Proposal in California to increase tax on wine by $5

N&P: Discuss governments, nations, politics and recent related news here.

Moderators: Alyrium Denryle, Edi, K. A. Pital

User avatar
Akhlut
Sith Devotee
Posts: 2660
Joined: 2005-09-06 02:23pm
Location: The Burger King Bathroom

Proposal in California to increase tax on wine by $5

Post by Akhlut »

Proposal Looks To Raise Tax On Wine 12,675%
Tax Would Raise Wine $5 Per Bottle

POSTED: 4:33 pm PDT April 1, 2010
UPDATED: 9:23 am PDT April 2, 2010

MONTEREY, Calif. --
Local wine growers said a proposal in California to tax wine $5 a bottle will kill their business, and the California economy along with it.

The Alcohol-Related Harm and Damage Services Act of 2010 would increase the excise tax on a bottle of wine 12,675 percent. That means the current tax of 4 cents on a bottle would go up to $5.11.

Money from the tax would fund programs that address alcohol-related injuries and damages.

But growers like Jason Smith of Paraiso Vineyards in Soledad said the tax would shut down business.

"This tax is just short-sighted and is not looking at the whole picture," Smith said. "Beyond trying to keep people out of employment … (it would) put people out of business."

Smith said that right now the hottest product on the wine market are bottles that cost between $7 to $8 and that adding the $5 tax would result in a drastic drop in wine consumption.

The initiative's backers would need 434,000 signatures by August 23 to put the measure on the ballot.

Some growers and wine lovers said, however, that they would be surprised if California passes a measure that would put a big tax on the state's favorite crop.

"I don't think it's good. It would hurt a lot of business in California, especially growers in Monterey County," said Susan Hartsook, of Salinas. "It would be very detrimental to our economy."

Last month, a proposal by state Rep. Jim Beall, D-San Jose, to put a nickel tax on all alcohol sales in the state failed to win support from his colleagues.

Copyright 2010 by KSBW.com. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Source

A lot of the comments on Fark and the article itself reveal a large portion of people pitching a hissy fit over this increase. I personally don't understand it, as it would help to eliminate some problems, such as homeless people continually buying a shitload of 2-Buck Chuck and making it harder for underage kids to buy as much booze. Plus, it isn't like it would stop people from drinking (witness Prohibition), so it would be a good stream of tax revenue for California.
SDNet: Unbelievable levels of pedantry that you can't find anywhere else on the Internet!
Bluewolf
Dishonest Fucktard
Posts: 1165
Joined: 2007-04-23 03:35pm
Location: UK

Re: Proposal in California to increase tax on wine by $5

Post by Bluewolf »

Two things:

1. People love their drink and taxing it makes it slightly harder to get. You will often see people get quite defensive over alcohol pricing sometimes .

2. People hate higher taxes. This one should be obvious. Most people don't want to pay mroe for something.

With Californian economy in a sad sad state of affairs I think it is not an unwarrented idea yet they need to be careful not to destroy the wine industry in the process. With careful steps they should be able to strike a good balance.
User avatar
Mr Bean
Lord of Irony
Posts: 22466
Joined: 2002-07-04 08:36am

Re: Proposal in California to increase tax on wine by $5

Post by Mr Bean »

It seems the basic economics of the situations escaped both of you, so let me try and explain what a massively bad idea this increase is. Not because of an increase but because of it's size.

Let take a comparison, this increase is roughly a 60% increase on the cost of most wine bottles (The 7$ bottle) to 12$ a bottle. That's a massive increase, to take a comparsion lets say we slapped and equivalent 60% tax on the cost of soda so every single 2 liter of coke/pepsi whatever now costs you 2.10$ instead of 1.29$. And a twelve pack? 6.35$ Needless to say that would lead to a massive drop in consumption.

That's what the wine growers fear, that massive drop in consumption while bad for California would be disastrous for them since they have to you know... make money?
So while the governement will simply collect less taxes (Due to less overall wine consumption and of course because growers are not making money to pay taxes anymore) you have a decent sized group of people now out of jobs and probably now on government support.

The increase is not bad, the size of the increase is insane. You want to throw a 25 cent tax on? Fine, you want to throw a 1$ tax on there? Fine, you want to throw a 1.5$ tax on there? Well then we need to start crunching numbers to see if decrease consumption offsets the higher tax collected. But five dollars? That's crazy huge.

"A cult is a religion with no political power." -Tom Wolfe
Pardon me for sounding like a dick, but I'm playing the tiniest violin in the world right now-Dalton
Bluewolf
Dishonest Fucktard
Posts: 1165
Joined: 2007-04-23 03:35pm
Location: UK

Re: Proposal in California to increase tax on wine by $5

Post by Bluewolf »

OK, on that note I concede on that. I was not aware of that.
User avatar
Akhlut
Sith Devotee
Posts: 2660
Joined: 2005-09-06 02:23pm
Location: The Burger King Bathroom

Re: Proposal in California to increase tax on wine by $5

Post by Akhlut »

Soft drinks, however, don't cause the immediate adverse affects of alcohol.

Further, as of 2005, California had over 170,000 homeless people (source), doubtless more today, and somewhere between 40-60% of homeless men and 10-30% of homeless women have alcohol problems (source), meaning that a significant tax increase might help to limit that problem.

Further, such tax raises apparently save lives, as a study examining Alaska showed:
CNN Article wrote: Study: Paying more for alcohol saves lives

* Story Highlights
* Study finds fewer alcohol-related deaths in Alaska when alcohol tax was raised
* Researchers report 29 percent drop in 1983, 11 percent drop in 2002 after tax hikes
* Alcohol industry says higher taxes would hurt responsible drinkers and economy
* Advocates say higher taxes are needed to catch up with inflation

(CNN) -- Higher taxes on alcohol can make a night out more expensive but could save lives, according to a study released Thursday.

Each time the state of Alaska raised its alcoholic beverage tax, fewer deaths were caused by or related to alcohol, according to the study that examined 28 years of data.

When Alaska raised its alcohol tax in 1983, deaths caused by or related to alcohol dropped 29 percent. A 2002 tax increase was followed by an 11 percent reduction, according to the study published in the American Journal of Public Health.

"Increasing alcohol taxes saves lives; that's the bottom line," said the study's lead author, Dr. Alexander Wagenaar, a professor at the University of Florida's Department of Epidemiology and Health Policy Research. "The tax increase caused some reduction in consumption of alcohol. The reduction saved lives."

The study, funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, tracked the number of deaths for every quarter in Alaska from 1976 to 2004.

Using information from death certificates, Wagenaar and the co-authors compiled the number of deaths caused by alcohol, such as alcohol poisoning and alcoholic liver disease, and deaths linked to alcohol, such as cirrhosis and chronic pancreatitis. Deaths caused by alcohol-related car accidents or violence were not included.

Deaths from Alaska were compared with data from other states to control for nationwide factors, such as population growth and advanced medical care.

The authors found 23 fewer deaths per year after a 1983 tax hike and 21 fewer deaths per year after a 2002 increase.

Researchers chose to study Alaska after a political debate over the most recent alcohol tax increase in the Last Frontier state.

"No other state in recent years has increased alcohol taxes in the way that Alaska did in 2002," Wagenaar said. "Basically, they conducted the experiment, and we studied it."

Although Alaska has a population of fewer than a million people, the state "is not highly different when looking at epidemiological trends," he said, estimating that about two-thirds of Americans drink.

"There's no reason to think the experience in Alaska would be different than anywhere else," Wagenaar said. "The study looks at the responsiveness of drinking."

The Finland study

Researchers in Finland found similar results when examining the relationship between alcohol taxes and alcohol-positive deaths.

For years, Finland had high alcohol taxes. In March 2004, the Finnish government lowered the taxes nearly 33 to 44 percent to protect domestic sales because officials worried that patrons would flock to neighboring nations in search of cheaper booze.

Consumption levels in Finland increased 50 percent from the previous year. Finnish researchers also found that arrests for drunken and disorderly conduct increased by 11 percent after taxes were lowered.

University of Helsinki researchers used postmortem toxicology tests to determine that alcohol was the underlying cause of death for 1,860 Finns that year, a 20 percent increase from 2003.

"Taxation has indeed been found to be the most cost-effective measure in reducing alcohol consumption," the authors concluded in a 2007 article published in the Addiction journal. "Raising alcohol tax level has low costs and is effective in reducing alcohol consumption and thus alcohol-related harms."

U.S. policy

Unlike with cigarettes, supporters of higher beverage taxes say alcohol has largely avoided scrutiny in the United States.

"When the excise tax on tobacco went up, consumption went down and the diseases associated with tobacco also went down," Wagenaar said. "Now, with the current study, we're finding the same thing for alcohol. Simply adjusting taxes has quite a noticeable rate on alcohol deaths. They parallel each other quite a bit."

In addition to public health implications, state governments should re-examine their alcohol excise taxes on for fiscal reasons, said George Hacker, director of Alcohol Policies Project for the Center for Science in the Public Interest.

Nearly half of the states have had the same alcohol taxes for more than 20 years, and Wyoming hasn't raised its tax on alcohol since the 1930s, thus not keeping up with inflation, Hacker said. The beer tax in Wyoming is less than 2 cents per gallon.

"Given state budgets are in the toilet bowl, it's an available source of revenue that has not been looked to for a very long time," Hacker said. "The tax increases are long overdue. The product doesn't pay its way in covering economic and social costs associated with its use."

Alcohol industry

The American Beverage Licensees, which represents retailers of beer, wine and spirits, opposes alcohol tax increases.

"Based on historical evidence, raising taxes on alcohol beverages would have a highly negative impact on the economy," said Harry Wiles, executive director of the American Beverage Licensees, in an e-mailed statement. "Increasing alcohol taxes could lead diminishing returns for the government should responsible, moderate consumers decrease their consumption."

Raising taxes would penalize more than 100 million responsible alcohol consumers and would not deter the few abusers, who don't cut back when price fluctuates, Wiles said.

"Any across the board tax increase would not target the problem drinker but would simply penalize those who enjoy wine and spirits and drink responsibly," Wine and Spirits Wholesaler of America CEO and President Craig Wolf said in an e-mailed statement.

The industry also sponsors social responsibility programs to help educate consumers, he added.

Efforts to raise alcohol taxes are often thwarted and labeled neo-Prohibitionist by the alcohol industry, Hacker said.

"The legacy of Prohibition leaves sour tastes about doing anything about curbing alcohol use," he said. "It conjures images of Prohibition. The industry stokes it as much as it can. The industry uses the imagery and metaphor of freedom and civil right, almost like it is a civil right to drink, given it was once prohibited."

In the latest barometer of American public opinion, Maine voters overwhelmingly rejected a state law that would've increased the excise tax on alcoholic beverages on Election Day.

The law would've increased excise taxes by 116 percent for beer and wine to fund a controversial state health care program.

Fed Up With Taxes, a Maine coalition of chambers of commerce and various business associations, fought the law.

Ted O'Meara, spokesman of the group, said the argument that higher taxes would reduce alcohol consumption didn't enter the debate, as hard liquor was exempt from the tax hikes.

"Our main point was that this was a massive new tax increase," O'Meara said.

Voters rejected the law by a 2-to-1 ratio.
So, is the tax perhaps too much? Yeah, but increasing the excise tax on alcohol isn't bad and could lead to good results.
SDNet: Unbelievable levels of pedantry that you can't find anywhere else on the Internet!
User avatar
Alyeska
Federation Ambassador
Posts: 17496
Joined: 2002-08-11 07:28pm
Location: Montana, USA

Re: Proposal in California to increase tax on wine by $5

Post by Alyeska »

There is a fatal flaw in your argument. This tax affects Wine only. It does not blanket affect alcohol.
"If the facts are on your side, pound on the facts. If the law is on your side, pound on the law. If neither is on your side, pound on the table."

"The captain claimed our people violated a 4,000 year old treaty forbidding us to develop hyperspace technology. Extermination of our planet was the consequence. The subject did not survive interrogation."
User avatar
TithonusSyndrome
Sith Devotee
Posts: 2569
Joined: 2006-10-10 08:15pm
Location: The Money Store

Re: Proposal in California to increase tax on wine by $5

Post by TithonusSyndrome »

Mr Bean wrote:ILet take a comparison, this increase is roughly a 60% increase on the cost of most wine bottles (The 7$ bottle) to 12$ a bottle.
You know, at a glimpse, it appears as though that's exactly what we've done here in Canada - no proper wine is cheaper than $12, and no, I don't consider coolers sold in pop bottles and marketed as "wine" to count.
Image
User avatar
Uraniun235
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 13772
Joined: 2002-09-12 12:47am
Location: OREGON
Contact:

Re: Proposal in California to increase tax on wine by $5

Post by Uraniun235 »

So why specifically tax wine, and not all alcoholic products? Won't this really hit the California wine export business?
"There is no "taboo" on using nuclear weapons." -Julhelm
Image
What is Project Zohar?
"On a serious note (well not really) I did sometimes jump in and rate nBSG episodes a '5' before the episode even aired or I saw it." - RogueIce explaining that episode ratings on SDN tv show threads are bunk
User avatar
TithonusSyndrome
Sith Devotee
Posts: 2569
Joined: 2006-10-10 08:15pm
Location: The Money Store

Re: Proposal in California to increase tax on wine by $5

Post by TithonusSyndrome »

The export business? Unless they're going to tax it at the winery, I'd think this would cause most winemakers to focus more on exports.
Image
User avatar
Terralthra
Requiescat in Pace
Posts: 4741
Joined: 2007-10-05 09:55pm
Location: San Francisco, California, United States

Re: Proposal in California to increase tax on wine by $5

Post by Terralthra »

I believe they're targeting wine because wine is currently the best bang for one's buck in terms of alcohol volume per dollar spent. Sure, a bottle of tequila or whiskey has more booze than a bottle of wine, but it also costs $15+, compared to a $2-3 bottle of wine. Beer doesn't even typically come in similar volumes, and when it does, it's more expensive and lower proof.
User avatar
Uraniun235
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 13772
Joined: 2002-09-12 12:47am
Location: OREGON
Contact:

Re: Proposal in California to increase tax on wine by $5

Post by Uraniun235 »

I found the following on the initiative; I guess there's also proposed tax increases on liquor and beer, too:
Ballotpedia wrote: Official summary: Imposes an additional excise tax on alcoholic beverages, increasing the excise tax on each six-pack of beer from 11¢ to $6.08, on each 750 ml bottle of wine from 4¢ to $5.11, and on each 750 ml bottle of distilled spirits from 65¢ to $17.57.
Whew! An extra $17 on each bottle of liquor. That's a steep jump. But what's bigger is the beer tax. Another $6 for each six-pack of beer? That's basically an extra dollar per can of beer!

I don't think there's any need to worry about this one passing, there's no way the modern public will vote in favor of jumping beer taxes a dollar a can. :lol:
"There is no "taboo" on using nuclear weapons." -Julhelm
Image
What is Project Zohar?
"On a serious note (well not really) I did sometimes jump in and rate nBSG episodes a '5' before the episode even aired or I saw it." - RogueIce explaining that episode ratings on SDN tv show threads are bunk
User avatar
The Duchess of Zeon
Gözde
Posts: 14566
Joined: 2002-09-18 01:06am
Location: Exiled in the Pale of Settlement.

Re: Proposal in California to increase tax on wine by $5

Post by The Duchess of Zeon »

Akhlut wrote:
Proposal Looks To Raise Tax On Wine 12,675%
Tax Would Raise Wine $5 Per Bottle

POSTED: 4:33 pm PDT April 1, 2010
UPDATED: 9:23 am PDT April 2, 2010

MONTEREY, Calif. --
Local wine growers said a proposal in California to tax wine $5 a bottle will kill their business, and the California economy along with it.

The Alcohol-Related Harm and Damage Services Act of 2010 would increase the excise tax on a bottle of wine 12,675 percent. That means the current tax of 4 cents on a bottle would go up to $5.11.

Money from the tax would fund programs that address alcohol-related injuries and damages.

But growers like Jason Smith of Paraiso Vineyards in Soledad said the tax would shut down business.

"This tax is just short-sighted and is not looking at the whole picture," Smith said. "Beyond trying to keep people out of employment … (it would) put people out of business."

Smith said that right now the hottest product on the wine market are bottles that cost between $7 to $8 and that adding the $5 tax would result in a drastic drop in wine consumption.

The initiative's backers would need 434,000 signatures by August 23 to put the measure on the ballot.

Some growers and wine lovers said, however, that they would be surprised if California passes a measure that would put a big tax on the state's favorite crop.

"I don't think it's good. It would hurt a lot of business in California, especially growers in Monterey County," said Susan Hartsook, of Salinas. "It would be very detrimental to our economy."

Last month, a proposal by state Rep. Jim Beall, D-San Jose, to put a nickel tax on all alcohol sales in the state failed to win support from his colleagues.

Copyright 2010 by KSBW.com. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Source

A lot of the comments on Fark and the article itself reveal a large portion of people pitching a hissy fit over this increase. I personally don't understand it, as it would help to eliminate some problems, such as homeless people continually buying a shitload of 2-Buck Chuck and making it harder for underage kids to buy as much booze. Plus, it isn't like it would stop people from drinking (witness Prohibition), so it would be a good stream of tax revenue for California.
Do you seriously think wine drinkers are the main problem in alcholism, or the guys who drink a twelve-pack of budlight every night? And I wonder what the level of protest would be if this tax was applied to a six-pack of beer, ten dollars for a twelve pack? Half the politicians in California would lose their seats. This is biased and just going after wine because it's perceived as upper class and stuffy and ignoring the endless floods of cheap booze which are the real cause of all those drunk and disorderlies you hear about.
The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. -- Wikipedia's No Original Research policy page.

In 1966 the Soviets find something on the dark side of the Moon. In 2104 they come back. -- Red Banner / White Star, a nBSG continuation story. Updated to Chapter 4.0 -- 14 January 2013.
User avatar
Flagg
CUNTS FOR EYES!
Posts: 12797
Joined: 2005-06-09 09:56pm
Location: Hell. In The Room Right Next to Reagan. He's Fucking Bonzo. No, wait... Bonzo's fucking HIM.

Re: Proposal in California to increase tax on wine by $5

Post by Flagg »

Who cares? Alcoholic products are a luxury item and have a harmful effect on society. Plus don't most wine drinkers pay obscene amounts for certain vintages anyway?
We pissing our pants yet?
-Negan

You got your shittin' pants on? Because you’re about to
Shit. Your. Pants!
-Negan

He who can,
does; he who cannot, teaches.
-George Bernard Shaw
User avatar
Archaic`
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 1647
Joined: 2002-10-01 01:19am
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Contact:

Re: Proposal in California to increase tax on wine by $5

Post by Archaic` »

Most wine drinkers don't buy vintages. They buy large quantities of cheap and nasty wines.

California has the right idea about raising taxes on these products, they tend to be among some of the most resistant products (together with tobacco) to changes in purchasing patterns with changes in price. But an increase of this level is insane, and will have a major impact. Rather than a flat tax, they should really be making the tax percentage based, say 10% of the value of the product. For that matter, has California considered the idea of a GST or a VAT at all? Seems like it would be something that'd help.
Veni Vidi Castravi Illegitimos
User avatar
Master of Ossus
Darkest Knight
Posts: 18213
Joined: 2002-07-11 01:35am
Location: California

Re: Proposal in California to increase tax on wine by $5

Post by Master of Ossus »

Terralthra wrote:I believe they're targeting wine because wine is currently the best bang for one's buck in terms of alcohol volume per dollar spent. Sure, a bottle of tequila or whiskey has more booze than a bottle of wine, but it also costs $15+, compared to a $2-3 bottle of wine. Beer doesn't even typically come in similar volumes, and when it does, it's more expensive and lower proof.
Isn't malt liquor the cheapest alcohol/dollar, though? I always see homeless people in my area drinking that (and leaving their bottles wherever the hell they happen to be when they're empty).

And, yeah, a blanket $5/bottle surtax on a specific class of alcoholic beverages seems ridiculous, although in general I'd be very happy to see a hike in vice taxes. Hopefully this won't pass.
Archaic` wrote:Most wine drinkers don't buy vintages. They buy large quantities of cheap and nasty wines.
I thought ~$10-20/bottle was the "sweet spot" for value wine, and my wine-drinking friends tend to say that some of those can be quite good (although the quality is highly variable).
California has the right idea about raising taxes on these products, they tend to be among some of the most resistant products (together with tobacco) to changes in purchasing patterns with changes in price. But an increase of this level is insane, and will have a major impact. Rather than a flat tax, they should really be making the tax percentage based, say 10% of the value of the product. For that matter, has California considered the idea of a GST or a VAT at all? Seems like it would be something that'd help.
California has a sales tax. A bipartisan State Congress committee briefly considered a "Business Enterprise Tax" a little while ago, which was basically a VAT made by retards for retards (i.e., the people drafting it seem to have thought that a VAT was a good idea and adopted its form without understanding that it created issues when products were imported and exported from the taxing jurisdiction and didn't bother to include any adjustments whatsoever to address these). I don't think it ever went anywhere, as well it should not have.
"Sometimes I think you WANT us to fail." "Shut up, just shut up!" -Two Guys from Kabul

Latinum Star Recipient; Hacker's Cross Award Winner

"one soler flar can vapririze the planit or malt the nickl in lass than millasacit" -Bagara1000

"Happiness is just a Flaming Moe away."
User avatar
The Duchess of Zeon
Gözde
Posts: 14566
Joined: 2002-09-18 01:06am
Location: Exiled in the Pale of Settlement.

Re: Proposal in California to increase tax on wine by $5

Post by The Duchess of Zeon »

Archaic` wrote:Most wine drinkers don't buy vintages. They buy large quantities of cheap and nasty wines.

California has the right idea about raising taxes on these products, they tend to be among some of the most resistant products (together with tobacco) to changes in purchasing patterns with changes in price. But an increase of this level is insane, and will have a major impact. Rather than a flat tax, they should really be making the tax percentage based, say 10% of the value of the product. For that matter, has California considered the idea of a GST or a VAT at all? Seems like it would be something that'd help.
I have no objection with the cheapest bottle of wine cost $10.00, what I have an objection too is a $10.00 bottle abruptly costing $15.00. If you want to price poor people out of the wine market, considering that alcohol is a controlled substance subject to government price controls to begin with, just make it illegal to sell wine for less than $10.00 a bottle.
The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. -- Wikipedia's No Original Research policy page.

In 1966 the Soviets find something on the dark side of the Moon. In 2104 they come back. -- Red Banner / White Star, a nBSG continuation story. Updated to Chapter 4.0 -- 14 January 2013.
User avatar
Sea Skimmer
Yankee Capitalist Air Pirate
Posts: 37390
Joined: 2002-07-03 11:49pm
Location: Passchendaele City, HAB

Re: Proposal in California to increase tax on wine by $5

Post by Sea Skimmer »

Flagg wrote:Who cares? Alcoholic products are a luxury item and have a harmful effect on society. Plus don't most wine drinkers pay obscene amounts for certain vintages anyway?
No, most wine consumed isn’t absurdly expensive at all, especially not anything that comes from California. This is like assuming everyone who likes sports cars buys a Ferrari.
"This cult of special forces is as sensible as to form a Royal Corps of Tree Climbers and say that no soldier who does not wear its green hat with a bunch of oak leaves stuck in it should be expected to climb a tree"
— Field Marshal William Slim 1956
User avatar
aerius
Charismatic Cult Leader
Posts: 14802
Joined: 2002-08-18 07:27pm

Re: Proposal in California to increase tax on wine by $5

Post by aerius »

Say hello to cross state shopping. Head out of state, grab a few cases of wine and that's a couple hundred bucks saved right there. If I lived in California I'd be doing liquor runs with my friends, get a big shopping list together, pool the money, and someone will have a van or station wagon to haul it. Hell, I could probably run a cross state liquor hauling business.
Image
aerius: I'll vote for you if you sleep with me. :)
Lusankya: Deal!
Say, do you want it to be a threesome with your wife? Or a foursome with your wife and sister-in-law? I'm up for either. :P
User avatar
Sea Skimmer
Yankee Capitalist Air Pirate
Posts: 37390
Joined: 2002-07-03 11:49pm
Location: Passchendaele City, HAB

Re: Proposal in California to increase tax on wine by $5

Post by Sea Skimmer »

Yeah that’s how it is in this part of Pennsylvania. Why deal with our heavily taxed highly restrictive state store system when you can just drive into Delaware and buy liquor from a state with no sales tax at all and minimal liquor specific taxes. The stuff is easily a third cheaper, and that quickly justifies making a trip when you additionally factor in that you can also fill up on cheaper gas. Maryland also has stuff that's a fair bit cheaper, and I know people from Virginia make runs in the opposite direction.
"This cult of special forces is as sensible as to form a Royal Corps of Tree Climbers and say that no soldier who does not wear its green hat with a bunch of oak leaves stuck in it should be expected to climb a tree"
— Field Marshal William Slim 1956
User avatar
The Yosemite Bear
Mostly Harmless Nutcase (Requiescat in Pace)
Posts: 35211
Joined: 2002-07-21 02:38am
Location: Dave's Not Here Man

Re: Proposal in California to increase tax on wine by $5

Post by The Yosemite Bear »

california produces micro-brew beers, high quality award winning wines, and shitty cheap stuff like "Thunderbird"
Image

The scariest folk song lyrics are "My Boy Grew up to be just like me" from cats in the cradle by Harry Chapin
User avatar
Master of Ossus
Darkest Knight
Posts: 18213
Joined: 2002-07-11 01:35am
Location: California

Re: Proposal in California to increase tax on wine by $5

Post by Master of Ossus »

Sea Skimmer wrote:Yeah that’s how it is in this part of Pennsylvania. Why deal with our heavily taxed highly restrictive state store system when you can just drive into Delaware and buy liquor from a state with no sales tax at all and minimal liquor specific taxes. The stuff is easily a third cheaper, and that quickly justifies making a trip when you additionally factor in that you can also fill up on cheaper gas. Maryland also has stuff that's a fair bit cheaper, and I know people from Virginia make runs in the opposite direction.
That's a little easier said than done, in California, since most of the population lives ~3 hours away from the nearest state border.

Image

It's easy for people who live in San Diego to go to Mexico and back (sort of--customs and traffic can be annoying), but even for Los Angeles, Mexico's not as convenient as the local liquor store, and it would certainly be a bitch for people living in Sacramento (~3 hours to Nevada) or the Bay Area (~4-5 hours) to get out of Dodge.
"Sometimes I think you WANT us to fail." "Shut up, just shut up!" -Two Guys from Kabul

Latinum Star Recipient; Hacker's Cross Award Winner

"one soler flar can vapririze the planit or malt the nickl in lass than millasacit" -Bagara1000

"Happiness is just a Flaming Moe away."
User avatar
Uraniun235
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 13772
Joined: 2002-09-12 12:47am
Location: OREGON
Contact:

Re: Proposal in California to increase tax on wine by $5

Post by Uraniun235 »

Again, there's no way this initiative is going to pass, not with a $1/can tax hike on beer. It's not even a sure thing that they'll collect enough signatures to get it on the ballot.
"There is no "taboo" on using nuclear weapons." -Julhelm
Image
What is Project Zohar?
"On a serious note (well not really) I did sometimes jump in and rate nBSG episodes a '5' before the episode even aired or I saw it." - RogueIce explaining that episode ratings on SDN tv show threads are bunk
User avatar
Admiral Valdemar
Outside Context Problem
Posts: 31572
Joined: 2002-07-04 07:17pm
Location: UK

Re: Proposal in California to increase tax on wine by $5

Post by Admiral Valdemar »

aerius wrote:Say hello to cross state shopping. Head out of state, grab a few cases of wine and that's a couple hundred bucks saved right there. If I lived in California I'd be doing liquor runs with my friends, get a big shopping list together, pool the money, and someone will have a van or station wagon to haul it. Hell, I could probably run a cross state liquor hauling business.
This is common in the south of England too, where people will routinely get on a Dover to Calais ferry, load up a car at the local hypermart, then head back. The cost of the travel is easily less than the tax they'd have to pay on even the amounts legally declarable, so it's win-win.
User avatar
Gil Hamilton
Tipsy Space Birdie
Posts: 12962
Joined: 2002-07-04 05:47pm
Contact:

Re: Proposal in California to increase tax on wine by $5

Post by Gil Hamilton »

Sea Skimmer wrote:Yeah that’s how it is in this part of Pennsylvania. Why deal with our heavily taxed highly restrictive state store system when you can just drive into Delaware and buy liquor from a state with no sales tax at all and minimal liquor specific taxes. The stuff is easily a third cheaper, and that quickly justifies making a trip when you additionally factor in that you can also fill up on cheaper gas. Maryland also has stuff that's a fair bit cheaper, and I know people from Virginia make runs in the opposite direction.
Heh, it's alot easier to avoid the State Stores when you live in Philly, I think. Sucks for those that live in Pittsburgh, where the easiest route for that is Wheeling, West Virginia. I know people that do that, but they couple it to hitting up the gambling there. It was remarkable who cheap the liquor got when I moved to Arizona, once I was out of the kookiness that is PA Liquor Laws. Incidentally, I think one of those kooky PA Liquor Laws is that it is illegal to transport liquor back to PA from other states, even though it's completely unenforcible. I heard that Harrisburg approved strategically placing stores selling cheaper than State Store liquor at key highway crossings, to try and get people to not hop the border and spend their money in the state. Of course, heaven forbid they ditch the state store system.

On the topic, that's an insane hike in taxes. There are tons of major Not-Big-Three breweries in California and wine is a huge crop for them. This would crush both. Why not just cut out the middleman and just make alcohol illegal in California? Not that this will fly at all, of course.
"Show me an angel and I will paint you one." - Gustav Courbet

"Quetzalcoatl, plumed serpent of the Aztecs... you are a pussy." - Stephen Colbert

"Really, I'm jealous of how much smarter than me he is. I'm not an expert on anything and he's an expert on things he knows nothing about." - Me, concerning a bullshitter
User avatar
Sea Skimmer
Yankee Capitalist Air Pirate
Posts: 37390
Joined: 2002-07-03 11:49pm
Location: Passchendaele City, HAB

Re: Proposal in California to increase tax on wine by $5

Post by Sea Skimmer »

Gil Hamilton wrote: Incidentally, I think one of those kooky PA Liquor Laws is that it is illegal to transport liquor back to PA from other states, even though it's completely unenforcible. I heard that Harrisburg approved strategically placing stores selling cheaper than State Store liquor at key highway crossings, to try and get people to not hop the border and spend their money in the state. Of course, heaven forbid they ditch the state store system.
Actually it’s illegal to bring anything covered by sales tax into the state of PA without paying said sales tax. You are to mail a check for the tax to the state personally. But in practical terms they ignore items smaller then cars and boats. Everyone goes to Delware to buy TVs and other high price items. The state sales tax is going to go down next year, but not for liquor.

The liquor import thing is not totally unenforced. At least in the past the state troopers would send unmarked cars into Delaware, and camp outside of liquor stores near the border. Then they radio descriptions to cars waiting along the roads on the PA side to pull people over. The liquor is seized and the troopers get drunk after work. I think they’ve pulled back on doing this though because its basically illegal to send on duty cops out of the state like that and then conduct searches on it.
"This cult of special forces is as sensible as to form a Royal Corps of Tree Climbers and say that no soldier who does not wear its green hat with a bunch of oak leaves stuck in it should be expected to climb a tree"
— Field Marshal William Slim 1956
Post Reply