1. The wait is over! Download the BeerAdvocate app on iTunes or Google Play now.
  2. Get 12 issues / year of BeerAdvocate magazine for only $9.99!

Beer Institute: Most Expensive Ingredient in Beer is Taxes

Discussion in 'Beer News' started by yemenmocha, Sep 28, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. JuniperJesus

    JuniperJesus Savant (430) Illinois Feb 26, 2011

    Candy has no nutritional value but it's taxed as regular food in Illinois. If we're gonna start playing Health Police, let's go after the most obvious killer in society today: sugar. We would benefit more from a tax on soda than beer.
    thebigredone likes this.
  2. Keith238

    Keith238 Savant (290) New Jersey Jul 31, 2007

    I think that even though the term "sin tax" WAS originally imposed on things people have a moral objection to, it's not meant the same way anymore. "Luxury tax" may be more appropriate because that's what beer really is, a luxury and not necessarily a healthy one at that. As alpineclimber mentioned, other "unhealthy" products should be taxed as well. I'm a firm believer that soda (or pop depending on where you're from) should not be cheaper than water or juice. Tax the hell out of it. People shouldn't drink it, at least not in the quantities that we Americans do. Taxes are high on cigarettes because the tax serves 2 masters: A) to discourage unhealthy behavior and B) to collect a massive amount of taxes (because cigarettes are more addictive than many illegal drugs so people continue to buy regardless of the price).
  3. I've always gotten my deposit money back from the retailers when I returned the empties - with no interference from the government bureaucracy or the need to file any refund forms.

    (It also comes as no surprise to me that taxes of all sorts go :eek:"...straight to the government!" )
  4. yojimbo1

    yojimbo1 Initiate (0) Kansas Feb 26, 2012

    The irony here is that the price of the candy is being artificially suppressed by government subsidies on corn that keeps high fructose corn syrup super cheap which of course is the reason it's in everything. There is no need for additional taxes, just remove the subsidies.
    GeezLynn and TheRealDBCooper like this.
  5. cavedave

    cavedave Champion (930) New York Mar 12, 2009

    This sounds good on paper but it is actually just a convenient justification for imposition of morality via taxation. Unless it is your observation that the taxes collected via these morality regulations are used solely as a means to combat the unhealthy effects of whatever product you feel is unhealthy, it actually is a punishment meted out to those whose morality doesn't match those in power. Corn syrup usage is considered morally agreeable by the powers that be, though it arguably contributes as much as cigarettes, alcohol, gasoline or any other product you can name to public unhealthiness. Yet the extra taxes we pay on the morally reprehensible products, including beer, go to pay tax subsidies on corn. No sir, should we be free we would not need to regulate our enjoyments at the behest of a master whose morality matches not our own. I argue for freedom. I argue we will go broke in the efforts to regulate the morality of our citizens, and long before those efforts achieve any of their desired effects.
    Horbar and TMoney2591 like this.
  6. billandsuz

    billandsuz Savant (380) New York Sep 1, 2004

    Not everyone agrees with your moral standards.
    Just to be sure, you are upset that people in the position of power do not treat beer the same way they treat corn syrup, and therefore the taxation scheme is wrong.

    so basically, your morals are correct but your freedom is restrained because not everyone is in agreement with you. i imagine the corn farmer disagrees with your morals.

    interesting.
  7. cavedave

    cavedave Champion (930) New York Mar 12, 2009

    Government should not be imposing morals. I can impose morals on my children. I do not want my government to be the imposer of morality. I would like them to protect me from foreign invasion, and make those projects that need a large central governing body.

    Government cannot regulate morality, perhaps you will look around you at almost every major problem facing the world right now and realize this is true. I do not want to be penalized by govt. for what I believe, nor wish govt. to penalize or reward what others believe. This is pretty simple, give it another shot.

    I advocate not spending the time and money to try to do something that cannot be done, and ought not to be done. If you want to argue this issue let's start here. Prohibition. Your move.
  8. From what I remember the government makes more money than anyone else on a sale from a pack of cigarettes. I don't smoke. Never have smoked. Don't particularly care for smoking. But that is pure bullshit. I'm tired of "sin" taxes, "luxury" taxes, and every other tax the "bad" thing taxes.

    And for fuck's sake stop subsidizing shit. If you want to spend money to make something cheaper invest in R&D.
    cavedave likes this.
  9. billandsuz

    billandsuz Savant (380) New York Sep 1, 2004

    simple. you think taxes are a punishment. i think taxes are the cost of civil society.
    you give to society (beer tax) and you take from society (protection from foreign invasion, which you believe is OK in your example). all of those battleships cost real money Dave. it is not immoral to ask people who consume a luxury to pay for the battleships.

    the banning of alcohol, aka prohibition, is not at all the same as taxing alcohol.
    Cheers.
  10. cavedave

    cavedave Champion (930) New York Mar 12, 2009

    You have it backwards. My point is it is wrong to take money from some people because you think their actions and beliefs are immoral. My other point is I think it is wrong to spend money you take from everyone to regulate the actions and beliefs of some people government believes are acting immorally (prohibitions).

    Your point is it is okay to spend money to protect all with money taken only from some. Your other point is it is okay to regulate morality based on governments' beliefs about what is moral and what is not. Your protest that one is not the other is not true, it is all about prohibition, and the difference is degree of prohibition.

    My final point is that all your points don't work, never have, never will, and will bankrupt whatever economy tries to enforce them. I again urge you to take a look around to find the truth of this.
  11. Well, I do mind the ever-increasing tax burden on all of us since there's so much waste, fraud and abuse in government spending.
    franklinn likes this.
  12. DonDirkA

    DonDirkA Savant (400) Arizona Dec 14, 2011

    Gas
  13. DonDirkA

    DonDirkA Savant (400) Arizona Dec 14, 2011

    When we first established income tax is was something like 1% for people under $100,000/yr, 10% for people over. If we just did something like that but adjusted for today's world we wouldn't need all these silly consumption taxes, luxury taxes, tax taxes, and fee taxes
  14. stupac2

    stupac2 Initiate (0) California Feb 22, 2011

    If you read the rest of the thread you'll see that I already debunked that. I have absolutely no idea why people think that gas is majority-tax, the US's gasoline taxes are quite low.
    hopfenunmaltz likes this.
  15. If you live in England, sure.
  16. rlcoffey

    rlcoffey Savant (490) Kentucky Apr 20, 2004

    Wrong. Taxes are the cost for failing to have a civilized society.

    But, he isnt necessarily arguing against taxes, he is arguing against the morality based taxation. As I said somewhere upthread, tax all products the same. Milk, beer, corn, sugar, oil, stop subsidizing some and excise taxing others.

    Excise taxes are also the most regressive of the US taxes. According to the CBO, in 2009 (the latest numbers they have released) the quintiles, from bottom to top, paid 1.5%, 0.9%, 0.8%, 0.6%, and 0.4% of their income in excise taxes.
    yojimbo1 and cavedave like this.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page