An (almost) two thousand per cent tax rise on nice, frothy beer
May 12th, 2009 Posted in Uncategorized by Julian Harris
Some people, strange folk, think Liberal Vision’s all about fags and booze. Yes, we do like fags and booze, and yes, this post is about booze. So maybe they’re onto something.
T’other day I railed against Lord Avebury, as I’m prone to do, for his comments on alcohol tax. I am quite appalled at the level of tax on various alcoholic beverages in the UK, but as this story from over the pond shows, things could be worse:
Oregon state to raise beer tax by 1,900%
Yes, really. 1,900%.
Of course this will absolutely hammer their micro-breweries, while the likes of Bud and MDG will be able to ride the storm.
Not cricket, Oregon, not cricket.
May 12th, 2009 at 3:29 pm
I think I preferred it when they were honest, open prohibitionists, simply banning things they didn’t like without this awful prohibition through extortion. I don’t think they quite realise that profiting more from something they believe to be ‘wrong’ robs them of any moral authority they might claim to have.
May 12th, 2009 at 3:31 pm
I’m not sure, but given that this 1,900% tax rise is only going to see the price of a pint of beer going up by $1.25 isn’t beer duty still going to be lower in Oregon than the UK? Part of the problem here is surely that Brits have just come to accept ludicrously high indirect taxes and fail to notice that they inverably hit the poorest hardest. If you really need the money far better to be honest to people about what they are paying then to hide it in the small print.
And I say all this as a general supporter of temperence, as you say its just not Cricket!
May 12th, 2009 at 3:31 pm
I blame Pigou.
May 12th, 2009 at 3:43 pm
Aye, you’re probably right Simon. The “math”, as they’d say, was rather beyond me.
May 12th, 2009 at 4:43 pm
Now I have a question and don’t know where to ask so I will just put It here.
As a Classical Liberal myself I could never bring myself be a member or to vote for the Lib Dems. It seems to me that the party is dominated by people with a high tax and interventionist bent. The conservative party has a strong libertarian current running through it that is capable of influence and even dominance given the right circumstances, and in my opinion is most likely to act in a liberal way when in government. That said I know that it is unfortunately capable of authoritarianism and illiberalism, and that free market policies/ideas are often balanced with social oppression.
So here is the question why choose the lib dems and not the Tories? What was the deciding factor?
May 12th, 2009 at 4:54 pm
I have a few queries about this new blog. It’s confusing me a little…
(1) How does not taking “specific policy positions” square with quite openly advocating lower taxation on ‘booze and fags’? Surely that IS a specific policy position…
(2) I would like to hear a bit more about WHY precisely you are trying to unite the lower taxes, smaller state and extension of freedom side of the liberal democrats? Isn’t this just unnecessarily divisive? Isn’t the point of the Lib Dems that we unite the ‘classical’ liberalism with welfare-state Liberalism and social democracy?
May 12th, 2009 at 4:56 pm
Nick, thanks for the comment – if you don’t mind waiting, I think I’ll dedicate a separate post on this altogether. Maybe tomorrow if you’re lucky.
May 12th, 2009 at 5:09 pm
Jay,
What’s written by contributors to the blog isn’t always going to be the position of Liberal Vision as an organisation.
It’s really all about opening up the debate and balancing things out a bit. We can peacefully co-exist.
May 12th, 2009 at 6:09 pm
Sure, well if the opinions of the contributors are not the position of Liberal Vision, why restrict the ‘Vision’ aspect of this blog to simply those who advocate reduced taxes AND small state AND personal liberty? This to me seems like restricting the debate, not opening it out.
If I, for example, believe that ‘personal liberty’ equates to ‘freedom from addiction’ or freedom from ‘social pressure to engage in harmful acts’, it would seem logical that higher taxes on addictive or harmful substances might be necessary. Thus I might agree with increased personal liberty, but achieve it through higher taxation.
My point is that these three elements of ‘Vision’ you lay down as your foundation blocks are not as neatly compatible as you suggest. Lower taxes might be compatible with a stronger state. Bureaucracy and ‘red tape’ might be compatible with greater individual freedom. Higher taxes might be compatible with greater personal freedom. These ARE huge debates. By stating your principles and beliefs in such concrete terms in your vision section, you preclude such discussion.
The idea that Liberal Democrats should live in separate camps ‘side by side’ seems rather pointless, and conducive to factionalism. If lower taxes mean progress towards a “fair, free and open society, in which we seek to balance the fundamental values of liberty, equality and community”, then that is great! But if higher taxes or greater regulation do so too then I think it is pointless to rule it out – as your ‘Vision’ statement appears to do.
If you think taxes should always be lower, the state always smaller, then where do we stop? There’s no point in speaking of such matters in absolute terms – to do so will only restrict our ability to become a genuine contender for power. Blind ideology will not project us into Parliament. A Liberal (democratic) Vision, tempered by judgement and a sense of responsibility, will. I’m not saying that we must all agree all the time, but if this blog is to truly stimulate debate about the Liberal Democrats you must broaden your vision, not narrow it to a limited set of principles.
Anyway, I’ve had my say and will henceforth leave you all alone. If you want this to become a lib dem blog, I will happily drive people towards it. If you want it to become a home for a faction within the party with a narrow ‘Vision’ of what it means to be a Liberal Democrat then I will not participate and will encourage others to refrain from doing so too.
May 12th, 2009 at 6:30 pm
Jay,
Just to have my 2p’s worth.
We don’t have specific policy positions – in the sense that there aren’t (and won’t be any time soon, if ever) weighty and lengthy pamphlets setting out our detailed policy stance on, say, health policy.
But we do have some general, guiding principles. We are Liberal Democrats who support lower taxes, less regulations and more personal (“negative”) freedoms. We don’ expect all LibDems to agree with us – and we know that many don’t.
We don’t have, say, a policy of income tax being cut specifically to 18p or 16p or 13p. Nor do we insist that every LV member signs up to some specific manifesto. So to that extent, we advocate a direction of travel rather than a specific destination.
I hope and think a good, healthy and well-tempered discussion and debate can happen in that framework. I very much hope you feel you can contribute to it.
May 12th, 2009 at 6:37 pm
Jay,
As someone who’s been arguing from a very ‘Liberal Vision’ point of view on my own blog for quite some time now I can sincerely understand where you’re coming from because I hear a lot of what you’re saying on a regular basis.
It’s important to realise that what unites this particular group is a commitment to a less burdensome state, less burdensome regime of taxation and greater personal freedom – we don’t really believe that you can separate economic liberalism and civil liberalism – they’re essentially the same thing, and that’s what makes us distinct.
A key aim of this blog is engaging debate in the wider liberal democrat blogosphere. We don’t really claim to, or intend to, reflect the full diversity of Lib Dem opinion in our blog posts, but we do expect to see it in the comments and in people’s reactions.
This IS a Lib Dem Blog.