The other night someone (I have no idea who:confused: ) mad a statement on CNN that the next tax President Bush might go after is the beer tax, the high taxes levied on alcoholic beverages. I haven’t heard anything about this since. Can anyone shed any light on this?
If you can figure out what show you saw it on and what night, you can check the CNN show transcript. That might have more details, especially who said it.
There is a House bill put out by Rep. Phil English (R-PA) that would cut the beer tax from $18 per barrel to $9 per barrel. Not sure if Bush specifically has anything to do with it, but there ya go.
I’m off to look for the text of the bill…
Well, that was easy:
Yee haw.
Thanks friedo.
Now, is there any reason why this bill wont pass/be signed into law? Who wouldn’t want cheaper beer?
Those who view taxes as a way to fund schools, highways, alcohol abuse programs, and Social Security.
According to my previous link, there are already 187 co-sponsores in the House, so it at least seems somewhat popular.
Here’s a general quote from Rep. English’s home page:
“The typical American family pays more in taxes each year than it invests in food, clothing and shelter combined. Taxpayers work until May before any of their money goes into their pockets, not into that of the tax collector. Taxes such as the marriage penalty and death tax should be repealed. Also taxes such as the telephone tax that was established in the 1800s to pay for the Spanish American War should be eliminated.”
So this bill may be viewed in the context of an overall plan on the part of English to get rid of old and unfair taxes in general.
However…
Prices for high-school-grade swill have remained remarkably stable since the 1980s, in spite of the tax boosts of 1991 and 1987 (I think it was 1987). This has to mean that brewers have been steadily reducing their profit margins on cheap beer.
The near-demise of some of the greatest brewers of cheap beer, including the G. Heileman Brewery (Allentown, PA) and the Pittsburgh Brewing Company are typical of the struggles that makers of incredibly bad beer have endured. Where is my Old German, dammit? Oh, I forgot. I quit drinking.
I theorize that consumers are unwilling to pay more than about three bucks a six-pack for these gems, and therefore Rep. English is hoping to ease the burden these (Pennsylvania) breweries are bearing. English’s district is just north of Pitt.
(Some of us are still bitter that Milwaukee’s Best defected to Miller. I just wanted to point that out.)
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by pkbites *
**
The same reason it was passed in the first place. Namely, to generate revenue. Bush has gotten himself into trouble cutting taxes and is now desperate to generate some scratch to kick up military spending.
Is the promotion of beer drinking now considered a good thing? Didn’t they original put these “vice taxes” on the books to not only raise money but also to stop people from doing whatever it was they were taxing? Look at the cigarette taxes that people have to pay these days!
Let’s not forget that there is still no such thing as a free lunch… even with dubya as president, so if we reduce taxes over here we’re going to have to raise them somewhere else… unless, of course, they reduce the size of government which I don’t see anyone seriously trying to do… not even the prez.
Please don’t perpetuate this bit of false information. Tax revenue is not a zero-sum game. Reducing taxes does not necessarily correlate to reduced revenues.
As a very simple, uncomplicated example, if the “beer tax” is lowered, brewers operating on the margins or even new brewers will be able produce more barrels of beer for general consumption because of the reduced overhead. A tax reduction has the effect of stimulating growth in this particular industry and increasing revenue to the federal government in the long run.