Regular price of Sam Adams Boston Lager is $16.49 +Cook county sales tax +Illinois sales tax. It’s usually on sale somewhere or other for $12.99 +taxes, but even that gets steep when you drink as much beer as I do. I use coupons when I can.
Yeah. And if you like anything local, sometimes you can get kegs (or sixers or growlers*) pretty cheap from the brewery itself. Check out this list of brewers and beer stores, I bet you can find kegs of Sam Adams or something else good through them.
*- Often available for like $16, and more like $11 if you bring it in and get it refilled.
A small brewery near my house sells bottles and kegs directly to the public. Every Sat. they have a tour but it’s just an excuse for people to drink their beer for free.
I’ve mainly stopped buying bottled beer in favor of kegs + keggerator. It’s super easy to set up and saves me lots of money.
Or… brew it yourself!
Costs a bit to get into, and there is always another gadget to get, but it’s fun, and easy. You don’t get Budweiser, you get something similar to a SA (or other craft ale), depending on which kit/recipe you decide to go with.
That’s what I was going to say, butler1850. Home brew, man, home brew.
However, while it’s not that expensive of a hobby, it’s not like getting free beer, either. My husband and I homebrew, get ~5 gallons of beer for a $25 kit, but we’ve also bought a couple of glass carboys, two 5 gallon Cornelius kegs, a canister of CO[sub]2[/sub], a small fridge (now our kegerator!), taps… You get the idea.
You can start out for relatively cheap, though - give it a go!
Homebrewing, as I discovered to my chagrin, is not a way to get cheaper beer.
It is, however, a way to get excellent fresh beer brewed precisely the way you like it, with styles, processes, and ingredients that you may not be able to find anywhere else.
In New Jersey only private liquor stores sold stuff (I forget about beer). And liquor licenses were expensive and rare, so lots of restaurants had BYOB policies. In California supermarkets sell everything, and the only private liquor store near me is BevMo, a massive chain. Liquor laws are weird.
BTW, when I was in college our dorm bought cases of Coke straight from the bottling plant across the river. We bought enough that it paid for the driver to drop them off at our loading dock.
Blah. That’s a bite in the pocketbook.
Keep in mind I bought mine at a discount liquor store (always cheaper than a grocery store) and that Wisconsin has [I believe] the second lowest beer tax in the country. It’s the only tax where we are among the lowest and there are idiots trying to raise it!:mad:
Wegmans sells beer and wine coolers, but only in the cafe part of the supermarket. Unlike Sheetz Wegmans is willing to allow people to drink beer onsite with their meals. Any restaurants or taverns that serves beer is allowed to sell it to go, but you can only buy 2 six-packs worth at a time. You can still buy as much as you want as long as you make seperate transactions and carry the beer outside after each one.
I’m not typically a fan of tax hikes, and Virginia’s beer tax is far too high for my taste (though other taxes are reasonable). That said, though, Wisconsin does have a bit of an alcohol issue going on - you seem to lead on every negative indicator from drunk driving to drinking during pregnancy.
I’ve visited there and witnessed old-timers spend all night chasing brandy with beer and then drive home. Blew my mind, and I’m from Pittsburgh. We’re not exactly teetotalers there.
So in the quest to combat that, which countless politicians and educators seem to want, the beer tax might go up a smidge. Again, I am often skeptical of using amorphous public benefit considerations to provide a justification to raise taxes, but in this case it doesn’t seem so amorphous.
Not to turn this into a debate, but please show me where taxation has ever lead to successful social engineering. All that will happen is people will spend more to get intoxicated. Our level of drinking here has nothing to do with it’s inexpensiveness (which it really isn’t). I see people at festivals getting drunk on beer they’re paying $6.50 a bottle for. This is a cultural issue here, and raising it’s price via taxation will not stop that.
Secondly, why do you equate an asshole who get’s drunk at a bar and drives home with those who buy beer in a store and take it home to drink? The store consumer has to pay a tax for the irresponsible actions of the old dicks in the bar? Bah!
I’m not advocating social engineering through taxation - but there is a pretty well established tradition in this country of taxing or charging a fee to the people who use the system. In theory gas taxes pay the roads, fishing and hunting fees go to the fish and game commissions, and beer taxes should pay for alcohol programs.
Like you said, your beer taxes are among the lowest in the country. I’m sure this has less to do with your legions of beer drinkers and more to do with a certain corporation with large holdings in Milwaukee. But however that goes, hiking the tax a few cents to pay for alcohol programs won’t hurt overmuch, and the necessary thing there is the programs and not the tax.
Sorry, but you are. Also, you’re endorsing taxation for programs that have not been shown to alleviate the alleged problem. Such ideas are nothing more than feel goodism that create another source of revenue for the state. Revenue which will be raided for something else, especially when the effectiveness of programs the taxation was created for are shown not to be effective. This has happened countless times here in the Dairyland.
If this were so almost every area of the country that had a major brewer would have lower beer taxes.
It’s commonly accepted by economists that taxes change behaviour, or at least that was the impression I got from Econ 101. People responding to incentives is a core idea.
Raising cigarette taxes, as an economist would expect, lowers per capita smoking.
“However, according to a survey by the World Bank, each 10 percent in price increase will cut 4 percent of cigarette consumption in developed countries, while in developing countries it will drop by 8 percent.”
Quoted from:
http://www.bjreview.com.cn/quotes/txt/2009-02/10/content_205765.htm
I didn’t look for a connection between beer taxes and the location of major brewers, but I wouldn’t be surprised if there was one.
If this were true by now nobody whatsoever would be smoking. Are you aware of the percentage of state/local/federal tax increases on cigs over the last 30 years? When I was in high school a pack was a quarter. 40 cents from a vending machine.
I didn’t find any handy sites about the prevalence of smoking in the USA over the last thirty years, but my understanding was that smokers there, as the joke goes, are a dying breed.
I did find a USA Today article about the link between taxes and smoking and I’ll quote a bit for you:
Cigarette sales fell 18% in North Carolina last year after the tax was raised in two steps to 35 cents from a nickel. The tobacco-growing state resisted higher cigarette taxes until 2005…
Connecticut has increased its tax to $1.51 from 50 cents per pack in 2002. Since then, per capita consumption of cigarettes has fallen 37%.
New Jersey raised its tax to $2.40 from 80 cents in 2002. Smoking has dropped 35%.
California raised its cigarette tax to 87 cents per pack in 1999 but hasn’t changed it since. Smoking is down 18% since the tax increase.
By comparison, South Carolina has kept its lowest-in-the-nation cigarette tax at 7 cents since 1977. Cigarette consumption there has fallen 5% since 2000.
From: http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2007-08-09-1Alede_N.htm
Actually, I was aware of how common cigarette taxes are-- the popularity of “sin” taxes were one of the things the teacher talked about back in Econ 101. And I did notice steady price rises on cigarettes when I lived in the states, which were surely higher than inflation, so I assumed they had to be taxes. Interestingly, last time I was back, roll your own tobacco was extremely cheap, but rolling papers cost two dollars!
Anyway, if you mean what I think you mean about social engineering, I’ve long noticed the effect of taxation on my own behavior. Here in Australia, beer and spirits are relatively dear-- a bottle of vodka runs about AU$30 or about 1.20 a drink. Domestic beer is about AU$14 for six, or 1.55 a drink (Aussie beer is a little stronger and is counted as about 1.5 standard drinks/bottle). Cheap wine, though is AU$10 for a 4 liter cask, or 25 cents for a standard drink.
I’m quite sure that the difference is mostly tax as I’ve read that the Australian government has been promoting the domestic wine industry. The taxes have certainly affected my behavior-- I used to favor vodka and beer, but now I drink wine at home.
First you’re comparing apples and oranges (smoking vs drinking), and next you have failed to show any data that an increase in alcohol tax in the UNITED STATES has reduced the occurrences of alcoholism and/or drunk driving. I would like to see a cite showing how an increase in beer tax would combat either of these, especially in a drinking culture state such as Wisconsin.
Comparing Wisconsin to Australia is pointless.
The problem is that there has to be a percentage of alcohol that is consumed on-premises to be considered a tavern. Obviously, Sheetz doesn’t want to encourage consumption by people who are about to get into a car and drive off. The LCB isn’t fond of Wegman’s selling beer in its stores, either, and has rattled some sabers in that regard.
Methinks it’s tavern owners who are torqued that local businesses are losing out to chains, which are more convenient and who can sell beer less expensively.
I was initially responding to your request: “Not to turn this into a debate, but please show me where taxation has ever lead to successful social engineering.” I think I have shown you where, but you have some wiggle room in how you define social engineering. I’m assuming you simply mean a change in consumption.
Some people think that a change in sin taxes won’t affect consumption. Unless I’m mistaken, you’re one of those people yourself. It doesn’t seem to work like that, though. Increasing the price of an item, provided demand is at all elastic, will generally decrease consumption.
I wasn’t trying to compare Australia and the USA, although Australia has a strong drinking culture. (I read in the paper a while back that residents of the Northern Territory are some of the heaviest drinkers in the world.) I was saying that I’ve noticed how taxes affect my own behavior.
Now that you’ve changed your request, well I’ll see if I can find a cite that increased taxation on alcohol has ever had an affect on alcohol consumption. I know that’s not exactly what you asked for, but I don’t have all day.
…three minutes later…
Well, not only did I find plenty of websites confirming that higher alcohol prices reduce consumption, here’s a quote from CNN that fits the bill better than I’d hoped:
“Each time the state of Alaska raised its alcoholic beverage tax, fewer deaths were caused by or related to alcohol, according to the study that examined 28 years of data.”
Not only that, but reducing prices increases alcohol related deaths:
"For years, Finland had high alcohol taxes. In March 2004, the Finnish government lowered the taxes nearly 33 to 44 percent to protect domestic sales because officials worried that patrons would flock to neighboring nations in search of cheaper booze.
Consumption levels in Finland increased 50 percent from the previous year. Finnish researchers also found that arrests for drunken and disorderly conduct increased by 11 percent after taxes were lowered.
University of Helsinki researchers used postmortem toxicology tests to determine that alcohol was the underlying cause of death for 1,860 Finns that year, a 20 percent increase from 2003."
From: Study: Paying more for alcohol saves lives - CNN.com
Heaps more if you think they’d help, but you could just google “does raising taxes reduce alcohol consumption” like I did and see for yourself.
Comparing Australia to the US isn’t pointless, by the way. I’ve lived both places and they aren’t completely dissimilar. For instance, basic economics works the same both place. That’s equally true for Finland, apparently.