Craft Beverage Act in Congress

I'm always down for tax cuts. Let's hope the two sides can come togther for this.

Oh, who am I kidding....those bastards would argue over what color the sky is

 

I support using the nuclear option to get this bill passed.

Seriously though, can anyone else provide a more informative link of what this bill is supposed to do? The article above is very general and fluffy. What is the definition of "Craft" for this? What is the tax cut specifically? What other craft "beverages" are included? (e.g. wine, ciders, mead, distilling)? Winners/supporters vs. Losers/opponents?

 

Just a new name for the various tax cut bills that both the Brewers Association and Beer Institute have been trying to pass for the last several years. Craft Beverage Act

Obviously, it does not only apply to "craft brewers" by anyone's definition

 

To many legislators beer/alcohol is an easy revenue stream. In a climate of drastic cuts to many long term programs, that "easy" money becomes gold. I would love to see cheaper beer, but it's hard to imagine that happening.

 

Yes 60,000 bbl/year is a decent size brewing operation to be sure and two million is obviously even bigger than Lagunitas and Sierra. So the bill would benefit small brewers but even ones on the larger size. In addition to halving the excise tax for smaller breweries it would also expand the list of ingredient that brewers have preapproved at their disposal without having to wait for federal approval and it would remove tax liability for collaboration beers. I don't know enough of the details on the latter but I suspect this is at least a part of the reason that collabs are typically only sold at the brewery where they were made.

 

The current FET of $7.50/bbl. on "craft" beer from a brewery under 60k bbl/yr accounts for about 2.2¢ of a 12 oz. bottle. If they cut the FET in half as proposed, that'd drop down to 1.1¢.

Now that'd be a relief to the pocketbook IF the brewers pass along the savings...

Since it's Repeal Day, brewers in 1933 were paying $5/bbl., so that was about 1.5¢ a bottle - when a bottle of beer typically cost 10¢ off-premise retail.

So, the Feds got 15% of the price of grandpa's beer and they get about 1.3% - 5% (on a 6m bbl. macro's beer) today.

 

Plus, it's not like the supporters of the bill can say that the tax rate is stunting growth of the industry .

 

In case someone would like to read the text in its entirety: https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/236/all-info

 

I think I was being a touch "ironic" in the piece that you quoted. Insert emoticon.

 

That's all fine and good, and damned good historical reference, but my major point was simply that relenting on "sin" taxes bound for the treasury is anathema to legislators of all stripes. The price of beer is irrelevant, we'll pay for it! Or brew our own.

 

Yeah the OP's article is not very good as far as what exactly the Craft Beverage Act even is. General fluff indeed.

I've got no problem with the current federal excise taxes. Beer is a luxury item imo and should be taxed as such. And a measly 2.2c to 1.1c per 12oz bottle? As @jessk implied, breweries are not going to pass any realized savings on to consumers, let's be real here. F this act I say.

 

Both trade organizations got behind the Wyden bill. Before, they each had their own versions. Wonder if will pass in this Session of Congress?

 

From a huge savings in your pocketbook standpoint there's not much there at all, but the article didn't argue that. However from a brewery money in their pocket and pain in their neck stand point it's quite relevant. If you support Joe Schmo start up brewery churning out a mere 5,000 bbl/year that's $17,500 more for them to scale their operation, advertise, add salaries, etc. So yes it would inevitably be beneficial to breweries. If you support local craft or are even frustrated with breweries who aren't scaling enough then this is certainly relevant.