Kitty Dukakis takes on beer distributors

... you mean like studying to become a social worker so she could help people suffering with addicition and homelessness and mental health issues? because she did that.

just because you have no idea what she's been doing, doesn't mean she's been doing nothing.

@ Fish

I addressed this in response to somebody else, but I'll say it again for you. Part of being responsible is recognizing that it is not possible for some people to avoid addiction. If a drug is to be legally available to all, we must acknowledge this fact and take corrective action steps. That means you and I and anybody else who enjoys a glass of wine with dinner or a beer at the game is responsible for the person who can't stop. We make it available to an addict, we have to take care of that addict.

That's the one answer you'll get from me. I take a fair amount of offense at some of your statements in this thread. I suspect you are intentionally provocative and not really interested in real discussion. As such, I've answered a question that I agree matters, but I'm not going to feed your obnoxious behavior further.

I do have a problem with tax money being diverted from the purported purpose for which the tax was imposed. When that happens, it means one of four things...

1 - The original purpose no longer exists, so the government no longer needs to impose that tax for that purpose.

-or-

2 - The original purpose is fully funded, and government has extra cash laying around as a result of the continuing tax.

-or-

3 - The original purpose was a ruse, was never funded, and was used to collect additional general revenue via a convenient scapegoat.

-or-

4 - The original purpose still needs additional funding, but government is diverting funds slated for that purpose to other purposes.

(If you have others, and want to introduce/argue them, that's fine. I can only imagine these. And, I assume all reasonable arguments would revolve around 2 & 4, with 1 & 3 being imagined as real, in this particular instance, only by the most oblivious, but, again, if you think differently, express yourself.)

Anyway, in all four scenarios, I find it unconscionable to continue collecting the tax as currently labeled. Some call it fungibility. I call it fraud. Whatever you want to call it, all four scenarios involve it, to greater or lesser degrees.

If a specific tax is imposed to fund a specific function, then ALL monies raised via that tax should go toward that function. If that means setting aside excess monies once the need is met, for future need specifically involving that problem, fine. I'm not thrilled with that option, but at least it's honest. I'd be more happy with the monies reverting to those who paid, and the tax abolished.

Getting back to the question(s) at hand, though...

How much money is raised via the tax? And how much of that money goes toward programs specifically geared towards alcohol treatment, or specifically given as reasons for imposing the tax? If it's not 100%, then I'm in favor of cutting back the level of taxation to where it is 100%.

(And, to be honest - although, aren't I always? - I don't have any idea what that level may be. However, I'm trying to become informed concerning that, and that's why I asked the question.)

Suldog
http://jimsuldog.blogspot.com

Yeah, the first quote you have from me is just a confused sentence. I was packing in too much in one thought. Here, I'll be more explanatory.

You can also check out the explanation in the link I posted about the "three tier system".

Basically, package stores were being forced to deal exclusively with specific manufacturers once Prohibition ended. If you wanted to sell Sam Adams, then you weren't allowed to sell Budweiser, or else Boston Beer Company would stop selling to you.

In order to "fix" that problem, the government put in distributors. They could buy from anyone and sell to anyone, so your favorite packy or spa would be able to get both Sam AND/OR Bud from whichever distributor he wanted and ultimately put both on his shelves.

Unfortunately, this just put a new level of corruption in the way. Now, you could ONLY sell what the distributor brought in. If he didn't want to bring in something from out-of-state, then he didn't have to. He also got the ABCC to rule that you couldn't just buy it yourself...you HAD to use the distributor. Then as time passed, some distributors did better than others. We're down to only those few (extremely rich now) distributors that survived the pseudo-free market of distribution in each state. Whatever they say goes, and they have the money to make the legislature give the ABCC the power to say whatever the distributor wants. At the same time, there are a ton of places that learned how to make a decent alcoholic beverage, but not in the volumes a distributor is going to need or be interested in. The system became an hourglass...tons of manufacturers of various shapes and sizes...less than a dozen distributors...tons of stores and end consumers. It all goes through the distributors that fight tooth-and-nail to keep restrictions in place, like the common carrier truck licensing, that benefit them and keep the end consumer from avoiding the distributor, like through direct sales.

So, the distributors and the ABCC are forever linked. One is the governmental control over sales of alcohol in the state and the other is the market control. The ABCC (and the legislature) do whatever is necessary to keep the distributors profiting...who then funnel the profits back to the government officials through campaign funds, etc.