Who should benefit from booze tax?

By Paige Quiggins

Local businesses and restaurants are dealing with a tough situation in many Kentucky counties.
A bill was recently passed to place higher taxes on cigarettes and alcohol in Kentucky which will in turn help with U of L’s budget deficit. This raised a big question in my mind. Will the additional tax be redistributed amongst the entire state, or just those counties who sell it? The answer I found was a bit unsettling.
There are 120 counties in the state of Kentucky, 53 are dry, 37 are moist or partially dry and 29 are wet; one county is considered wet, but is technically moist. It was a bit shocking for me to find out that counties such as the one I live in, Jefferson, do not receive all the revenue they generate from alcohol sales. This may not have been a highly proposed problem in the past, but given the increase on alcohol tax that is designed to help U of L and other institutions of higher education, I decided to call my legislator.
Does it not make sense that at a credit union, members all place their money together as a collective and if one needs to borrow money, they are able to do so because of what others have put in? They do not go to CHASE bank and ask for a loan without an account, they borrow from within the chosen community and ultimately choose their costs and benefits. If they want the benefits of a credit union, they move to the correct institution. If people who live in dry counties want a higher tax return and receive alcohol tax revenue, they should call their legislator or move to a county that sells alcohol.
Not selling alcohol is purely a choice and those who choose to take on the sales should be the ones seeing the reward.
Rep. Reginald Meeks, D., House District 42 responded to me with a postcard telling me he was thankful for my insights and will take them into consideration. The reality is nothing will change if others do not call and voice their opinion; the money generated by wet and moist counties will be re-distributed to the state as a whole.
Why should counties who do not allow alcohol sales take away from others that make the choice and want the benefits along with it?
If certain counties are not going to allow the sales of alcohol, why should the ones that do give them the revenue? It is entirely their choice to make the counties dry, they have the option to stimulate more revenue for their county and opt not to.
Jefferson and Fayette counties, home of U of L and University of Kentucky, are both wet and create a large amount of alcohol sales from athletic events. Western Kentucky University, Warren County, is moist and still generates sales. Because higher education institutions are now to benefit from the alcohol tax increase, would it not make sense that only those counties allowing liquor or beer sales would receive the revenue?
As a tuition payer, I believe it is only fair to ask that revenue generated from university athletic events’ alcohol sales to go back into those institutions. If I buy a bottle of liquor and pay top-dollar for it, I would rather the money go back into education. It is not fair to give back to 120 counties when 56 percent are the ones generating the revenue. Nearly half is receiving incentive with no input.
A list of all the counties and classifications can be found at http://abc.ky.gov/