For those readers out there who are aware of the current movement by the State College Borough to introduce a per drink tax on alcohol sold, give me a paragraph.
For those of you who are unaware: Please, allow me the pleasure.
The borough's intention is to charge a tax on alcohol served by the drink, in order to raise funds to pay for a higher police presence, vandalism and costs associated with the individuals drinking in the borough. These are mainly the expenses from actions taken by a significant minority of borough drinkers and they would be levied upon the rest of the drinkers via a tax.
I am willing to bet a substantial portion of my yearly income (still quite low) that the majority of people who buy alcohol served by the drink in State College are students.
I am assuming that the borough will not disagree with me on this point.
Naturally, the majority of these students live in State College. Some work here and pay income taxes, too. But, I am curious: How many of these students are proper residents of the borough (meaning that they have the capabilities of voting here)?
While I don't have the proper statistics on this, I imagine that, for the high level of convenience associated with it, the majority of students still keep their permanent residence and voting district in their hometown (the multiple address changes that result in a student's time at university are one reason). The students' lack of presence in the voting booths in the State College Borough allows for a possibly ingenious local government to exploit the student.
Some Bostonians, circa mid-December 1773, might have called this taxation without representation. They might have tarred and feathered an oppressor's representative or chucked crate after crate of tea into the harbor. Socrates might have said that since we are of free will and live in State College, then we must follow the rules. But, he also agreed that we should do all in our legal power to change our system. I agree totally, and since this is not a law yet, shouldn't we have some say in what goes on in our community?
I am sure that the tax would be nominal. Let's assume that it will be 5 percent (I understand that it could be as high as 10 percent). With a 5-percent tax, a $2 drink will be $2.10. Which bar/tavern/club in town would charge $2.10 (for lack of convenience)?
I would love to imagine that each individual establishment would cover this tax and still charge $2 simply because they love their customers.
But, the owners are business people and will probably charge $2.25 for sheer convenience (denominations in a bar are normally by the quarter). Who benefits? The answer is Borough Council and the tax-paying owners of local establishments serving alcohol by the drink. Here, like always, the majority pays for the sins of a few malcontents breaking the law. This is a democracy after all.
Why doesn't the borough implement higher penalties and fines for those who are causing the expenses incurred? I mean, I feel like State College is a progressive place and always looking for ideas to improve. Wouldn't it be great to see that? For example, couldn't we stiffen the penalty for vandalism in the borough? Perhaps every incident involving drinking carries an extra fee. Or maybe the area's judges could stop suspending the sentences of drunk drivers. That could cut down on last year's record 484 DUI arrests. Wouldn't that be progressive? Perhaps we would even get national exposure for our zero-tolerance stance. It would be a nationwide precedent and an exuberant triumph for the innocent bystander.
Additionally, I recently viewed a comment on www.statecollege.com that suggests that with an increase in price, drinkers will move out of the borough to enjoy their cold, crisp, hoppy goodness. A stretch, but envision how many additional drivers (rather than downtown walkers) would be returning to the borough after indulging in liquid inspiration. Imagine the borough's stance: "We are losing tax revenue due to the lack of consumption, yet we have a higher crime rate.
Let's find something else to tax." But, according to comments made by Borough Council President Cathy Dauler in The Daily Collegian from Jan. 23, isn't that what they want?
Now, I am not suggesting that we dress up like Native Americans, nor am I suggesting that we empty case upon glorious case of Yuengling, Sam Adams or any other quality lager into Spring Creek.
I am suggesting, however, that we need to, as students, use our beer muscles and remind the Borough Council that their power is really only based upon ours.
