While the proposed Oregon beer tax is somewhat old news by now, it has been burning on the tips of my fingertips just waiting to find its way to the screen of this blog.  I can resist no longer.  With gaps in the state budget, Oregon came up with a plan to create instant revenue.  As with any “get rich quick” schemes, the levy was full of holes.

Sen. Bill Morrisette (D) of Springfield concocted drafted a proposal for a bill that would increase the statewide tax on beer leaving the brewery by 1900%.  No, my fat fingers didn’t mistakenly depress the “9″ and “0″ key at the same time, Senator Morrisette really did propose a 1900% tax increase.  As I read up on the proposed legislation, I became perturbed.  I stopped and asked myself, “Am I annoyed simply because this has to deal with beer?”  That is, had the Senator been taxing something irrelevant to me; say, cigarettes, would I still be up in arms as the tax would not affect me?  Yes, i believe so.

Besides the fact that the Rothbardian in me feigns state controlled revenue in most situations, there are times that I feel taxation is justified.  But the justification behind this tax is faulty, to say the least.  The senator stated two main reasons for the hike:

1.  Oregon has one of the lowest tax rates in the country and therefore it should be raised.

2.  He wants to create revenue that would go towards drug and alcohol abuse, prevention, and treatment.

Contra his first point, it is the opinion of this beer geek that change for the sake of change is not only futile, but often carries detrimental consequences.  If it isn’t broken, why fix it?  Besides, state competition is a good thing.  I posit that Oregon’s booming craft beer industry is a result of the in-place tax laws, and as such has put Oregon on the map.  Why squelch something that draws people, jobs, tourist, etc.?

As far as his justification, is it really the job of the State to fix someone’s dumb decision (you’ve heard of bank bailout this is morality bailout)?  Since heart disease kills more individuals per year than cirrhosis, why not impose a 1900% on Oregon’s glut of fast food chains?  Shoot, why not make obesity illegal like Japan did? Even if you say yes, the beer tax is the wrong place to go for funding.  Let’s face it, alcoholism among craft beer drinkers is much lower than among cheap beer and cheap liquor consumers.   The tax is not a a scapegoat (that is a punishment for the effects of alcohol), it is an excuse to bring in revenue in tight times.

I admit, this post is extremely subjective…but I can objectively say that it could be a slippery slope into prohibition-esque pragmatism.

Thoughts?  Comments?  Hate mail?