Drunk Lang

[Derranged]

I mean seriously. Times are rough, people wanna drink.

[Mushroom]

I mean seriously. Times are rough, people wanna drink.

Thats bull**** man. I remember when I used to visit NYC an was always impressed with the $6 Pitchers you could find in various holes in the wall.

[Derranged]

Thats bull**** man. I remember when I used to visit NYC an was always impressed with the $6 Pitchers you could find in various holes in the wall.

Well luckily I buy most of alcohol from stores now. Drinking on a budget sucks. I mean isn't there anywhere I can get a 12 pack of dark lager for under $10.00?

[Mushroom]

Well luckily I buy most of alcohol from stores now. Drinking on a budget sucks. I mean isn't there anywhere I can get a 12 pack of dark lager for under $10.00?

Dunno man I live back in rainy England now. Unfortunately drinkers over here have come under the same scrutiny with annual alcohol tax increases attempting to reduce the nations drinking habits.

[Derranged]

Dunno man I live back in rainy England now. Unfortunately drinkers over here have come under the same scrutiny with annual alcohol tax increases attempting to reduce the nations drinking habits.

Was Happy Hour ever banned from England? I read it was being considered a while back...

[Mushroom]

Was Happy Hour ever banned from England? I read it was being considered a while back...

Not yet I don't think but I wouldn't be surprised if it happens soon. My local pub used to do 99p pints between 5-7. Great times!

[-Mustang-]

i just read an article from USA today ... where they're saying that more and more restaurants are doing Happy Hour to get more business

BTW Derranged .... where the hell is Mangler?? havn't seen him in a while again ... he's said that he looks like Allan Green in the past.... are we sure he isn't , in fact, Allan Green and he's just training for the Ward fight ?

[Derranged]

I haven't seen Mangler in a while Mustang. He's probably busy with work. The Lang suffers without him, no question.

[Derranged]

Not yet I don't think but I wouldn't be surprised if it happens soon. My local pub used to do 99p pints between 5-7. Great times!

Raising the price of alcohol.. I mean, times are rough, everything else is going to ****. Can't we at least get wasted at a reasonable price? For fucks sake this annoys me.

[Drunken Cat]

There might be a new alcohol tax in an attempt to make New Yorkers drink less. Fuckin pricks. I'll bet this was a woman's idea somewhere along the lines, possibly pressure from M.A.D.D.



http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/...le_of_bee.html

Getting drunk in New York could get more expensive.

The Health Department is mulling a new tax increase on alcohol - which supporters say would make New Yorkers drink less and get healthier.

"It's one of the things on the menu," said Executive Deputy Commissioner Adam Karpati, who oversees the Health Department's alcohol policy.

And it could put a big siphon on a party budget.

Under one scenario, a bottle of Bud would skyrocket as much as 10 cents - taking the fun out of happy hour.

That plan would bump the total tax on a beer to more than 17 cents, a steep fee on a $2 longneck, while a bottle of Cabernet would climb up to nearly 50 cents.

Booze-imbibers are already pumping big tax bucks into city, state and federal coffers.

New Yorkers pony up 7.4 cents of taxes on a bottle of beer, 36.9 cents on a bottle of wine and $3.61 on a standard 750-ml bottle of hard liquor.

The state raked in $206 million off alcohol last year - and that was before Gov. Paterson increased wine and beer taxes to help balance the state budget.

The city taxes only beer and liquor, not wine, raising $23.5 million.

Mayor Bloomberg hasn't weighed in on the idea. But he is a big fan of raising taxes on cigarettes and sugary sodas to improve health - so higher booze taxes would fit right in.

"The surest pathway to changing behavior is through the wallet," Bloomberg said last month.

Former Health Commissioner Thomas Frieden was working on the idea before President Obama picked him to head the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, said Columbia University's Joseph Califano.

"It's a terrific idea," said Califano, president of the National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse.

"This has the potential to be one of the most significant things that Bloomberg can do in terms of the public health."

Frieden was replaced by Commissioner Thomas Farley, who wrote in 2005 that "the simplest and single most effective step we could take to cut drinking is to raise prices by taxing alcohol more."

The city counted 1,700 alcohol-related deaths in 2008, and wants to reduce high school drinking by 16% and booze-fueled hospitalizations 19% by 2012.

"We need to be doing more around alcohol. This is a reasonable thing to consider," Karpati said. Any city increase would need approval from state lawmakers in Albany.

The Citizens' Committee for Children of New York called for the 10-cents-per-drink hike in alcohol taxes, which would flood $500 million a year into tax coffers.



Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/...#ixzz0gavaGdzS

I've never understood this sort of tax, really.

You have a situation where the authorities are proposing ostensibly to institute a tax in order to put a disincentive on a particular activity (e.g. drinking alcohol).

Now, we know that one manifestation of the political side of taxation is that the taxing authority (e.g. the government of New York) allocates the tax receipts, in advance of the funds actually being collected.

So then, you have a case in which funds are being collected, and then allocated, on the basis of a policy, the stated purpose of the taxation being to discourage a particular activity (drinking) through an economic disincentive, that very activity therein becoming the basis of taxation (and therein allocation of public funds).

So, you have a policy of taxation, the stated aim of which is to diminish the tax base of the particular form of taxation. In short, the inherent result of the policy is to create a conflict of interest: governments rely on taxes, and hence have an interest to maximize tax receipts from a given base; using taxes as a means to diminish such a base is counterproductive to the general purpose of taxes. The most logical result, imo, is that the policy itself is disingenuous: the true aim being to raise tax revenue through increasing the burden on consumers of alcohol.