Sam Adams and their political move

So, I went for a tasting and tour at the Lagunitas brewery a while back and the guy serving the beer said Samuel Adams put together a big political lobby to have the maximum number of barrels sold by a microbrewery raised, so they could remain in that tax shelter (as opposed to moving up with the big boys). It kinda pissed me off and I've pretty much stopped drinking anything they make.

Has anyone else heard anything about this and how do you all feel about it?

Edit: thanks for your responses...caused me to do a little more research and I guess I can go back to drinking SA

Is there any information available to back up what the guy at Lagunitas told you??

Golddiggie said:

Is there any information available to back up what the guy at Lagunitas told you??

Click to expand...

I've read that the Brewers Association had to redefine the term "small craft brewery" from 2 million barrels to 6 million barrels in 2011 to keep them under the "protection". This also allowed Samuel Adams to continue to contribute funds to the BA.

Because the excise tax on beer increasing would be a good thing for craft brewers how?

I know that the federal excise tax is less for "smaller" brewers. I don't recall the exact number but I want to say that it something like 3 million barrels...but I could be wrong. I don't know why you would be pissed about it...that is what businesses do. They lobby for conditions that will help improve their business. Especially since Sam Adams "competition" is more along the lines of craft beer breweries than BMC. I would be upset too if I had to pay a higher tax rate than other breweries just because I have had more success...or at least been in the business longer.

If that actually happened, and why it happened, I can't see why the Lagunitas guy would be upset. That just means that the same thing would apply for them, if they're under the [now higher] barrel limit. Maybe they were upset that SA thought of doing it before they did. Or SA was successful at it and they had not been. At the end of the day, it doesn't really matter to us. Does it?

Changing the rules as your company grows is scantless imo...if they are having all this success then why do they need tax breaks. Seems to me the tax breaks are there to assist small start up breweries. Allowing a large company, who can make waaaay more beer, for waaaay less money to continue on as if they were just getting started makes it that much harder for a brand new upstart, no?

So we shouldn't try to pass new laws or regulations as time goes on to reflect the current (blank) environment?

bobbrewedit said:

http://www.madisonbeerreview.com/2011/01/news-alert-sam-adams-still-craft-brewer.html?m=1

Click to expand...

That doesn't mean anything for tax purposes, just that a private organization once again recognizes them as a craft brewer.

Also, they only would get the first 60,000 barrels taxed at $7 per barrel if they are under 2 mil. After that it is $18 per barrel.

Why would that piss you off?

From what I recall, the momentum came from both outside and inside Sam Adams.

I'm getting a better perspective as I go...I initially thought it was all about money as this was how it was explained...looks to be more of an attempt by the craft beer industry to hang on to one of their American powerhouses, which is probably a good thing.

I read that story a while back and thought it was a good thing. BMC is so far ahead that I think SA should be allowed to stay a part of the movement they essentially started. Sure a few other breweries were there at first, too, but SA is the only craft brew most people have heard of.

Ryush806 said:

I read that story a while back and thought it was a good thing. BMC is so far ahead that I think SA should be allowed to stay a part of the movement they essentially started. Sure a few other breweries were there at first, too, but SA is the only craft brew most people have heard of.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I read that the BMCs are pushing 300 million barrels...6 is a drop in the bucket I guess.