Cyclists: Let the Backlash Begin (or Not)
Muni Ticket Agent Arrested After Assaulting Juvenile
So Much For That Plastic Bag Ban
Verizon Droid: Big Deal? Or Just Another Late Arrival Rival?
Feinstein : Will She Or Won't She?
Supervisor John Avalos has a plan to help fund cash-strapped San Francisco. He wants to tax alcohol. According to SF Examiner, Supervisor John Avalos plans to ask our city attorney to draft legislation today that would "impose a fee on alcohol," a small fee that could "offset city costs related to the consumption of alcohol in San Francisco." While he couldn't say what the exact amount would be, he's thinking of possibly tacking on "5 cents for a beer, a larger fee on a bottle of wine, and an even more for hard liquor."
Would this be a good thing? Yes, yes it would. The Marin Institute, a booze-industry watchdog, claims that alcohol "takes a large toll, tens of millions of dollars, on The City’s resources. Emergency-room visits, fire department responses, traffic enforcement and the adjudication of alcohol-related crimes are just some of the expenses." Annual revenue accumulated from this tax proposal could reach anywhere from $16 million to $25 million.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
Why stop at just taxing my pastimes? Cast your net a little wider and tax all the other bastards out there:
Church
The library
Knitting
Kid-related stuff
Prius driving
Archery
Golf
Talking about Jesus on street corners
Jogging
That sort of thing. Seriously, how many brain cells did it take to think up this one?
I agree. Where does it stop?
You know what would be really innovative? A government that lives within its means. You listening Gav? BOS?
> You listening Gav? BOS?
Lettuce get their attention by using teabags!
More brain cells than your post, apparently. How many of those activities cost the city tens of millions of dollars a year?
most of them cost the city money either directly or indirectly. Some of them through direct support like the library or maintaing playgrounds etc... or indirectly like congestion caused by the fact that churces don't have parking lots for their members who park on the street.
Almost everything costs money.
The issue is whether or not reaching into the taxpayers pocket is the only way to solve fiscal crises. I would say it's not. While taxpayers shouldn't be sheltered from the true costs of things, we are not the ATM of last resort.
The cost will be 5 cents per beer, and maybe a little more for harder liquor, which is generally more expensive, anyway. If this is going to seriously break the bank for you, maybe you shouldn't be spending so much on alcohol in the first place.
The church idea is a good one. They are exempt from Property Taxes as it stands right now.
A way to address this is to charge appropriate fees for Sunday middle of the street parking.
Yes, sorry, I saw that idea after I posted. What's the deal with that anyway? Is it an unspoken agreement with DPT that they are allowed to park in the street?
All it would take is one restaurant owner to insist on the right of its customers to park in the middle of the street to get rid of the church parkers -- most of whom are from out of town anyway. It would never survive court challenge for the city to accommodate churchgoers but not restaurant patrons.
I'm surprised they haven't tried to tax sex yet. Or our consumption of oxygen.
I would have saved that photo for the day Avalos proposes a "roofie tax".
No, this would not be a good thing. It's already excessively difficult to make a living off of providing alcohol.
Raising taxes isn't going to fix any government's financial imprudence (it'll just make it worse), but of course "sin" taxes are always on the table because they guarantee positive knee-jerk reactions like Brock's.
The Marin Institute just wants to get rid of alcohol completely, and calling them a watchdog is disingenuous at best.
Knee-jerk? Nothing of the kind, my good man. Ever since I stopped drinking, I could care less about the cost of booze for others.
I am, at best, wildly self-centered.
"The Marin Institute just wants to get rid of alcohol completely, and calling them a watchdog is disingenuous at best."
Agree- and as a pro-alcohol person, they are my enemy.
Perhaps a proximity father from Napa Fucking Valley would be in order.
I assume this is both beer that you buy at your corner store and beer you buy in a bar... at which point, isn't that really just taxing the hell out of bar owners? It's not like a bartender is actually going to start charging you $5.05 for a beer - they'll just have to absorb the new tax.
I'm sure the city incurs a whole lot of costs from drunken debauchery, but I'm not sure that further punishing small business owners is the greatest way to go. I wonder how many drinks get served in your average San Francisco bar every night - thinking about the cost per day to bar owners is an interesting way to look at it.
Bars will also have to contend with the state trying the same desperate, misguided tactic. At some point, they will have to raise prices (or just shut down, which I'm sure would suit the Marin Institute just fine), and when they raise prices, it will be by a full dollar at a time.
See, for example, the DNA Lounge's take on this.
It's not like a bartender is actually going to start charging you $5.05 for a beer
No, they're going to charge you $5.25, duh.
No, they're going to charge you $6.00 (or, more likely, go out of business).
not just a reply to logan:
Why do people always assume a very small fee/tax increase will drive places out of business.
The same fear was expressed, much more reasonably so, when minimum wage was increased by a very large percentage a few years ago. Did any stores go out of business? I don't believe so, but i sure appreciated the wage increase as 5.75 an hour was not cutting it.
a 5 cent tax on beer will not harm anyone, except possibly homeless alcoholics.
As far as running people out of town to buy alcohol, this is already an extremely common concept around the country. In many states there are strict laws on where you are allowed to buy liquor, what days, what times, etc... It's not like we won't be able to buy it on Sunday like in other places.
As far as spending within our means. Since when are the citizens of san francisco concerned with limiting spending? we are constantly voting in favor of huge spending projects. if we want to keep up all these great social programs and other publicly funded services someone needs to provide the money. And the city can not afford to put that burden on businesses and property any more. A 5cent tax on beer will be much less harmful to the city than increasing taxes that effect the number of large companies employing people in our city.
And when such "sin" taxes are said to be going towards education or health or firemen or whatever... is that something to scoff at as someone here did?
I suppose i feel like this as i only spend about 50 bucks on alcohol a year, which seems to be what many spend in a week or less. I personally like the concept of people funding their own recovery from vices. Say hard liquor becomes $1 more per drink at every bar in own. The 5cents on beer isn't gonna kill anyone so don't even pretend that will drive anyone out of business. I don't think that dollar is going to stop people... just like with cigarette taxes, people keep buying them anyway.
The middle of the street church parkers should definitely have to pay for some kind of permit.
maybe there is some kind of financial deal worked out between the individual churches and the dpt ? i have no idea.... but i hope someone is paying for it. i've definitely paid my fair share in ridiculously arbitrary parking tickets over the years.
How many beers can a bartender pour in an hour? I bet it adds up to a lot of nickels. How many nickels do you think a bartender costs for an hour? I bet it's a lot fewer. Some places will go out of business, other places will let staff go, and the rest will just have to take in fewer tips. Only the homeless alcoholics will be harmed, my ass.
Raising taxes like this is counterproductive because in the end it results in the most-taxed segments of society becoming more unable to participate in taxed activities.
by this logic we should tax the shit out of gum because it's on the sidewalk.
I have an idea. let's tax all "advisory" ballot measures and "symbolic" board resolutions, forcing 'em to pay up every time they waste taxpayer resources on things that have no impact. deficit solved.
I hate gum on the sidewalk. how much $ do you think we could get in tax revenue? i'm down!
also you can live without gum; you can't live without booze.
Why are they even dicking around? Make the tax fifty cents. It's funny, people who want to support legalized pot claim that it could be taxed and all our problems would be solved. They use studies and statistics to prove that booze is worse for you than pot, and oh isn't it a shame that we as nation in the 21st century aren't taking this up. (Oh and yeah, I am one of those people.) But oh, putting a tax on alcohol, which more people use -- and ABUSE -- than any other drug, oh all hell breaks loose. "It'll put people out of work! Bars will close! My life will be over if I can't get drunk!" Come on. Good for tha goose...
people who say that about pot are dumb. Why would someone offer to tax something that isn't bad? Why can't it just be legal and taxed like, say, basil? It's like they feel the need to make some unrelated concession to people who are uncomfortable with the stuff. "Mom, if you let me stay up past 8, I promise to wash the dishes 4 times next week."
They want to start here so they can jack it up later.
This creates the same problem as extra taxes on cigarettes ... on one hand, the City's public health budget suffers because more people need services after years of smoking and tarring up their lungs, but on the other hand, a cigarette tax creates an additional stream of revenues for the City to keep eating at the buffet bar in regards to spending.
With the image of a 6-time DUI giving the courtroom camera a finger last week still vivid after he killed a little girl and seriously injured her father due to being drunk, we have this proposal that may have the City NEEDING people to buy more booze ...
Not to mention these little fees and taxes that make it more expensive in San Francisco just sends some people outside of the City and County limits to buy such things ... are we maybe asking for the number of drunk drivers driving back into San Francisco to increase? We are the coddling home of the inebriated after all.
Kiss re-election good bye if you keep with this. Look around and see how many bars or liquor stores you have in your dist.
Time to go to South SF Costco. Oh wait, I already do this.
From that pic, I thought the Supes were proposing a date rape or roofies tax...
I've been complaining about this Sunday church parking thing for months now. I'm glad some other people are unhappy about it. I'm okay with taxing booze, but let's tax the church parking, too
See: http://www.sfbg.com/blogs/politics/2009/06/god_rides_the_bus.html
I am absolutely with you on this. Tax them or ticket/tow them. I don't know why belief in sky fairies should exempt you from parking laws.
All it would take is one restaurant owner to insist on the right of its customers to park in the middle of the street to get rid of the church parkers -- most of whom are from out of town anyway. It would never survive court challenge for the city to accommodate churchgoers but not restaurant patrons.
As others have said, The Marin Institute are nothing but prohibitionists. They are incredibly well funded, and though they pose as a "watchdog" organization, their goal is nothing less than the elimination of alcohol consumption, period. They do this by continually trying to make it harder and more expensive to come by. They believe that "Less alcohol is always too much alcohol."
The tail always wags the dog with these guys: "I have the solution! An alcohol tax! What was the problem you were trying to solve again?" "Funding the schools." "See? It makes perfect sense!"
I wrote a long blog post about the Marin Institute and other prohibitionists when this latest proposal raised its ugly head last month:
DNA Lounge, 23-May-2009.
Please don't get taken in by their prohibitionism masquerading as economics.
tax baby yoga and ironic, child-toucher 'staches.
Why does everyone think that staches are ironic? I think they are great.
Liquor licenses are free?
Errr... Might as well get wholesale booze at Costco at the El Camino location. Dumb Supes.
Why I would go shop and consume in Daly City: Lower sales tax rate, and styrofoam and plastic bags at grocery stores are still LEGAL!
akit loves him some styrofoam
legalize and tax weed
I think SF should tax the air ..... this is how silly this will get and the nuts in City Hall should all be fired.... Listen this city should cut 2000 city jobs , bloated gov"t Lord Gavin....., and hell tax the homeless that will work we have enough of those folks around ..... tax the iphone ... 65% of San francisco have one....maybe tax thinking about taxes .... WHAM ... problem solved!!!! Lets tax folks who ride bikes ...drive cars eat out spend money... oh wait SF does that already... what a joke!
The Gay/Lesbo/TG/Homeless/Bums coalition that defines the SFO Power base are huge drinkers....this will be very unpopular,....Hell, why not tax AssstroGlide, Poppers, Reefer, Public Defecation, and Critical Mass?
Wow, you're a child.
Pouting & holding his breath about taxes.
I propose a steep tax on ellipses.
What's hilarious is that tobacco and booze taxes are regressive taxes -- they target the poorer segments of society instead of the richer segments, since people in the lower income brackets are heavier users of tobacco and alcohol.
So, in absolute terms, you're taxing more per person from the poor than the rich. And, of course, as a percentage of total income you're taxing hugely more from the poor than the rich.
I always found it weird that no one thinks this is wrong.
I say we all go to a bar and stock up before this goes into effect.
Brock the pic I like..... reminds me of the time I passed out after taking a wizz when I woke up after going to 'Cruise Night' in Modesto.
Fortunatly I spent half the night in a motel room getting drunk amongst other things.
Made it home the next day and when I woke up in the middle of the morning to use the restroom I passed out right afterwards. Heck my mom, her boyfriend, and my brother couldn't open the door cause my body was blocking it.
Found out the only reason they didn't call 911 was cause they could hear me snoring so they knew I was still alive.
With that said......
Yet another tax......
Dang, in the last 6 months the price of a pack of hot dogs has gone up .50 cents.
With this type of tax, everyone from the people who run the stores to the local drug dealer on the corner will raise their prices on everything they sell.
That is what happened when the state of California raised the price of cig's with a tax that nearly doubled them.
The cost for raising the price on something that everyone use's, from the guy or gal that sell's it to the guy or gal that deliver's it comes out in nickles and dimes on everything they sell or handle in one way or another.
This is a very bad idea, if 'inflation' keeps up this way especially if we are still in a war that keeps costing us the United States more than it's worth than we will wind up like Germany before WW2.
The only question the grandkids of this generation will wind up asking is "How could they repeat history and give rise to another 'Hitler'."
Enough is enough.
All it would take is one restaurant owner to insist on the right of its customers to park in the middle of the street to get rid of the church parkers -- most of whom are from out of town anyway. It would never survive court challenge for the city to accommodate churchgoers but not restaurant patrons.