tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-840930092789285091.post7990708957431918220..comments2024-03-19T20:31:23.141-05:00Comments on The Chuck Cowdery Blog: A Tale of Two Troublemakers: Alcohol and FirearmsChuck Cowderyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12191121480961526039noreply@blogger.comBlogger21125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-840930092789285091.post-40539203453518724922021-07-04T22:28:03.028-05:002021-07-04T22:28:03.028-05:00True, but it shouldn't be taxed exorbitantly s...True, but it shouldn't be taxed exorbitantly so it becomes a burden on the people to properly defend themselves. Taxing alcohol, gambling etc. at a much higher rate doesn't put people's lives at risk.Crown Point Marchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11954073193405396961noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-840930092789285091.post-50560520070398567182021-06-29T17:17:46.354-05:002021-06-29T17:17:46.354-05:00Nowhere in the Constitution does it say the exerci...Nowhere in the Constitution does it say the exercise of a protected right cannot be taxed.Chuck Cowderyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12191121480961526039noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-840930092789285091.post-83898377271998471862021-06-29T16:44:08.917-05:002021-06-29T16:44:08.917-05:00You're arguing apples and oranges. The right t...You're arguing apples and oranges. The right to defense of one's self and loved one's is a God given right, protected by the U.S. Constitution (2nd Amendment). There is no protected right to imbibe alcohol, gamble or view pornography; the usual suspects associated with sin taxes.Crown Point Marchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11954073193405396961noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-840930092789285091.post-39777048301705466772021-06-14T01:47:46.396-05:002021-06-14T01:47:46.396-05:00Topics like this make me wanna say, "If you&#...Topics like this make me wanna say, "If you're gonna tax, just slap a flat tax on all and be done with it."Iakov Alenchikhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18349664724832537648noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-840930092789285091.post-7740295203719577472021-06-10T23:17:02.402-05:002021-06-10T23:17:02.402-05:00Um, hey, Anonymous above, what are you referring t...Um, hey, Anonymous above, what are you referring to when you mention (A) in that reply of 6/8 at 7:27, since you do not delineate same in your note, nor a (B), which would be the only reason to refer to an (A) to begin with?<br /><br />Oh, never mind, that was your last post on this absurd thread.<br /><br />And some of us actually post with our real names. Are you starting to see the difference?Sam Komlenicnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-840930092789285091.post-21630058222682650802021-06-08T19:27:02.224-05:002021-06-08T19:27:02.224-05:00Re your query: who decided that tobacco and alcoho...Re your query: who decided that tobacco and alcohol are harmful and firearms are not.<br /><br />Ok, his is my last post on this absurd thread:<br />Alcohol in excess and tobacco even moderately, are always harmful but guns are only harmful sometimes. But there is a BIG difference. Alcohol and tobacco harm are self inflicted harms, I.e. if you choose to use, especially in excess, you are harming yourself. You must then pay a tax to cover the burden to society (increased health care, increased police and EMT's, etc) .. All to cover the choices you have made. <br /><br />With a gun, if you shoot yourself accidentally, see (A) but more so if you shoot someone else, you don't get taxed, you get incarcerated or maybe even put to death. <br /><br />Are you starting to see the difference? One is a tax you pay to cover the societal expenses that you create by smoking and drinking. However if you shoot someone, taxes are the least of your worries. <br /><br />Let's move along please.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-840930092789285091.post-9009396947353359712021-06-06T19:55:44.806-05:002021-06-06T19:55:44.806-05:00You would have my vote if you were running for pub...You would have my vote if you were running for public office.John S.https://www.blogger.com/profile/09522163058060634596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-840930092789285091.post-3690879359141707982021-06-05T19:02:17.352-05:002021-06-05T19:02:17.352-05:00Who decided tobacco and alcohol are harmful, for t...Who decided tobacco and alcohol are harmful, for tax purposes, and firearms are not?Chuck Cowderyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12191121480961526039noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-840930092789285091.post-48501344173831550862021-06-05T18:11:13.928-05:002021-06-05T18:11:13.928-05:00"If we had a consistent policy of taxing harm..."If we had a consistent policy of taxing harms and rewarding good, we would have a very different tax policy."<br /><br />One problem with this would be -- who decides what's good and what's harmful? Stacy Thomashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01486951617196973980noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-840930092789285091.post-35190528026638567662021-06-05T17:01:08.119-05:002021-06-05T17:01:08.119-05:00If we had a consistent policy of taxing harms and ...If we had a consistent policy of taxing harms and rewarding good, we would have a very different tax policy.Chuck Cowderyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12191121480961526039noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-840930092789285091.post-89891020522191141452021-05-30T00:04:03.217-05:002021-05-30T00:04:03.217-05:00@Chuck Cowdery Regarding the math, a 1.75L bottle ...@Chuck Cowdery Regarding the math, a 1.75L bottle is nearly half a gallon. <br /><br />Whether the consumer or producer pays the tax is not a valid question. If it weren't for the tax, they could charge less and have the same profit margin, while selling more, assuming there's some elasticity in the demand for spirits. <br /><br />Regarding the merits of taxing things according to the harm or use of resources they cause, taxing harmful things seems better than taxing work, which is generally a good thing. As you say, though, tax laws end up being arbitraryCJhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05824987036580158137noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-840930092789285091.post-30602170620167856442021-05-29T22:14:34.367-05:002021-05-29T22:14:34.367-05:00$2.70 is not, and I again repeat, not, too much ta...$2.70 is not, and I again repeat, not, too much tax on an intoxicant that carries with it some public health issues. Get off this completely absurd soapbox that claims that somehow distillers mark up this tax. If they do, or better yet pretend that they do, then so what? Who cares what quick books column some penny pinching back room accountant puts their FET expense in? Christ, this has got to be the dumbest blog you have done, and I normally love your stuff. <br /><br />Move along, because this one is a non starter. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-840930092789285091.post-67706153052390198972021-05-28T13:10:44.942-05:002021-05-28T13:10:44.942-05:00FET is $13.50 per proof gallon. 750 ml is 20% of a...FET is $13.50 per proof gallon. 750 ml is 20% of a gallon. 20% of 13.50 is 2.70. But since that is the manufacturer's cost, that 2.70 gets marked up by the distributor and retailer. Does that get us to $7.50? Maybe. The $7.50 comes, as I said, from a rule-of-thumb that says the FET represents about 1/3 of the retail price of an 'ordinary' (i.e., not premium) distilled spirit product. I used Wild Turkey 101 as the example because it is sold at proof, while most distilled spirits products are lower. All that said, the actual number is beside the point. Does anyone deny that alcohol is heavily taxed and the justification for that is the harm alcohol allegedly causes? Yet we don't tax other 'harmful' products the same way. Why is that? If you want to argue about something, argue about that, not my math.Chuck Cowderyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12191121480961526039noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-840930092789285091.post-31426765356565292032021-05-28T09:12:20.973-05:002021-05-28T09:12:20.973-05:00I ran the thought exercise and reached the conclus...I ran the thought exercise and reached the conclusion that all FET should be eliminated.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-840930092789285091.post-63544730697083721972021-05-28T07:06:06.610-05:002021-05-28T07:06:06.610-05:00I'm not really following how you got to 7.50 o...I'm not really following how you got to 7.50 on the tax. The FET on a 750 of WT 101 would be 54 cents. Even if that tax was paid at each step from producer to consumer it would only come to 2.16 - but it's not. Even if it were fully passed on, only the first .54 goes to the government.<br /><br />What am I missing here?Mark Shillinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03131125177639595764noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-840930092789285091.post-62938237339141032152021-05-28T01:15:58.075-05:002021-05-28T01:15:58.075-05:00The type of taxes you are referring to as "Pi...The type of taxes you are referring to as "Pigouvian" taxes. As a 2nd Amendment supporter, I'm not a fan of your example, but you're correct intellectually. Tom Murinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09763200486501331592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-840930092789285091.post-85431705631815217932021-05-27T22:26:43.454-05:002021-05-27T22:26:43.454-05:00I really have no idea what you are talking about w...I really have no idea what you are talking about when you say that a distillery "marks up" their taxes. That's pretty absurd on the face of it. Does a drug store "mark up" the sales tax they charge for your shampoo? I think you might be a little too close to big liquor who are constantly crying "woe is me" so they can ugrade from G5's to G6s.<br /><br />The consumer pays $2.70 for the tax. Every deviation from that is on the distiller and nobody else. Period. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-840930092789285091.post-90920987853486509962021-05-27T22:06:35.390-05:002021-05-27T22:06:35.390-05:00All you can really take from the Northern Marianas...All you can really take from the Northern Marianas Islands case is that $1,000 is too much. Chuck Cowderyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12191121480961526039noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-840930092789285091.post-58799787629128264592021-05-27T21:44:02.582-05:002021-05-27T21:44:02.582-05:00Not really a valid comparison since, as mentioned ...Not really a valid comparison since, as mentioned in the court opinion you refer to, the proposed increased taxes on guns and ammunition would be a further impediment to the exercise of an enumerated right guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the US Constitution in the Bill of Rights. <br /><br />Also, the amounts collected by the G from the percentage tax referred to has been effectively increased many times due to the inflated prices of the items taxed.Stacy Thomashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01486951617196973980noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-840930092789285091.post-28758377399211443832021-05-27T13:23:34.239-05:002021-05-27T13:23:34.239-05:00For purposes of this sort of illustration, it can ...For purposes of this sort of illustration, it can be calculated in different ways. Because the FET is built into the manufacturer's cost, it gets marked up at each successive stage in the distribution chain, and amounts to about 1/3 of the retail price of a standard (i.e., not premium) distilled spirits product. If I calculate it without the markup it comes to about $3.37. All of which is beside the point. However you add it up, alcohol consumers pay considerably more for the harms their consumption ostensibly causes than do ammunition consumers.Chuck Cowderyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12191121480961526039noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-840930092789285091.post-91698584202424524322021-05-27T07:54:19.402-05:002021-05-27T07:54:19.402-05:00The bottle of 101 Turkey you referenced has about ...The bottle of 101 Turkey you referenced has about $2.70 in FET, not $7.50 as you state. <br />As a distiller I can attest that $2.70+/- is not an exhorbanant amount to pay to be in the industry that we all so choose. <br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com