CA: Booze tax proposed for trauma care

Sac Bee ^ | 12/13/02 | John Hill

[NormsRevenge]

Sen. Gloria Romero, D-Los Angeles, speaks to the media about a bill she proposed that would tax alcohol to fund health care costs.

The makers of wine, beer and spirits should pay a fee to bolster California's sagging emergency care system and help bridge the state's massive budget gap, according to a state senator who introduced a bill Thursday to impose a 5-cents-a-drink fee.

[NormsRevenge]

Whoa, Nellllie !!! This is getting series...

[NormsRevenge]

A Field Poll earlier this year showed that 70 percent of Californians would support higher liquor or cigarette taxes as an alternative to health care cuts.

Romero's bill would need only a simple majority vote in the Legislature, based on a court case that found that a fee imposed to cover government costs related to a product does not have to be approved by the two-thirds majority needed for tax measures. Republican lawmakers, whose votes are needed for two-thirds majorities, have said they will oppose taxes and fees to cover the budget deficit. Democratic Gov. Gray Davis said he had no position on the bill.

[Mamzelle]

Costliest patients in the ER are the psych patients. The others become most expensive after they leave the ER for the OR. How about enforcing immigration laws? That would be a very cheap way to take a lot of stress off the ERs.

[NormsRevenge]

hic ... Ping ... Trouble in Tiny Town Tavern Ahead

[Trailerpark Badass]

Booze, smokes, fatty foods...just trying to imagine what other public revenue gravy trains will be cooked up in the future.

[Just another Joe]

The makers of wine, beer and spirits should pay a fee to bolster California's sagging emergency care system and help bridge the state's massive budget gap, according to a state senator who introduced a bill Thursday to impose a 5-cents-a-drink fee.

Sen. Gloria Romero, D-Los Angeles, and hospital advocates say the fee would offset financial losses and budget cuts at emergency rooms, whose patients have often been injured in alcohol-related accidents and violence.

Which is it, Gloria?

It's unknown how much of that extra charge would be passed on to consumers.

It's UNKNOWN? BS, all of it would be passed on.

"At the end of the year, if there were no alcohol injuries, these dollars would be returned to the alcohol distributors

BWAHAHAHA

[jimtorr]

It would raise $500 million a year....... the full amount would be dedicated to treating alcohol-related injuries.

Hey, that's a good joke! They said the same things about tobacco settlements and tobacco taxes. Never happened. All of the money goes into the general fund.

"At the end of the year, if there were no alcohol injuries, these dollars would be returned to the alcohol distributors," she said.

Absurd. No money will ever be refunded by government.

They must think people are stuped. Of course, it is California, where the average voter does appear to vote from their emotions rather than their minds.

[Badger1]

California is on its way to taxing itself into prosperity.

I'm glad I got out of California 11 years ago.

[Drango]

I drink and I'll support this tax ONLY if some other tax is reduced.

I don't like the social engineering aspect of taxes. However, it's a reality and so let's apply the tax where it can do so good. In this case the reduction of alcohol consumption.

The KEY to this is that some other tax needs to be reduced. That'll never happen so they can shove it!

[jimtorr]

This is not a fee they are talking about, it is a tax.

A fee is a given for service, such as obtaining permission from the state to drive on public roads, or permission for private entities to sell booze to the public.

When money is confiscated from the producer of a product for no reason other than that they are the producer, then it is a tax.

California will probably soon have a booze tax based on some hypothetical "drink", as well as the standard sales tax and the zillion business taxes.

When will the state start taxing house window screens? How about television antennas? These things are taxed right now in UK. Why not in California?

[CA Conservative]

"The people we are asking to pay the bulk of the tax are the people who can least afford to pay it," Becker said. "The vast majority are not alcohol abusers."

I'm sorry, but if you can't afford the booze, don't buy it! This is not an essential item like food or clothing. I am not in favor of increasing taxes, but if they are going to increase taxes, this is a good way to do it. Everyone has a choice whether or not to pay this tax. I enjoy a good beer (Sam Adams is my current favorite), or a glass of wine. If they pass hte tax it might affect my buying, or it might not, but at least I have the choice. That is not the case with income taxes, etc..

[CA Conservative]

And just in case someone wants to make a constitutional argument, remember that these kinds of taxes (excise taxes) are specifically mentioned in the Constitution...

[SheLion]

~Whoa!!!!!! Bled the smokers dry already, did we? Now we are starting on LIQUOR! Oh yea! We tried to tell everyone.........YOUR NEXT!

[vin-one]

your state over spent what it takes in. So they are looking to tax something, the evil booze.
What's next, a tax on fatty foods,
Hey I have an idea, why not, fix your spending,
Everywhere in the country businesses are cutting back People are cutting Back,
But the govt, considers a cut back when it only raised spending by 4% rather than 5%.

[steve50]

"Once the principle is admitted that it is the duty of government to protect the individual against his own foolishness, no serious objections can be advanced against further encroachments."
Ludwig von Mises

I think we need to change the mindset that taxation is allowable to influence behavior, there's no end if allowed to continue.

[Drango]

I think we need to change the mindset that taxation is allowable to influence behavior, there's no end if allowed to continue.

The problem is that all taxes have some impact on behavior. Or at least sitting here I can't think of any that don't.

[johniegrad]

This nothing but an attempt at cost shifting. With the federal government involved in Medicare and the state government involved in Medicaid, reimbursement has been ratcheted down over the years to the point where taking care of these patients is a money losing proposition (to say nothing of the illegals). Historically, healthcare facilities have shifted this cost by raising fees to the private insurance carriers. This is virtually impossible to do now in heavily penetrated managed care markets like California so the next attempt will be maneuvers such as this. It would be interesting to see who the good senator's campaign donors might be. Think hospital associations, etc.

[CA Conservative]

I would prefer they cut spending back to what it was when Red Doofus took office - but that is not likely to happen. There will be a lot of spending cuts, but some taxes are inevitable. If that is the case, I would rather they be taxes about which I have a choice, whther to pay (by buying alcohol) or not.

Don't try to infer that I support the current spending spree by the Dems out here - I don't! But I am also smart enough to know what will be the likely courses of action by these idiots. And since some taxes are going to increase, this is one that would be acceptable to me.

[Redcloak]

This is getting series...

Vary!

I guess that the NRA drove them to drink during the last session over Perata's bullet-tax-to-fund-trauma-care bill; time to pick on the drinkers instead of the shooters

[Gary Boldwater]

Let's tax politicians to pay for the cost of bad government.