Taxable Deterrent? Alcopops? Fruit?...I Need a Drink

A bill to impose a higher tax "alcopops," or in other words those sweet and alcoholic beverages you used to sneak when you were in high school because you knew your dad wouldn't miss them, failed in the House Rules Committee today.

The bill would not only tax these unmanliest of nectars, but also keep them out of grocery and convenience stores.

The role call speaking for the bill apparently included a senior at the U of A, who among others, testified that the largest groups of people to purchase such beverages includes women between sixth and twelfth grade. For shame!

A panel endorsed the tax in October, probably miffed due to a lack of invitations to the Stovall Halloween Party 2k8.

The argument seemed to be that these poor youngsters are just having too much free-swingin', free-swigin' access to these fruity spirits, so we ought to tax the crap out of them and their allowance money. Because we all know teenagers, when faced with the choice of a new video game or hooch, will always choose video games.

(Slaps forehead.)

Luckily, this laughable bit o' legislatin' got turned down by Robbie's Rough Rule Riders in the House. But the bill itself brings up an interesting notion that I recall having when this whole cigarette tax was being brought up and ultimately run through the legislation: Taxing to save lives.

Are taxes intended to be deterrents? I sure hope not. It's a dutch door. From a defensive stand point, yes, because these things that are getting taxed are bad and no good, like cigarettes and...Mike's Hard Lemonade (slapping my forehead again). So in order to keep people from doing them, the bad things, the state ought to tax it, making them unaffordable to those who don't garner paychecks, but allowances.

My gut reaction to the cigarette and tobacco tax was that the government might be making investments in the self-harm of Arkansas youths, but upon calling the governor and the Tobacco Control Board for another story, a reasonable answer sufficed.

The costs incurred by these vices is directly proportional to the tax. So by raising the cigarette tax, for instance, the state might be reaping the benefits of a bad habit, but figures the deterrent will lower the cost of the health issues that the tax is for, eventually leveling out.

I'm not sure sure what a tax is on sweet hooch is supposed to raise money for. Awareness about the dangers of underage drinking? Awareness of the dangers inherent in drinking and driving? Those can't be taught without raising a tax?

Kids don't understand taxes. They might understand raised prices, but they don't get that whole notion of a tax as a deterrent. They're going to do what they want to do, often regardless of the prices.

Maybe that's why it got killed in the House Rules gauntlet. I don't know. But this whole bit about taxation as a deterrent is still mighty peculiar. If a vice is bad enough, it ought to be illegal in the first place. If it's not that bad, then why ought the taxes be raised to curb its use?