Comments on: California Politician Trying To Raise Beer Tax 1400%

By: Shauno

Shauno — Sat, 12 Apr 2008 21:29:36 +0000

It’s interesting at the bottom of each post you have the request “If you enjoyed this post or the Bulletin generally, please consider buying me a pint,” well maybe someone needs to buy Jim Beall a beer. What’s even more disturbing and bothersome for that matter is that the Mercury News reporter started off the story on Jim Beall and his proposal with:

“SACRAMENTO – Joe Six-pack will have to pay a lot more to get his buzz on if Assemblyman Jim Beall has his way.”

That’s not reporting that’s a blatant opinion and miss-reporting. It’s interesting that both Jim Beall and the Mercury News are both from San Jose.

By: Brad

Brad — Sat, 12 Apr 2008 18:44:57 +0000

I wonder what his rational for the $1.80/sixer and $90/keg is. A half barrel keg contains the equivalent of 165.333 12oz bottles. At $0.30 per 12 oz bottle, that works out to $49.60 per keg. Why on earth would he want to charge almost double the tax on a keg vs. a six pack? Apparently not a well thought out formula.

I must admit to being hypocritical about sin taxes. I’m completely against taxing beer in this manner, but I think they should tax cigarettes out of existence. I reconcile that with myself because smoking is inherently unhealthy (for those that do it and those around them) and drinking alcohol isn’t. I also wouldn’t be dead set against a tax that, say, taxed beers made with more than a certain percentage of adjuncts (like rice and/or corn), thus making BMC megaswill more expensive but not affecting the vast majority of craft beers. Unfortunately the opposite is likely true. The big three probably get subsidies for using corn…

By: Flagstaff_T

Flagstaff_T — Sat, 12 Apr 2008 17:11:48 +0000

lets see this prick even try, underground
homebrew distribution will open up so fast his
f#$@ing head will spin.

By: Falstaff Jim

Falstaff Jim — Sat, 12 Apr 2008 15:34:57 +0000

Niiiiiiice.

TAX THOSE EVIL DOERS THAT DRINK!!!!!!!!!!!

I guess that everybody that enjoys a drink can afford ANOTHER tax, right?

“PENALIZE THOSE DRUNKEN BASTIDS, I SAY !!!
THEY ARE TOO SOUSED TO EVEN SEE US STAELING THE MONEY FROM THEIR POCKETS !!!!”

And politicians wonder why they are almost universally hated…

By: Chipper Dave

Chipper Dave — Sat, 12 Apr 2008 15:11:46 +0000

Before any politician decides to try to pass any new law that raises the tax on an item, they should first remove a tax on another item who’s higher tax fixed a specific problem. With the current recession that this country is in, now is NOT the time to be raising taxes further, rather government should be tightening it’s belt and cutting wasteful spending and downsize like the rest of the country is having to do.

By: Jim

Jim — Sat, 12 Apr 2008 14:54:27 +0000

Thanks for the alert on a horrible proposal. I agree with all your points except one: that universal healthcare would remove part of the rationale for the proposal. I suppose the argument would be that all the alcohol-related healthcare costs would be folded into our [i.e. individuals'] healthcare cost tax burden [which would shoot up enormously with unviserse healthcare] already and spread among a larger tax base that simply beer drinkers. I believe the neo-prohibs would STILL want to tax extra the “problem children contributing to the cost/tax burden” anyway; including beer and cigarette users. The zeal to prevent drinking is evergreen and not subject to the constraints of logic! So, for me, I’m against ANY tax increase for ANY reason on ANY commodity I can think of. Particularly beer for that’s my “vice” of choice. For the tax and spenders will never give up the revenue stream once they get their paws on it.