Our friends at the Associated Press and local Portland KGW Channel 8 both note how some Oregon state lawmakers proposed a bill which would raise the tax on a barrel of beer by a staggering 1,900%. But guess what they leave out? The AP's story is brief:
Beer brewers in Oregon are hopping mad about a proposed bill that would raise their taxes by 1900 percent. The state bill would impose a nearly $50 tax on each barrel of beer produced by Oregon brewers.
Lawmakers who support the tax say the bill would fund prevention and treatment programs for those addicted to alcohol, as well as raise revenue for the state.
But brewers say the tax would cost jobs and could force small breweries to shut down. They say it could also mean a two to four dollar per six pack increase in price for consumers.
KGW's article is more in-depth, mentions the lawmakers who have proposed the bill, but leaves it up to the reader to determine their party affiliation:
Five Oregon state lawmakers want to impose a hefty tax on beer and have introduced a bill that brewers say would cripple them.
Four Portland legislators joined a Springfield senator to introduce Oregon House Bill 2461, which would impose a $49.61 tax on each barrel of beer produced by Oregon brewers.
The tax would raise revenue for the state at a time when budgets are running in the red. Specifically, the bill says it would fund prevention, treatment and recovery programs for those addicted to alcohol and other substances.
It also defends the tax by claiming alcoholism and “untreated substance abuse” costs the state $4.15 billion in “lost earnings” as well as more than $8 million for health care and nearly $1 billion in law enforcement-related expenditures.
Prior versions of the beer tax bill have exempted small breweries but this one does not.
House Bill 2461 has been introduced by Portland Reps. Ben Cannon and Michael Dembrow, Portland Sens. Jackie Dingfelder and Diane Rosenbaum, and Springfield Sen. William Morrisette.
Surprise! All five are Democrats. (You can see for yourself by checking here and here.) Interestingly, the main page of KGW's website notes at bottom that it is an "AP Award winner, Best Oregon TV Web Site, 2007."
It sure seems as if it's "winning" with that AP tradition of label bias!
—D. S. Hube is an educator and a member of the National Association of Scholars. He blogs regularly at The Colossus of Rhodey.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Sounds like the Dukes
February 17, 2009 - 19:29 ET by legacyrepublicanof Hazard are moving to Oregon.
Morever, imagine the chaos that would happen if they did this to medical marijuana, assisted suicide costs, and same sex marriage license fees.
Better to go after the redneck than the stiff necked sinners.
Definitely a hillbilly tax.
February 17, 2009 - 19:58 ET by superconWhy don't they tax chardonnay or imported cheese....?
Because with a name like Obama... you know it has to be good.
If we could tax
February 17, 2009 - 20:59 ET by Dan Diegotheir whine the budget would be balanced.
Which begs the question
February 17, 2009 - 23:23 ET by legacyrepublicanif we popped their bags of hot air would we stop "global warming." ;)
Tax the wine and latte snobs
February 17, 2009 - 21:41 ET by AndanteRE:
"... imagine the chaos that would happen if they did this to medical marijuana, assisted suicide costs, and same sex marriage license fees...."
How about nailing the wine and latte crowd. As far as I'm concerned, beer is part of the basic food group for the working class. Wine and latte beverages are overpriced luxuries consumed, for the most part, by the folks who think we need to pay higher taxes.
PS.
To tell the truth, I have a glass of wine now and then but I've never had and never will order a latte. A guy could lose his mojo just walking into a Starbucks.
-------------------------------------
"The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not."
Thomas Jefferson
Of course they omitted he
February 17, 2009 - 19:37 ET by bigtimerOf course they omitted the party label.
They are also going to be omitting the beer brewers, they already have most of the logging industry...along with other private industries.
Oregon has been ate up steadily by the greenies for years now, the leftists have completely taken over the state.
This is happening to state after state all over the NW...it has been in the plan Stan...and it is working beautifully.
Wait until more Californians move out of the state...they infiltrate other nearby states...along with some east coast money big-wigs, tell us what to do, file law-suits, destroy capitalism from town to town as they complete their agenda's/
God help us all.
Right you are. If I was
February 17, 2009 - 21:04 ET by MidAmericaRight you are. If I was told I had to pick between one of two groups to let move into my community and my choice was between illegal Mexicans or white liberal Californians I'd pick the illegals.
Bright side
February 17, 2009 - 21:17 ET by Dan DiegoIf enough leave maybe we'll get CA back!!!
Dan
February 17, 2009 - 21:23 ET by botgnah, they'll gift it to Mexico before that happens
“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” -- Chief Justice John Roberts
They already have LA
February 17, 2009 - 21:52 ET by Dan Diegowe're just trying to hold onto the rest.
but Dan we know
February 17, 2009 - 21:57 ET by botgwho the original residents are, they are still here running the casinos
“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” -- Chief Justice John Roberts
You had to go there!!!
February 17, 2009 - 22:10 ET by Dan DiegoWhile still taking BIA funds (I think), not sharing with tribes that have yet to build a Casino and exerting their financial muscle into state (Rnulled) politics.
I read this
February 17, 2009 - 19:41 ET by RD Kingstory this am on Drudge and it never occured to me that this was anyone but democrats even without being told. This tax will cripple the industry and ruin a thriving economy and who else would do such a thing?
Hey brainiacs
February 17, 2009 - 19:52 ET by jed58Hey brainiacs, people will just not buy and you will get nothing
All I have to say about
February 17, 2009 - 19:56 ET by Clear thinkerAll I have to say about this is... they better not do that to my beer, I own guns!
Fake Patriotism @ BornAgainAmerican
Making Fun of AGW http://giovanniworld.wordpress.com/
More social engineering through the tax code
February 17, 2009 - 20:02 ET by GalvanicMaybe it's time to start taxing legislatures. Everytime the raise another tax in the hope of destroying an industry, more tax is taken from their pay checks.
In all fairness, those that
February 17, 2009 - 20:11 ET by Mean Gene Dr. LoveIn all fairness, those that are familiar with Oregon politics, everyone knows they're about as liberal as anyone can get.
Now, I don't drink alcohol. I think this is a bad idea. I don't smoke, I think high taxes on tobacco are a bad idea. I don't support "sin" taxes because you never know what the politicians will deem a "sin" next. Salt? Potato Chips? Soda? Steak? Bottled water?
Some things are going to happen if this tax increase goes into effect:
Politicians never think of the unintended consequences. Any "revenue" they think they are going to raise for the stated purpose of this tax will either be diverted to or offset by spending to fight the ill effects of the tax law.
Heck, I used to live in Clovis, NM...it's about 8 miles from the Texas border. Clovis is in a "dry" county...at least on Sundays it is. It is illegal to purchase alcohol anywhere in the county from Midnight to 11:59pm on Sunday. What does everyone do? They cross the border into Texas to buy it. I have also known some enterprising folks that will stock up on it on other days of the week and sell it to trusted friends and neighbors in their own little black/gray market. It's an antiquated law, it serves no legitimate purpose, it makes people criminals on one day of the week for participating in a transaction that is perfectly legal the other 6 days of the week, and as far as I know, the law is not evenly enforced...only the businesses obey the law because they stand to be fined or lose their business/liquor license if they break the law.
"An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life." --Robert A. Heinlein, "Beyond This Horizon," 1942
Nice how they pay for their
February 17, 2009 - 20:43 ET by general companyNice how they pay for their project with things they supposably want us to stop doing. Kinda like funding SCHIP using a hugh tax on Smokes, even when you dont have enough smokers to fund it, all while using Taxpayers money to get folks to stop smoking. Makes my head spin
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
It just doesn't make
February 17, 2009 - 20:52 ET by Mean Gene Dr. LoveIt just doesn't make sense. If it works as planned, it will eventually bankrupt whatever program relies on the funds...but we all know that government programs never die, they just get subsidized by the tax payers.
"An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life." --Robert A. Heinlein, "Beyond This Horizon," 1942
Mean Gene, I agree with
February 18, 2009 - 00:15 ET by jdhawkMean Gene, I agree with you.
Meanwhile, the company executives at InBev, a Belguim company and the new owners of Budweiser - "America's Beer" are chortling in their executive suite over the stupidity of Oregon lawmakers.
It is certain that brewers will cease to exist in this state.
Here is what happened when the stupidier than dirt dimocrats that controlled the congress at the time did to the yacht and general aviation industries in our country what the Oregon dimocrats want to dot to and what President Bush, 43, did to stop their stupidity:
Falling Tax Would Lift All Yachts
By AGIS SALPUKAS
Published: February 7, 1992
The nation's luxury-boat builders, many
clinging to their businesses after two years of plunging sales, finally
got some good news last week.
President Bush, in his budget
proposals, asked Congress to repeal the 10 percent luxury tax on yachts
priced at more than $100,000 (and also on private planes that cost more
than $250,000). The repeal, which Congress is likely to approve, would
be retroactive to Feb. 1.
Since the tax took effect in January
1990, hundreds of builders of large and small boats have spoken of it
as a stake driven into the heart of an industry already suffering from
the recession, tighter bank rules on financing and fallout from the
gulf war.
In the last two years, about 100 builders of luxury
boats -- recreational craft costing more than $100,000 -- cut their
operations severely and laid off thousands of workers. Some builders
filed for protection from creditors under Chapter 11 of the Federal
Bankruptcy Code.
Now, sales personnel and owners of marine
companies are hoping they will be swamped by buyers who have held off
in the expectation that the tax will be repealed.
The 10
percent tax applies to the amount of the cost above $100,000, so that a
boat selling for $300,000 carries a $20,000 luxury tax. That tax is in
addition to any state and local taxes.
We lived just outside of Alburquerque
February 18, 2009 - 08:09 ET by sdanfor awhile and the funniest thing about that law was that you couldn't go into the grocery or convience store to buy liquer but all the bars were open. So you could go to the bar get tanked up and drive home but you couldn't go buy beer to get tanked up at home.
They do that in Minnesota too
February 18, 2009 - 13:35 ET by CobraManThey do that in Minnesota too. The liquor stores close at 8 pm on the weekdays, the bars at 1 am. On Saturday, the liquor stores close at 10 pm, the bars at 2 am. The liquor stores are closed all day on Sunday, but the bars are open from noon to 1 am. They open only after noon on Sunday so people don't attend church drunk, apparently.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities
of Citizens in the several States.
The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus.
The US Supreme Court
This is the EXACT opposite of a good idea
February 17, 2009 - 21:04 ET by c5thenWhat happens when Beer sales drop by 50% (or more) and the small breweries have to lay off 50% of their workforce and they wind up getting state unemployment and welfare? How much net revenue is that bill really going to bring in?
Hey, I got the wrong "CHANGE"!
Alan Keyes / Sarah Palin - 2012
c5... ...but wait, they
February 17, 2009 - 21:20 ET by bigtimerc5...
...but wait, they (Oregon) have this as their next plan, and it is coming down the road sooner than they think last I heard since I saved the link, I imagine other states will be following this plan...
Like the song says....Every Step You Make...
http://www.dhonline.com/articles/2008/12/28/news/local/1aaa02_road.txt
Same problem here
February 17, 2009 - 21:36 ET by c5thenRight now anyone who buys gas in Oregon pays the State gasoline tax. With their new plan, only Oregon residents are charged per in-state mile while the non-residents still pay the gas tax. What is to stop those that live on the periphery of the state from crossing the border in order to get cheaper gas and avoid the mileage tax?
Hey, I got the wrong "CHANGE"!
Alan Keyes / Sarah Palin - 2012
Designated drivers
February 17, 2009 - 21:49 ET by Dan Diegowill be needed for Border Beer runs to minimize the mileage tax iot avoid the beer tax.
Given the dimension of the
February 17, 2009 - 21:32 ET by JerGiven the dimension of the underage drinking problem which currently plagues Oregon--eighth grade alcohol consumption is 76% higher than the national average, 50% of eleventh graders are drinkers--party identification of the bill's sponsors might reasonably be considered favorable publicity which "liberal biased" media reports should have noted.
Jer
Jer you would have loved Mao's Red Guard
February 17, 2009 - 22:08 ET by CTHell maybe you were one.
Mao? Nah...Thought
February 18, 2009 - 00:05 ET by JerMao? Nah...Thought about it. Actually started out on the "6000 mile march" with him but dropped out after a couple of blocks. Took the bus home.
Jer
So let's raise taxes!
February 17, 2009 - 23:06 ET by CobraMan"Given the dimension of the underage drinking problem which currently plagues Oregon"
So let's raise beer taxes! That will fix the problem, NOT! All it will do is make kids switch from beer to hard alcohol, which will now be cheaper than beer.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities
of Citizens in the several States.
The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus.
The US Supreme Court
Jer, Please tell me that
February 18, 2009 - 10:41 ET by fitzfongJer,
Please tell me that you're not using the "for the children" justification to excuse this greedy tax grab. As a native Californian, I can't tell you how many times I've seen the State's Democrats (and Meathead Reiner) pull this shell game to sneak tax increases through the back door. Legislators have seen the writing on the wall: when previously disengaged citizens notice that their income taxes are going up (again), they start to engage. They begin to scrutinize the unchecked spending patterns of their legislature and they send clear signals that they will not tolerate further income taxes...especially when there's all that wasteful government spending. But greedy legislators will not do with less...every pork project is "essential"...so they have to develop alternate "revenue sources" from which to derive the taxes they want. What better way to do that than to play to the moral superiority of the clean living family types? Make villains out of tobacco companies, distillers, brewers and their customers, trot out some dubious statistics about 2nd Hand Smoke, liquor advertising and childhood alcoholism and give those who don't smoke or drink a self-righteous pat on the back for avoiding these vices. Oh, the State needs to plug a "revenue gap"? Why don't we just add an extra "sin" tax to soak those filthy smokers...they can afford the extra buck or two, and it might get them to think twice about their nasty habits? Childhood obesity is increasing? Why don't we attach an anti-obesity tax on carbonated beverages and fast food? We can protect the children from themselves and force the "junk food pushers" to reconsider the future relevance of their product lines. Legislators like this will often use a victim class as a shield to justify their tax increases...and they'll appeal to families by suggesting that they won't be financially affected (only the selfish, irresponsible pleasure seekers will be affected...and either they will gladly absorb the extra tax to feed their nasty habits, or they will give them up...a win/win).
The problem is that this sin tax idea does affect purchase decisions...and the results are never good. Retailers either have to absorb a loss in revenue caused by the tax grab, or they have to raise prices and hope that customers will continue to buy at previous levels. Consumers will then decide whether they can afford the higher prices...and when they inevitably cut back, the state loses income tax revenue down the production and distribution chain. And because consumers cut back due to price sensitivity, the revenues generated by the new tax typically fall well short of projections. And since legislators can't seem to distinguish between essential services and pet projects, they often refuse to cut scheduled increases from the budget (instead dishonestly portraying projected cuts to scheduled increases as deep cuts to essential services...police, fire, emergency rooms, schools). Then they make a show of threatening teacher layoffs, reductions in police and fire budgets, skeleton staffs at the DMV (and you thought 5 hours in line at the DMV was bad) or a forced release of tens of thousands of violent felons from the prison system. Pretty soon, they frighten the electorate into softening for a sales tax or income tax increase...for the children.
But this proposed 1900% tax increase on beer in Oregon is the work of a handful of unhinged socialists misreading the results of November's elections as an endorsement of heavy-handed, class envy-driven tax grabs. A smart politician with similar objectives would simply try to enact this kind of tax on an incremental basis...perhaps 1.9% at first working towards that 1900%. It would still be a terrible idea, but not a blatant enough violation to get many people to sit up and take notice. If I was a Democrat in Oregon...especially with the understanding of how important the craft brewing industry is to the local economy and the regional identity...I would stay away from this steaming pile as if my life were on the line. In fact, I would make a public show of how opposed to this idea I am and call out the individuals responsible for having shamed my Party.
-fitz
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery." -Winston Churchill
fitz..."Greedy tax grabs"
February 19, 2009 - 00:08 ET by Jer"Greedy tax grabs" are no more appealing to me than they are to you or, presumably, anyone else. And if this proposal is perceived as such by a sufficient number of Oregonians, it is doubtful the bill will ever be brought to a vote in its present form. However, the more specific point of my post, albeit only briefly, obliquely, and inadequately addressed, was this: Considering the well-entrenched NewsBusters view of AP bias in favor of liberals and Democrats, one would assume the reportage of this story would be couched in language wholly sympathetic to the supporters of the subject legislation. Thus, it would have been far more consistent with that view if AP had structured the article entirely different from that which the reader was actually presented. For example, consider this hypothethical headlining...
Revenue bill proposed by state Democrats to fund programs combatting underage drinking attacked by Oregon beer peddlers.
Booze bigwigs squeal over tax hike
Now that's biased reporting. Instead, if there were any prejudicial slant in the wording of AP article, it leaned toward the manufacturere and distributors and the apparent unfairness of a staggering 1900% proposed tax increase being levied against them.
Here are some additional facts upon which the bill is predicated [and omitted from the AP account]:
--Oregon ranks 49th among states in its malt beverage taxation rate
--Oregon's malt beverage tax has not been raised in 32 years
--Oregon's untreated substance abuse costs $967 million for enforcement and social serives [and when added to lost earnings and health care] totals $5.13 billion
--only 2% of Oregon youth who need substance abuse services receive the help they need
--underage drinkers consume 15.3% of all alcohol sold in Oregon in 2005 providing an estimated $135 million in profits to the alcohol industry [italics mine throughout]
On the one hand you acknowledge that a "sin tax" such as this "does affect purchase decisions" but nevertheless conclude "the results are never good". Can you explain the apparent contradiction inherent in your statement, or do you consider that making alcohol less affordable to teens thereby reducing a.) purchase, b.) consumption, and c.) the social pathologies associated with underage drinking to be "bad" results?
You, as a small [or at least smaller] government conservative make a compelling argument with regard to the manner in which tax and spending bills are often loaded into emotion-tugging Trojan horses to stampede a sympathetic but largely uninformed and unsuspecting public. However, in this case, the "children" are not abstract props, and while the beer manufacturers [like tobacco industry moguls] may not be "villains", they hardly occupy the moral high ground.
Jer
Jer, You make a fair
February 19, 2009 - 01:22 ET by fitzfongJer,
You make a fair point about the AP/Party bias issue...if one assumes an ideological bias, it might make sense for AP to bend over backwards to ID the Party. That said, I believe that the size of the proposed tax increase is so out-of-proportion that it invites universal ridicule...and, once again assuming ideological bias, it might then make sense for AP to bend over backwards to cover up the Party ID.
On the one hand you acknowledge that a "sin tax" such as this "does affect purchase decisions" but nevertheless conclude "the results are never good". Can you explain the apparent contradiction inherent in your statement, or do you consider that making alcohol less affordable to teens thereby reducing a.) purchase, b.) consumption, and c.) the social pathologies associated with underage drinking to be "bad" results?
I don't see any particular contradiction in my position that the results of "sin taxes" are never good. Affordability should really have nothing to do with teen access to alchohol. We have laws that make underaged drinking illegal, and the addition of a sin tax on all purchases is hardly a substitute for proper enforcement of those laws. The only way a teenager can secure alcohol for purchase is by breaking the law. Sin taxes effectively create slush funds for pet projects, but in terms of generating tax revenues to close a budget gap, they tend to have a negative effect. Consumer attrition based on price sensitivity leads to revenues falling short of projections...and the income losses down the supply chain reduce income tax revenues. So the sin tax actually has the opposite effect on revenue generation than it is intended to have...it's ineffective social and economic policy.
Wow, it's late! I better get some sleep. We'll hit it up again tomorrow if you're interested. Good night, Jer.
-fitz
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery." -Winston Churchill
fitz... Of course,
February 20, 2009 - 03:15 ET by Jerfitz...
Of course, underage consumption of alcohol is just one part--although, as you suggest, the most emotionally vulnerable and facile--of a multi-faceted issue. To be honest, I have no idea what the historical record is with respect to the social and economic impact of "sin taxes" such as the one Oregon has proposed. I'll try to dig up the most "objective" information available--if indeed such evidence exists--and then return to the discussion.
Later, Jer
Jer, As you know, I grew
February 20, 2009 - 12:22 ET by fitzfongJer,
As you know, I grew up in and lived most of my life in California. We're very used to the sales tax in its various forms (straight sales tax/"value-added" tax/sin tax, etc.). For example, once a year, Californians are required to pay a "vehicle license fee"...ostensibly designed to pay for using the public streets and highways. The funds generated from this fee are supposed to pay for road repairs to keep conditions safe. But anyone who's driven on the 5 freeway from Buena Park through Downtown L.A. knows that that's hardly the case. One of the primary issues that led to the Recall of Gray Davis was the fact that he signed legislation that tripled the annual vehicle license fee...as it turns out, this "fee" (a term they used as an alternative to "tax" so they could get around the 2/3 requirement and pass the legislation with a simple majority) was regressive...potential car buyers had a disincentive to purchase vehicles because the additional fee made them unaffordable. Ultimately, this decision had a negative impact down the distribution and production line (cars aren't selling...dealers either had to mark down the price and eat the cost or accumulate excess inventory...stunting the natural demand for new inventory). Meanwhile, a sales tax is applied to purchases of gasoline...also ostensibly to improve roads and deal with various environmental regulations. The problem there is that the legislature has a habit of overspending on a litany of social programs and entrenched administrative costs...and have often raided these gas tax revenues, which were originally "earmarked" for road construction and improvements, to cover the budget deficit caused by increased social and entitlement spending. The theory is that the government can always come back to the taxpayer to accept new taxes through referendum if those taxes are said to be going towards police/fire/schools/roads...taxpayers, some believe, will let the sense of urgency over an imminent budget disaster (and the threatened loss of essential services) overcome their tendency to question why the last round of taxes were insufficient to fund these essentials in the first place.
Another issue that excessive sales/sin taxes bring is that of overly-optimistic revenue projections. For example, if you live in a state like California that has a whole host of VATs, you might be inclined not to quit your nasty habit, but to drive to a neighboring state without such taxes and restrictions to purchase your vice in bulk. Tax cigarettes too much and California's loss could become Nevada's gain. Now, before anyone dismisses this idea as silly, remember that Las Vegas is less than a 5 hour drive from LA...one can make a nice short trip out of it and return with enough cigarettes, alcohol, furniture, etc. to make the tax savings more than worth the drive, the fuel costs, the time away from home and the hotel stay (people will go to great lengths to find bargains...especially in this economy)...just don't get caught speeding in Barstow.
For all we know, the Oregon legislators in question may believe that they're doing the Lord's work. They may feel like they're righteous crusaders seeking to enact tax policy to stop widespread teen alcohol abuse (though I still believe it's more likely they're using teens as props to make taxes more palatable than they're hoping to make them beneficiaries of enlightened legislation)...but there's always the law of unintended consequences with which to deal. A tax like this would essentially cannibalize an industry and the State for which this tax is designed to assist.
-fitz
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery." -Winston Churchill
exactly fitz
February 20, 2009 - 13:14 ET by candanceThe state of Delaware has no sales tax. People from Philly drive down there all the time to buy anything that costs more than a hundred dollars. In fact as soon as you cross the state line you can see a strip mall right there to go and buy some things.
Virginia has cheaper gas tax than NC. Anyone who lives within 20 miles of the border will drive up there for gas and you can find gas stations sitting within yards of the state line.
And you are correct, such taxes are always done with a promise the money will be spent wisely and then it never is. Gas taxes, sales taxes, tolls, and car registration taxes are all supposed to pay for better roads yet how many libs run around screaming that we don't have any money for infrastructure.
But acts of kindness and generosity must be free and voluntary; no man has a right to compel another to follow his conscience. This is a concern which lies between a man and his God.
-Richard Fuhrman, pro slave advocate, 1823
sorry Jer
February 19, 2009 - 11:53 ET by candanceBut I still disagree with the entire premise of a sin tax. If kids want to drink they will find a way to drink, and the solution to that is limiting their access to beer. Forcing middle age men to pay ridiculous prices on behalf of stupid teenagers is a bad idea. By that logic we should tax everything dangerous to a child.
I love how you inform us Oregon has a low malt tax that hasn't gone up in 32 years. So what? Is there some law that says taxes have to go up every so often?
You really think kids care about how much beer costs? Can you honestly see frat boys at a party saying "sorry no booze anymore it's too expensive." That's not the way it works. The only people this ends up hurting are working adults.
But acts of kindness and generosity must be free and voluntary; no man has a right to compel another to follow his conscience. This is a concern which lies between a man and his God.
-Richard Fuhrman, pro slave advocate, 1823
candance...
February 20, 2009 - 03:31 ET by JerI love how you inform us Oregon has a low malt tax that hasn't gone up in 32 years. So what? Is there some law that says taxes have to go up every so often?
I'm just forwarding information contained in the preamble of the proposed legislation. No, there is no law mandating periodic tax hikes, but the fact that Oregon is 49th with respect to the rate the beer folks are taxed, and the further fact that the applicable rate hasn't changed in 32 years, suggest that it lags far behind the average time lapse found in nearly every other state.
You really think kids care about how much beer costs? Can you honestly see frat boys at a party saying "sorry no booze anymore it's too expensive." That's not the way it works. The only people this ends up hurting are working adults.
To your first question, yes. To the second question, probably not. But, maybe they'll go back to swallowing goldfish [after soaking them in pure grain alcohol.] :-) As far as only hurting working adults, see my second response to fitz above. Will try to find some data.
Jer
OMO Jer
February 18, 2009 - 10:59 ET by candanceSay Jer, a lot of teens drive irresponsibly too, so from now on you have to pay 200 a month for car insurance to fund education projects. Oh but don't worry, it's a voluntary tax, if you don't like it you can take the bus. And way too many kids are getting diabetes so all soda and junk food will now come with a 50 dollar tax, to fund education of course. And pedophiles are meeting too many kids online so from now on we'll add 50 bucks to your monthly internet bill for education.
Don't have the money to pay for all that? Don't worry - Obama is sending you a stilumuls check.
But acts of kindness and generosity must be free and voluntary; no man has a right to compel another to follow his conscience. This is a concern which lies between a man and his God.
-Richard Fuhrman, pro slave advocate, 1823
First they heavily taxed
February 17, 2009 - 21:52 ET by RR GOPFirst they heavily taxed cigarettes.
But I don't smoke, so I said nothing.
Then they heavily taxed the beer....
-------------------------------------------
I think a %1900 tax on lecture fees by radicals and former presidents would be apropos.
One of the 24% who thinks George W. Bush was a great President. One of the 89% who wants to bring back the stock and pillory.
Brewers Unite
February 17, 2009 - 21:55 ET by DoktorFrankenIf I were a brewer I would get all the other brewers in the state to tell all of the Oregon state lawmakers that they will let go all of their employees and shut down their businesses if this tax goes into effect. I wonder how many taxes the state will collect then?
Sounds 'over-the-top'? If they let the state do whatever they want with taxes the brewers will go out of business soon enough. Rich people can afford expensive beer but how many rich people will there be in a year or two?
Fight now and fight to win.
Sounds like its time for a Portland Beer Party to me
February 17, 2009 - 22:20 ET by R D Helm-Dave
Our clueless political leaders are about to drive us all over a cliff. The time to HITM is now-before we go over.
R D
February 18, 2009 - 01:12 ET by DoktorFrankenWhat a great idea!
Pull the lever and then pull the tap.
Dok... LOL...Even a
February 18, 2009 - 01:16 ET by bigtimerDok...
LOL...Even a caveman can do it!
Dok, yeah, but I at least want free samples first.
February 18, 2009 - 01:19 ET by R D HelmA lot of 'em. :-)
-Dave
Our clueless political leaders are about to drive us all over a cliff. The time to HITM is now-before we go over.
Suuure, and the cops would
February 17, 2009 - 22:32 ET by RR GOPSuuure, and the cops would be all over them with about 25 units there and would take them away because, well, just because.
AIM would send them death threats for dressing up like Indians, the conservationists would sue them for polluting the water, Democrat state officials would be investigating the tax status and any past divorces of all the participants, the FBI would be involved...
A lot has changed since 1773.
One of the 24% who thinks George W. Bush was a great President. One of the 89% who wants to bring back the stock and pillory.
RR, you're right, we are becoming more like a police state
February 17, 2009 - 23:32 ET by R D Helmhttp://www.thesmokin...
What was I thinking?
-Dave
Our clueless political leaders are about to drive us all over a cliff. The time to HITM is now-before we go over.
Their doing the same in
February 17, 2009 - 23:28 ET by TN MomTheir doing the same in Kentucky, with whisky. The owners of the Distillerys (sic) just last week had a Protest Tea Party on the steps of the State Capitol...instead of tea, they poured WHISKY, er Bourbon, on the steps to protest raising taxes to balance the budget.
This is the Democrats perverse punishment of Fly-Over, Joe Six-Pack, Middle America. Next thing you know they will raise taxes on our guns, religion, and daily driving mileage.
I need a drink!
TNMom
February 18, 2009 - 00:15 ET by thebutlerdiditThere's no need to take your guns, the new porkulus bill calls for all ammunition serial numbers to be recorded at sale. They will know who has weapons, what kind, and how much you shoot them. Then, if they want them, they know right where to go. Handy, huh?
All a Democrat needs is the upper-story window of public attention and the chamber pot of rhetoric. How else to explain the rise of Joe Biden? P.J. O' Rourke
Back door
February 18, 2009 - 08:13 ET by sdangun registration.
Typical Liberal Game Plan
February 18, 2009 - 08:03 ET by pagg30"Lawmakers who support the tax say the bill would fund prevention and treatment programs for those addicted to alcohol, as well as raise revenue for the state."
Villify it and tax the hell out of it.
Like
February 18, 2009 - 08:14 ET by sdanthey really care about the people who are addicted it's all about the money.
These Oregon morons have
February 20, 2009 - 12:31 ET by NL207These Oregon morons have forgotten prohibition.