Once again, Oregon is responding to fallout from the budget meltdown and the failure of Measure 28, this time in a form that’s sure to hit some Eugenians right in the mouth — almost literally.
The Legislature is right now debating whether to substantially increase the taxes on wine and beer. Beer taxes would rise more than seven times from less than a penny to seven cents a bottle, while wine would be taxed at more than a quarter per bottle. The revenues — proponents claim it would raise $100 million — would be earmarked for health services in danger of being slashed.
We’re against this tax, and not just because college students have a propensity to tipple.
We certainly can’t fault the Legislature for trying to save worthwhile services like mental health treatment, drug addiction treatment and the Medically Needy program. But did the legislators behind this idea (including Springfield Sen. Bill Morrisette) stop to consider that it’s yet another regressive tax that will fall most heavily on the people who can least afford to pay?
The paycheck of a poor worker cannot as readily absorb a 7.5 cent tax on beer as the wallet of a better-off person can afford the 28.4 cents on wine. Helping the medically needy on the backs of the economically needy isn’t wise public policy.
Rather than install another regressive “sin tax” to dig Oregon out of the economic hole, we have a few other ideas, and although we’ve said them before, they could still help the situation. Try a gross receipts tax, try increasing business taxes, try a two-tiered sales tax (low rate for inexpensive products, higher rate for expensive products).
Raising taxes isn’t politically pretty, no matter what segment of the population is being hit. But Oregon needs to swallow hard and follow the lead of other states, such as Tennessee last summer, in making structural change. Regressive patchwork funding will not fix the state’s tax mess — we need a comprehensive solution.