PDA

View Full Version : California Democrat calls for 1500% increase in "Beer Tax"


wazu
04-12-2008, 10:37 AM
http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20080408/capt.5a6633308ba045829956e55cdbb68e40.australia_beer_threat_xrr101.jpg?x=251&y=345&sig=Mv_m6.YGRV9U9cul0FR9Mg--

http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_8888028?source=rss

Higher state tax on beer?
ASSEMBLYMAN BEALL PROPOSES BIG INCREASE
By Mike Zapler

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.

keg in kc
04-12-2008, 10:41 AM
Guy must be brain-damaged if he thinks that'll get through. Even in California.

Bowser
04-12-2008, 10:43 AM
Only on the really, REALLY crappy beers.

milkman
04-12-2008, 10:44 AM
Can we recall Jim Beall?

wazu
04-12-2008, 10:54 AM
Guy must be brain-damaged if he thinks that'll get through. Even in California.

I'll bet people said that about banning smoking in bars at first.

Guru
04-12-2008, 11:12 AM
I don't have a problem with this. But I hardly ever buy beer.

alanm
04-12-2008, 11:20 AM
I'll bet people said that about banning smoking in bars at first.
Yep and in the quest to get every one to quit smoking unintended consequences happen. Lost tax revenue.
So to make up for that it is only logical that they go after the Alcohol revenue instead. Tax the shit out of it like they did tobacco and hit them with a new class action lawsuit every other week. Next thing you know a six pack will cost you $45.00 Every one knows alcohol destroys more lives and families than tobacco could ever dream of accomplishing. And all Brewers and Distillers should be held liable.
It's only fair.

Adept Havelock
04-12-2008, 11:31 AM
What a surprise...it's being presented as a "Public Health Issue". :rolleyes:

These fuggers won't stop until everything is built of Nerf, and we're all eating nothing but soy and wheat germ.

alanm
04-12-2008, 11:33 AM
What a surprise...it's being presented as a "Public Health Issue". :rolleyes:

These fuggers won't stop until everything is built of Nerf, and we're all eating nothing but soy and wheat germ.
They started the ball rolling with Cigs and the people gave them their blessing. Hope everyone's happy. No stopping them now. ROFL

Adept Havelock
04-12-2008, 11:43 AM
They started the ball rolling with Cigs and the people gave them their blessing. Hope everyone's happy. No stopping them now. ROFL

No kidding. And people wonder why a non-smoker would oppose the ban. :shake:

Logical
04-12-2008, 11:45 AM
My only comment is that the tax should be even higher, and much, much higer on tobacco products.

DaneMcCloud
04-12-2008, 11:51 AM
I don't have a problem with it.

Our taxes on alcohol are next to nothing. My friends from KC are amazed at the price of beer in Los Angeles.

Example: Keystone Light 12 pack: $3.99
Coors, Bud or Miller 12 pack: $7.99
Coors, Bud or Miller 18 pack: $9.99
Coors, Bud or Miller 36 pack: $15.99

All in all, it's very cheap and our state's in the red. It's all due to Illegal Immigration.

Not a smoking ban that was enacted 11 years ago. :shake:

Brock
04-12-2008, 11:55 AM
I would guess alcohol will be illegal in California in 10-20 years.

Bowser
04-12-2008, 11:56 AM
They started the ball rolling with Cigs and the people gave them their blessing. Hope everyone's happy. No stopping them now. ROFL

I'm not getting into this again, but to be fair, it started way before the smoking bans.

Logical
04-12-2008, 12:02 PM
I would guess alcohol will be illegal in California in 10-20 years.I really doubt it too much money to be made in taxes. Same reason you might not be able to smoke in bars and restaurants but tobacco will never be illegal. Follow that tax money trail.

Chief Henry
04-12-2008, 12:50 PM
Whats next ? Telling us what light bulbs we can use :(

DaneMcCloud
04-12-2008, 12:54 PM
I would guess alcohol will be illegal in California in 10-20 years.


Of course it will :shake::shake:

There's more than 40 million people in 2008. By 2020, there will be more than 50 million.

It would be GREAT to cut off that revenue stream :rolleyes:

Brock
04-12-2008, 01:13 PM
This isn't about a revenue stream, this is about public health. They've already quasi-illegalized cigarettes in California, and they will eventually be truly illegal. Alcohol and "bad" food are going to be the next targets.

Stewie
04-12-2008, 01:13 PM
I think they should tax the hell out of rice. Look what high rice prices have done in Haiti... it's cleaning out the deadbeat politicians. Nothing could be better than that!

Adept Havelock
04-12-2008, 01:33 PM
This isn't about a revenue stream, this is about public health. They've already quasi-illegalized cigarettes in California, and they will eventually be truly illegal. Alcohol and "bad" food are going to be the next targets.

Hammer, meet nail head. :clap:


Time for an equal or higher tax on Sushi. After all, that mercury is a serious public health risk. What a great revenue stream for the state of California! ;)

DaneMcCloud
04-12-2008, 02:07 PM
This isn't about a revenue stream, this is about public health. They've already quasi-illegalized cigarettes in California, and they will eventually be truly illegal. Alcohol and "bad" food are going to be the next targets.

Considering that Trans-Fat has been outlawed in Manhattan, I wouldn't be surprised if it were to be outlawed in CA.

But alcohol? Nah, no way.

DaneMcCloud
04-12-2008, 02:31 PM
This isn't about a revenue stream, this is about public health. They've already quasi-illegalized cigarettes in California, and they will eventually be truly illegal. Alcohol and "bad" food are going to be the next targets.

Furthermore, I can buy alcohol of ANY sort 7 days a week, from 6am in the morning until 2am the following morning. There's only a 4 hour window each day in which I can't buy alcohol.

It's sold at every drugstore (Rite Aid, CVS, Walgreens, Mom & Pops), every convenience store, every grocery store and the liquor stores offer free delivery.

In Kansas, you can't buy alcohol on Sundays. In Missouri, you can only buy "Sunday Beer". It's ludicrous. I feel like I'm living during the Prohibition Era when I visit. There are many counties in Texas that are freaking DRY.

Trust me, California is the LAST place that the sale of alcohol would EVER be banned.

Stewie
04-12-2008, 02:35 PM
In Kansas, you can't buy alcohol on Sundays. In Missouri, you can only buy "Sunday Beer". It's ludicrous. I feel like I'm living during the Prohibition Era when I visit. There are many counties in Texas that are freaking DRY.

Huh? I live in Kansas and can buy ALL alcohol 7 days a week. You need to update your database.

DaneMcCloud
04-12-2008, 02:49 PM
Huh? I live in Kansas and can buy ALL alcohol 7 days a week. You need to update your database.

Sorry, I guess I forgot.

You can buy alcohol every day of the week in Kansas now? No more 3.2 beer?

Wow, I guess it's been a while. It wasn't like that when I was growing up. Good to hear.

Bowser
04-12-2008, 02:50 PM
Sorry, I guess I forgot.

You can buy alcohol every day of the week in Kansas now? No more 3.2 beer?

Wow, I guess it's been a while.

No Sunday beer in Missouri, either. All the "good" stuff.

DaneMcCloud
04-12-2008, 02:51 PM
No Sunday beer in Missouri, either. All the "good" stuff.

Cool.

When did all the Blue Laws change?

http://www.cjonline.com/stories/122800/kan_liquorsales.shtml

wazu
04-12-2008, 02:57 PM
No Sunday beer in Missouri, either. All the "good" stuff.

Huh? I buy beer on Sundays all the time. (And I do mean ALL the time.)

Bowser
04-12-2008, 03:01 PM
Huh? I buy beer on Sundays all the time. (And I do mean ALL the time.)

No, no. I meant no Sunday beer laws in Missouri. If there were, it'd be like "The Mog" from Black Hawk Down around here.

DaneMcCloud
04-12-2008, 03:04 PM
No, no. I meant no Sunday beer laws in Missouri. If there were, it'd be like "The Mog" from Black Hawk Down around here.

When did the laws change? I found that article from 2000 when the Blue Laws where still in effect.

I guess that goes to show that one shouldn't be making assumptions about a state's laws in which that person doesn't reside. :eek:

Stewie
04-12-2008, 03:13 PM
When did the laws change? I found that article from 2000 when the Blue Laws where still in effect.

I guess that goes to show that one shouldn't be making assumptions about a state's laws in which that person doesn't reside. :eek:

Blue Laws ended about 20 years ago. Blue laws concern was that no stores should be open on Sundays. Selling liquor, on the other hand, was a different story. Missouri could sell packaged liquor on Sundays long before Kansas. I'm pretty sure AB had something to do with that. Kansas counties challenged the State's liquor laws about 5-6 years ago and won.

DenverChief
04-12-2008, 03:16 PM
Whats next ? Telling us what light bulbs we can use :(

you must have missed this

http://green-blog.org/2008/01/29/usa-to-ban-incandescent-light-bulbs/

Brock
04-12-2008, 03:18 PM
you must have missed this

http://green-blog.org/2008/01/29/usa-to-ban-incandescent-light-bulbs/

you missed the point

Guru
04-12-2008, 05:36 PM
Whats next ? Telling us what light bulbs we can use :(
And having the utility company control your thermostat for you.

banyon
04-12-2008, 05:39 PM
you must have missed this

http://green-blog.org/2008/01/29/usa-to-ban-incandescent-light-bulbs/



According to the US congress the incandescent light bulb ban will save around $40 billion and USA would need about 14 fewer coal firer power plants, thus reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 50 million tons.

You bastards! :cuss:

alanm
04-12-2008, 07:29 PM
This isn't about a revenue stream, this is about public health. They've already quasi-illegalized cigarettes in California, and they will eventually be truly illegal. Alcohol and "bad" food are going to be the next targets.
It's only fair.

alanm
04-12-2008, 07:33 PM
Considering that Trans-Fat has been outlawed in Manhattan, I wouldn't be surprised if it were to be outlawed in CA.

But alcohol? Nah, no way.
That's what the tobacco lobby thought. They were dead wrong. Tax revenue be damned. After all there's still property taxes to hit.

Logical
04-12-2008, 07:45 PM
That's what the tobacco lobby thought. They were dead wrong. Tax revenue be damned. After all there's still property taxes to hit.Not here they are pretty much frozen when you buy your home.

DaneMcCloud
04-12-2008, 07:49 PM
That's what the tobacco lobby thought. They were dead wrong. Tax revenue be damned. After all there's still property taxes to hit.


Are you trying to say that tobacco has been outlawed? Seriously?

JFC.

BIG_DADDY
04-12-2008, 07:51 PM
Watching some of our politicians is like visiting the special education department back in school. I could give you quotes for days that would just leave you speechless.

DaneMcCloud
04-12-2008, 07:51 PM
And having the utility company control your thermostat for you.

I'm all for it.

When you've got rolling blackouts, I'll take some A/C over NO A/C.

But thanks for your valuable input, as I'm sure you've spent a great deal of time in California, especially during a heatwave. :shake:

Mecca
04-12-2008, 07:52 PM
I don't drink so I don't care.

DaneMcCloud
04-12-2008, 07:53 PM
Blue Laws ended about 20 years ago. Blue laws concern was that no stores should be open on Sundays. Selling liquor, on the other hand, was a different story. Missouri could sell packaged liquor on Sundays long before Kansas. I'm pretty sure AB had something to do with that. Kansas counties challenged the State's liquor laws about 5-6 years ago and won.

Okay, so since somewhere around 2003, it's been legal to purchase alcohol on Sundays?

I did not know that.

alanm
04-12-2008, 07:59 PM
Are you trying to say that tobacco has been outlawed? Seriously?

JFC.
Give it time. It's what the majority wants isn't it. One can only assume so by all the anti smoking laws being enacted, liberties restricted in the name of public health.
Next up.... MADD grows a set of balls. :spock:

DaneMcCloud
04-12-2008, 09:37 PM
Give it time. It's what the majority wants isn't it. One can only assume so by all the anti smoking laws being enacted, liberties restricted in the name of public health.
Next up.... MADD grows a set of balls. :spock:

Are you serious? Really! Are you f*cking serious? Because if so, you may need to see a doctor about blockage in your arteries. It's obvious that your brain isn't working correctly.

Only someone who can't understand that successful smoking bans have gone into effect WORLDWIDE would try to equate a smoking ban with the consumption of alcoholic beverages.

Drinking hasn't stopped across America due to smoking bans, nor has it stopped in Italy, France, England and most recently, Germany.

Not to mention that California is home to some of the finest vineyards and wine makers the world over. The local government isn't going to shut down something that it is so proud of, let alone put a stop to the tremendous amount of revenue that the local vineyards provide (not to mention the Budweiser & Miller plants).

And you know, let's get this straight, for the obvious dumbf*cks who can't understand a smoking ban:

You drink - I don't get drunk.
You smoke - I inhale your smoke

Get it?

The most humorous aspect of the smoking ban is how those in Missouri somehow think they're exempt from a law that's happening all over the globe. For f*cksakes, it's happened in Vegas!

Logical
04-12-2008, 09:40 PM
Are you serious? Really! Are you f*cking serious? Because if so, you may need to see a doctor about blockage in your arteries. It's obvious that your brain isn't working correctly.

Only someone who can't understand that successful smoking bans have gone into effect WORLDWIDE would try to equate a smoking ban with the consumption of alcoholic beverages.

Drinking hasn't stopped across America due to smoking bans, nor has it stopped in Italy, France, England and most recently, Germany.

Not to mention that California is home to some of the finest vineyards and wine makers the world over. The local government isn't going to shut down something that it is so proud of, let alone put a stop to the tremendous amount of revenue that the local vineyards provide (not to mention the Budweiser & Miller plants).

And you know, let's get this straight, for the obvious dumbf*cks who can't understand a smoking ban:

You drink - I don't get drunk.
You smoke - I inhale your smoke

Get it?

The most humorous aspect of the smoking ban is how those in Missouri somehow think they're exempt from a law that's happening all over the globe. For f*cksakes, it's happened in Vegas!

Settle down Dane.;)

Otherwise Frazod will be gloating over is terminal rage towards me again.

SBK
04-12-2008, 10:36 PM
Problem--budget is short.

Solution is always to raise taxes and never to cut expenses. Idiots.

alanm
04-12-2008, 11:04 PM
Are you serious? Really! Are you f*cking serious? Because if so, you may need to see a doctor about blockage in your arteries. It's obvious that your brain isn't working correctly.

Only someone who can't understand that successful smoking bans have gone into effect WORLDWIDE would try to equate a smoking ban with the consumption of alcoholic beverages.

Drinking hasn't stopped across America due to smoking bans, nor has it stopped in Italy, France, England and most recently, Germany.

Not to mention that California is home to some of the finest vineyards and wine makers the world over. The local government isn't going to shut down something that it is so proud of, let alone put a stop to the tremendous amount of revenue that the local vineyards provide (not to mention the Budweiser & Miller plants).

And you know, let's get this straight, for the obvious dumbf*cks who can't understand a smoking ban:

You drink - I don't get drunk.
You smoke - I inhale your smoke

Get it?

The most humorous aspect of the smoking ban is how those in Missouri somehow think they're exempt from a law that's happening all over the globe. For f*cksakes, it's happened in Vegas!
The smoking bans have nothing to do with raising the shit out of alcohol taxation. That is, other than an excuse for recovering lost revenue due to less tobacco revenue. As for MADD seeing whats happening with tobacco probably encourages them even more.

DaneMcCloud
04-13-2008, 12:33 AM
The smoking bans have nothing to do with raising the shit out of alcohol taxation. That is, other than an excuse for recovering lost revenue due to less tobacco revenue. As for MADD seeing whats happening with tobacco probably encourages them even more.

I'm sorry, you clearly don't know anything about California or the problems that we face with illegal immigration.

The smoking ban has been in effect in restaurants and bars for well over a decade. There is a very small percentage of Californians that smoke to begin with - the ban really affected tourists more than natives anyway. And it's VERY clear you've never been to a hotel bar or club or bar in Los Angeles at any time, as the lines are long, the drinks are expensive and every club is jam packed. PACKED.

IF further taxation on alcohol were to occur it would be because the toll of 5 million illegal immigrants is over-bearing. A majority of public schools are dealing with too many Spanish-speaking children, making it next to impossible to teach children at the desired rate. Illegal immigration is KILLING this state, yet no one wants to touch that issue.

alanm
04-13-2008, 12:55 AM
I'm sorry, you clearly don't know anything about California or the problems that we face with illegal immigration.

The smoking ban has been in effect in restaurants and bars for well over a decade. There is a very small percentage of Californians that smoke to begin with - the ban really affected tourists more than natives anyway. And it's VERY clear you've never been to a hotel bar or club or bar in Los Angeles at any time, as the lines are long, the drinks are expensive and every club is jam packed. PACKED.

IF further taxation on alcohol were to occur it would be because the toll of 5 million illegal immigrants is over-bearing. A majority of public schools are dealing with too many Spanish-speaking children, making it next to impossible to teach children at the desired rate. Illegal immigration is KILLING this state, yet no one wants to touch that issue.
I used to work in California. I'm also well aware of what's happening there. And as you say the clubs are packed PACKED with people willing to pay for drinks that could potentially increase in cost 1500% and when they filter down to the bar 3000% or more.
What I'm saying since the bars are packed PACKED the people won't mind paying that increase or better for a mixed drink.
After all they gotta pay for all those kids somehow.
Just saying.

DaneMcCloud
04-13-2008, 01:12 AM
I used to work in California. I'm also well aware of what's happening there. And as you say the clubs are packed PACKED with people willing to pay for drinks that could potentially increase in cost 1500% and when they filter down to the bar 3000% or more.
What I'm saying since the bars are packed PACKED the people won't mind paying that increase or better for a mixed drink.
After all they gotta pay for all those kids somehow.
Just saying.

I don't even know what you're saying.

Did you even READ the article? Or just what you WANTED to read?

"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."

Not. Gonna. Happen.

ClevelandBronco
04-13-2008, 01:21 AM
Not. Gonna. Happen.

To. This. Degree.

Not. Yet.

(According to a GOP assemblyman and two evil corporate types, anyway. I hope they're correct.)

StcChief
04-13-2008, 09:59 AM
Guy must be brain-damaged if he thinks that'll get through. Even in California.yep. Tax and spend that's the Dim way.:rolleyes:

DaneMcCloud
04-13-2008, 11:19 AM
yep. Tax and spend that's the Dim way.:rolleyes:

But apparently, not the current Republican Party's way? I mean, we do have a budget surplus and all, right? :rolleyes: :shake:

Nice try.ROFL

alanm
04-13-2008, 11:20 AM
Not. Gonna. Happen.

To. This. Degree.

Not. Yet.

(According to a GOP assemblyman and two evil corporate types, anyway. I hope they're correct.)
Oh I certainly don't expect them to pass a tax hike on alcohol of that size at the moment. What they'll do is compromise and hike it a little. Then a little more and a little more. Pretty much as they always do with taxes. But if you think alcohol is hands off your living in a fantasy land.

jidar
04-13-2008, 11:34 AM
yep. Tax and spend that's the Dim way.:rolleyes:

Republicans have been bigger spenders than Democrats for well over 20 years now. It's about time you people got over your outdated modes of thinking and came to reality.

DaneMcCloud
04-13-2008, 11:42 AM
Oh I certainly don't expect them to pass a tax hike on alcohol of that size at the moment. What they'll do is compromise and hike it a little. Then a little more and a little more. Pretty much as they always do with taxes. But if you think alcohol is hands off your living in a fantasy land.

Considering the tax is currently .01 for wine and .02 for beer and liquor, a small increase would be just fine.

But if you read the article (and if you do a web-search, you'll find that the OP posted a truncated form of the original article), there is strong opposition to raising the alcohol tax, WHATSOEVER, in addition to it needing a 2/3rds majority to pass.

Sorry, but it's NOT GOING TO HAPPEN.

BIG_DADDY
04-14-2008, 01:02 PM
I don't drink so I don't care.

What are you Adam Fricken Ant?