Kentucky recently enacted a new sin tax on tobacco and alcohol. It's easy to get new taxes on stuff like that, so they went for our vices.
Now, one of our elected representatives has suggested that the revenue from the tax on alcohol should only be used in counties that allow the sale of alcohol.
You see, even though prohibition has been gone for over 75 years, a lot of areas of Kentucky still don't allow alcohol sales in any form. Interestingly, a lot of distilleries of bourbon are located in dry counties. And all of these dry counties, which do not contribute to the revenue from alcohol sales, get a fair share of the funds from these taxes
Anyhoo, it seems fair to me that if you make it a point to not allow the activity that raises revenue, you shouldn't get money out of that activity.
What say you?
2 comments:
Those counties may not allow the sale of alcohol, but I'm sure their is plenty of consumption. So I think that if ones choses to play then one must pay and either way the revenues should be spread evenly aropund the state. Or maybe they could search out those that are running the illegal stills and tax the hell out them as they head off to the hooskow!
God I love Rednecks!!!
the knuckgragger
Remember, we come from a long line of rednecks.
My point is that the money spent in the wet counties should stay there. If people in dry counties are getting booze in the wet counties, then that money should stay in the wet counties.
Post a Comment