Hampden liquor store supports alcohol tax
Sen. Mike Miller has already made it loud and clear that no increase in alcohol taxes will pass under his watch.
But that is not stopping proponents of the dime a drink tax increase to push ahead with their fight.
Maryland Citizens’ Health Initiative held a press conference this morning with a Baltimore wine store owner who said he supports the tax.
David Wells, of The Wine Source in Hampden, said he is in favor of Senate Bill 168 sponsored by Senator Verna Jones-Rodwell and House Bill 121 sponsored by Delegate James Hubbard.
“I will sleep better at night,” Mr. Wells, said in a statement. “knowing that this dime a drink alcohol tax increase is reducing underage drinking and alcohol abuse.
Supporters of the tax want the $215 million it will raise to be used for health care, to fund programs for people with developmental disabilities and mental health needs, and for drug and alcohol prevention and treatment.
"It is time for our industry to do its fair share to reduce the deaths and societal problems caused by the misuse of our product,” Wells said in the statement.
Take our poll and tell us whether you think an alcohol tax is needed.
Comments
Let's be fair here: A better poll description for 'no' would be something more like "no, the tradeoff of higher-priced cocktails for the increased budget for social services isn't worth it." Or something like that.
That the cocktails would become more expensive is only half the story. Furthermore, what are other states charging in liquor taxes and how does that compare to MD?
Come on, let's flesh this out so we can have a real, honest discussion about it.
Hi Rick, We have written about the issue many, many times.This was purposely meant to be a shorter update. Thanks for your note. /
Posted by: rick | February 7, 2011 12:43 PM
Mr. Wells's comment sounds like it's dripping with sarcasm. Anyone that thinks that a dime a drink tax will curb underage drinking is also riding unicorns to work. Kids and abusers will find a way to drink. It's not as if the recession slowed things up at all.
Posted by: AlvySinger | February 7, 2011 1:48 PM
I don't like the idea of tax increases on alcohol sales. Let's face it, rich folks can pay it without breaking a sweat or even thinking about it. A poor person who just wants a beer or two while watching a game on a crummy television in a crummy apartment or whatever is the one who may no longer be able to afford one of life's few (relatively) affordable luxuries due to this new tax (or may have to switch from his favorite brew to whatever is cheapest). I don't like these taxes where poor folks are basically being told what they should or shouldn't enjoy.
If we need a tax increase to fund something, how about taxing luxury cars or boats or something like that? Or how about only taxing wine and liquor that costs over $50 a bottle? Let the folks who can afford to pay the tax pay the tax when they go for their expensive luxury items. Let's not impose taxes that prevent the poor from having one of the few luxuries available to them.
Posted by: John | February 7, 2011 2:10 PM
I think any tax increase on liquor should really be part of a comprehensive liquor law reform that will allow wine/beer/spirits by mail, and the elimination on the criminal penalties for the normal citizens bringing liquor into the state for personal consumption.
Posted by: Paul | February 7, 2011 2:37 PM
I fully support a dime a drink - the tax on alcohol/beer/wine etc has not risen in ages due to the powerful liquor lobby. The funds raised will benefit health care programs in Maryland.
Sue
Posted by: Susan Talbott | February 7, 2011 6:03 PM