They care about beer: Beer tax believers speak out
(MCT) Oct. 13--MADISON -- Advocates for raising the state’s beer tax Tuesday told an Assembly committee in a crowded hearing room that making drinkers pay more would be the best way to funnel more money into alcohol treatment.
Legislators plan to toughen drunken driving laws this fall, but the proposal to pay for the new laws with an increased beer tax faces dim prospects.
A Senate committee has voted to raise the liquor tax to pay for the laws, and the full Senate is expected to follow suit later this month. The Assembly has voted to stiffen drunken driving laws, but has shown reluctance to hike the liquor tax.
State Rep. Terese Berceau (D-Madison) said the Legislature should rely on a $2-per-barrel increase in the beer tax to pay for treatment and law enforcement costs.
The beer tax should be raised because “it is the alcohol of choice for binge drinkers,” said Berceau, the chief Assembly sponsor of raising the tax.
“This won’t affect the average beer drinker all that much,” Berceau said. “There would be less than three pennies on that (bottle of) beer.”
But brewers said the cost to consumers would be higher than that -- about $3 a case.
“Every time we raise it 30 cents, it’s raised at least another 20 cents by wholesalers and another 50 cents by retailers,” said Carl Nolen, president of Middleton-based Capital Brewery.
The tax hike would translate into job cuts, he said. To absorb the tax, brewers would have to cut payroll. If they passed the tax onto drinkers, increased prices would reduce consumption, forcing job cuts, he said.
Supporters and opponents of Berceau’s bill filled a hearing room and lined the halls outside the room. They are expected to testify for hours. ————— To see more of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, or to subscribe to the newspaper, go to http://www.jsonline.com.
Oct 14, 2009 at 9:36 a.m.
Suggest removal
The government only wants to raise the tax by pennies so they look good.It really wont help with the problem of drunk drivers.the state makes to much money off them.
Oct 14, 2009 at 9:27 a.m.
Suggest removal
RAF nailed it again.
Oct 14, 2009 at 8:30 a.m.
Suggest removal
The money generated by the tax will flow into some law makers pocket some where down the line.
Oct 14, 2009 at 5:54 a.m.
Suggest removal
They can raise tax'es all they want until they find there is no longer a demand for what ever then they will just tax somethig else. the reason's they use are all bull they just want more money
Oct 14, 2009 at 4:47 a.m.
Suggest removal
Raising the tax on beer to fund treatment programs is a good idea in theory, but not if it means just spending a few thousand dollars on shiny new pamphlets to be given to patients already entering a program, and funneling the rest into offsetting the 1.9 billion dollar state budget deficit created by the idiots that sold us down the river to begin with.
Oct 14, 2009 at 12:23 a.m.
Suggest removal
For the ideologically disenfranchised; taxes to control behavior is ALWAYS a bad idea.
For that matter laws placed on the books, for any reason, to protect a person from themselves, regardless of “good” intentions is not what our government SHOULD be doing.
Last, but surely not least, for those that think the increased revenue stream from this will only go for the programs in this article, you need to wake up. Look at recent history of how the leadership (both sides) in this state has moved money from pile to pile whenever they wanted for a new pet project or statistical measurement for campaign promises. This is exactly what will happen here too.
Oct 13, 2009 at 10:23 p.m.
Suggest removal
Raising taxes or limiting liquor licenses is NOT a deterrent.
Oct 13, 2009 at 10:20 p.m.
Suggest removal
I work in a liquor and I think it's a bad idea. I get a lot of out-of-state business because booze is so much more expensive in Minnesota, Michigan, and Iowa. And even Illinois has raised their liquor tax not including their high sales tax.
Oct 13, 2009 at 9:53 p.m.
Suggest removal
Well, I'm all for increasing the income tax on high-income individuals, but I fail to see how preventing the poor from getting lung cancer or losing a liver is "hurting" them.
.
It's about time that the state did something about the demand side of alcohol abuse. The next step I'd like to see them take up is limiting liquor licenses per capita, but I'm willing to wait and see if that's affected indirectly by the tax increase.
Oct 13, 2009 at 9:18 p.m.
Suggest removal
If i could raise alcohol tax it would be 10 fold .
Oct 13, 2009 at 9:16 p.m.
Suggest removal
mark_twain, if the Dems can increase the tax impact on the poor, and notch up the entitlement programs, they have a voting bloc for life. It's right out of the big government playbook.
Oct 13, 2009 at 8:25 p.m.
Suggest removal
NVgrf....Mark referred to much more than just a "beer tax". ( Raising the cost for license plate renewal, driver license renewal, hunting and fishing licenses, State Park fees, traffic fines and so on)
Care to address the rest of his concerns instead of just taking it out of context?
Oct 13, 2009 at 7:45 p.m.
Suggest removal
Hey Mark...you are assuming that most of our drunks are poor? Sounds like a warped sense of belief about America's poor. I lived on welfare as a kid. A beer tax would not have impacted me! A bit elitest, aren't you?
Before you post a comment, consider this:
Note: GazetteXtra.com does not condone or review every comment. Read more in our User Policy AgreementPost Comment
Commenting requires registration.