Public Enemy #1

[Schecky]

Higher state tax on beer?

SACRAMENTO - Joe Six-pack will have to pay a lot more to get his buzz on if Assemblyman Jim Beall has his way.
The San Jose Democrat on Thursday proposed raising the beer tax by $1.80 per six-pack, or 30 cents per can or bottle. The current tax is 2 cents per can. That's an increase of about 1,500 percent.
Beall said the tax would generate $2 billion a year to fund health care services, crime prevention and programs to prevent underage drinking and addiction.
"The people who use alcohol should pay for part of the cost to society, just like we've accepted that concept with tobacco," Beall said.
He added that the beer tax hasn't been touched since 1991, and the increase then was meager.
But the freshman lawmaker will have to lift the legislative equivalent of a full keg of beer over his head to get his tax enacted. That's because it would require a two-thirds vote in the Assembly and Senate - and then, because it's a constitutional amendment, it would have to be approved by voters. Republicans say it's a non-starter.
"I predict the shelf life will be very short," said Assemblyman Roger Niello, R-Sacramento, vice chairman of the budget committee. "It's a piecemeal approach to the budget that completely avoids any discussion of spending discipline, which is fundamentally why we have the problem that we have." Mike Fox Sr., chairman of San Jose-based beer distributor M.E. Fox & Co., said Beall's heart is in the right place. "He's very dedicated in areas of health," Fox said. "But a tax of that nature is far too grievous. The beer industry produces so much for the economy. He won't get to first base with that."

Dan Gordon, co-founder of Gordon Biersch Brewing Co., calculated that the tax on a barrel of beer would go from $6.40 to $89. "We would all be looking for jobs," he said.
Beall said he's targeting beer because his research showed that California undertaxes brew relative to other states, which he said isn't the case with wine and spirits. But it's also true that taking on the beer lobby will be hard enough for Beall, without letting it team up with the wine and spirits industries.
Beall, a former Santa Clara County supervisor, has focused heavily on underage drinking during his time in Sacramento. He is pushing legislation that would require the sweet alcoholic malt beverages known as "alco-pops" to include warning labels clearly stating that they contain alcohol.
And last year, Beall lobbied successfully to persuade the state Franchise Tax Board to tax "alco-pops" at the rate assessed to hard liquor products instead of beer - a move that was expected to raise the price of a six pack by about $2. The increase is scheduled to go into effect later this year. That effort, however, did not require a two-thirds vote in the Legislature.

[el_d00der1n0]

I fail to see how the comparison to tobacco is even nearly valid.

Tobacco has no heath benefits regardless how moderate its use.

[Code Blue]

Originally Posted by Schecky

Higher state tax on beer?

SACRAMENTO - Joe Six-pack will have to pay a lot more to get his buzz on if Assemblyman Jim Beall has his way.
The San Jose Democrat on Thursday proposed raising the beer tax by $1.80 per six-pack, or 30 cents per can or bottle. The current tax is 2 cents per can. That's an increase of about 1,500 percent.
Beall said the tax would generate $2 billion a year to fund health care services, crime prevention and programs to prevent underage drinking and addiction.
"The people who use alcohol should pay for part of the cost to society, just like we've accepted that concept with tobacco," Beall said.
He added that the beer tax hasn't been touched since 1991, and the increase then was meager.
But the freshman lawmaker will have to lift the legislative equivalent of a full keg of beer over his head to get his tax enacted. That's because it would require a two-thirds vote in the Assembly and Senate - and then, because it's a constitutional amendment, it would have to be approved by voters. Republicans say it's a non-starter.
"I predict the shelf life will be very short," said Assemblyman Roger Niello, R-Sacramento, vice chairman of the budget committee. "It's a piecemeal approach to the budget that completely avoids any discussion of spending discipline, which is fundamentally why we have the problem that we have." Mike Fox Sr., chairman of San Jose-based beer distributor M.E. Fox & Co., said Beall's heart is in the right place. "He's very dedicated in areas of health," Fox said. "But a tax of that nature is far too grievous. The beer industry produces so much for the economy. He won't get to first base with that."

Dan Gordon, co-founder of Gordon Biersch Brewing Co., calculated that the tax on a barrel of beer would go from $6.40 to $89. "We would all be looking for jobs," he said.
Beall said he's targeting beer because his research showed that California undertaxes brew relative to other states, which he said isn't the case with wine and spirits. But it's also true that taking on the beer lobby will be hard enough for Beall, without letting it team up with the wine and spirits industries.
Beall, a former Santa Clara County supervisor, has focused heavily on underage drinking during his time in Sacramento. He is pushing legislation that would require the sweet alcoholic malt beverages known as "alco-pops" to include warning labels clearly stating that they contain alcohol.
And last year, Beall lobbied successfully to persuade the state Franchise Tax Board to tax "alco-pops" at the rate assessed to hard liquor products instead of beer - a move that was expected to raise the price of a six pack by about $2. The increase is scheduled to go into effect later this year. That effort, however, did not require a two-thirds vote in the Legislature.

You mean I have to switch to moonshine

[Dino Brown]

....Brewmaster and JasonMason are *NOT* going to be happy....

[chongoblanco]

f.t.p!!!!

[dirtvert]

get a rope...

[BrewMaster]

Originally Posted by Dino Brown

....Brewmaster and JasonMason are *NOT* going to be happy....

I see some political involvement in my future.

[Code Blue]

Originally Posted by BrewMaster

I see some political involvement in my future.

BrewMaster will start making an SRT Stout

[el_d00der1n0]

Originally Posted by DeeZee

BrewMaster will start making an SRT Stout

here's one vote for trippel.

[katonk]

In general I support usage taxes, but with the shortage and high cost of hops this would be a serious problem for many smaller breweries. Ultimately it would hurt consumers and tax payers.

[mtnbikerfred]

Originally Posted by chongoblanco

f.t.p!!!!

Tim said it with AUTHORITAH!!

[Schecky]

Originally Posted by Dino Brown

....Brewmaster and JasonMason are *NOT* going to be happy....

That's funny - First thing I thought of.

[hoovermd]

If you drink a good 10+% alcohol beer, the tax on a per/% of Alcohol doesn't seem too onerous

[Kid A]

First beer...then what. hey my wife already charges me too much

[BrewMaster]

Originally Posted by hoovermd

If you drink a good 10+% alcohol beer, the tax on a per/% of Alcohol doesn't seem too onerous

That's like saying more suspension equals a better bike. Higher alcohol does not necessarily equate to better beer.

I've had plenty of 10%+ beers that suck (Sam Adams Triple Bock comes to mind) and I have had plenty of outstanding beers that are below 5%. Founders Trois is one of my favorite beers and it weighs in at 3%. Don't be fooled. This tax is BS.

[art23rockpile]

I don't even drink anymore, but i've got to nominate Assemblyman Beale as "Dick-of-the Month"!

[Amon Amarth]

I blame the Illegals.

[TCB]

This is going to triple the price of my breakfast

[bobcat38]

Got to be a tea tottaler(sp).