Not Such a Wilde Idea

Oscar Wilde famously quipped that “Work is the curse of the drinking class.” Maryland nanny-staters are working to elevate taxes to that position as well.

Baltimore — …It’s called the “Dime a Drink Tax,” and it would hit all alcoholic drinks, if Maryland’s legislature approves it this year. … “Alcohol excise tax is a win-win for the state. They provide much needed revenue, and reduce alcohol consumption and related problems,” said David Jernigan, Johns Hopkins professor.

I don’t know about that. The current reign of fascist nanny-state tax hikers have been far worse for my health, stress, and sanity than any amount of alcoholic drinks I may have had in recent years. Ironically, those same Democrats (who in Maryland did not take the major 2010 midterm hit that most of the rest of the country enjoyed) make me more likely to need a drink.

But an increase at restaurants and bars may not be such a good thing. Good times stopped rolling during the recession and business coming back now is still viewed as fragile. “We’re still in this economic recession right now, and anything more is going to take people out of restaurants in Baltimore and Maryland. And that’s not good for the economy,” said Bill Irvin, Kooper’s Tavern. The tax would also hit retailers, upping a six-pack by 60 cents and wine and spirits by a dime a serving.

Well, you can always trust the Democrats to snatch recession from the jaws of recovery. It’s almost as if they’re doing it deliberately…

“Some 44 percent of Marylanders do not drink. They will pay no tax,” said Jernigan.

What, no breakdown of drinkers by racial, gender, or income groups; so that we can tell whether or not this tax is racist, sexist, or regressive?

The “Dime a Drink Tax” could raise $215 million in new revenue.

Note the weasel word “could”. That’s because, in reality, it will do absolutely no such thing and anyone of any sense (and possibly those without, such as the people supporting the bill) know that. These assumptions are always based on static calculations which assume that nobody’s behavior will change on account of the new tax; ignoring the fact that, when the price of something goes up, people buy less of it. People will also, of course, by less of it if they have no money because the tax strangles the last breath out of the economy.

And here’s another thing. They know damned well that they’re lying, because the nanny-staters always simultaneously claim that it will change people’s behavior (“reduce alcohol consumption and related problems”) while they base their revenue figures on exactly the opposite belief.

For light to moderate drinkers, the tax would amount to only $10.83 per year. The last time Maryland raised the tax on alcohol was in 1972.

The amount of the tax per person is irrelevant, since it’s just yet another brick in the wall, and each and every little tax increase, user fee, and whatever other euphemism they use for taking more of your cash – pretty soon that adds up to “real money” as the saying goes. The statement that taxes haven’t been raised since 1972 (so therefore we’re “due”, or possibly even “overdue”) is also irrelevant.

But hey, what do I know? My congressional representative, House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-MD5), thinks that any objections I have are probably due to an “unhappy family“.


3 Responses to “Not Such a Wilde Idea”

  1. RoboMonkey Says:

    P.S. As much as I hate the fact that my district is still being represented by that blowhard rat-bastard Hoyer, I can at least take some solace in the fact that I no longer have to refer to him as “House Majority Leader.”

    And yes, I know he has nothing to do with a state measure like this tax hike. He’s still a blowhard rat-bastard.

  2. realwest Says:

    Ah RoboMonkey – doncha see? Those who smoke Cigarettes had to pay more in the way of taxes to help offset the cost of healthcare to smokers.
    We smokers warned all y’all that booze was next. But no one believed us cause, ya know, we were smokers and therefore stupid.
    I’m not saying smoking isn’t stupid, just that the price of smokes went up so much that so many folks either quit smoking or bought ’em off the Indian Reservations, that revenues to the State went down, dramatically.
    So now they want to add taxes to booze. Gotta make up lost revenue someway (perish forbid that they should, you know, CUT SPENDING), why not on drinkers, cause drinkers raise the cost of health care and when they are driving drunk, kill people?

    • RoboMonkey Says:

      Didn’t have to warn me. I’m not a smoker and think it’s a filthy habit, but I support the right of those that enjoy it to indulge in it. I’ve never owned a gun in my life, but I’m as strong a supporter of the Second Amendment as anyone who does.

      A conservative who doesn’t like something doesn’t do it.

      A liberal who doesn’t like something tries to ban everyone else from doing it. (And, more often than not, is lying and still does it himself.)

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: