Beer Tax

Nooooooo!!!!!

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.

It was bound to happen.  Society is already accepting the principle.  Where does this lead?  Fatty foods?  Trans fats?  Sugar? 

YES. 

1. Now here’s a good reason to brew your own beer.

   Posted by on April 11, 2008 at 2213 hrs




2. Damn, I was going to say the same thing.

   Ok, well I guess it is time to switch to booze.

   Posted by on April 11, 2008 at 2250 hrs




3. It was bound to happen.  Society is already accepting the principle.  Where does this lead?  Fatty foods?  Trans fats?  Sugar? 

   It would be funny if I didn’t absolutely believe this will happen.

   Right about now there are 2 choices… Either fight for freedom or fight for a position in government that will put you “above” all these rules.

   Posted by on April 11, 2008 at 2312 hrs




4. But what about those studies that conclude that certain types of alcohol, in moderation, can be good for you?  Would we all get monthly rebate checks from the government to cover the tax on those two glasses of wine each week?

   I get the point that public health advocates make in terms of smokers paying a tax that helps to offset the public health costs that smokers rack up.  Of course, smokers have a shorter life expectancy so the average smoker spends less time taking advantage of other government programs, like Social Security and Medicare.

   Alcohol, in moderation, poses no public health risk.  Smoking, in moderation, does.  I would hope that even the lefty public health types would recognize that.

   Posted by Recess Supervisor on April 12, 2008 at 0101 hrs




5. Alcohol, in moderation, poses no public health risk.  Smoking, in moderation, does.  I would hope that even the lefty public health types would recognize that.

   No, they won’t.  They’re going to continue identifying “bad behaviors” and taxing them until we’re all eating tofu and raw vegetables.

   In moderation, food’s (even fatty, sweet ones) are not bad for you.  But we’ve heard about a “fat tax” on more than one occasion.

   So if you folks have no problem with the government deciding what can and cannot be in your grocery cart, by all means - sit silently.

   Otherwise start protesting this crap.

   Posted by on April 12, 2008 at 0641 hrs




6. Recess Sup =right
   Amy P. = wrong.

   Of course that is just my prediction.  Granted I drink beer moderately, but I am also a “lefty public health type”. This will not fly in the big picture. We may see it embraced in places like CA.  Not here in WI.

   So maybe Amy P. is right in the same sense that Benjamin Franklin was when he said something like, ‘Those who believe that our freedoms are properly sacrificed in the name of security deserve neither.’

   So that’s it: me, Amy P, and whoever else is on board are road tripping to San Jose with a trunk full of picket signs and lobbyist phone numbers.  Along the way we’ll sing songs praising Owen Robinson’s ability to unify the left and the right with one single post about beer.  I can see it! 

   Posted by Mike on April 12, 2008 at 0835 hrs




7. I think the amount of the tax is excessive and likely would include liquor as well. These taxes have not been raised for many, many years. The “lefties” are not just looking for ways to tax more but if we (right and left wing policy makers) don’t get serious about controlling spending, the money has to come from somewhere.

   These types of taxes do not generally affect the little old lady on the fixed income because she gave up drinking and smoking years ago so she could afford her medicine and property taxes to stay in her home.

   Property taxes and energy costs are the big whammy on the fixed income property owners. These need to be addressed or we will have bigger problems in the economy.

   To argue that it is always the left wing that taxes and spends is not a valid argument. Take one look at the cost of the war in Iraq and remember who is spending the most of our money. We will need to pay up someday or be owned by the Chinese, Japanese or anyone else that owns our debt.

   Continually placing blame on the democrats is a political attempt at blaming one side. Why were we not complaining when the Republicans were in charge of everything and our taxes and expenses continued to rise at equal or greater levels?

   Posted by on April 12, 2008 at 1021 hrs




8. Mike - the problem with your last statement that it couldn’t be in WI but would fly in CA is real simple. 

   Can you buy a Diesel powered car in Wisconsin, Texas, Alabama, Iowa, Arizona??  Nope because CA, NY, and MA don’t like diesels.

   Unfortunately CA & NY are the testing ground for lefty policy.  Regan legalized abortion 3 years before Roe v. Wade.  CA’s fuel tax has always been ahead of the curve.  If it happens in CA, then there is a good chance that it will happen in the real world in another 10-15 years.

   Posted by Clint on April 13, 2008 at 1833 hrs




9. MoveForward, the people who own the most of our debt is us. Americans own something like half of our debt.

   Posted by Matt on April 15, 2008 at 0738 hrs