Ryan ChartrandAs college students, I’m sure most of you have had the chance to enjoy a nice cold beer. I hope you remember these days fondly because they may soon be over, unless you are willing to pay a hefty price.
Democratic Assemblyman Jim Beall from California’s 24th Assembly District has proposed a 1,500 percent increase in the tax placed on beer. Right now, for every bottle or can of beer you drink, there is a $0.02 tax. Beall’s proposed amendment to the California Constitution would raise this to $0.30 per bottle or can – that’s equivalent to $1.80 per six-pack. Before you throw your next party, please realize that you would be paying nearly $50 in taxes alone for a keg!
Beall expects this legislation to generate $2 billion in tax revenue for the state per year. Beall’s legislation would levy this tax directly on beer manufacturers, reasoning that “As responsible corporate citizens, breweries should be willing to pay their fair share of the damage that alcohol wreaks on society.” The problem is that beer companies could not possibly afford this increase and would pass it off to the consumer. Our state and its citizens are being stretched economically right now, and putting such a heavy tax on beer would deter spending and hurt the economy more. We should try to stimulate the economy, hence the economic stimulus checks that were recently approved by the federal government.
The money generated from this tax would not go to state services that have had funding cuts recently, such as education, but rather to “health and law enforcement services that must cope with the havoc – traffic accidents and fatalities, domestic violence, and illnesses – that is fueled by the alcohol industry.”
Here’s a thought, Assemblyman Beall: Let’s bring personal responsibility back into the picture; stop using state funds to pay for damages caused by alcohol. If someone chooses to drink and ends up with alcohol poisoning, make them pay for healthcare costs, because if they don’t have insurance or any money, it’s not my problem. There are times when the victims are not the ones who consumed alcohol, like in cases of child abuse and domestic violence. I’m not saying we leave them out to dry, but instead of the state paying for healthcare and counseling costs, make the responsible party pay, and use tax dollars as a last resort. People are reliant on the government because they know Uncle Sam – or in this case, Jim Beall – will be there to bail them out, and this is why this cycle continues. The good news is that this legislation has not been passed yet. It still needs to go through a vote in the legislature and pass by a two-thirds majority. If it does pass, then it will be submitted to the voters as a measure and must also pass by two-thirds.
So why tax beer, Assemblyman Beall? Well, according to NBC, Beall wants to curb underage drinking, saying, “Research tells us that kids who begin drinking before they are 15 are more prone to become alcoholics. They are also more susceptible to alcohol-related problems such as vehicle accidents and assaults later in life than people who wait until they are 21 or older to take their first drink.” So according to his logic, should we also tax the hell out of fast food and candy bars? Research has also shown that kids who are overweight as children are more likely to be overweight or obese as adults, and according to the CDC, obesity can lead to hypertension, diabetes and heart disease.
What about other alcoholic beverages? Why doesn’t this tax apply to hard alcohol or wine? Michelle Malkin, a FOX News contributor and columnist, brings up a good point about this new tax: it is protection for the wine industry that has deep roots in California. You may soon be paying the same amount of money for tax on a six-pack of beer as you would to buy a bottle of two-buck chuck at Trader Joe’s.
If the real enemy is alcohol, then how about we tax all forms of alcohol equally; it’s a bit politically incorrect to tax just one now, isn’t it? What I would rather see, though, is taxes lowered across the board. I want people to be self-sufficient and held responsible for their actions. Alcoholism is a serious problem, but it isn’t the government’s responsibility to fix. Parents and teachers can talk to kids about the dangers and effects of alcoholism. Kids are smart; we shouldn’t have to raise taxes on beer by 1,500 percent to stop them from drinking.
Jacki DeMarchi is an animal science junior and a Mustang Daily conservative columnist.