Sam Adams to lose craft beer status

Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum

Help Support Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
bleak said:
I don't think this has been pointed out in this thread yet, nor is it necessarily apropos to the topic, but Boston Beer Company is now the largest wholly US-owned brewery. Anheuser-Busch merged with InBev, a Belgium concern, and MillerCoors is a joint venture between several US, Canadian, UK, and South African interests.
Click to expand...

All the more reason in my mind for tax breaks. Let the big multinationals eat it.
 
Although SA does produce more than a smaller microbrewery, taxing them will only lead them to pass the cost on to the customers and intern start finding ways to make cheeper product. Look a Leinenkugel.
 
BendBrewer said:
It is, but now that I am thinking about it, what other Brewery would this increase effect? If it is just a tax dodge by SA, I don't think I could support it.
Click to expand...

Sierra Nevada, maybe? I've no idea how much beer they move in a year, but I bet it's a lot more than you'd think, given how ubiquitous it seems to be, for a craft brewery.

Edit: Maybe Shiner, too?
 
hank1072 said:
Although SA does produce more than a smaller microbrewery, taxing them will only lead them to pass the cost on to the customers and intern start finding ways to make cheeper product. Look a Leinenkugel.
Click to expand...

They are already taxed. Do you think they are going to lower their prices if their tax burden is decreased? Yeah, me neither.

But let's face it, there are much better beers out there. They can do whatever they want. I am still not buying their beer.
 
I don't think we should use the governments definition of craft brewing. And in my opinion, Sam Adams is still a craft brewery.

Too many people to quote that I agree with...
 
bleak said:
I don't think this has been pointed out in this thread yet, nor is it necessarily apropos to the topic, but Boston Beer Company is now the largest wholly US-owned brewery. Anheuser-Busch merged with InBev, a Belgium concern, and MillerCoors is a joint venture between several US, Canadian, UK, and South African interests.
Click to expand...

Biggest American-owned brewer is kind of an odd title, actually.

Of US-owned companies, Pabst sells the most beer. Yuengling brews the most beer.

But Pabst is only barely considered a brewery; they don't actually brew anything, instead contracting that work out. If you throw them out of the mix, Boston Beer Company sells the most beer.

And that's legit--of actually "breweries" (you know, places that brew beer?) BBC sells the highest volume.

But because they still contract out a small portion of their brewing, they actually don't brew quite as much beer as Yuengling does.


(The argument will be moot soon; Yuengling's growing much faster than BBC and is expected to outstrip them in sales as well as brewing volume either this year or next.)
 
I don't get the logic in this room.

Tax breaks for them mean cheaper beer for us. Regardless of what label the beer carries. Even Budweisers cost is 300% higher than what is was when I was a kid and yet, they are brewing on the same gear, with the same suppliers.

And the persistent bashing citing "quality" as the dteracter for BMC is, well, naive. I gurantee you there is more quality controls in place at Budweiser than at SN and BBC combined. The only flaw in that product is that YOU don;t like it. Not that they make it poorly.
 
Tax breaks for them mean cheaper beer for us.
Click to expand...

I disagree Gila. True if their taxes are raised they will raise their prices but they aren't going to be lowering them no matter what.

The government is involved to help level the playing field for smaller businesses and Publicly traded companies like BBC don't fall into that category.
 
GilaMinumBeer said:
I don't get the logic in this room.

Tax breaks for them mean cheaper beer for us.
Click to expand...

or bigger profits for them....(devil's advocate)

What I don't get is during the inflation period of ~2008 when the price of goods started going through the roof due to the price of oil/gas.

Now, most of the products have come down in price (think milk, cheese, other groceries), yet beer has stayed the same price.
 
SumnerH said:
(The argument will be moot soon; Yuengling's growing much faster than BBC and is expected to outstrip them in sales as well as brewing volume either this year or next.)
Click to expand...

Did they open a brewery in Florida? I heard the daughter bought the company and she plans to expand. I heard there may even be plans to bring the beer west. I would love to get Lager out here. It is about the only thing I miss about Pennsylvania ......Well except my family.
 
GilaMinumBeer said:
I don't get the logic in this room.

Tax breaks for them mean cheaper beer for us. Regardless of what label the beer carries. Even Budweisers cost is 300% higher than what is was when I was a kid and yet, they are brewing on the same gear, with the same suppliers.

And the persistent bashing citing "quality" as the dteracter for BMC is, well, naive. I gurantee you there is more quality controls in place at Budweiser than at SN and BBC combined. The only flaw in that product is that YOU don;t like it. Not that they make it poorly.
Click to expand...

Yup! It's all business. Quality is not the issue. The tax break is all about supporting small businesses, not about perceived quality.
 
I was in a Deschutes Brewery meeting one day when the the VP of sales explained the process of raising the 6-pack price from 5.99 to 7.49 years ago. They were coordinating with the other breweries in that price range to all do it around the same time. The idea was to add perceived value to the product by charging more for it. The idea was to go to 6.50, then 6.95 then 7.49. Nothing changed but the price and the bottom line increase was all that mattered. It worked like a charm.

To think any of these guys are interested in lowering their prices is nonsense.

Now they sell $10 22 oz bottles like they are going out of style. It's all a mirage.
 
MR2Aaron said:
Sierra Nevada, maybe? I've no idea how much beer they move in a year, but I bet it's a lot more than you'd think, given how ubiquitous it seems to be, for a craft brewery.

Edit: Maybe Shiner, too?
Click to expand...

Sierra's by far the next closest after Boston Beer Co and Yuengling.

The sneaky one is 7th place--Craft Brewer's Alliance owns Red Hook and Widmer and does distribution for Kona and Goose Island.

Top 20 as of a couple years back:
1. Anheuser-Busch InBev St. Louis, MO
2. MillerCoors Brewing Co. Chicago, IL
3. Pabst Brewing Co. Woodridge, IL (Doesn't brew--they contract it out)
4. Boston Beer Co. Boston, MA
5. D. G. Yuengling and Son Inc. Pottsville, PA
6. Sierra Nevada Brewing Co. Chico, CA
7. Craft Brewers Alliance, Inc. Woodinville, WA
8. New Belgium Brewing Co. Fort Collins, CO
9. Genessee Brewing Rochester, NY (Formerly High Falls Brewery; they brew Genessee Cream Ale, J.W. Dundee's Honey Lager and others)
10. Spoetzl Brewery Shiner, TX (Shiner Bock)
11. Pyramid Breweries Inc. Seattle, WA
12. Deschutes Brewery Bend, OR
13. Iron City Brewing Co. Pittsburgh, PA
14. Minhas Craft Brewery Monroe, WI (Huber, Rhinelander, Mountain Crest)
15. Matt Brewing Co. Utica, NY (Saranac)
16. Boulevard Brewing Co. Kansas City, MO
17. Full Sail Brewing Co. Hood River, OR
18. Magic Hat Brewing Co. Burlington, VT
19. Alaskan Brewing Co. Juneau, AK
20. Harpoon Brewery Boston, MA
 
Brewmoor said:
Did they open a brewery in Florida? I heard the daughter bought the company and she plans to expand. I heard there may even be plans to bring the beer west. I would love to get Lager out here. It is about the only thing I miss about Pennsylvania ......Well except my family.
Click to expand...

They bought the old Stroh's brewery in Tampa back in ~2000.
 
BendBrewer said:
I was in a Deschutes Brewery meeting one day when the the VP of sales explained the process of raising the 6-pack price from 5.99 to 7.49 years ago. They were coordinating with the other breweries in that price range to all do it around the same time.
Click to expand...

If that can be proven, it's a very serious allegation.
 
BendBrewer said:
I disagree Gila. True if their taxes are raised they will raise their prices but they aren't going to be lowering them no matter what.

The government is involved to help level the playing field for smaller businesses and Publicly traded companies like BBC don't fall into that category.
Click to expand...

But lumping BBC in with the mulit-nationals of Bud, Miller, Coors does?
 
SumnerH said:
If that can be proven, it's a very serious allegation.
Click to expand...

I don't know if it was illegal or not. Private companies can charge whatever they want for their products.

It's like the Les Schwab school of business. When asked what made Les Schawb tires better than anyone else, Les replied:

"Because we charge more for them."
 
babalu87 said:
But lumping BBC in with the mulit-nationals of Bud, Miller, Coors does?
Click to expand...

As opposed to lumping BBC in with say Cascade Lakes or Ninkasi? The tax break is intended to help small businesses compete not help corporations like BBC who have successfully gone public with their businesses.

BBC is a public company. Tax breaks to them don't make it to the customer they are distributed to its stock holders.

There is a difference.
 
SumnerH said:
Yes they can, but it's highly illegal for them to collude with other companies on pricing--it's a violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act.
Click to expand...

Well, they flew under the radar. I don't want to suggest that all breweries were involved but I am pretty sure that I remember SN and Belgium being mentioned in the discussion. This was 12-14 years ago????
 
BendBrewer said:
As opposed to lumping BBC in with say Cascade Lakes or Ninkasi? The tax break is intended to help small businesses compete not help corporations like BBC who have successfully gone public with their businesses.

BBC is a public company. Tax breaks to them don't make it to the customer they are distributed to its stock holders.

There is a difference.
Click to expand...

There needs to be a middle ground

BBC being public seems to be an issue with you?

Lumping them in with the big foreign brewers isnt the answer
 
SumnerH said:
Yes they can, but it's highly illegal for them to collude with other companies on pricing--it's a violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act.
Click to expand...

Yeah highly illegal. In laymans terms it is called price fixing. The computer chip industry is getting hammered by this right now. The price of solid state chips were found to be price fixed. It is a huge violation.

I personally would like to see a reduction in tax prices. I would certainly like to pay $3.50 instead of $7. Though like it has been said. To reduce my operating expenses, not to sell my beer cheaper. It's business and you can't stay in business if you can't make money.
 
For the record, there is no such craft brewer designation by the government. All the language is small brewer with reference to the 2 excise schedules.

In the OP, craft is in quotes. Craft is a self identifying descriptor used frequently by the BA. It's not unlike the unregulated term organic.

Please don't confuse the two things.
 
BBC being public seems to be an issue with you?
Click to expand...

Well it kind of is. It shows that you have weathered the start up blues and are successful. Hats of to BBC for that. I might not enjoy their beer but I do respect a successful business and I consider them to be one.

Now that they are successful, I don't think that they should be afforded the same tax breaks that private small businesses are afforded.

Middle ground? I could agree with that.
 
BendBrewer said:
The government is involved to help level the playing field for smaller businesses and Publicly traded companies like BBC don't fall into that category.
Click to expand...

Level the playing field? The whole concept of tax the big guys more (businesses or personal) is BS, IMO. It's just punishing someone for being successful.
 
I'm really troubled by a lot of the logic in this thread. I understand the skepticism, but so many comments want to disown BBC/SA because they've grown or because they are seeking specific political change. One thing I don't think has been mentioned is the three-tiered liquor distribution system in this country -- which is totally dominated by BMC and used to stifle so many smaller breweries from ever growing. I support any change that lets BBC/SA grow to compete with BMC. I want a company with homebrewing roots to grow to the point that it has political clout on that scale. I'm not naive that they will stay absolutely true to those roots if they continue to grow, but we all know that BMC does nothing to help the little guys at a political/policy level. They try to kill them at every turn. If we could have a homegrown brewing company simply do less of that, I'm all for it. Not to mention the fact that the tax break will help smaller breweries by reducing their current tax burden. Their prices won't go down, but maybe they can begin to afford brewery expansions, etc. etc. This is just a first step in helping reform our awful antiquated liquor laws. I'm all for it.

Cheers
 
JerD said:
Progressive taxation on anything sucks
Click to expand...

Agreed!

It is not the function of government to analyze every business, break them down into some bureaucratically defined classification, and tax them based on that arbitrary classification in order to produce a homogeneous, egalitarian business climate. The government should only be concerned with providing an equal tax playing field. No company should receive tax breaks because they are small, and no company should receive tax breaks because they are large. How about a flat corporate tax with no deductions or loopholes? Why not let the consumer decide what product fails and what product succeeds? And don't tell me the sob story of the corporate giant crushing the little guy (yes, I know it happens). The reason I've never tasted Pliny the Elder is not because some government or corporate entity have throttled Russian River, it's because the quality of the product has resulted in an extremely high demand. They would sell every bottle they brew regardless of government tax policy or the hegemony of BMC.
 
I just red through this whole thread and I am so glad for the last 3 post.

Some of the "get the big guys, level the playing field, screw Jim Koch for his success" crap I just red makes me ill. I thought most homebrewers would be part of the freedom/liberty screw the govmnt crowd but sadly I must be mistaken. I guess this is just a hobby for many of you.

I learned to homebrew from a man who brewed with his dad that brewed in a secret room in the chicken coop during prohibition. I know my heritage.

Congratulations Jim Koch (smalltime brewer makes it big) for finally getting big enough to lobby to try and take back moneys from the fed they never shoulda had. Do you guys not know your history. Prohibition killed hundreds of "regional" brewers like yengling, and we as a country had to suffer under half a century, 5 decades of cost effective crap beer until hombrewers, became microbrewers, which have become craft brewerys...

...ok sorry rant stops here

screw the fed Go Jim, Go, Brew more, better, bigger.:) And make lots of beer and money
 
ChristianAlpha-RuBrew said:
I just red through this whole thread and I am so glad for the last 3 post.

Some of the "get the big guys, level the playing field, screw Jim Koch for his success" crap I just red makes me ill. I thought most homebrewers would be part of the freedom/liberty screw the govmnt crowd but sadly I must be mistaken. I guess this is just a hobby for many of you.

I learned to homebrew from a man who brewed with his dad that brewed in a secret room in the chicken coop during prohibition. I know my heritage.

Congratulations Jim Koch (smalltime brewer makes it big) for finally getting big enough to lobby to try and take back moneys from the fed they never shoulda had. Do you guys not know your history. Prohibition killed hundreds of "regional" brewers like yengling, and we as a country had to suffer under half a century, 5 decades of cost effective crap beer until hombrewers, became microbrewers, which have become craft brewerys...

...ok sorry rant stops here

screw the fed Go Jim, Go, Brew more, better, bigger.:) And make lots of beer and money
Click to expand...


:rockin:
 
Jim RULES

He took on Heineken, Bud etc when thats all there was

Anyone that thinks we dont owe him a debt of gratitude isnt being honest.
 
ChristianAlpha-RuBrew said:
I just red through this whole thread and I am so glad for the last 3 post.

Some of the "get the big guys, level the playing field, screw Jim Koch for his success" crap I just red makes me ill. I thought most homebrewers would be part of the freedom/liberty screw the govmnt crowd but sadly I must be mistaken. I guess this is just a hobby for many of you.
Click to expand...

I'm with you. I can't believe I read through 12 pages of this without someone mentioning progressive taxation being bogus. The big companies are big because they worked hard at it and continue to do so. If anything give them a break. They just might hire more people. I don't think corporations are the devil. Some have done some pretty crappy things in recent years, but I've never gotten a job from a poor man.

The 3 tier distribution system is bogus also, and has been controlled by the larger brewers since post prohibition. I was blown away when watching "Beer Wars". If the take they had on the 3 tier system is even close to how it really is then its bogus also. There's no reason that we need to use such an atequated distribution.
 
BendBrewer said:
Not considering them to be a craft brewery because they mass produce and mass market their beers isn't bashing them, it's just calling it what it is.

My hat's off to them for their success, but trying to get the same benefits as the true craft breweries enjoy is just wrong to those smaller breweries.

SA wants to compete with the big boys but they don't want to play by the same rules.
Click to expand...

THIS. And it's also what virtually ALL lobbying of federal and state governments is about. The only way to eliminate it is to ban lobbying altogether.
 
bigjoe said:
I'm with you. I can't believe I read through 12 pages of this without someone mentioning progressive taxation being bogus. The big companies are big because they worked hard at it and continue to do so. If anything give them a break. They just might hire more people. I don't think corporations are the devil. Some have done some pretty crappy things in recent years, but I've never gotten a job from a poor man.

The 3 tier distribution system is bogus also, and has been controlled by the larger brewers since post prohibition. I was blown away when watching "Beer Wars". If the take they had on the 3 tier system is even close to how it really is then its bogus also. There's no reason that we need to use such an atequated distribution.
Click to expand...

So you're a big fan of Wal-Mart?
 

Similar threads

N
Sharing Nostalgia with the Beginners: What Was The First Beer Your Brewed?
2 3
Replies
89
Views
5K
palmtrees
palmtrees
mongoose33
NorthEast Brewery Tour
Replies
12
Views
2K
mongoose33
mongoose33
madscientist451
Hard Seltzer Should be cheaper than beer?
Replies
11
Views
3K
OleBrewing
OleBrewing
T
Constellation Brands Sells Ballast Point to Kings & Convicts Brewing
Replies
18
Views
1K
Northern_Brewer
Northern_Brewer
T
Anderson Valley Brewing has been acquired
Replies
0
Views
638
TwistedGray
T
SSBrew 300

Latest posts

Back
Top