As it turns out, the argument claiming that alcohol tax only punishes the poor is wrong

A UNSW study came to a conclusion. The argument claiming that alcohol tax only punishes the poor is false; there is no evidence for it. Some also perpetuated the myth that people would actually drink more because of being reminded of their not-so-rosy financial situation. Again, such arguments are false, the study finds.

Here’s what the researchers did:

They analysed 1400 households in Australia over a 12-month period (their alcohol purchases, in particular). They were seeking how much the alcohol tax would affect their financial situation. The bottom line is, the effect was negligible.

Dr. Anurag Sharma, one of the researchers, commented that the main purpose of minimum unit price alcohol is to discourage buying cheap alcohol in bulk, the kind that is used for binge drinking. The cheapest ones like cask wines would only cost 30 cents; with $1.30 on top, for instance, the binge drinkers would no longer be interested in it. Dr. Sharma also noted that the alcohol industry is the one that originated the false premise of alcohol tax only punishing the poor.

The originators of the false argument also want to make the case that drinking alcohol is what people tend to do when times get tough. But the fact of the matter is that the negative effect the alcohol tax might have on people’s finances is negligible. Furthermore, when alcohol gets more expensive due to the added burden of tax, its consumption decreases.