Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
One of the caveats of statistics is that correlation does not equal causation
A 2002 tax increase was followed by an 11 percent reduction, according to the study published in the American Journal of Public Health.
"Increasing alcohol taxes saves lives; that's the bottom line," said the study's lead author, Dr. Alexander Wagenaar, a professor at the University of Florida's Department of Epidemiology and Health Policy Research. "The tax increase caused some reduction in consumption of alcohol. The reduction saved lives."
The study, funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, tracked the number of deaths for every quarter in Alaska from 1976 to 2004.
Using information from death certificates, Wagenaar and the co-authors compiled the number of deaths caused by alcohol, such as alcohol poisoning and alcoholic liver disease, and deaths linked to alcohol, such as cirrhosis and chronic pancreatitis. Deaths caused by alcohol-related car accidents or violence were not included.
Deaths from Alaska were compared with data from other states to control for nationwide factors, such as population growth and advanced medical care.
The authors found 23 fewer deaths per year after a 1983 tax hike and 21 fewer deaths per year after a 2002 increase.
Researchers chose to study Alaska after a political debate over the most recent alcohol tax increase in the Last Frontier state.
"No other state in recent years has increased alcohol taxes in the way that Alaska did in 2002," Wagenaar said. "Basically, they conducted the experiment, and we studied it."
Although Alaska has a population of fewer than a million people, the state "is not highly different when looking at epidemiological trends," he said, estimating that about two-thirds of Americans drink.
"There's no reason to think the experience in Alaska would be different than anywhere else," Wagenaar said. "The study looks at the responsiveness of drinking."
The Finland study
For years, Finland had high alcohol taxes. In March 2004, the Finnish government lowered the taxes nearly 33 to 44 percent to protect domestic sales because officials worried that patrons would flock to neighboring nations in search of cheaper booze.
Consumption levels in Finland increased 50 percent from the previous year. Finnish researchers also found that arrests for drunken and disorderly conduct increased by 11 percent after taxes were lowered.
Study: Paying more for alcohol saves lives - CNN.com
Maybe not, but judging your entire beliefs on what your family does
is hardly reliable. I think the gas prices are proof that Americans adjust
consumption according to price. Also here is more data concerning alcohol.
Have alcohol taxes reduced deaths or has the increase in enforcement of and tougher sentences for drunk driving infraction resulted in less deaths?
Again correlation is not causation.
Have tobacco taxes reduced smoking or have relentless TV ads and social nonacceptance decreased smoking, especially in youths?
What's the cause?
Certainly the kids who will buy a pack of cigarettes or a 6 pack illegally are not too concerned about a tax increase are they?
Have alcohol taxes reduced deaths or has the increase in enforcement of and tougher sentences for drunk driving infraction resulted in less deaths?
Again correlation is not causation.
Have tobacco taxes reduced smoking or have relentless TV ads and social nonacceptance decreased smoking, especially in youths?
What's the cause?
Certainly the kids who will buy a pack of cigarettes or a 6 pack illegally are not too concerned about a tax increase are they?
Have alcohol taxes reduced deaths or has the increase in enforcement of and tougher sentences for drunk driving infraction resulted in less deaths?
Again correlation is not causation.
Have tobacco taxes reduced smoking or have relentless TV ads and social nonacceptance decreased smoking, especially in youths?
What's the cause?
Certainly the kids who will buy a pack of cigarettes or a 6 pack illegally are not too concerned about a tax increase are they?
Did you not see the data I posted. Calls to the tobacco quit line shot
up after taxes were raised. You really think the TV ads convinced people
to quit in just a matter of days? And why did the spikes occur directly
after the tax hike?
after
the tax increase, the Michigan quitline received 3,100 calls, compared to only 550 in the previous six months;
and in Montana more than 2,000 people called in the first 20 days after the tax increase, compared to only
380 calls per month previously.
Great--I'll pay more for stuff. What are they going to do with the money they raise by taxing me?
Like I stated in the other thread, tax the industrial emission of carbon and return the revenue to industry through subsidies for research and investment in alternative energy sources, cleaner-burning fuel, carbon-capture technologies and other environmental innovations.
That way we use the regulation to reduce emissions, then we use the revenues gained to offer subsidies for companies and indivduals to invest in alternative energy. This would have a double enforcement, because the company or person does not want to get taxed, and two they will recieve subsidies for their investment into alternative sources.
Why not just cut out the middle man and tax everyone some percentage and use it for developing or subsidizing new technology ?
Carbon taxes will do little to reduce the use of fossil fuels.
Because you want the industry to seek out alternative investment. The extra taxes on consumption combined with the subsidies for investment will drive the entire alternative energy movement.
Then they won't alter economic behavior so what, exactly, is the problem with them? And you do understand that you are arguing that price will not alter consumption don't you? Economics isn't your forte is it...
You'll see higher consumer costs, cuts in work forces and less investment in green technologies because more is being paid in taxes.
Taking money from businesses via taxes is not how you spur production implementation and use of new technologies.
You just argued that there will be no change in economic behavior therefore there would be no reason to cut workforces nor any impact on the motivation for green technologies.
You really need to pick your position and quit flip flopping. It makes your arguments very confusing...
Then they won't alter economic behavior so what, exactly, is the problem with them? And you do understand that you are arguing that price will not alter consumption don't you? Economics isn't your forte is it...
He obviously does not realize he just reversed arguments and is now debating himself.
And he lost the debate...
I believe it was YOU who made the "economic behavior" comment.
You are failing to follow here, if price does not alter consumption then how does higher taxes hurt business? according to your logic the extra taxes can be passed on to the customer with no reduction in consumption. where are the losses you speak of?
