Alcohol Tax Hike Weighed by Health Department

p-tart's Flickr

A deputy commissioner for the Health Department said yesterday that the DOH is considering a tax increase on alcohol, which could increase the price of a bottle of beer as much as ten cents. After hearing about the possibility, the Daily News rushed to interview barflies on Eighth Avenue, where the news was received calmly and rationally. "They tried that before, it is called temperance," declared Marc Jacobs (ha), on his way into the Molly Wee Pub. Another patron at The Blarney Stone, Phil Carroll, sarcastically asked, "That worked with cigarettes, right?" Well, Phil, it probably did: 300,000 fewer adult New Yorkers smoke than in 2002, which may have a little something to do with price hikes and indoor smoking bans.

A Health Department spokesperson issued this statement, "The City does not have a proposal to raise the alcohol tax. The Health Department is always looking for ways to reduce preventable illness and death." The DOH estimates that alcohol use is responsible for 1,700 deaths a year in NYC, and reducing consumption has been a long-term priority. (Here's a pdf detailing what the DOH is working on as part of their Take Care New York 2012 strategy.) "The surest pathway to changing behavior is through the wallet," billionaire Mayor Mike Bloomberg remarked last month while discussing soda and cigarette taxes.

The Daily News speculates that the DOH may "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." There is not currently a city tax on wine, but New Yorkers pay 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. Of course, one can't prove that higher taxes directly lead to reduced consumption, but this much is certain: the city made $23.5 million off alcohol last year.

Contact the author of this article or email tips@gothamist.com with further questions, comments or tips.

By John Del Signore in Food on February 25, 2010 11:11 AM

Comments [rss]

Bottomless Chips

Do some liberals really think the politicians are doing this for health reasons?

Really?

And how can some of them pretend to like free speech and other freedoms and liberties, yet stand for a substantial tax on normal human behavior: consuming alcohol.

inoyourider

Fuck this.

eyekantspel

This tax isn't about changing behavior. It's only about raising revenue. Revenue that can then be pissed away on overpaid, inefficient union labor with unsustainable pensions. Of course, there will NEVER be enough taxes to keep this boat from sinking.

nicemarmot

I love that a billionaire thinks the way to change behavior is through the wallet. Like the tax makes the slightest difference to anyone who isn't poor or middle class.

longacre

The vast majority of the state is poor or middle class.

JenChungsBaby

Seriously. It's not going to change his or any of his friends' behavior, just the people who can't afford 17 more cents for a beer.

JenChungsBaby

Which might I point out is also the case with congestion pricing. It wouldn't get Mike Bloomberg or Donald Trump or the head of Goldman Sachs off the streets, just people who couldn't pay.

Rocknrope

Yep, keep taxing us up the yin-yang while reducing services like education and public transportation. See how many of us will keep tolerating this nonsense.

Clarice City

I told people this would happen if we let Carrie Nation run for a third term.

hotstepper

what asshole put the health dept in charge of taxing my vices?!

dhex

anyone who's ever voted for either party in the last 25 years or so.

hotstepper

damn them (us) all! i need a drink...

40oz.killa

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO