The Official "Ask A Mormon" Thread

[♪alt13]

There are 17 states that control the sales of alcoholic beverages. Utah is the 8th highest in regards to tax on these beverages per gallon.

You are not clear on what you are asking. Are you trying to single Utah out of all of the other states like it is different here? Is there an implied question you are asking? Can you restate your question/point/direction? I feel like I'm on jeopardy and you worked backward from "your answer" to arrive at the question you think leads to it.

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Nope not trying to single Utah out. I have my answer I'm curious to yours. If it is, to some degree, taking advantage of people for a company to supply an addictive product to increase their profit then is it taking advantage of people with addictions to tax them heavier than other people(an addiction tax), especially considering that that money largely isn't used to combat addiction?

It seems to me that this follows from your statement. Does it not? Am I missing something?

 

[Jazz Spazz]

Nope not trying to single Utah out. I have my answer I'm curious to yours. If it is, to some degree, taking advantage of people for a company to supply an addictive product to increase their profit then is it taking advantage of people with addictions to tax them heavier than other people(an addiction tax), especially considering that that money largely isn't used to combat addiction?

It seems to me that this follows from your statement. Does it not? Am I missing something?

I can see your line of reasoning, and my short answer is yes and no. Not all people that drink alcoholic drinks are addicted so it's not as easy as saying that. Some view it as taxing something viewed as a negative to society in their opinion as a barrier to use and to pay the extra cost to society that may be related to the use of those products. It does appear to be a lie when the funds are not used for that purpose. I understand the need to offset costs to police/medical/ etc for costs related to alcohol use. Some accidents, police time due to various alcohol related situations, and plenty of other types of scenarios. It's not really fair to society to treat the product the same as other products. It appears that most of the country saw/sees it that way. You can't ignore everything else and call it mean to tax those addicted and tie it off with a bow.

Personally both sides of politics/parties/government bother me. I don't think there are many, if any that work for the good of society instead of the almighty dollar. We should not have the taxes or programs we have now, but we seem to be stuck. There are not easy fixes, the correct ones would hurt a lot at first.

Long story short, I think you are over simplifying it to emphasize one point. There is way more to the issue, but yes... taxing people addicted to something if seen in a vacuum seems wrong.

 

[Gameface]

I'd like to hear some opinions from LDS people about the possibility of privatizing the Liquor stores?

I'd also like some LDS perspective on the fact that "3.2"* beer will be going away.

*

Spoiler

Can't mention "3.2" without pointing out that ABW (alcohol by WEIGHT) is not the standard measurement for alcohol content. ABV (alcohol by Volume) is the standard measurement, and 3.2%abw = 4%abv

 

[infection]

I'd like to hear some opinions from LDS people about the possibility of privatizing the Liquor stores?

I'd also like some LDS perspective on the fact that "3.2"* beer will be going away.

*

Spoiler

Can't mention "3.2" without pointing out that ABW (alcohol by WEIGHT) is not the standard measurement for alcohol content. ABV (alcohol by Volume) is the standard measurement, and 3.2%abw = 4%abv

The state has no business running a liquor store, or most anything that should be a private venture.

 

[infection]

Nope not trying to single Utah out. I have my answer I'm curious to yours. If it is, to some degree, taking advantage of people for a company to supply an addictive product to increase their profit then is it taking advantage of people with addictions to tax them heavier than other people(an addiction tax), especially considering that that money largely isn't used to combat addiction?

It seems to me that this follows from your statement. Does it not? Am I missing something?

I’d imagine the belief is that it helps offset costs associated with those particular substances. In reality, it’s more a function of human nature combined with the emergent properties of bureaucratization where costs are never controlled and they have to go out seeking alternative forms of revenue and would literally take it from any source that the public would allow. Whether or not they use it on “treatment” is irrelevant — they’d then simply take any other sources that are going toward treatment and funnel it to some other pet project. Always be wary of any claim of “let’s do x because all proceeds will go to y” because they will keep the budget of y the exact same but divert the previous funding for y to project z.

 

[bigb]

I'd like to hear some opinions from LDS people about the possibility of privatizing the Liquor stores?

I'd also like some LDS perspective on the fact that "3.2"* beer will be going away.

*

Spoiler

Can't mention "3.2" without pointing out that ABW (alcohol by WEIGHT) is not the standard measurement for alcohol content. ABV (alcohol by Volume) is the standard measurement, and 3.2%abw = 4%abv

I don’t care if the liquor stores are privatized. I don’t care if the beer is 3.2 or 18.9. I don’t care if whiskey and tequila are available at WalMart or Maverick. Cigarettes are, so why not alcohol? I don’t care if my kids watch a mixed drink being made or consumed. I’m responsible for teaching my kids about alcohol and it’s effects. I’m responsible for keeping my underage kids from getting it or seeing it. Not the state of Utah.
What I care about is the idiot who gets behind the wheel when he shouldn’t.


For the record, I think distracted driving is just as bad (if not worse) than drunk driving.

 

[♪alt13]

I'd like to hear some opinions from LDS people about the possibility of privatizing the Liquor stores?

I'd also like some LDS perspective on the fact that "3.2"* beer will be going away.

*

Spoiler

Can't mention "3.2" without pointing out that ABW (alcohol by WEIGHT) is not the standard measurement for alcohol content. ABV (alcohol by Volume) is the standard measurement, and 3.2%abw = 4%abv

Don't they only have to go up to like 3.6 abw to make regular bud light legal? Kinda what I'm expecting, a small change.

 

[Gameface]

Don't they only have to go up to like 3.6 abw to make regular bud light legal? Kinda what I'm expecting, a small change.

Word on the street is that it's going to change and that it could change a little or a lot.

I actually heard something interesting at my last homebrew club meeting from the owner of a small local brewery, the bigger local breweries want a small change. I was surprised by that But it's because they have a lot of established products that meet the current rules, which is to say 4%abv stuff and then really big stuff they sell in the liquor stores. If it did just go up a few points those 4% products would still be competitive and/or easy to adjust to the new limit. If it went up to 6%abv or more they'd basically have to scrap their established brands and re-create them completely using the new limit.

As it stands we either drink 4% beer or we drink 7%+ beer. The guy I was talking to said his 5-6% beer is a slow seller at the liquor store. He also said that if the state upped the limit to 7% he could launch several new beers at that limit easily while places like Uintah, Squatters, Wasatch, etc. would lose their well established big sellers in the 4% category and roll the dice on a new line-up of 7% beers.

 

[Siro]

The things that people believe...

 

[Rubashov]

The state has no business running a liquor store, or most anything that should be a private venture.

Ahhh market fundamentalism, the new faith of the age of greed. Privatisation as an economic good is a great fatuous lie, it really represents a theft and transfer of wealth from the whole of a society to a select few. It is dispossession pure and simple, I was pretty sure when the government generously offered me the opportunity to buy shares in the state owned telephone company that i already owned a share of it by virtue of being a taxpayer and citizen.

 

[Jazz Spazz]

The things that people believe...

So vague it can literally be applied to every view out there in regards to other's views.

I'm pretty sure everyone agrees with this sentiment at times, for very different reasons.