chip
Well-known member
- Thread starter
- #21
ATFC Seagull said:But you're talking about 2 different things. 4x4 cars, and I don't want to get into this debate as I'd love to have one myself, cause this extended damage, thats a fact. But not everyone who has a drink is going to end up causing criminal damage or going to A&E.
So why should someone going for a few quiet beers to watch the football be forced to contribute because of binge drinkers? Unless the tax is only going to applicable if bar staff suspect its binge drinking/trouble-makers...
Yes and no. It is not a fact that 4x4 cause or extend climatic change, just a poorly described hypothesis - and that is another debate. I accept your point that the symptoms may be different but my argument is around using taxation to counter the impact of the product that is being taxed. Perhaps smoking would have been a better example as here the product and its consumption have been taxed and regulated beyond its (financial) impact on society. I guess more people drink, and to excess, than drive 4x4s. If you believe the argument that taxing 4x4s will result in a lower usage then why not apply it to other areas like drinking. I don't actually believe that is generally true and agree with others that it is social attitudes that have to change.
The fact is that excessive drinking is a very real problem with extremely serious consequences that are having an effect on an increasing number of peoples lives. It is only fair that the costs of this should be borne by those who drink. If you drink less, you pay less, but the tax would at least be proportionate to the level of consumption.