If ever there was a reason for smaller government, then this is it:

-=-=-
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/alcopops-hit-with-heavy-tax/2008/04/27/1208743330349.html

"A large slice of the extra revenue raised by the higher excise - $2 billion over three to four years - will be poured into a new National Preventative Health program. Excess collected above the investment in preventative health will be returned to general revenue."
-=-=

This is a disgusting act of government. And there is also a little irony, since the Coalition supports the measure as well (and supports it if the money is used in socialised-style spending programs...ha - not laughing though).

Unbelievable. When you actually get down to looking at government, there are some massive deficiencies in their decision making processes (or rather, their ability to push certain agendas based on lies). Does any one of these people even know what a correlation and causation fallacy is?

So lets run over the reasoning (correct if wrong):
* Teen girls are victims of themselves and the evil drink companies
* Political agenda (or, 'solution'): Raise taxes on 'evil' drinks
* Everyone else not in the target group must pay this tax as well for no particular reason.
* Tax will be spent on stupid, useless programs and any excess will go into government general taxation revenue (perhaps pay for the mp pay rises)

Is anyone not completely outraged yet?

I'm not outraged at all, and this is a typical conservative response to an important public health initiative: when people are unconscious in the gutter or bashing strangers, conservatives cry that the government should do something about alcohol consumption, then, when it does, they cry "This is a disgusting act of government". The real agenda is "nothing the Rudd government can do is okay."

As for "tax will be spent on stupid, useless programs", do you have any evidence that such programs are stupid and useless, or does that simply suit your prejudices?

Sancho>"I'm not outraged at all, and this is a typical conservative response to an important public health initiative:"

The 'public' can manage their own health (sometimes they need to be provided with educational information). What's sad is, everyone else (ie. 99% or more of those consuming these drinks) are punished with higher costs due to no wrongful action on their part. I would argue that increasing prices will actually harm the health of these drink abusers more, since they will not skimp on their drinks no matter what the cost is. Instead, they will eat less or take the money from other responsible expenditures, such as saving money or paying off debts.

Sancho>"The real agenda is "nothing the Rudd government can do is okay."

That's not my agenda. The reality is, Rudd has brought this upon himself, with his choices of ministers and his own actions. I support one or two of his policies (the apology to the Stolen generations, and the broadband network, for example are great) but this has all been eroded and taken away with others (in fact, he is almost identical to Howard's government). It's cheap and lazy (maybe he was forced to by the electorate, but I think with strong leadership that would be a non-issue)

So...how is punishing other consumers of the drinks (the vast majority) an effective, fair law/tax? This kind of thing is actually punishing millions of upstanding citizens. I don't see how you can ignore that fact.

Sancho>"As for "tax will be spent on stupid, useless programs", do you have any evidence that such programs are stupid and useless, or does that simply suit your prejudices?""

No. But there is no evidence they are worth the investment. I know enough about these programs and bureacracies to believe that is probably an accurate description. Assuming it is worthwhile is worse, though.

The teens will just move to cheaper illegal drugs.They't get their eckies and their pseudo-everdreams for a few dollars.

It is the thin end of the wedge.They'll start with the alcohol pops and then tax everything else to the hilt.What do you expect from big brother?Labor has taken the fun out of life in NSW and they'll now screw us nationally justifying more taxes in the name of social responsibility.

Who created this violent culture of drugs etc.Well the law exists to stop all the violence poor behaviour,but the left wing legal system won't implement it.You would swear that they are doing this intentionally to further control our society.

Let people suffer the consequences of their poor behaviour,since that is the only way they will learn.Stop one drug and someone will manufacture a new one in their garage.

Well unbelievably I am agreeing with Steel although would disagree that this has anything to do with amassing money for 'evil' socialist programs - it is just blatant revenue raising.

If I thought a tax on premium mixed drinks would actually work to combat teenage binge drinking I would agree in a minute and cop the extra tax, but this once again is typical of government's attacking a problem at the wrong end.

The truth is that they don't want to look at the real reasons behind the teenage alcohol abuse problem, it might mean that governments would have to acknowledge the need for some major shifts in our economic and social thinking.

That would never do!

I hope you realise Arjay that the Coalition supported this fully, including the programs. Stop being so partisan. The right side of politics is terrible in it's own way (I would argue more overall). Look at the Iraq\Afghan wars and the costs of fuel.

I generally agree with 'Everyone else not in the target group must pay this tax as well for no particular reason' being stupid in other areas, but I don't think it applies so much here. Young people drink these drinks because they don't like wine or beer. So, they are drinking PURELY to get drunk. Otherwise they can just drink the soft drinks on their own and get the same taste with no alcohol.

Beer for example is an aquired taste, more likely aquired by people mature enough to understand the pros and cons of binge drinking.

When you sweeten alcohol in mass produced cheap lolly water drinks, you're really marketing to children. Make these drinks really expensive for the kids to buy, because that will reduce consumption, while the adults can drink propper drinks like wine and beer.

Anyway, it's a lot harder for the teenie boppers to scull down beer and wine at the same rate as these acoholic sodas. As I said, I don't think most of the non-target group are affected in this case.

Taxation has already created a black-market for cigarettes/tobacco.
A very easy plant to grow in your backyard.

Why not distil or home brew your own alcohol?

You could probably make some fuel for the car while you were at it! :)

See here for a discussion of the law on this:-
http://forums.permaculture.org.au/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=5500&hilit=petrol+excise