Guests - If You want access to member only forums on HSO. You will gain access only when you sign-in or Sign-Up on HotSpotOutdoors.

It's easy - LOOK UPPER right menu.

Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
swamptiger

Proposed beer tax increase for MN

27 posts in this topic

Quote:
Sec. 6. Minnesota Statutes 2008, section 297G.04, is amended to read:

297G.04 FERMENTED MALT BEVERAGES; RATE OF TAX.

Subdivision 1. Tax imposed. The following excise tax is imposed on all fermented malt beverages that are imported, directly or indirectly sold, or possessed in this state:

(1) on fermented malt beverages containing not more than 3.2 percent alcohol by weight, $2.40 $9.01 per 31-gallon barrel; and

(2) on fermented malt beverages containing more than 3.2 percent alcohol by weight, $4.60 $11.21 per 31-gallon barrel.

For fractions of a 31-gallon barrel, the tax rate is calculated proportionally.

Subd. 2. Tax credit. A qualified brewer producing fermented malt beverages is entitled to a tax credit of $4.60 $11.21 per barrel on 25,000 barrels sold in any fiscal year beginning July 1, regardless of the alcohol content of the product. Qualified brewers may take the credit on the 18th day of each month, but the total credit allowed may not exceed in any fiscal year the lesser of:

(1) the liability for tax; or

(2) $115,000 $280,000.

For purposes of this subdivision, a "qualified brewer" means a brewer, whether or not located in this state, manufacturing less than 100,000 barrels of fermented malt beverages in the calendar year immediately preceding the calendar year for which the credit under this subdivision is claimed. In determining the number of barrels, all brands or labels of a brewer must be combined. All facilities for the manufacture of fermented malt beverages owned or controlled by the same person, corporation, or other entity must be treated as a single brewer.

EFFECTIVE DATE.This section is effective July 1, 2009.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Source: 2009 MN Session Laws - Ch. 77

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The first dollar amount is the existing tax - the second dollar amount is the proposed tax. Small breweries in Minnesota are claiming that this is an unfair tax because it is weighted in favor of large brewers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Same as smoke tax. They say it's bad for you so we'll tax you till you quit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If we are going to pay for public health care, there will (rightly) be objections to paying for the health care of those who make bad decisions and basically don't care about their own health. So, we see efforts to start to tax 'bad behavior'. This is one example; the Senate Finance Committee was looking to soda and candy taxes, in addition to alcohol and cigarettes; New Jersey was considering (I don't know the status of the proposal) to tax fast food at a higher rate.

It is all part of the behavior modification that will be a natural extension of public health care.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, we see efforts to start to tax 'bad behavior'.

And what is "bad behavior?" This is the danger of an ever expanding government. As government grows, liberty shrinks(this should go into the "thought of the day" thread.).

Also, when they raise taxes on "bad behavior" it's done with the idea that the revenue raised will help pay for the health care. When the "bad behavior" is reduced and the expected money does not come in, can you guess were they get the money????????

I see this tax as "prohibition lite."

I hope there are groups with commercials ready to go like the early 1990's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And what is "bad behavior?"

I hope it is not going out on the ice in the winter, or going out on a boat in the summer, or one of the many other behaviors that anyone of us do that could be considered "bad behavior" by others who don't do those things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Same as smoke tax. They say it's bad for you so we'll tax you till you quit.

Hey.... those are fees not taxes!!! crazy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some of the local liquor stores around me have started a petition opposing this new tax.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Time to invest in one of those home brew kits. You know turn one hobby into two.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Increasing the beer tax is just plain wrong.

Layoffs, 401K shrinkage, depressed home prices, and these geniuses want to increase the tax on beer?????!!!!! Time for the torches and pitchforks, and large vats of hot tar and feathers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How can they just pick one group of people to tax? Why not tax people who go to church every Sunday or people who buy gum? Seems like discrimination does it not?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

According to Minnesota Craft Brewer's Association on their HSOforum:

Quote:
- 40% of the cost of a beer in MN is already from taxes and the government wants to increase that

- When the federal government doubled the beer excise tax in 1991 60,000 jobs were lost in the brewing industry and across the industries tied to it.

- 65% of beer consumers earn less than $45,000 annually

- Hurt lower income people who need the help the most

- Send business out of state

- Cause a loss of good-paying MN jobs

- Unnecessarily and unfairly target a single industry

Also, the tax increase on strong beer amounts to a 144% increase, according to their HSOforum. Minnesota already has a higher beer tax rate than any of the surrounding states.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If we are going to pay for public health care, there will (rightly) be objections to paying for the health care of those who make bad decisions and basically don't care about their own health. So, we see efforts to start to tax 'bad behavior'. This is one example; the Senate Finance Committee was looking to soda and candy taxes, in addition to alcohol and cigarettes; New Jersey was considering (I don't know the status of the proposal) to tax fast food at a higher rate.

It is all part of the behavior modification that will be a natural extension of public health care.

Are you making the case that this is inevitable, rational and acceptable?

If so, where would it ever end. Could I then be taxed for not exercising enough, or would those who can provide proof of exercise be granted a tax credit?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As one legislator said: "They picking on Joe Six-Pack's six pack!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How can they just pick one group of people to tax? Why not tax people who go to church every Sunday or people who buy gum? Seems like discrimination does it not?

Been doing it to smokers for years. If you don't die from your "bad habit" they'll tax you to death. Time to vote these worthless idiots out of office, all of them!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: Jarrod32
If we are going to pay for public health care, there will (rightly) be objections to paying for the health care of those who make bad decisions and basically don't care about their own health. So, we see efforts to start to tax 'bad behavior'. This is one example; the Senate Finance Committee was looking to soda and candy taxes, in addition to alcohol and cigarettes; New Jersey was considering (I don't know the status of the proposal) to tax fast food at a higher rate.

It is all part of the behavior modification that will be a natural extension of public health care.

Are you making the case that this is inevitable, rational and acceptable?

If so, where would it ever end. Could I then be taxed for not exercising enough, or would those who can provide proof of exercise be granted a tax credit?

To some level, I believe it is an inevitable consequence of public health care. As to whether it is rational or acceptable, that would be in the eye of the beholder, so to speak.

It is a matter of priorities. Are you willing to give up privacy and liberty in order to get your health care provided by the government? There are those who would make that exchange. There are those that would not. That should be the core of the health care debate.

As for being taxed for not exercising enough, well, again, this is going to depend on the whims of congress. But let me ask you this...if we, as the public and as taxpayers, are footing the health care bill...would we not be justified in wanting some protections against increased costs by those who do make bad decisions? It is a dangerous, dangerous can of worms that will be opened through public provision of health insurance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jarrod, you are on the money. It's a slipery slope that we don't need to go down. I see folks abusing what they have now. Imigrants going to the ER for a cough for instance. You can't control how people live their lives. If you do that then you are looking at Russia and bread lines.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tax the xxx out of cigarets and booze. I do not smoke but I do drink many a cocktail. This is my choice. If I do not want to pay the tax I do not have to buy any alcohol. This is better than taxing items that poeple need for daily living. Every body wants to get every benifit for nothing. Wakeup!

It is time we worry more about how to make poeple work for a living rather than living off some gov. program.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote:
Tax the xxx out of cigarets and booze. I do not smoke but I do drink many a cocktail. This is my choice. If I do not want to pay the tax I do not have to buy any alcohol. This is better than taxing items that poeple need for daily living. Every body wants to get every benifit for nothing. Wakeup!

I'd rather not have the benefits, and keep my tax money, thank you...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with swamptiger. I still stay I need to know how much is enough of my money of some people? 40% is gone before I see it and that doesn't include your property tax, sales tax, gas tax, etc. How about we find out how much is enough. Do you need 70%, 80% or you just want it all?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tax the xxx out of cigarets and booze. I do not smoke but I do drink many a cocktail. This is my choice. If I do not want to pay the tax I do not have to buy any alcohol. This is better than taxing items that poeple need for daily living. Every body wants to get every benifit for nothing. Wakeup!

It is time we worry more about how to make poeple work for a living rather than living off some gov. program.

You wakeup! How about not raising taxes at all if you are concerned about to many people "living off some gov. program".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have been hearing this logic about poor behavior (smoke, drink, fast food, etc) being a drain on government programs making it sound logical and fair to tax these people to pay for it. The arguement gets played over and over as an excuse to raise taxes on a select portion of the population (the offenders).

However the logic does not really hold up. Using the same logic one could assume those who do not partake in harmful or dangerous activities live longer on average. Can you imagine the outrage if we told the granola crunchers we were going to tax organic vegies, health clubs, bicycles, running shoes, fat free yogart, etc. because the "users" are shown to live much longer and thus are a much larger drain on social security.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What it's really about is getting people to conform. We don't want individuals - we everyone to act and behave the same way - we want control over individuals.

Collectivism, or communist, thinking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

However the logic does not really hold up. Using the same logic one could assume those who do not partake in harmful or dangerous activities live longer on average. Can you imagine the outrage if we told the granola crunchers we were going to tax organic vegies, health clubs, bicycles, running shoes, fat free yogart, etc. because the "users" are shown to live much longer and thus are a much larger drain on social security.

Excellent point walleye101. Hope to see you on a ballot in Nov. You'd have my vote with that logic for sure!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0