|
|
#
?
May 10, 2018 14:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 16:08 |
|
|
PT6A posted:That's not an exact parallel though, because the harm associated with carbon emissions scales literally with the amount of emissions, whereas the externalities you're likely to cause by drinking your 10th drink of the day far exceed those likely to be caused by your first drink of the day. Yes, it's about revenue generation [to fund the services necessary to help people who are harmed by these harmful substances, like hospitals] and discouraging consumption [to decrease the amount necessary to spend on those same services]. Both of those are about pricing in externalities the same way carbon taxes are, they're just different externalities. Cigars (and alcohol, and cigarettes, etc.--you pay more tax on a $100 bottle of 40% alcohol than on a $20 bottle) are taxed on value because that's a much easier way to tax them, since a value is already assigned to them in the market. Carbon emissions don't have any value in the market, so we have to make one up and then apply it. You're right that alcohol or cigarette consumption isn't as linear as carbon emissions, but oh well.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2018 14:49
|
|
|
See this is why public health care is a bad idea. I thought the concept was that you get to be reckless about your health and not worry about it. If youre going to tax people twice the same thing might aswell go full ancap if you want people to take responsability for their lifestyles. Its not the governments role to try and influence the publics behavior.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2018 14:52
|
|
|
vyelkin posted:Cigars (and alcohol, and cigarettes, etc.--you pay more tax on a $100 bottle of 40% alcohol than on a $20 bottle) are taxed on value because that's a much easier way to tax them, since a value is already assigned to them in the market. Carbon emissions don't have any value in the market, so we have to make one up and then apply it. This is incorrect. Excise taxes on cigarettes/tobacco other than cigars, and alcohol are based on quantity, not value. This is as it should be, because the harm produced by a certain amount of alcohol is the same whether it's in a $10 bottle of wine or a $200 bottle of wine. There's sales tax on those products, like anything else, but that's typically not what people talk about when discussing alcohol and tobacco taxes.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2018 14:56
|
|
|
PT6A posted:This is incorrect. Excise taxes on cigarettes/tobacco other than cigars, and alcohol are based on quantity, not value. This is as it should be, because the harm produced by a certain amount of alcohol is the same whether it's in a $10 bottle of wine or a $200 bottle of wine. Oh cool, didn't know that. My guess would be that cigars are taxed that way because they're seen as a luxury product rather than a sin-taxable one, then.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2018 14:59
|
|
|
vyelkin posted:Oh cool, didn't know that. And that is, of course, the correct answer. It's just about revenue generation, not about harm reduction. That's completely fair, but let's be 100% honest about what's going on here. Likewise, provincial liquor laws often have carveouts for locally produced beer, wine and spirits. Are we to believe locally-produced alcohol is less harmful? Of course not -- but we want to encourage industry growth anyway. I'm not against these policies necessarily, but I think we need to be honest with ourselves about why they exist in the form they do. I'd also point out that, as alcohol is taxed by volume, any increase in taxes would drive up the price of low-end stuff far more than high-end stuff. You increase alcohol taxes by $2.50 for a bottle of wine, let's say, that means the price of a bottle that was $10 just went up by 25%, but the price of a $25 bottle of wine only went up by 10% and the price of a $50 bottle of wine only went up by 5%. Having decreased my consumption considerably, I have no personal problems with increasing alcohol taxes considerably, but it's gonna affect the people buying Brights Pale Dry Select a shitton more than it's going to make any difference in my habits.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2018 15:05
|
|
|
zapplez posted:I find the fact I have to pay $40 dollars for a bottle of decent bourbon insane when its only 13 in USA. Actually Ontario is one of the cheaper places in the world for buying ultra high end. Because of the mandated fixed markup pricing by the lcbo, rare items often are cheaper than other places which take the opportunity to increase the store markup as much as the market will bear. Also we have a known high quality supply chain, the product is guaranteed to be correct and not a fake.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2018 15:13
|
|
|
.
James Baud fucked around with this message at 12:00 on Aug 25, 2018 |
|
#
?
May 10, 2018 15:14
|
|
|
James Baud posted:More up front than usual about how utterly self serving your every political view is. Considering I've been attacked specifically for opposing increased alcohol taxes because I don't think it's good policy, even though I wouldn't have any problem with them personally speaking, this is a very odd thing to say.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2018 15:16
|
|
|
Nationalize the internet then tax it
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2018 15:21
|
|
|
*somewhere a great crackling hiss can be heard as the fires of hell turn to ice* PT6A and smoke sumthin bitch are basically on the right side of this argument. In some selective cases maybe sin taxes are necessary but I find it a bit ghoulish how eager a lot of people here apparently are to start micromanaging and controlling the lives and choices of other people. Our daily lives are already micromanaged enough. If a substance is really so odious that we think we need the government to actively try and eliminate its use then we should probably just make it illegal. I make a partial exception for cigarettes, which should probably just be illegal to sell but which are impossible to outlaw right now because of political inertia. But as a general rule I don't understand why so many left or liberal leaning people here are just begging for the government to be more actively micro-managing the lives of the poor.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2018 15:23
|
|
|
Helsing posted:*somewhere a great crackling hiss can be heard as the fires of hell turn to ice* Posting pro tip: Don't get up to drink coffee halfway through writing a post or you might repeat yourself like a doddering old grampa.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2018 15:34
|
|
|
Helsing posted:But as a general rule I don't understand why so many left or liberal leaning people here are just begging for the government to be more actively micro-managing the lives of the poor. Probably because people are poo poo awful at managing their own lives (see: half the posters in this thread) and some needs to do it for them.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2018 15:49
|
|
|
Thank God we have people like forums poster CLAM DOWN to let people know what is good and bad for them. You seem enthusiastic about telling other people how to live... have you considered Mormonism?
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2018 15:50
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Thank God we have people like forums poster CLAM DOWN to let people know what is good and bad for them. Yes, an alcohol tax is the same as a religion that actively aims to control every aspect of it's members lives. Why would we ever place a price on carbon? Aren't we just trying to actively micromanage lives?
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2018 15:51
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Thank God we have people like forums poster CLAM DOWN to let people know what is good and bad for them. I literally the government should, not me. You are really goddamn stupid, you know.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2018 15:51
|
|
|
"I'm not telling people how to live, I'm discussing how the government should tell people how to live based on ideas that I personally support." Oh, cool.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2018 15:53
|
|
|
Helsing posted:*somewhere a great crackling hiss can be heard as the fires of hell turn to ice* Well, like it or not we're a market-based society and that means that a lot of things that happen in our society are based on the aggregate of millions of small, daily decisions about what products to buy and consume by normal people. One enormous problem we run into all the time is that optimal micro choices in these circumstances can lead to suboptimal macro outcomes (one easy non-monetary example is seating in sold-out movie theatres: each individual person or group wants to leave a space between them and the stranger next to them, but in aggregate this leads to a whole bunch of empty individual seats when the theatre is half full, meaning people who arrive less early don't get to sit with their friends but everyone ends up sitting next to a stranger anyway). An individual purchasing cigarettes or alcohol to enjoy the sensations they provide isn't a big deal but if everyone in a society does it then we get societal-scale health problems. But the cost of these problems isn't priced into the cost of the goods themselves, so we end up with a situation where the massive externalities of such goods (cancer from cigarettes, for example) creep up on us over time unexpectedly and become a massive drain on individuals, society, and the state from premature bad health, illness, and death, especially in a country where we provide universal healthcare and thus socialize the costs of these diseases to a greater extent. By not pricing in these social negatives we make cigarettes, or alcohol, or soda seem less damaging than they really are. You say we shouldn't be trying to micromanage people's lives, and yet your solution to substances that we think are harmful enough that we should discourage their use is to ban them outright--which, first of all, we know is a complete failure when actually implemented, from alcohol to drug prohibition; and, second of all, leaves no grey area for substances that are somewhat harmful, or only harmful in excessive amounts. The idea of a properly-implemented sin tax (i.e. like the one I mentioned earlier which could be implemented in a system where tax and subsidy structures already favour poor people over rich people, or in conjunction with subsidies for healthier alternatives) is to tweak people's micro-level purchasing decisions to achieve better macro-level results. If alcohol or soda is slightly more expensive, it nudges people towards purchasing and consuming less of it, which leads to, in the aggregate, better health outcomes as well as a source of revenue to pay for the health problems caused by those same products (though for me this is a secondary effect at best and, like carbon taxation, the net goal would be for this revenue to decrease over time as people consume less of the taxed substance). You can call this micro-management if you want to but adding costs to monetize externalities and subsidizing alternatives is one way we try to achieve better macro-level results in market-based societies. The carbon tax metaphor is again apt here. In a market-based society you're going to have a much easier time encouraging people to fight climate change by making environmentally-damaging goods more costly and environmentally-sustainable ones less costly than by just outright saying "okay we've decided coal is too damaging for the environment so we're making it illegal." Societal-level taxation is also a much less intrusive or micromanaging way of achieving these results than some other ways we can imagine: the LCBO, for example, used to require customers to have individual liquor purchasing permits to keep track of their liquor buying history, so that LCBO employees could intervene and stop people buying alcohol if they thought the person was drinking too much. There are thousands of ways the state intervenes in people's lives. Marriage tax credits, first-time homebuyer subsidies, carbon taxes, gas taxes, public transit subsidies, plastic bag taxes, solar power and electric car rebates, I could go on and on and on. A lot of these things you have supported in the past when they appeal to things you like (well, of course we should have a carbon tax and spend its revenue on subsidizing sustainable alternatives! Sure, poor people pay proportionately more in a carbon tax and middle-class people benefit proportionately more from solar and electric car subsidies but those problems can be solved through additional policy tools like progressive taxation and income-based tax rebates), but suddenly sin taxes are a bridge too far when it comes to managing the discrepancy between positive micro choices and negative macro consequences? Give me a break. vyelkin fucked around with this message at 16:00 on May 10, 2018 |
|
#
?
May 10, 2018 15:57
|
|
|
PT6A posted:"I'm not telling people how to live, I'm discussing how the government should tell people how to live based on ideas that I personally support." Why do you even bother opening your mouth? I'm genuinely curious.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2018 15:59
|
|
|
Pol Pot would let you drink forever! Only if you were a peasant tho....
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2018 16:06
|
|
|
CLAM DOWN posted:Probably because people are poo poo awful at managing their own lives (see: half the posters in this thread) and some needs to do it for them. Anecdotal but I probably would drink (a lot) more had I grown up in the US with widespread availability of alcohol in every supermarket + convenience store at a significantly lower price than Ontario. So yes, I probably personally benefited from the govt putting the brakes on a potentially harmful habit. We should dispense with the liberal notion that people are fully informed and rational actors and acknowledge the reality that we're easily manipulated apes who would benefit from a LOT more oversight.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2018 16:10
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Thank God we have people like forums poster CLAM DOWN to let people know what is good and bad for them. But this is what government does, it manages society so living is functional for most of us. The speed limit on this road is 50kph, don't build that factory there, build it over there instead, don't murder that guy, etc.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2018 16:12
|
|
|
Am I imagining things or do a lot of people in this thread have bad experiences with alcoholics that they've decided to project on the world at large?
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2018 16:18
|
|
|
What do you think the role of our government is, and ought to be PT6A?
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2018 16:20
|
|
|
Nocturtle posted:Anecdotal but I probably would drink (a lot) more had I grown up in the US with widespread availability of alcohol in every supermarket + convenience store at a significantly lower price than Ontario. So yes, I probably personally benefited from the govt putting the brakes on a potentially harmful habit. We should dispense with the liberal notion that people are fully informed and rational actors and acknowledge the reality that we're easily manipulated apes who would benefit from a LOT more oversight. I used to think that liquor laws in Ontario were too stringent compared to what I witnessed in Europe whenever I visited family. Then I became a bartender and noticed that Canadians really can't handle their liquor compared to Europeans in my experience. Maybe society there is more structured there around it (public transportation, walk-ability, etc.), maybe it's because it's not as taboo over there, or maybe there's an entirely different reason.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2018 16:20
|
|
|
mojo1701a posted:I used to think that liquor laws in Ontario were too stringent compared to what I witnessed in Europe whenever I visited family. Then I became a bartender and noticed that Canadians really can't handle their liquor compared to Europeans in my experience. Maybe society there is more structured there around it (public transportation, walk-ability, etc.), maybe it's because it's not as taboo over there, or maybe there's an entirely different reason. Our society is far too accepting of binge drinking. It's not an issue of the substance involved, which is why you don't see the same problems spread uniformly throughout the world. We all grow up in a society, and as part of that process, the society informs us what behaviours are acceptable, what behaviours are expected, and what behaviours are forbidden. Our society, through media and advertisement and observing those around us, to a certain extent condones and even glorifies excessive consumption of alcohol. It's something that I've struggled with personally -- adjusting my views of what's reasonable consumption and what's too much/too often. Price never made a whit of difference to me -- deciding to cut back on my alcohol intake had to be a personal decision, and I did it for my health and my career. Simply making alcohol more expensive may lessen the problem a little bit, but it will never solve it.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2018 16:27
|
|
|
Government policy should be trying to move people onto weed as the intoxicant of choice with much fewer negative externalities. I think it could work as long as they develop a good means of prohibiting driving while high.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2018 16:29
|
|
|
That's why a good majority of the money made from alcohol taxes is pushed into anti-drinking advertising and addictions programs.DynamicSloth posted:Government policy should be trying to move people onto weed as the intoxicant of choice with much fewer negative externalities. I think it could work as long as they develop a good means of prohibiting driving while high. If only if there was some way to make money from people driving properly and use that money to encourage people to take modes of transportation that don't involve operating an automobile on their own. Some sort of mass transportation system. 
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2018 16:29
|
|
|
Yes, why aren't the dour anti-drinking PSAs not being listened to when they're displayed alongside flashy food-and-beverage industry ads that glorify drinking as an essential part of everyday social interactions?
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2018 16:30
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Yes, why aren't the dour anti-drinking PSAs not being listened to when they're displayed alongside flashy food-and-beverage industry ads that glorify drinking as an essential part of everyday social interactions? In most provinces it is illegal to show someone consuming alcohol in an advertisment
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2018 16:32
|
|
|
DariusLikewise posted:In most provinces it is illegal to show someone consuming alcohol in an advertisment That's true. The fact that no one's actually consuming the beverages doesn't change the fact that they're being associated with social activities and fun times. Would you be okay with allowing tobacco advertising as long as no one is shown actually smoking a cigarette? I think the restrictions on tobacco advertising and sponsorship would actually be a good model to follow for restricting alcohol advertising. I personally see no reason why it's in society's interest to allow alcohol advertisements in general media.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2018 16:33
|
|
|
PT6A posted:That's true. The fact that no one's actually consuming the beverages doesn't change the fact that they're being associated with social activities and fun times. I don't agree with tobacco being advertised in any way and the government agrees as almost forms of tobacco advertising is banned in Canada. Tobacco companies are actually responsible for the birth of modern advertising in North America and it's a blight on society.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2018 16:37
|
|
|
DariusLikewise posted:If only if there was some way to make money from people driving properly and use that money to encourage people to take modes of transportation that don't involve operating an automobile on their own. Some sort of mass transportation system. Well yeah, but if all the drunks became stoners tomorrow there'd still be plenty of intoxicated drivers and there are plenty of rural communities where mass transit will never be a realistic option, society will still need to deal with that. That said it seems like a solvable problem, they've only just begun studying testing critieria for marijuana intoxication because up until now the priority has been to prove that you had any in your system at all since it is a prohbited substance.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2018 16:38
|
|
|
DynamicSloth posted:Government policy should be trying to move people onto weed as the intoxicant of choice with much fewer negative externalities. I think it could work as long as they develop a good means of prohibiting driving while high. To push back on this, drunks and heroine users don't bother anyone else until they do something anti-social while intoxicated. Smokers are uniquely selfish in that they necessarily make the air around them worse for everyone else while maintaining their pathetic addiction. I have much less of a problem with the drunk quietly sleeping on a park bench than the person who think it's totally fine to smoke in public places. edit: I guess I'm saying I have no problem with the govt encouraging consumables.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2018 16:39
|
|
|
DariusLikewise posted:Tobacco companies are actually responsible for the birth of modern advertising in North America and it's a blight on society. Seriously, if anyone has never read it, I advise you to at least glance at the Wikipedia article about Torches of Freedom. Edward Bernays himself was a real goddamned pioneer in this poo poo.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2018 16:43
|
|
|
Nocturtle posted:To push back on this, drunks and heroine users don't bother anyone else until they do something anti-social while intoxicated. Smokers are uniquely selfish in that they necessarily make the air around them worse for everyone else while maintaining their pathetic addiction. I have much less of a problem with the drunk quietly sleeping on a park bench than the person who think it's totally fine to smoke in public places. Two things 1) yes yay edibles, they may ultimately be the best (for society) intoxicant availible. 2) I wasn't suggesting we need to reduce anti-smoking ordinances to encourage marijuana use, just make it cheap and legal while keeping booze expensive and legal.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2018 16:44
|
|
|
Jordan7hm posted:If climate change is real how come it’s so cold today???? I too believe not having cheap alcohol is an existential threat to our society. I too conflate my leisure time needs with eroding coastlines and disruptive weather. Totally equivalent. Sin taxes don't need to be punitive but they should disuade excessive consumption. I don't care if it's harder for you to get plastered, those taxes are paying for your new liver. If alcohol wasn't such a health hazard that too many people tie up ERs for I wouldn't care. One way to limit alchol consumption is with a sin tax. If pure education worked we wouldn't still have MADD.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2018 16:47
|
|
|
Wistful of Dollars posted:Loblaws has applied for pot licenses so I guess we can look forward to PC Bud. Is Ontario still set to only sell through provincial owned places like LCBO? Nocturtle posted:To push back on this, drunks and heroine users don't bother anyone else until they do something anti-social while intoxicated. Smokers are uniquely selfish in that they necessarily make the air around them worse for everyone else while maintaining their pathetic addiction. I have much less of a problem with the drunk quietly sleeping on a park bench than the person who think it's totally fine to smoke in public places. So best case scenario drunk vs. worst case scenario smoker? Someone smoking in a park away from a path or anywhere people need to be doesn't seem any more disruptive then a drunk sleeping on a bench.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2018 16:53
|
|
|
Oxyclean posted:Is Ontario still set to only sell through provincial owned places like LCBO? CCBO, and yes. Barring of course the election of the Etobicoke Hash King to the office of Premier.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2018 16:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 16:08 |
|
|
https://twitter.com/AndrewScheer/status/994387233095303168 Would've been better with the old school reveal tune, dun dun duuuuuuun.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2018 17:02
|
|
