On the other hand, the state brewers and liquor lobby (yes, we have one of those!) are saying that the cost will be much higher to them and to the consumer. Here's how it breaks down from the perspective of the brewers: all brewers pay a tax of $4.60 for each barrel (thirty one gallons) of beer they make. For one litre bottles of spirits and liquor, the makers are charged $1.33 tax. Wine is also taxed, but varies based on alcohol content. So the tax for each seems pretty low to me and that is how the brewers would like to keep it. With the proposed tax hike, the beer brewers would pay $27.75 for each barrel of beer brewed (I couldn't find information on the new tax price for liquor or wine). Instead of seeing a seven cent per pint and two dollar hike on a case, the brewers are estimating that it would be double that. So, fourteen cents and four dollar respectively.
Now this rate hasn't changed since 1987, so it would be a shock to the brewers to have to pay this new tax. It all comes down to the bottom line for the brewers and how strong their lobby is. Of course they want to keep the tax rate the same, it means that they have to pay less to sell their product. If they pay less, they make more. Business sense says why mess with something that works. The problem is that everyone has to make sacrifices when it comes to the state wide budget. This time, it's the brewers that might have to take the hit. Yes, it is a huge jump going from five dollars to twenty eight, but with them paying so little for so long, it should be time to help out their state. I think that if the proposed tax was about ten to fifteen dollars less you would see less push back from the brewers. Both sides would win, the state is still getting more tax money and the brewers aren't getting taxed as much as first proposed.
People aren't going to stop drinking just because the price goes up. They might drink less in one sitting or they might go from buying a case of beer a week to a case of beer once every two weeks, but isn't that a good thing? Isn't it a little bit healthier for us? These proposed higher taxes aren't going to put brewers out of business, they just won't be making as much of a profit margin as they once were.
Below is a quote from an article in the Star Tribune written by Baird Helgeson.
“I am against it, absolutely against it,” Joe Mangin, 85. “The people who like to drink, we are being discriminated against.”This brings to mind when Wichita was deciding on whether or not to go smokeless in bars. Smokers were up in arms over having to go outside to kill their lungs and save mine. The main argument was that they were being discriminated against because...well that's just it, there never was a good argument. Just because a law has been passed or a tax is in the process of being enacted and it affects you and your vices does not mean the government is discriminating against you. Not being able to drink from a certain water fountain or not being able to marry someone is the government discriminating against you. Know the difference.