babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » from far and wide   » bc, alberta, saskatchewan   » Price of Beer in Saskatchewan

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Price of Beer in Saskatchewan
saskganesh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4203

posted 02 June 2004 08:11 PM      Profile for saskganesh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I went to the vendor today and found out the price of beer has gone up about 50 cents a bottle. For take out.

I am a man of simple pleasures and limited means. I know the province is broke, but word of advise, this kind of consumption tax/hike is overkill and isn't going to go down well.

I joined the NDP and voted for Calvert as leader and in the previous, not recent, election (I voted for Karwacki). I have been debating on renewing my NDP membership this federal election year as, *I like Jack*, but today I have made up my mind not to.

I might still vote for NDP (peachfaced Erin Weir is my local candidate) but they get no money from me. They can tax it out of me, six pack by six pack.


From: regina | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
N-SIGN
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4596

posted 02 June 2004 08:31 PM      Profile for N-SIGN     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I feel your pain.

I don't mean that in any fake kind of way, this tax increase really annoys me.

This reminds me somewhat of the "fighting social evils" old-time social activists like Nellie McClung endorsed. I would like to think we are a more urbane crowd today, but sometimes I wonder.


From: Canada | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged
lagatta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2534

posted 02 June 2004 08:36 PM      Profile for lagatta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I agree with you - a 50 cent per bottle rise is extortion. Surely people have the right to enjoy a beer without being accused of destroying their family through drink. Puritans scare the wits out of me.

...perhaps you should brew your own beer.


From: Se non ora, quando? | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
Cpar
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4441

posted 02 June 2004 08:52 PM      Profile for Cpar     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
50 cents a beer increase? I don`t believe it.
From: kelowna, BC | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 02 June 2004 08:53 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Rat Bastard Gary Collins bumped up the alcohol and ciggie taxes out here in BC. Nobody's whining about it being Puritanism, that's cuz we know it's just a blatant cash grab by a government that gives the store away to rich people.

Saskatchewan might not be giving the store away, but they're looking for the easiest way to get more dough and unfortunately it's the alkeehall.


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Doug
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 44

posted 02 June 2004 09:12 PM      Profile for Doug   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
No escape from that here in Ontario, either, sadly.
From: Toronto, Canada | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Ranger03
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5302

posted 02 June 2004 09:26 PM      Profile for Ranger03        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
As a Notre Dame Hound I stand with my brothers in protesting this absolute travesty

I live in Alberta and wished to establish my credibility by stating I was a Hound

Luctor et Emergo


From: bed | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
saskganesh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4203

posted 02 June 2004 11:49 PM      Profile for saskganesh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by lagatta:

...perhaps you should brew your own beer.

I'm thinking about it.


From: regina | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
steam.machine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4916

posted 03 June 2004 03:24 AM      Profile for steam.machine     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Is that per bottle in the bar or per bottle in an off-sale six-pack or case?

Even with the increase, I will bet it is still cheaper than in Alberta...last time I was in a bar back home in SK, the price of beer was $2.75 a bottle. With this increase that brings it up to $3.25 (maybe a bit higher now perhaps).

Compare that to places like Coyotes or Cowboys here in Calgary where beer goes for $5.50 a pop! Needless to say I limit my drinking (in fact I don't drink much at all for most of the year). As far as I am concerned they can tax smokes and alcohol all they want. If you don't want to pay the tax, don't drink and quit smoking. The choice is simple.


From: Calgary | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
HeywoodFloyd
token right-wing mascot
Babbler # 4226

posted 03 June 2004 03:46 AM      Profile for HeywoodFloyd     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Are you really comparing a small-town Sask bar with a hot nightclub in Calgary?

Pick some grotty corner pub in Forest Lawn and you will see that the prices are about the same.


From: Edmonton: This place sucks | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Kaitlin Stocks
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3766

posted 03 June 2004 04:29 AM      Profile for Kaitlin Stocks   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Cowboys? A hot night club? Sheesh... I thought it was pretty lame and tame for my likings... the pump night club in Regina is more pumpin than Cowboys and drinks are a dollar cheaper... and cover (at one time) were a couple bucks cheaper too.

I even noticed at... *blushes* Hooters that beer was the same price as it is in Regina, but for a smaller pint. Those bastards!!


From: The City That Rhymes With Fun... | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
lonecat
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5460

posted 03 June 2004 05:36 AM      Profile for lonecat   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
What's the big deal?
We should be taxing things that aren't good for us.
I'm all for taxing cigarettes, beer and all alcohols, gasoline, candy and fast food!
In fact, I'm all for replacing the PST with this kind of tax.

[ 03 June 2004: Message edited by: lonecat ]


From: Regina | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
lagatta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2534

posted 03 June 2004 08:24 AM      Profile for lagatta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
God, I find puritan types scary. The best argument for Québec independence in decades!

Nobody is saying there should be no tax on beer, but a tax so high as to be prohibitive for working stiffs is nothing but the bad old meddling better-than-though moralists in disguise.

It's a bit early for a glass of wine, if I want to get any work done today, but I'm savouring my strong black espresso. (What is bad for ME is cow's milk...).


From: Se non ora, quando? | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
DownTheRoad
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4523

posted 03 June 2004 08:25 AM      Profile for DownTheRoad     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
We should be taxing things that aren't good for us.

Let's have a cage match! In one corner, those folks who would tax/ban/regulate anything pleasureable they deem bad for us morally. In the other, those who would tax/ban/regulate anything pleasurable they deem bad for us physically. Let them knock the stuffing out of each other, they deserve each other.

[ 03 June 2004: Message edited by: DownTheRoad ]


From: land of cotton | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged
Screaming Lord Byron
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4717

posted 03 June 2004 10:14 AM      Profile for Screaming Lord Byron     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Kaitlin Stocks:
Cowboys? A hot night club? Sheesh... I thought it was pretty lame and tame for my likings... the pump night club in Regina is more pumpin than Cowboys and drinks are a dollar cheaper... and cover (at one time) were a couple bucks cheaper too.

I even noticed at... *blushes* Hooters that beer was the same price as it is in Regina, but for a smaller pint. Those bastards!!



Cowboys is an atrocity on the face of the planet.


From: Calgary | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
HeywoodFloyd
token right-wing mascot
Babbler # 4226

posted 03 June 2004 10:34 AM      Profile for HeywoodFloyd     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Man, I miss Charlies Wine Bar.
From: Edmonton: This place sucks | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 03 June 2004 12:07 PM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I found a place that sells cans of malt for six bucks each. There's no tax on them, either. I'm not sure why, as malt isn't quite food, but then it isn't alcohol either.

Six bucks plus the cost of a few cups of sugar to make five gallons of beer...well...you do the math.


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Albireo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3052

posted 03 June 2004 03:43 PM      Profile for Albireo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
FOUR MORE BEERS!
FOUR MORE BEERS!
...

From: --> . <-- | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
paxamillion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2836

posted 03 June 2004 03:56 PM      Profile for paxamillion   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
It's a little over 4.5 years now since my last drink -- makes me break out in handcuffs.

Most people I know can enjoy a couple of drinks now and again. Although that's not my experience, I don't think that they should be taxed and taxed.

I also think that raising taxes on cigarettes to reduce smoking is a farce.


From: the process of recovery | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Coyote
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4881

posted 03 June 2004 04:54 PM      Profile for Coyote   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
You'll find a lot of old-time revival social gospel fundamentalism in Saskatchewan. They're good people, but it is the part of that identity that I find the most troubling. I hate prohibitive taxation - because it prohibits the working-class and not those who can easily absorb the cost. And sorry, but shutting down stripper bars is not exactly my idea of a government's role.
From: O’ for a good life, we just might have to weaken. | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
wei-chi
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2799

posted 03 June 2004 05:11 PM      Profile for wei-chi   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Probably doesn't hurt that the Premier is an ordained Minister in a very fundamentalist church.
From: Saskatoon | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
paxamillion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2836

posted 03 June 2004 05:13 PM      Profile for paxamillion   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by wei-chi:
Probably doesn't hurt that the Premier is an ordained Minister in a very fundamentalist church.

Yeah, those United Church fundamentalists can get really nasty.


From: the process of recovery | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Coyote
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4881

posted 03 June 2004 05:18 PM      Profile for Coyote   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
You all know what I meant!
From: O’ for a good life, we just might have to weaken. | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
lagatta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2534

posted 03 June 2004 05:46 PM      Profile for lagatta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Sure do. The Methodist Church was one of the founders of the United Church. There is quite a bit of regional variation - in Québec and probably in Ontario, social gospel puritanism is but a memory, but according to United Church folks I know, it still exists on the Prairies. Among otherwise progressive and certainly goodhearted folks. I may be a 2nd-generation lapsed Catholic but in that respect I guess I still look askance at the "Thou Shalt Not" elements of the Reform.

By the way, kudos to paxamillion! When it's 5 years, we'll hold a party - dry, I promise.


From: Se non ora, quando? | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
Timebandit
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1448

posted 03 June 2004 06:10 PM      Profile for Timebandit     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I think "puritan" is a little too strong a characterization -- Having grown up as a Saskatchewanian United Church kid, puritan would be one of the last words I'd have considered to apply to them.
From: Urban prairie. | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 03 June 2004 06:32 PM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
As far as churches go, I suppose the United isn't so bad.

Our minister once opened his sermon with "God loves Liberals and Conservatives too."


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
beverly
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5064

posted 03 June 2004 06:45 PM      Profile for beverly     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
As far as churches go, I suppose the United isn't so bad.

Our minister once opened his sermon with "God loves Liberals and Conservatives too."


But I don't think she would vote for them.


From: In my Apartment!!!! | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Coyote
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4881

posted 03 June 2004 06:47 PM      Profile for Coyote   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Zoot:

I'm not suggesting Salem is coming back anytime soon. But you have to admit, there is a 'lifestyle-watchdog' component to prairie-socialism that is normally tied to Social Gospel politics and the United Church. Now, hooraa Social Gospel, and the United Church has done a lot of good things. But at the end of the day I think puritan is a fair enough word; no drinking, no gambling, no smoking, no nudie clubs, no this, no that, no the other. As fair and good as lifestyle choices; not so cool when you think you're doing someone a favour when you forbid them from living their own life.


From: O’ for a good life, we just might have to weaken. | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
scooter
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5548

posted 03 June 2004 07:27 PM      Profile for scooter     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Puritans scare the wits out of me.

Thanks for the information but what do puritans have to do with a 50 cent increase in the beer tax.

A puritan wouldn't tax beer since they wouldn't allow for its sale.


From: High River | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
lagatta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2534

posted 03 June 2004 07:57 PM      Profile for lagatta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Zoot I was quoting someone I know and admire very much who happens to be a United Church minister.

There was a strong Puritan facet to the original Social Gospel. Now, as Thomas said that is not entirely bad - the idea of "betterment" could well mean building libraries to provide an alternative to the tavern. The problem lies with determining the life choices of others.


From: Se non ora, quando? | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
N-SIGN
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4596

posted 04 June 2004 02:29 AM      Profile for N-SIGN     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The Social Gospel element in Saskatchewan is undeniable.

Its positive side has produced Tommy Douglas and Lorne Calvert but it sometimes turns ugly and gives us a Jim Pankiw, Larry Spencer, or Elwin Hermanson.

Most times this element appears when governments talk casino development, and strip clubs threaten to open. They are small, but very well organized, and seem to be able to mobolize on these issues with startling efficency - and their successes are not to be minimized.

I was living in Moose Jaw when they battled the Downtown Businesses over Casino development. It was an ugly, ugly fight.


From: Canada | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged
Gir Draxon
leftist-rightie and rightist-leftie
Babbler # 3804

posted 04 June 2004 02:53 AM      Profile for Gir Draxon     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Well perhaps Saskatchewan should deregulate like Alberta

Unlike certain other deregulation schemes, I'd say that the privitization of liquor stores has worked out very well.


From: Arkham Asylum | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
LukeVanc
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2735

posted 04 June 2004 04:31 AM      Profile for LukeVanc     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
It hasn't if you factor in Alberta has the highest rates of alcoholism, drunk driving, etc. Whether that has always been the case is another matter. I don't think tacky, American-style beer marts should be on every street corner just as much as I feel grow-ops shouldn't be sprouting out of every 5th or 6th family home down a residential street in BC.
From: Vancouver | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Gir Draxon
leftist-rightie and rightist-leftie
Babbler # 3804

posted 04 June 2004 04:45 AM      Profile for Gir Draxon     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by LukeVanc:
It hasn't if you factor in Alberta has the highest rates of alcoholism, drunk driving, etc.

Nope. The Yukon does.

quote:
Originally posted by LukeVanc:

Whether that has always been the case is another matter. I don't think tacky, American-style beer marts should be on every street corner just as much as I feel grow-ops shouldn't be sprouting out of every 5th or 6th family home down a residential street in BC.

What's wrong with mom-and-pop liquor marts? And what's wrong with pot grow-ops, for that matter?


From: Arkham Asylum | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
wei-chi
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2799

posted 04 June 2004 05:02 AM      Profile for wei-chi   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
F*k. I just wish I didn't have to travel to TWO different stores to buy stuff to make a nice dinner. Why can't I buy wine at Safeway?

"What? You want to see my ID, you jackedbooted, Calvert-hailing, armband-wearing...But I didn't do anything wrong! I just wanted a drink! Please, please don't make use TWO licence plates! Oh God, you monsters! But if I don't change my clocks then my tv programs will be on at the wrong time! Ah stop making me say: 'well, it's good for the farmers' everytime it rains! Why am I trying to write a History essay at 2am! My mind is mush!"

Zer iz nutting to zee ear!


From: Saskatoon | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
lonecat
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5460

posted 04 June 2004 05:42 AM      Profile for lonecat   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by lagatta:
God, I find puritan types scary. The best argument for Québec independence in decades!

Nobody is saying there should be no tax on beer, but a tax so high as to be prohibitive for working stiffs is nothing but the bad old meddling better-than-though moralists in disguise.

It's a bit early for a glass of wine, if I want to get any work done today, but I'm savouring my strong black espresso. (What is bad for ME is cow's milk...).



I'm not a Puritan type - I enjoy a nice glass of white wine myself, now and then.
I see this from an environmental point of view. Let's not tax things that are healthy for us, and pay a premium on those things that aren't healthy for us.
At the same time, this type of tax could replace the GST.


From: Regina | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
wei-chi
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2799

posted 04 June 2004 07:04 AM      Profile for wei-chi   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
'cept that a glass o wine a day is good fer ya!
From: Saskatoon | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Coyote
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4881

posted 04 June 2004 12:04 PM      Profile for Coyote   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
lonecat:
quote:
Let's not tax things that are healthy for us, and pay a premium on those things that aren't healthy for us.

And that is exactly what I am talking about. These amount to lifestyle taxes which dispraportionately(sp?) affect the poor and working-poor. I think they are shameful.

Progressive income tax is the only moral (in my view) form of taxation. The rest becomes value judgements on consumption habits; not the domain of the government.


From: O’ for a good life, we just might have to weaken. | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 04 June 2004 01:23 PM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I think we should be able to buy alcohol in grocery stores, the way the French do. Mind you, their drinking culture is somewhat different than ours. They might drink a lot, but it's done moderately, if that makes any sense. A shot or two of spirits before a meal for an aperatif, wine with dinner, then a liquer or brandy for digestion. From what I've experienced, there's a lot of social drinking, but not much drunkenness.

Now Casinos are another matter. If we allow these parasitic establishments, which do nothing but take the money of those who can least afford it, into our communities, why not set up government-sponsored bordellos and opium dens?


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Kaitlin Stocks
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3766

posted 04 June 2004 01:26 PM      Profile for Kaitlin Stocks   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by wei-chi:
'cept that a glass o wine a day is good fer ya!

That's RED wine, wei-chi...

And I loved your little... rant. Very good!


From: The City That Rhymes With Fun... | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
wei-chi
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2799

posted 04 June 2004 01:28 PM      Profile for wei-chi   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Progressive income tax is the only moral (in my view) form of taxation.

Why do TL and I agree? I must REALLY be tired!


From: Saskatoon | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
saskganesh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4203

posted 04 June 2004 03:09 PM      Profile for saskganesh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Price of a bottled beer in Aylesbury was $3.25 last month.

I will see what the price is at the bar tonight, but I think draft probably is best price.

Alcohol is a problem for some people, but not for the rest of us. With the tax, I don't know why the government wants to position itself as an enemy of fun.


From: regina | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 04 June 2004 03:10 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Actually, the Euro-socialists advocate taxing sin while taxing capital even less than the grabbing hand of Uncle Sam. It seems than Paul Martin has followed the Euro-socialists lead, and now Canada is the least expensive of this hemisphere's developed nations to set up business and manufacturing. The only problem with the Liberal's record is they've underfunded and starved Canada's social programs in creating a surplus a la Euro-socialism.

From "The Economist" - (a real conservative rag)

April 1, 2004
"In 1998, rich Americans faced a marginal tax rate on dividends of over 46%. Rich Belgians, Finns and Norwegians paid much lower rates. While Americans were arguing about Reaganomics in the 1980s, Swedish households were enjoying a negative tax rate on capital income, once generous deductions and adjustments for inflation were taken into account."
"Tax the Poor to Pay the Poor" - The Economist


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
saskganesh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4203

posted 04 June 2004 03:10 PM      Profile for saskganesh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by lonecat:


I'm not a Puritan type - I enjoy a nice glass of white wine myself, now and then.
I see this from an environmental point of view. Let's not tax things that are healthy for us, and pay a premium on those things that aren't healthy for us.


that list could get very long indeed.


From: regina | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
lonecat
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5460

posted 04 June 2004 03:15 PM      Profile for lonecat   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Coyote:
lonecat: And that is exactly what I am talking about. These amount to lifestyle taxes which dispraportionately(sp?) affect the poor and working-poor. I think they are shameful.

Progressive income tax is the only moral (in my view) form of taxation. The rest becomes value judgements on consumption habits; not the domain of the government.


Well Thomas, hopefully a taxation shift of the one I am proposing will encourage the poor and working-poor (I belong to the first group) to use their financial resources more wisely! I don't want the people who are the foundation of our society to be unhealthy, do you?

To me, this is all about influencing lifestyles in a gentle, persuasive way, rather than with the heavy hand of Puritanism. I don't think there is anything wrong with promoting a Wellness lifestyle.

[ 12 December 2005: Message edited by: Michelle ]


From: Regina | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
lonecat
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5460

posted 04 June 2004 03:17 PM      Profile for lonecat   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by al-Qa'bong:
I think we should be able to buy alcohol in grocery stores, the way the French do. Mind you, their drinking culture is somewhat different than ours. They might drink a lot, but it's done moderately, if that makes any sense. A shot or two of spirits before a meal for an aperatif, wine with dinner, then a liquer or brandy for digestion. From what I've experienced, there's a lot of social drinking, but not much drunkenness.

Now Casinos are another matter. If we allow these parasitic establishments, which do nothing but take the money of those who can least afford it, into our communities, why not set up government-sponsored bordellos and opium dens?



BTW, I agree with al-Qa'bong on both points!


From: Regina | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Coyote
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4881

posted 04 June 2004 04:21 PM      Profile for Coyote   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by lonecat:

Well Thomas, hopefully a taxation shift of the one I am proposing will encourage the poor and working-poor (I belong to the first group) to use their financial resources more wisely! I don't want the people who are the foundation of our society to be unhealthy, do you?

To me, this is all about influencing lifestyles in a gentle, persuasive way, rather than with the heavy hand of Puritanism. I don't think there is anything wrong with promoting a Wellness lifestyle.



My friend, that is the exact kind of attitude that I oppose. And whether you like it or not, consumption taxes are neither gentle nor persuasive: they are heavy-handed value judgements aimed at the poor. It is Puritanism. When you understand that that first sentence sounds very patronizing you will see where I am coming from.

Oh, my. They aren't trying to gouge me, then? They're just looking out for little old me? Perhaps I should change my ways! Oh, those wise government bureaucrats and their compassionate ways, how can I ever thank them for oh-so gently persuading me to make the most of myself!

You're being targetted, lonecat. You're being targetted because it is a lot easier to pass judgement on the poor than it is to go after those with economic power. You're being targetted to make upper-middle-class 'progressives' feel better about themselves.

And Al Q, we disagree about gambling. I do not gamble, I think it is stupid. But I don't think casinos are the end of the world. At the end of the day, I don't think I have the right to tell someone who's spent sixty hours a week at two jobs that s/he'll never get credit for 'full-time work' that she can't throw money down on 14 Black.

If we want to take on 'social ills', we have to start with those who profit from them. To attack people for exercising their rights in a democratic society is . . .well, Puritanism.


From: O’ for a good life, we just might have to weaken. | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
lonecat
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5460

posted 04 June 2004 04:58 PM      Profile for lonecat   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I can't believe you are defending will-nilly consumption!
There is far too much consumption in our culture - it has taken over as the moral imperative since the end of WW2.
Sheep across the Western nations have been brainwashed into the concept of buy,buy,buy! Buy now and pay later! Buy whatever you want, regardless of the consequences!

Would it be such a terrible thing to curb consumption just a little bit? Holy Cow - are we all supposed to worship at the altar to Mammon?

While sales taxes are regressive, you should still pay the price for making unhealthy choices. Certainly no one should be rewarded for it. If I'm going to be branded as a Puritan, then so be it. I would rather be called a Puritan than be brainwashed into buying things I don't really need.


From: Regina | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
lagatta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2534

posted 04 June 2004 05:09 PM      Profile for lagatta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I suppose I should impose heavy sales taxes on that disgusting cow's milk. It is certainly bad for me.

Lonecat, don't you see how patronising it is to tell poor people they are consuming too much or "not making healthy choices"?


From: Se non ora, quando? | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
Coyote
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4881

posted 04 June 2004 05:09 PM      Profile for Coyote   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Consumption taxes do not address the issue of over-consumption; they address who can afford to consume. They rarify class differences, and place moral stigma on the poor that does not apply to the rich.

quote:
While sales taxes are regressive, you should still pay the price for making unhealthy choices. Certainly no one should be rewarded for it. If I'm going to be branded as a Puritan, then so be it. I would rather be called a Puritan than be brainwashed into buying things I don't really need.
I do pay a price for unhealthy choices: my health. As for brainwashing: I think alot of the Left has been brainwashed into thinking imposing a social agenda = social change; it doesn't. Lifestyle politics are the lowest order (in my admittedly class-oriented perspective) form of progressive politics; often not progressive at all.

Progressively tax income so the rich who have benefitted the most economically from our society contribute the most economically to our society; tax the corporations and use the earnings to promote social change. Don't place the cost of social agendas on the backs of those who can least afford it.


From: O’ for a good life, we just might have to weaken. | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
lonecat
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5460

posted 04 June 2004 06:34 PM      Profile for lonecat   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by lagatta:
I suppose I should impose heavy sales taxes on that disgusting cow's milk. It is certainly bad for me.

Lonecat, don't you see how patronising it is to tell poor people they are consuming too much or "not making healthy choices"?


No!


From: Regina | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
lonecat
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5460

posted 04 June 2004 06:39 PM      Profile for lonecat   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Coyote:
Consumption taxes do not address the issue of over-consumption; they address who can afford to consume. They rarify class differences, and place moral stigma on the poor that does not apply to the rich.

I do pay a price for unhealthy choices: my health. As for brainwashing: I think alot of the Left has been brainwashed into thinking imposing a social agenda = social change; it doesn't. Lifestyle politics are the lowest order (in my admittedly class-oriented perspective) form of progressive politics; often not progressive at all.

Progressively tax income so the rich who have benefitted the most economically from our society contribute the most economically to our society; tax the corporations and use the earnings to promote social change. Don't place the cost of social agendas on the backs of those who can least afford it.


I've always argued in favour of progressively taxing the "rich" - I'm totally cool with that, always have been.
However, I'm amused at the argument that taxing alcohol and cigarettes is "patronizing" to the poor, or some other indignity to them! The real indignity is that we in North America have allowed a class system to take hold here, and that there are poor people!

I can't believe the Left has been brainwashed into believing unending and bad consumption is OK, and that it shouldn't be taxed.
I think socially progressive people have a duty to create a better world, and part of that effort is encourage healthy lifestyles! I thought we are supposed to help our fellow people, not allow them to continue hurting themselves!
I can't believe this!

[ 12 December 2005: Message edited by: Michelle ]


From: Regina | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
lagatta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2534

posted 04 June 2004 08:48 PM      Profile for lagatta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Drinking yourself silly, drinking while pregnant or drink driving are definitely hurting yourself - and others. Enjoying wine with supper, for most people (except people with physical or mental health concerns) is pleasant, not harmful and probably beneficial for many.

I suppose the same holds for beer - I rarely drink beer, but I have friends who make it and use it wisely.

What would you propose to tax? White sugar? I don't touch that, but that is a question of education, not taxation. Crappy white bread? Often the only thing very poor people with families can afford and can get their kids to eat. When I don't have any money I eat brown rice, but just try feeding that to kids in a low-rent neighbourhood ...

I'm serious about the cow's milk, lonewolf. Makes me noxious and farty - like someone with a bad hangover, and none of the nice glow beforehand.


From: Se non ora, quando? | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
lonecat
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5460

posted 04 June 2004 09:33 PM      Profile for lonecat   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
OK, OK I relent. I get your point! I am growing weary of this debate!

But I leave you with some final thoughts on this matter.

1) I don't know any poor people who consume alcohol - that is left to the middle classes and upper classes. Not one poor person I know consumes beer or wine.

2) If we ended the PST in Saskatchewan and only taxed alcohol, cigarettes, gasoline/oil, fast food and candy, that means poor people wouldn't be paying a regressive tax on items like clothes and reading materials.

I have now said all I am going to say on this matter!
The simple fact is, I have an assignment I have to work on - so long for now!


From: Regina | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
NDP Newbie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5089

posted 05 June 2004 08:57 AM      Profile for NDP Newbie     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Here's a novel idea: Fuck this shit and raise income taxes.

New tax brackets...

Higher marginal rates on the higher brackets already in existance...

[ 05 June 2004: Message edited by: NDP Newbie ]


From: Cornwall, ON | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Bill Haydon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3273

posted 05 June 2004 12:58 PM      Profile for Bill Haydon     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Considering the PST in Saskatchewan is not applied to items like food, children's clothing, medical supplies, home heating, electricity, reading material, etc. I don't have a problem with paying a bit more if I want to have a drink.

As for cigarette taxes, tax the shit out of them. If I was a doctor I'd deny service to any patient who insisted on smoking. Good thing I'm not a health professional.


From: Redchina | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
BleedingHeart
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3292

posted 05 June 2004 01:02 PM      Profile for BleedingHeart   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
When I started drinking a bottle of beer cost 25 cents now it costs over a dollar. I don't think people drink any less beer because of it. In free market terms this is called what the market will bear.

If you don't like paying for it, you can always make your own.


From: Kickin' and a gougin' in the mud and the blood and the beer | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Newbie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4143

posted 05 June 2004 01:10 PM      Profile for Newbie     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gir Draxon:
And what's wrong with pot grow-ops, for that matter?

I don't think there's anything wrong with full legalization, but we need to be cogniscent of the fact that even if we went for it, marijuana will remain a product quite illegal in our closest neighbour and "somewhat illegal" in pretty much every other country.

We saw what happened during prohibition in the United States and Canadian bootlegging. There needs to be tight regulation and security from producer to retailer. If some of our legal production is to leave the country, let it be by individuals, not organized crime.

We also have to consider the real cost of production, which is almost nothing. If the cigarette companies can make money at $7 a pack or whatever it is, and they can sell you a whole head of lettuce for a dollar or two, how much can it really cost to produce 30 grams of pot? If the retail price was allowed to be set by a free market for a legal product, it would be at most $10 an ounce -- which makes smuggling to the US almost irresistable. If the government just taxes it heavily, there's huge temptation to sell under the counter or to smugglers.

If we could manage to legalize it in the U.S. concurrently with Canada, then I'd agree in letting the market regulate itself. I'd be hardpressed to imagine a product that lends itself better to a free market. It's basically high priced produce, and just like tomatoes, you can grow your own without much trouble or cost if you don't like the quality and price at your local store or think it's taxed too highly.

We're used to paying up to 300 an ounce (prices are depressed now) in Toronto, more if you're naive/rich. A competitive, legal free market system could take that down to maybe 10-20 bucks and still be wildly profitable for producers and retailers, while ensuring most users wouldn't muck around growing their own. Premium, organic, President's Choice/Godiva/Haagen Daz type-brand pot could go for up to $50 and people would still think it's a bargain.

Back to the topic, I think I'm going to start saying "What's that got to do with the price of beer in Saskatchewan?" instead of "What's that got to do with the price of tea in China?"


From: Toronto, Ontario | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
saskganesh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4203

posted 06 June 2004 06:25 PM      Profile for saskganesh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
i think the vice taxhappy would have a better case if revenues from consumption taxes went towards dealing with the issue. so booze tax to alcholic programs and medical treatments such as liver therapy, cigarette taxes towards subsidisation of quit smooking products, fuel taxes towards renewable energy, sugar taxes towards diabtes treatment, etc. without having revenue clearly earmarked to specific ends, you wind up with a government "addicted" to the vice tax revenue.
From: regina | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Northern54
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5325

posted 06 June 2004 06:38 PM      Profile for Northern54     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I think you have a good idea there, SaskGanesh. I'm one of those social gospel types who doesn't drink so don't have a clue as to the price of alcohol. Sin taxes should be allocated to those services that are required because of them.
From: Yellowknife | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
The Oatmeal Savage
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4353

posted 10 June 2004 12:19 AM      Profile for The Oatmeal Savage   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
http://www.taxpayer.com/ltts/sk/April22-04.htm
"Among the many victims of the budget are our private liquor operators. Not only were their costs increased by the hike in the PST and the liquor tax hike, they also had the foundation upon which their businesses are based pulled out from underneath them.

Hotel off sale operations exist because government grudgingly created a system under which private operators were “allowed” to eke out a narrow profit. The old system provided a small discount to liquor operators so that they could sell beer during SLGA hours at a competitive price. For sales after the liquor board stores are closed, private liquor operators must pay the same retail price as you and I, which explains why private operators in turn charge slightly more.

Budget 2004 basically took away private operators’ ability to compete. From now on, hotel liquor stores have to pay the full retail price for their product, and then pass that expense on to consumers. If the fundamental laws of economics apply in Saskatchewan, it will mean less business for the hundreds of hotel liquor operators in Saskatchewan.

Our government has launched yet another assault on private business. According to Minister Eric Cline, these businesses deserve to be punished because they “make good money selling beer.”

What does he mean by his notion of “good money”? Is he referring to the likes of Melville’s Waverly Hotel and the liquor juggernaut Royal Hotel in Weyburn? The new Saskatchewan rules will adversely impact 56 per cent of the hotels across Saskatchewan.

We suppose our government views hotels in Raymore, Stoughton, Lumsden and Indian Head as greedy capitalists hoarding millions of dollars that should go toward NDP spending programs. They shouldn’t be allowed to make all that “good money” selling beer.

According to Robert Joyal, owner of the Royal Hotel in Weyburn, 63 per cent of his sales occur during SLGA store hours. Under the new structure, Robert will no longer be able to compete with the government. No surprise here - he’s forecasting a 50 per cent drop in his liquor sales.

This most recent assault rubs salt in the wounds of Saskatchewan business operators. We already have one of the least competitive business tax systems in North America. Businesses pay a tax on capital before they even make a dime. Our small business tax rates lag behind neighbouring provinces and US states. All told, Sakatchewan businesses operate under one of the highest effective tax rates in North America.

And don’t forget about the impact of government intervention in the economy. Do you want to operate a private liquor store? Forget it -- you have to compete against the government. Don’t even think about opening film company in Saskatchewan because the government has already picked a “winner” in that market - the failing Mind’s Eye Entertainment. If you want to establish a cable television company in Saskatchewan, you better be ready to compete with taxpayer-backed Sasktel.

There are so many reasons Saskatchewan’s economy has lagged behind every province except Newfoundland for the last 40 years, and they all center around our government’s anti-business policies."


From: top of the food chain | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
steam.machine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4916

posted 11 June 2004 03:31 AM      Profile for steam.machine     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
As for cigarette taxes, tax the shit out of them. If I was a doctor I'd deny service to any patient who insisted on smoking. Good thing I'm not a health professional.

Just wait until private health care comes in...these people who smoke will be in for a rude awakening when the insurance companies start calculating their premiums!


From: Calgary | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
steam.machine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4916

posted 11 June 2004 03:42 AM      Profile for steam.machine     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
One thing that I seem to miss on this issue is that if alcohol and gaming are the big economic development generators for the province, what does that say for the province?

By that logic, they should legalize pot and prostitution as well. They could pay off the debt pretty quick with the tax revenues and give farmers another crop to grow!


From: Calgary | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 11 June 2004 04:01 AM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
There are so many reasons Saskatchewan’s economy has lagged behind every province except Newfoundland for the last 40 years, and they all center around our government’s anti-business policies."

So the Tory and Liberal governments that were in power for about half that time (Thatcher's Libs through most of the 60s and Devine's reprobates for most of the 80s) were just as "anti-business" as the NDP?

What's wrong with those people in Saskatchewan?


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
The Oatmeal Savage
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4353

posted 16 June 2004 02:53 PM      Profile for The Oatmeal Savage   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
http://www.canada.com/saskatoon/starphoenix/news/story.html?id=4ce47157-31c0-4faa-a27b-274f3bd3d9f1


The Saskatchewan government is promising to monitor a situation involving hotel and off-sale beer store owners in the province.

In its recent budget, the province did away with a discount for volume beer sales.

Industry Minister Eric Cline says he'll step in if it's shown that the policy is moving business from cold beer stores to government-run liquor stores.

Norm Kish, owner of the Ice House Tavern east of Regina, says he's seen a 30 per cent drop in business since the change.


From: top of the food chain | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
saskganesh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4203

posted 16 June 2004 11:20 PM      Profile for saskganesh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
promising to monitor ...

i have discovered that the price in government liquor stores is a lot cheaper than offsales. 9.90 for a six of domestic. incredible.

so this tax isn't about vice: its willy nilly a tax on government competition.


From: regina | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Kaitlin Stocks
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3766

posted 17 June 2004 04:31 AM      Profile for Kaitlin Stocks   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Its good to see that you're getting your info from Global News now, Oatmeal...
From: The City That Rhymes With Fun... | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
saskganesh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4203

posted 29 June 2004 06:03 AM      Profile for saskganesh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
just an update.

most of my liquor purchases are now made at the government liquor store. was that the intent of the taxes? in this thread, we talked some about modifying social behavior ...

[ 29 June 2004: Message edited by: saskganesh ]


From: regina | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca