Maryland legislators entered this year’s General Assembly session floating an increase in the alcohol tax primarily as a way to funnel money into programs to help the developmentally disabled, the mentally ill, substance abusers and other groups.
But when the Democrat-controlled assembly passed a bill last week increasing the sales tax on alcohol from 6 percent to 9 percent, less than 20 percent of the tax increase’s $87 million in projected first-year revenue was slated to go to such causes. Nearly all the remaining revenue will go to schools and school construction, leading some opponents to accuse legislators of pulling a bait-and-switch on those who needed the bill most.
“The advocates wanted this bill, and they wanted it for the disabled and the mentally ill,” Delegate Susan W. Krebs, Carroll Republican, said last week on the House floor. “In my opinion, this money is going to buy votes instead of going to where it was meant to be.”
Health advocates have led the call for several years to raise the alcohol tax, and they were fixtures again in Annapolis this session. They lobbied politicians and testified at numerous hearings, often accompanied by Maryland residents with disabilities who spoke about the need for public health funding.
One of the session’s earliest tax proposals was a so-called “dime-a-drink” tax, which would have raised the excise tax on beer, wine and liquor by about 700 percent.
The bill was near and dear to many health advocates and was named after the late Lorraine M. Sheehan, a former delegate and longtime advocate for the disabled.
The proposal would have generated an estimated extra $214.5 million in first-year revenue. Nearly 90 percent of that money would have gone to Medicaid, mental health care, addiction treatment, support for the developmentally disabled, prevention of tobacco use and training for health care personnel. Legislators considered the measure too drastic and dismissed it.
In its first year, the tax increase that was approved will provide $15 million for the developmentally disabled. The rest will go primarily toward improving schools in larger, heavily Democratic counties such as Baltimore, Montgomery and Prince George’s.
But when the Democrat-controlled assembly passed a bill last week increasing the sales tax on alcohol from 6 percent to 9 percent, less than 20 percent of the tax increase’s $87 million in projected first-year revenue was slated to go to such causes. Nearly all the remaining revenue will go to schools and school construction, leading some opponents to accuse legislators of pulling a bait-and-switch on those who needed the bill most.
“The advocates wanted this bill, and they wanted it for the disabled and the mentally ill,” Delegate Susan W. Krebs, Carroll Republican, said last week on the House floor. “In my opinion, this money is going to buy votes instead of going to where it was meant to be.”
Health advocates have led the call for several years to raise the alcohol tax, and they were fixtures again in Annapolis this session. They lobbied politicians and testified at numerous hearings, often accompanied by Maryland residents with disabilities who spoke about the need for public health funding.
One of the session’s earliest tax proposals was a so-called “dime-a-drink” tax, which would have raised the excise tax on beer, wine and liquor by about 700 percent.
The bill was near and dear to many health advocates and was named after the late Lorraine M. Sheehan, a former delegate and longtime advocate for the disabled.
The proposal would have generated an estimated extra $214.5 million in first-year revenue. Nearly 90 percent of that money would have gone to Medicaid, mental health care, addiction treatment, support for the developmentally disabled, prevention of tobacco use and training for health care personnel. Legislators considered the measure too drastic and dismissed it.
In its first year, the tax increase that was approved will provide $15 million for the developmentally disabled. The rest will go primarily toward improving schools in larger, heavily Democratic counties such as Baltimore, Montgomery and Prince George’s.
2 comments:
We as citizens of the state should ban together and commit to purchasing the bulk of our alcohol purchases from surrounding states. I for one will not be purchasing any alcohol in the state of Maryland.
Drained? A better word is sucked from. Consider the $156K to be allocated the entire Eastern Shore from the proceeds of this new alcohol tax. It is actually a DECREASE in the distribution of existing sales taxes. Remember too that the State is giving 31% of the local allocation of slots proceeds to Baltimore City that local representation claims to not having any knowledge of until it happened.
Prior to July 2011, a 6% sales tax was levied on alcohol and some of that was distributed locally. After July, it becomes an alcohol tax of 10%. The sum distribution of local tax revenue of the existing 6% plus the additional 4% only equals $156K? I think the Shore has been "had".
Post a Comment