31.3.10

Proposed California alcohol excise tax

One of the dumber ideas I've seen lately - raising the tax on alcohol to astronomical levels. It won't raise revenue, it'll lower it because who can afford to pay over $5 extra on a bottle of wine, $6 on a six pack of beer and over $17 on a bottle of liquor? It'll harm to wine industry and will discourage people from enjoying the occasional glass of wine and/or beer. Might bring down the rate of alcoholism (and I'm all in favor of that), but is this the way to do it? And it gives a whole new meaning to the term "money for nothing" which is what the state would be getting. I'd rather see them come up with sensible ideas for the budget deficit and I'm still waiting for those.
Clicking on the title should take you to the article, but just in case ..................

http://sacramento.bizjournals.com/sacramento/stories/2010/03/29/daily29.html

2 comments:

mjlayman said...

Virginia's problem with alcohol is that we own all the liquor stores in the state and our new Republican governor wants to make money by selling them. Well, you only get that money once, not continuing, so it was voted down even by the Republican delegates.

Henrysmomsmusings said...

That makes sense - voting it down. Oklahoma had liquor stores, don't know who owned them, though. Here, you can buy anything anywhere. When we first moved here, I'd walk through the liquor section when shopping just because I could :-)