In the mean time, don't take away the distractions until people know how to fix the real problems. If you do, you'll probably end up with a huge surge in crime.

Answer 2

Rediculos the goverment is taxing tobacco out of reach and they will do the same thing with alcohol.
When all the tobbaco users like myself die off the Government will still need these mega bucks that they once got from tobbaco users so they will no doubt put higher taxes on a loaf of bread plus anything else that people need.

Answer 3

Sure, that will increase demand for moonshine and put money in the pockets of the illegal distillers.

Taxing things into oblivion has the same result as banning things, it creates an opportunity for black market.

I already grow my own tax free tobacco and make my own tax free beer and wine.

I will be more than happy to support my local moonshiner when demand and profit will dictate that he needs to fire up the still.

Answer 4

Ya, that's a good idea. Let's let the stupid people loose without anything to distract them. You do realize that if it wasn't for drugs and alcohol those people would be out walking the streets all day and night, right? I'd rather pay their medical bills.

Answer 5

An interesting idea... but I'd imagine they'd just cut back on other spending. Just take a look at the taxes on cigarettes.

I'd rather see them increase tax on ALCOHOL than the unGodly taxes they keep coming up with for smokers. Of the $4.99 per pack I spend... almost 60% of that is TAX.

Answer 6

You mean, like they're doing with cigarettes?

Since the goverment has to pay for medical costs of the poor, they're taxing cigarettes out of existance, and the bulk of the smokers (yes, they're across the financial spectrum, but the bulk of them are in the 'below average income' area) are the ones that are going to need "extra" medical care.

If they do it with cigarettes, I don't see how they can ignore alcohol, for the exact same reasons.

Answer 7

Yes just like they did for smokers, Great idea so where do I sign up? Next the children being born to the unwed.

Answer 8

Why, so they'll start making "bathtub gin" again? Some of those "uneducated" people can make a mean bottle of hooch if you push them to it.

Answer 9

Yes, if they would like to see a rise in other social program costs. This idea would open a flood gate to illegal activity such as bath gin, narcotic trafficing increase based on demand....etc etc etc.........

Answer 10

I'm sure that wouldn't bother Ted Kennedy in the least.