What will they tax next? Homebrew?!

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

Help Support Homebrew Talk:

Status
Not open for further replies.

digdan

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2005
Messages
496
Reaction score
7
Location
Pasadena, CA
I just got back from the smoke shop here in Ada County Idaho and found that my pack of smokes now cost $8.50 (over twice its normal cost). I don't live in newyork. In fact my state is known for its back hills ways. How the hell did this new tax get passed?!

I'm starting to get a little bit of the paranoias.

If they can increase tobaccos product taxes at a state level by over 200% then whats going to prevent them from over taxing alcohol?

What could the government do to tax the homebrewer? As per my LHBS, they claim the state follows the yeast (as far as age restrictions of brewing). So would they create a yeast tax? There should be a good counter measure ready to deploy incase of such sitations.

Homebrewers unite!

:fro:
 

EdWort

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2006
Messages
11,895
Reaction score
447
Location
Bee Cave, Texas
Taxes on tobacco are usually a state tax... and I believe Sarah Palin is the governor.
Sorry, this was a FEDERAL tax increase. Just the first of many back door cost of living increases set to happen in the next four years. Businesses are going to be hit with loads of tax increases, and guess what rolls down hill. They will be passed on as increased cost of goods, meaning you get to pay them, thus reducing more and more of your disposable income.

Get used to them. They will be many more like them.
 

wild

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2005
Messages
1,476
Reaction score
6
Location
Surprise, AZ.
SCHIP Legislation Details

The new tax rates are effective April 1, 2009;

The cigarette tax rate goes from $.39 per pack to $1.00 per pack;
The tax on snuff goes from $.585 per pound to $1.50 per pound;
The tax on pipe tobacco goes from $1.0969 per pound to $2.8126 per pound;
The tax on RYO goes from $1.0969 per pound to $24.62 per pound (not a typo).
Additionally the definition of RYO has been expanded to include cigar wrappers to address the "blunt wraps" issue;
The tax change to small cigars (cigars weighing less the three (3) pounds per thousand will be phased in over five (5) years at the following rates per year:
2009 & 2010 - $.25 per pack
2011 & 2012 - $.50 per pack
2013 & 2014 - $.75 per pack
2015 and beyond - $1.00 per pack
 

bmckee56

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2008
Messages
911
Reaction score
4
Location
Coraopolis, PA (Near Pittsburgh)
All those that believed the promise of "no new taxes" and voted for the current obamanation we now have should rejoice in their new world.

This is just the start. Wait until UN taxes go into effect!

Salute! :mug:
 

ohiobrewtus

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 1, 2006
Messages
7,762
Reaction score
74
Location
Ohio
This issue infuriates me and it always has. The (legal) choices made by adults should not be looked at as a source for rectifying our government's fiscal irresponsibility, regardless of what that choice is and regardless of whether or not that choice has been deemed a health risk.

Smokers should not be picking up the bill by paying these insane taxes. It's comparable to a huge increase on 'junk food' for people who are clinically obese. They don't need junk food to survive. If someone is already obese, eating junk food is certainly a health risk for them. If those people want to get fatter and destroy their own health rather than just lose weight, then those people should pay a high tax on junk food. Hopefully, this high tax will prevent these people from eating junk food and it will make them healthier citizens while also providing additional income at both the federal and state levels.

See how silly that sounds when (basically) the same premise is applied to clinically obese people rather than smokers?
 

Parker36

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 22, 2007
Messages
4,740
Reaction score
26
Location
Lesotho
1) Raising taxes on a luxury item such as cigarettes is not that same as raising the cost of living.
2) Instead of taxing cigarettes, they should just legalize drugs and tax them
3) I heard Sarah Palin can see Idaho from her house. Does that count?
4) I haven't read the bill, but is the tax just on packs of cigarettes or all tobacco products or what?
 

menschmaschine

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2007
Messages
3,259
Reaction score
51
Location
Delaware
My cigars just went up about $8-$10 a box (depending on how many cigars in the box) thanks to SCHIP. I bought 5 boxes on March 31. Sin taxes are a sin.

Tobacco is the current tax target... it's publicly "OK" to tax it out the ass. When tobacco use declines so much that the taxes are no longer effective at producing revenue, it will be alcohol (even more than now), then ammo, then anything with high fructose corn syrup, then tea... and we'll be right back where we started (1775). Only we won't be able to do anything about it because ammo will be so expensive.:cross:
 

conpewter

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 2, 2007
Messages
5,076
Reaction score
59
Location
East Dundee, Illinois
SCHIP Legislation Details

The new tax rates are effective April 1, 2009;

The cigarette tax rate goes from $.39 per pack to $1.00 per pack;
The tax on snuff goes from $.585 per pound to $1.50 per pound;
The tax on pipe tobacco goes from $1.0969 per pound to $2.8126 per pound;
The tax on RYO goes from $1.0969 per pound to $24.62 per pound (not a typo).
Additionally the definition of RYO has been expanded to include cigar wrappers to address the "blunt wraps" issue;
The tax change to small cigars (cigars weighing less the three (3) pounds per thousand will be phased in over five (5) years at the following rates per year:
2009 & 2010 - $.25 per pack
2011 & 2012 - $.50 per pack
2013 & 2014 - $.75 per pack
2015 and beyond - $1.00 per pack
That is just idiotic. I don't smoke. I just don't know how the government gets away with the lies.
 

nibiyabi

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 10, 2009
Messages
170
Reaction score
0
Location
Santa Clara University
This issue infuriates me and it always has. The (legal) choices made by adults should not be looked at as a source for rectifying our government's fiscal irresponsibility, regardless of what that choice is and regardless of whether or not that choice has been deemed a health risk.

Smokers should not be picking up the bill by paying these insane taxes. It's comparable to a huge increase on 'junk food' for people who are clinically obese. They don't need junk food to survive. If someone is already obese, eating junk food is certainly a health risk for them. If those people want to get fatter and destroy their own health rather than just lose weight, then those people should pay a high tax on junk food. Hopefully, this high tax will prevent these people from eating junk food and it will make them healthier citizens while also providing additional income at both the federal and state levels.

See how silly that sounds when (basically) the same premise is applied to clinically obese people rather than smokers?
Doesn't sound so silly to me.

That is just idiotic. I don't smoke. I just don't know how the government gets away with the lies.
Um, they spelled out exactly how the tax increase is going to work. How is that lying?
 

conpewter

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 2, 2007
Messages
5,076
Reaction score
59
Location
East Dundee, Illinois
Doesn't sound so silly to me.



Um, they spelled out exactly how the tax increase is going to work. How is that lying?
"I can make a firm pledge. Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes." - Obama
 

mmb

"I just got a new pet toaster!"
Lifetime Supporter
Joined
Feb 20, 2008
Messages
40,703
Reaction score
9,910
Location
Mid Mittigan
"I can make a firm pledge. Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes." - Obama
Well, if you're going to use actual quotes there's no debating with you. :mad:


:D
 

DeathBrewer

Maniacally Malty
Lifetime Supporter
Joined
Apr 9, 2007
Messages
21,787
Reaction score
317
Location
Oakland, CA
This issue infuriates me and it always has. The (legal) choices made by adults should not be looked at as a source for rectifying our government's fiscal irresponsibility, regardless of what that choice is and regardless of whether or not that choice has been deemed a health risk.

Smokers should not be picking up the bill by paying these insane taxes. It's comparable to a huge increase on 'junk food' for people who are clinically obese. They don't need junk food to survive. If someone is already obese, eating junk food is certainly a health risk for them. If those people want to get fatter and destroy their own health rather than just lose weight, then those people should pay a high tax on junk food. Hopefully, this high tax will prevent these people from eating junk food and it will make them healthier citizens while also providing additional income at both the federal and state levels.

See how silly that sounds when (basically) the same premise is applied to clinically obese people rather than smokers?
You're right, it is exactly the same thing. If all the money was going to healthcare, then it might make a little more sense.

The problem is the reasoning for it. It doesn't really work to reduce smokers. People are still going to do what they want. I still smoke, but I don't usually smoke enough to really see the burden on my wallet.
 

DeathBrewer

Maniacally Malty
Lifetime Supporter
Joined
Apr 9, 2007
Messages
21,787
Reaction score
317
Location
Oakland, CA
1) Raising taxes on a luxury item such as cigarettes is not that same as raising the cost of living.
2) Instead of taxing cigarettes, they should just legalize drugs and tax them
3) I heard Sarah Palin can see Idaho from her house. Does that count?
4) I haven't read the bill, but is the tax just on packs of cigarettes or all tobacco products or what?
I agree on legalization and taxation of drugs, but why is that any different than cigarettes? I consider cigarettes to be a drug...a highly addictive one, at that. Why should cigarettes not be taxed but "drugs" should?
 
Joined
Jun 2, 2008
Messages
64,951
Reaction score
16,505
"I can make a firm pledge. Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes (places hand over mouth and mumbles 'cept your tobacco tax) -- Now let's go change America! Yes WE CAN." - Obama
fixed that for you :D
 

GreenwoodRover

me-no-r-no Nice Guy
Lifetime Supporter
Joined
Mar 18, 2008
Messages
1,049
Reaction score
13
Location
Chicago, IL
The tax on RYO goes from $1.0969 per pound to $24.62 per pound (2144%*)(not a typo).
Additionally the definition of RYO has been expanded to include cigar wrappers to address the "blunt wraps" issue;
*my bolding added


After they peg alchohol tax to ABV I can easily see this as being re written to:

The tax on BYO (homebrewing supplies) goes up 2144%.
Additionally the definition of BYO has been expanded to include malt, hops, and yeast, and bottling equipment to address the "high gravity" issue;
 

Boerderij_Kabouter

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2007
Messages
7,763
Reaction score
178
Location
Oconomowoc, Wisconsin
I think I am going to start growing barley, wheat, rye, and hops. I am also doubling the size of my garden.

I am beginning to loath our government.

Even if the spirit of '74 returns, our government now has such a powerful army that no revolt could ever do anything. From bondage into bondage. It has been tested by time for millenia, to think the US at just over 200 years would be any different is folly.

It is just unfortunate that we will be proving the English right that our republic could not hold itself together. Albeit, we lasted longer than they thought.
 

menschmaschine

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2007
Messages
3,259
Reaction score
51
Location
Delaware
This SCHIP was in the works for a long time. You can't say we didn't see it coming. It was voted down in the old Congress and those who voted "no" were scorned with "think of the children!" tactics. I knew as soon as the election was over that this would eventually go through.

On the first draft, the cigar tax increase was 20,000% (yes, twenty thousand) which would have put the American cigar market out of commission and devasted Carribean/Central American regions that thrive on growing/manufacturing cigars. It was lowered thanks to pressure from cigar industry leaders.
 

dzlater

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 12, 2008
Messages
1,109
Reaction score
45
Location
New Jersey
2173% tax increase on RYO tobacco, I've been making my own cigarettes for about five years. My wife goes to buy me a can of Bugler that typically costs between $10 to $12. The new cost with the new tax $35.
However I found an angle to beat the tax.
A company called D&R tobacco that I ordered from a few times
has "changed" from selling cigarette to pipe tobacco.
Pipe tobacco is taxed at a lower rate. It's the same as the cigarette tobacco they use to sell just cut coarser. So I ordered enough for four cartons delivered it's $58
It's still a hell of a lot cheaper then buying pre mades and the tobacco is premium.
 

Evan!

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 9, 2006
Messages
11,835
Reaction score
108
Location
Charlottesville, VA
This issue infuriates me and it always has. The (legal) choices made by adults should not be looked at as a source for rectifying our government's fiscal irresponsibility, regardless of what that choice is and regardless of whether or not that choice has been deemed a health risk.
The thing is, it's easier for the gubmint to get away with "sin taxes", because the victims of the taxes can be easily demonized. Using the tax system as a social engineering tool is what our politicians do best, and it's consistently a failure---not to mention morally abhorrent and just generally, naturally fukkin WRONG. I mean, wake up, people...in what universe is it morally acceptable for a cabal of government officials to decide that they can play the puppet masters by manipulating the tax code? Yes, they've been doing it for years, but what surprises me is how many citizens seem to have no problem with it...until it affects them.

Smokers should not be picking up the bill by paying these insane taxes. It's comparable to a huge increase on 'junk food' for people who are clinically obese. They don't need junk food to survive. If someone is already obese, eating junk food is certainly a health risk for them. If those people want to get fatter and destroy their own health rather than just lose weight, then those people should pay a high tax on junk food. Hopefully, this high tax will prevent these people from eating junk food and it will make them healthier citizens while also providing additional income at both the federal and state levels.

See how silly that sounds when (basically) the same premise is applied to clinically obese people rather than smokers?
I've got to say, as much as I vehemently despise the welfare state, including the health welfare state, you have to admit that, as long as people are doing things that cause health risks, and those risks are being pushed onto the taxpayer via the welfare state, it makes sense that people who take these health risks pay, rather than the ones who do not. Optimally, it would be a single-out program, where anyone on medicare/medicaid would be tested for various risky behaviors, and would then be charged a fee to supplement their government health coverage. But this is obviously not logistically feasible. IN a perfect world, the real solution would be to disband the welfare state---but until that happens, the next option on the list is for certain consumer goods that carry particular health risks to be taxed in order to directly pay for the costs that their use brings to bear on the healthcare-welfare system. Yes, of course, tons of people who don't use government healthcare insurance schemes will get unfairly taxed, but perhaps, just maybe, this will help illustrate how f'd up the whole healthcare-welfare system is. At the same time, how about some tax breaks for going to the gym?

The obvious problem with SCHIP is that these taxes on risky goods do NOT go directly to pay for their health effects in the healthcare welfare system. So it's the worst of all worlds.
 

pen25

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 29, 2008
Messages
973
Reaction score
4
Location
tulsa, ok
BTW allot of the increase was a combined increase in both state and federal taxes. we can still grow our own tobacco.

whats funny is when things like this actually decreases use. same with redlight camara's the city of dallas found they were loosing money on the red light camaras because they worked so well people stopped running the lights. so they went and started to rotate the use to increase the revenue.

now if the money collected for this tax is used specificly for health care i think its a great idea. as a tobacco user i have no problems paying an extra tax if it goes to the right place. the problem i have is these rarely go to what they claim it is to be used for.

our fuel tax we pay to the state goes into the general fund. doesnt goto transportation. so it can be used for anything. so our roads have gone to crap. well same will happen with these funds. this will offset spending of the money on child health care and that money will be spent somewhere else. i can say a can of copenhagen went up 25cents. if it jumped a couple bucks or doubled in price id probably stop dipping. but if the price creeps up il most likely keep dipping.
 

Parker36

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 22, 2007
Messages
4,740
Reaction score
26
Location
Lesotho
I agree on legalization and taxation of drugs, but why is that any different than cigarettes? I consider cigarettes to be a drug...a highly addictive one, at that. Why should cigarettes not be taxed but "drugs" should?
Cigarettes are already taxed and I have no real problem taxing them now. If there is anything that "deserves" to be taxed, it is luxury items such as this. In fact, I would be all for this whole plan if it wasn't for the huge increase in taxes on RYO materials.
 

humann_brewing

More Humann than human
Lifetime Supporter
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
15,503
Reaction score
358
Location
the sun
If they are going to tax the grain I buy, why not tax the cereal that I buy too. I don't see that happening, but I guess I wouldn't be that surprised knowing this government.

I can just see it now, going to general mills to buy my grain and then malting it myself.
 

Parker36

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 22, 2007
Messages
4,740
Reaction score
26
Location
Lesotho
If they are going to tax the grain I buy, why not tax the cereal that I buy too. I don't see that happening, but I guess I wouldn't be that surprised knowing this government.

I can just see it now, going to general mills to buy my grain and then malting it myself.
Homebrewers as a whole are a pretty ingenious bunch and would likely find new ingredients/places to buy them if taxes ever got to crazy
 

GilaMinumBeer

Half-fast Prattlarian
Lifetime Supporter
Joined
Jan 23, 2008
Messages
65,433
Reaction score
10,788
I don;t have any quotes or statistics to point to but, I read that the irony of this taxation to benifit SCHIP is that while it does motivate more people to quit smoking, in order for this portion of the program to be really successful it would require that millions more (than current) need to start smoking in order to generate the needed funds.

Ha. Put that in your pipe and.., oh wait, that'd be too expensive too.
 

Parker36

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 22, 2007
Messages
4,740
Reaction score
26
Location
Lesotho
Yep, I just wish I had some land that I could grow everything I need to brew. I guess I would have to propagate yeast too though :)
Ya, unfortunately for most of us, having the land necessary to grow barley isn't really in the picture. Now making a yeast bank, that is something we have more or less mastered already at this point.
 

Parker36

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 22, 2007
Messages
4,740
Reaction score
26
Location
Lesotho
If they outright ban them how will they be able to get the tax money they need?
Ya, they tried prohibition once - din't work out so well. In fact, at this point, we are closer to the opposite end of the spectrum by making drugs that are currently illegal legal (or at least less illegal)
 

menschmaschine

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2007
Messages
3,259
Reaction score
51
Location
Delaware
Cigarettes will be illegal in our lifetime. You just wait.......
On one hand I could at least respect that. These backdoor sneak tactics are what kills me. The bottom line is that cigarettes are similar to fast food... they are manipulated to help you come back for more. They're only like 40% (or is it 60%?) natural tobacco. Big Tobacco killed itself if you ask me. And they are dragging all other forms of tobacco down with them. Tobacco is "the devil" primarily because of cigarettes.

I like to go home from work every night, eat dinner, and have a homebrew and a fine cigar. Am I addicted to that cigar a day? No. Is it going to give me cancer? Highly unlikely at one a day. Yet now I have to pay a higher tax on them because they are lumped in with cigarettes.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top