Beer drinkers beware!

[Darin]

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

Higher state tax on beer?
ASSEMBLYMAN BEALL PROPOSES BIG INCREASE
By Mike Zapler
Mercury News Sacramento Bureau
Article Launched: 04/11/2008 01:34:17 AM PDT


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
Advertisement
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.

Stinkin politicians!! Not a human among them.

[elcid]

Works for me, I only drink Jack Daniels.

[CosmicDebris]

Don't Drink so don't care. However mebbe they will legalize plants and tax that too.

[Canadian Mark]

If you don't watch it, you Yanks will wind up paying as much for beer as us Canadians!

[P. Aaron]

Saw that. Typical punk legislators thinking that they know what's best for you, the little guy.

Imperfect or not, we've survived a lot longer without the idiocy of governments than with them.

Some of these idiots are out to perfect humanity through legislation written by imperfect beings...government.

Do the math, vote the ass out!

[rob777vdy]

think yourself lucky.here in the uk a decent four pack cost £4 $8 i dont drink so doesnt bother me.

[microdmitry]

I suggest to create a tax on stupidity. The guy who suggested the beer tax should be taxed at 101% of his income.

[jb4674]

Big deal, this should've happened a long time ago. The need to do the same thing with cigarrettes as well.

Jimmy

[bammbamm]

I would imagine he'll be shot down quickly enough.

[microdmitry]

Originally Posted by jb4674

Big deal, this should've happened a long time ago. The need to do the same thing with cigarrettes as well.

Jimmy

Cigarettes, yes. Beer - no. Beer is food. You don't tax food.

[DEADTUNES666]

Well cigarettes emit second hand smoke and cause cancer to everyone involved, and alcohol causes drunk driving and liver failure, which affects everyone involved....

So dangerous activities should be taxed...Maybe make a guy think twice before buying a case and go drinking and driving...just saying

[elcid]

Originally Posted by DEADTUNES666

Well cigarettes emit second hand smoke and cause cancer to everyone involved, and alcohol causes drunk driving and liver failure, which affects everyone involved....

So dangerous activities should be taxed...Maybe make a guy think twice before buying a case and go drinking and driving...just saying

Then they should tax fcking, because some people might get the aids, and tax red meat because aside from being delicious it's not healthy. Then the hippies will want you to tax vegetables because the animals need to eat them, so people shouldnt eat them.

[microdmitry]

And think about it, by breathing you remove oxygen from the atmosphere, so there's less of it left for everybody else. Let's tax breathing.

[JJEMMER777]

Originally Posted by P. Aaron

Some of these idiots are out to perfect humanity through legislation written by imperfect beings

Well said

Originally Posted by microdmitry

Cigarettes, yes. Beer - no. Beer is food. You don't tax food.

Yeah!! #1 for beer bellies

Originally Posted by microdmitry

Let's tax breathing.

Don't hold your breath,

[DEADTUNES666]

Originally Posted by elcid

Then they should tax fcking, because some people might get the aids, and tax red meat because aside from being delicious it's not healthy. Then the hippies will want you to tax vegetables because the animals need to eat them, so people shouldnt eat them.

Did you ever notice it's easier to fvck and have a baby than it is to get married... Some places do have restrictions on fvcking. Africa is a nation of people starving to death but they're still fvcking and having babies! That's not healthy for anyone there, especially when they ask for a donation from Americans to help their starving children. Maybe a load of condoms would be a better solution...

The difference between red meat and cigarettes is my eating red meat and contracting colon cancer and dying does not affect your health. You smoking affects mine.

My eating vegetables that are grown for human consumption and takes nothing away from the animals does not cause me a negative affect on my ability to think clearly and operate a car. Like alcohol does. I don't know anyone who hangs out all night away from their loved ones downing asparagus to excess, just to drown their sorrows!!

Maybe the gas veggies cause is stinky, but it's not deadly...