Remember that $787 Billion Stimulus package that congress passed in 2009? Under the scrutinizing eye, it was in fact a tax, not a stimulus…the United States has yet to feel the pain of payback; however. Regardless, free taxpayer money seems to be synonymous with “stimulus” these days. What does a yet unpaid for tax stimulate? Apparently not jobs, since the U.S. Unemployment Rate is hovering high still (higher than before the bills passage) at around 9.5% nationwide.
I say all this not to lead into a political discussion, but a beer discussion. Reading through my news feeder, a gripping headline caught my eye: Beer Stimulus: Can Hops and Barley Create Jobs? The use of the term Stimulus forced me into the guts of the article, as modern context led me to think the federal government was giving out future tax money to the beer industry. Such isn’t the case, the term is being used improperly in regards to a tax break.
The benefit of tax breaks is that they DO encourage long lasting residual income for the populous and the taxman. The problem with tax breaks, is that someone, somewhere, from some niche or industry or socio-economic strata writhes in anger at the unfairness. Perhaps the canned widgets industry gets upset because they did not receive their tax break.
Well, we can forget about the canned widgets guy…let ME be the one to harp on the fairness issue.
As the referenced article the bill (HR 4278) is actually relief from the heavy handed excise tax. As we should all know, an excise tax is a tax levied upon an industry in addition to standard taxes, typically in order to pay for a debt or service. How is that fair? Especially unsettling, is the fact that the excise tax on alcohol that ravages small breweries (Allagash Brewery claims to pay more than $150,000 per year in addition to FICA, Medicare, and all the other slew of taxes) was actually enacted to pay off debt incurred from the REVOLUTIONARY WAR. Ummm…that war ended nearly 230 years ago.
Don’t you think the excise tax should have been lifted by now? The truth is, once a tax is enacted, the beneficiaries will be hard pressed to pass up that cash, especially as more debt is incurred. So in reality, should the bill pass, the playing field would be a bit more level between a brewery and any non-excise industry. I say “a bit” because the excise tax would still be in place, just reduced.
But who might feel the twinges of jealousy at the fair luck of the craft brewers?
The macro brewers. HR 4278 is designed to benefit breweries who produce less than 6 million barrels a year. Sorry Bud. Let’s face it, our nation is in debt over our heads. Debt aside, our spending to GDP (Gross Domestic Product) is currently at 41.5%, a dangerously high level. In fact, the collapsed Greece’s spending to GDP is only a tad higher at 51.7%. The recommended level is 25%. Congress is worried. They are willing to take a risk and see if making loosening up some of the financial shackles on small brewers will enable them to hire more workers, hopefully leading to growth and sustained future taxable income.
This is not what the MacroBrewers want. They enjoy being emperors of the world. Like any mad emperor, any threat, no matter how seemingly insignificant, must be stamped out. From the ABC article:
The Beer Institute, a lobby group that represents the larger breweries like Anheuser-Busch Inbev, says it doesn’t support Neal and Brady’s proposed legislation, but that it welcomes some changes to the beer excise tax structure that will help reduce the tax burden on manufacturers.
“Congressman Neal’s bill is another indication that members of the U.S. House of Representatives support beer excise tax relief,” the Beer Institute says. “In 2008, members of the beer industry paid more than $41 billion in taxes at all levels of government and provided jobs to 1.9 million Americans. Congressman Neal’s bill will foster and promote growth for brewers who provide manufacturing jobs to hard working Americans.”
With the market share they are captive of, big breweries, like InBev, make more than enough money to cough up the excise tax and still stuff their pockets: Not so for the craft brewer. Obviously the craft brewer is a threat, as they are not backing the bill.
Well, I’m sorry you didn’t catch a break, big guys…it’s not a fair world our society gravitates towards a Robin Hood mentality. Regardless, I am thrilled that some of the struggling brewers who sacrifice to put good beer in my cup may be given a chance to grow and leave a legacy, and as a guy who shoots to be in the industry soon, I know this will increase my odds of surviving. I am calling my congressmen/women and encouraging them to allow our craft brewer friends to stop paying for our centuries old war with the British.
For more info, check out https://startingabrewery.wordpress.com/2010/03/22/federal-legislation-h-r-4278-you-can-help/
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Nate | THFB, MS. MS said: HR 4278…Yeah, It's Fair | Thank Heaven for Beer: As we should all know, an excise tax is a tax levied … https://bit.ly/cMTRyY – Freedom! [...]
This is interesting, and to take the economic dimension of this a little farther, if it is good to give the craft brewer a tax break, it would also be good to give the macros a break at the same time. Maybe not as large of one percentage wise, but if they are allowed to have more of their earnings, they too will employ more people and a ripple effect would be felt. I think that HR 4278 is good, but I think it would be better to reduce taxes on all brewers regardless of size. Now that’s a stimulus I could support.
[Reply]
Great article and insight! Let’s get this thing passed!
[Reply]
I agree completely, Don. Beer aside, I do believe that cutting a bit for the macros would be beneficial to the economy. It’s hard to say that, as I hate their product, but it jives with my (and big tex’s) school of economic thought.
[Reply]
Thanks PJ!
[Reply]
The fact that this tax still exists is ridiculous. Of course, when fiscal irresponsibility is the order of the government day, it’s not particularly surprising this thing is still around. The national debt should be enough to establish that much. Of course the big guys don’t support a more level playing ground and will draw on the tactics of “look how much money comes from it”. They already have several distinct advantages. https://thankheavenforbeer.com/category/the-cost-of-beer/
The truth is that something has to give. The continual stretching of this industry could eventually create and practical neo-post-prohibition climate where, practically, the big boys keep on thriving while the smalls guys get run out again.
Nicely done, Nate. Thanks guys
[Reply]
Great point Mike…The macros are happy to pay the big taxes in exchange for lobbying power in Washington, in my view. Were they exempt, they’d loose it as such and we’d see a more evenly distributed market share, in my opinion.
[Reply]
Considering ABInBev is willing to toss women in orange attire into jail to protect a sponsorship monopoly, I tend to be a tad suspicious of their motives.
Taxes are always thought of as a negative, especially by the people with the ability to pay them. But these taxes fund the Small Business Administration, cities large and small and the agency that approves beer labels. They also filled a pothole that I kept running into every morning.
My suggestions:
ABInBev and the rest of the industrial beer world should shut up and pay their share of taxes.
Form a rational tax system to promote new company creation and new hiring. Incentivize people to take that risk and open a business.
Or they could hire Thank Heaven for Beer to revise the alcohol laws.
[Reply]
You are right that excise taxes were all about war. But not the Revolutionary War. While researching a book on Indiana beer history I’ve found:
The first National liquor tax was in 1790. That one started the Whiskey Rebellion. This was on spirits, not beer.
The first National beer tax was in 1862 at $1 per barrel. This was to help finance the Civil War. It was lowered to 60 cents in 1863 and raised back to $1 in 1864. (although a 7.5% discount was allowed for leakage).
In 1989 National tax was raised to $2 (for the Spanish American War).
Lowered to $1.60 in 1901 and back to $1 in 1902.
Raised to $1.50 in 1814 and $3 in 1817 (Debts following another war with England).
In 1919 it was raised to $6 (yep on Prohibition beer – not the near beer but the small amount that was brewed to fill prescriptions).
After Prohibition (1933) it became $5 on beer under 3.2% ABW, $6 on real beer. This became a flat $5 on all beer in 1934.
In 2939 total excise collected on beer was $140 million.
1940 – $6
1942 – $7 (WWII)
1944 – $8
1951 – $9
In 1969 total beer excise exceeded $1 billion.
In 1977 small brewers got a break. If under 2,000,000 bbls the excise was $7, It stayed at $9 for all others.
1991 – The $7 rate continued for the first 60,000 bbls produced by breweries that made under 2 million barrels. But the big guys were hit with an $18 rate. (Think Gulf War).
In 2008 $3.777,913,000 was collected in beer excise tax.
Here in Indiana:
Indianapolis started to issue brewery licenses in 1891 and collected over $65,000 in taxes before the law was found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. That law was repealed in 1900 and a wholesaler’s license was substituted, raising $12,000 per year. This law was also deemed invalid by the courts.
A beer and liquor excise tax was put into place after prohibition. 5 cents per gallon.
Beer wholesalers that imported beer from another state had to pay an additional license fee of $1,500 and a post a bond of $10,000. These licenses are limited in number to 50 but only 13 were taken (as it turns out, given to friends of the party or sold). This led to Michigan outright banning beer from Indiana. Long and interesting story.
Indiana lowered the excise tax to 3-1/3 cents per gallon in 1935. They raised it back to 4 cents in 1939 and to 4-3/4 cents in 1941 to pay for local liquor boards.
The Republican lead by a resurgent temperance movement raised excise to 8 cents plus a 3/4 cent enforcement charge in 1945.
The 2% sales tax in 1963 included all alcohol – including a tax on the excise tax portion.
In 1973 the excise was upped to 10.75 cents per gallon and the enforcement charge was still tacked on.
[Reply]
@Sean, I am not anti tax either, just anti LOTS of tax due to spending beyond our means.
@Bob, thanks for the correction…that’s what I get for taking and legitimate news syndicate at face value. Could I have your source? I would love to read it…currently doing research on Toledo brew history myself…
[Reply]
The Federal excise rates are listed in the Brewers Almanac published by the Beer Institute. 1944 and 2009. All kinds of data – quantity, import, export, by state, etc.
Available at https://www.beerinstitute.org/statistics.asp?bid=200
[Reply]
Great post and discussion! Don’t have much to add except that its certainly good news for the small brewers and not surprising at all that the big guys are against it. One can’t expect the big guys to suddenly forget they are running a business and not a charity organization and will leverage any advantage.
Besides, we need that federal agency that approves beer labels to stay in business.
[Reply]