Price ceilings on alcohol and cigarettes: good idea?
- Thread starter Machjo
- Start date
I got'cha....& I agree. My point is that neither product would be on the market
though if the government couldn't tax the Hell out of them though. Until an
alternative source of tax revenue is presented, booze & smokes aren't
going away. The gradual thing in this case is akin to gradually pulling
out a tooth. The sooner it's done, the sooner its over with, unless
there's one Hell of a benefit to going about it in a convoluted manner....
I tried to present an alternative source of tax revenue. I think my idea is spread
out evenly over the population. Everyone should be happy. Right?
Oh yeah....I drink & smoke, & I'm still in favor of an outright ban. ;-)
We shouldn't forget though that tax revenue is not an end in itself but rather a means to an end. If more people smoke, drink, etc., and health care is publicly funded, then it only makes sense that those not taking care of themselves pay more for it. However, if people stopped smoking, drinking, etc., then government revenue would decline, but then again, so would its need for that revenue. They go hand in hand.
Interesting. The proposal in the OP is not an outright ban, but what it certainly would do is create a supply shortage relative to the demand. So if your shop is restocked every Monday morning, you might want to show up on Monday morning and stock up for the week, because by Tuesday morning, the shelves will be empty for the next week.
Not quite an outright ban, but it would be a positive start.
I could see the hording going on with that.
Hi Ron,
I read your recent contributions and although the base-premise is sound, the ramifications are significant. In the end, where do we (government) stop? Fast foods, high-risk sports, sedentary lifestyles, high stress work,poor/irresponsible parenting? The potential list can go on forever.
In the end, you really want to solve this; apply a real and tangible cost to the delivery of healthcare to solve these problems... No worries about a head tax and smoke, drink, eat all of the fried chicken & pizzas you can manage and wrestle alligators after your sky-diving lessons- when the inevitable happens, then you'd better be prepared to pay the piper
I read your recent contributions and although the base-premise is sound, the ramifications are significant. In the end, where do we (government) stop? Fast foods, high-risk sports, sedentary lifestyles, high stress work,poor/irresponsible parenting? The potential list can go on forever.
In the end, you really want to solve this; apply a real and tangible cost to the delivery of healthcare to solve these problems... No worries about a head tax and smoke, drink, eat all of the fried chicken & pizzas you can manage and wrestle alligators after your sky-diving lessons- when the inevitable happens, then you'd better be prepared to pay the piper
But there's also the issue of your smoke hurting my lungs, your extreme drinking hurting your kid emotionally and thus increasing the chances he'll have issues in future thus causing a social burden, etc.
Some activities do not affect the user alone, but society at large.
Some activities do not affect the user alone, but society at large.
That 's a real thin argument Machjo. All activities, without exception can potentially affect society at large to some degree.
Maybe little Jimmy down the street wasn't able to get a tickle-me-Elmo before they sold out and they were uber-upset 'cause all their friends had one.... Should we legislate something that will eliminate the possibility for little Jimmy developing Elmo related issues later in life and blame society if it happens?
This is exactly where our points of view differ. Government is a business
in my opinion, and maximum profit without rebellion is the goal. Those
that are ruthless enough to enter that arena, if they are successful,
write their own pensions and pay raises. It's one Hell of a racket.
Government throwing the Public a bone every so often is a means to an
end, and not the end. I do understand where you're coming from, and
this is the point where our paths part. I know it sounds jaded, but it's
honest. Sin Taxs are great revenue generators, & easy to justify to
those that aren't effected by them. Votes = $$$. Votes = staying
at the troff longer.
Price caps on things that are expensive to make might have some effect, but, price caps on things that are cheap to make would probably just serve to make the market boom immensely, especially when it's for addictive things. Comparing cigarettes to cars just doesn't work in this case. And if it did, my answer would be a resounding 'no'.. the government should not be trying to interfere with my access to wine... lol.
What would be useful would be in the Canadian wine and beer industry could be given a boost by lowering the taxes on its products. But, alas, I suspect NAFTA prevents that.
It does and if govt wanted to promote canadian products over US products CDN govt can be sued.
Sure demand would increase, but production would decrease since there'd be less profit than before (if the price cap is low enough, very little profit could be made from this, factories might have to cut workers' wages, so some workers woudl leave and few would want to work there). So while the shelf-cost of cigarettes would go down (which also means demand would increase), shelves would be cleaned off soon after delivery. So yes, cigarettes would be cheaper, but that would be of no use if you can't get your hands on any as supply shrinks. You could illegally negotiate some kind of holding fee with the store owner under the table, but seeing how supply has shrunk, I'm sure you can guess that others would have tried the same, so that holding fee is likely to cause the cost of cigarettes (when we include the under-the-table fees) to skyrocket compared to the current price. Sure government revenue would decline from this (since it would be taxing the legal cost only), but if the goal is to reduce supply, this would work. I'm still undecided about whether it would be a good idea owing to the possibility of smuggling, but then the question would be whether a little smuggling would be worth it.
And why would we want to promote products that are harmful to our health? Allowing them mightbe one thing, but promoting them?
Machjo,
You've identified 2 good examples targeted for this (possible) program. My questions are who will be the authority to determine what products/activities are detrimental for society and where will it end?
You've identified 2 good examples targeted for this (possible) program. My questions are who will be the authority to determine what products/activities are detrimental for society and where will it end?
no, production wouldn't decrease. You're trying to compare large, complicated, time consuming, expensive manufacturing of cars with what would happen if you made cigs and booze cheap. The two don't correlate.... booze can be cranked out in larger batches without much difficulty, same with cigarettes. If there's ANY profit to be made, even slim profit, production can easily be ramped up to maximize that. Your idea would not work the way you think it would.
Because there is more spoilage on the farm and in the grocery stores.
The chemicles prolong the life of the product
Something would have to give at least to some degree, whether it be the quality of the tobacco, the quantity in each cigarette, no raises for workers and/or CEO's for awhile, lower stock value, or something. Depending on the severity of the price ceiling, it's bound to have at least some kind of negative impact on the industry (however minor it may be), seeing that it would be cutting into profits.
Price ceiling have never worked for anything. The only thing that they do is cause supply to dry up, and eventually the prices will skyrocket once those controls are removed.
No law of prohibition has ever worked either. The USA tried to prohibit alcoholic beverages between 1919 and 1932. The ONLY result was that crime skyrocketed, the price of alcohol went up, MORE people drank than did before prohibition, and it was a complete and total failure.
Look at the drug laws in the US. It is a felony in most states to posses any narcotic without a prescription, any marijuana, , etc. So, how well has making these drugs illegal worked? A much higher percentage of the population uses those drugs than did before they were prohibited. Organized crime makes billions of dollars every year off of those drugs, money which is not taxed. There are hundreds of murders every year related to drugs, many armed robberies by people desperate to get drugs, etc.
The prisons are full to overflowing, some states are going broke locking up all of the drug offenders.
Frankly, it would make sense to legalize all drugs, tax them and control their distribution, as is done with alcohol.
Make very, very stringent penalties (mandatory, so Judges can't wimp out on giving them): for driving under the influence; a minimum of 30 days in jail, storage of the vehicle being driven at the drivers expense (even a rental vehicle, let him pay the additional rental too) for A 2ND DUI; 6 months jail and storage; 3 years for a 3rd and 10 years and confiscation of the vehicle for any subsequent offenses.
Providing drugs to a minor, a minimum of 20 years in jail. Selling drugs to an adult, a minimum of 10 years in prison.
If you are a registered addict, you get your drugs free of charge from a government run program.
Inpatient treatment, totally free of charge BUT, requiring that a person be required to spend a minimum of 3 months as an inpatient, and be on legal probation for 3 years post treatment.
Growing your own marijuana, a $10,000 fine, split evenly between the agency discovering it (or the person reporting it) and the federal government. 2nd offense, $20,000 and confiscation of any vehicles owned by or used by the person convicted.
If the vehicles were either impounded, or confiscated, nobody would let a drunk or an addict use their vehicle. NOBODY! The Scandinavian countries do this, and they have very, very little problem of people driving impaired. In them, even one drink is considered to be impaired, the fine is horrible! AND, they impound the vehicle, no matter who it belongs to. That is where the "designated driver" originated.
Do the above, and drug related crime would virtually disappear. The government would make billions is taxes, there would be no market for illegal drugs, our prisons would largely empty out, and we would save many billions in expenses.
People WILL use drugs, so let them use clean, safe drugs that are not adulterated with God alone knows what, that won't kill them with an overdose, and that the government can control the quality and doseage of.
No law of prohibition has ever worked either. The USA tried to prohibit alcoholic beverages between 1919 and 1932. The ONLY result was that crime skyrocketed, the price of alcohol went up, MORE people drank than did before prohibition, and it was a complete and total failure.
Look at the drug laws in the US. It is a felony in most states to posses any narcotic without a prescription, any marijuana, , etc. So, how well has making these drugs illegal worked? A much higher percentage of the population uses those drugs than did before they were prohibited. Organized crime makes billions of dollars every year off of those drugs, money which is not taxed. There are hundreds of murders every year related to drugs, many armed robberies by people desperate to get drugs, etc.
The prisons are full to overflowing, some states are going broke locking up all of the drug offenders.
Frankly, it would make sense to legalize all drugs, tax them and control their distribution, as is done with alcohol.
Make very, very stringent penalties (mandatory, so Judges can't wimp out on giving them): for driving under the influence; a minimum of 30 days in jail, storage of the vehicle being driven at the drivers expense (even a rental vehicle, let him pay the additional rental too) for A 2ND DUI; 6 months jail and storage; 3 years for a 3rd and 10 years and confiscation of the vehicle for any subsequent offenses.
Providing drugs to a minor, a minimum of 20 years in jail. Selling drugs to an adult, a minimum of 10 years in prison.
If you are a registered addict, you get your drugs free of charge from a government run program.
Inpatient treatment, totally free of charge BUT, requiring that a person be required to spend a minimum of 3 months as an inpatient, and be on legal probation for 3 years post treatment.
Growing your own marijuana, a $10,000 fine, split evenly between the agency discovering it (or the person reporting it) and the federal government. 2nd offense, $20,000 and confiscation of any vehicles owned by or used by the person convicted.
If the vehicles were either impounded, or confiscated, nobody would let a drunk or an addict use their vehicle. NOBODY! The Scandinavian countries do this, and they have very, very little problem of people driving impaired. In them, even one drink is considered to be impaired, the fine is horrible! AND, they impound the vehicle, no matter who it belongs to. That is where the "designated driver" originated.
Do the above, and drug related crime would virtually disappear. The government would make billions is taxes, there would be no market for illegal drugs, our prisons would largely empty out, and we would save many billions in expenses.
People WILL use drugs, so let them use clean, safe drugs that are not adulterated with God alone knows what, that won't kill them with an overdose, and that the government can control the quality and doseage of.
Last edited: