Why does the Oregon beer industry think you are a cheap bastard?
Since 1977, the Oregon tax on the privilege to engage in business as a manufacturer or importing distributor of beer is, $2.60 per 31-gallon barrel, or just eight-tenths of one-cent per bottle.
That's right, $0.008 per bottle, or a little less than 5-cents a six-pack, or only 19-cents a case. It doesn't matter whether it is the cheapest on the shelf or the finest and most expensive imported or Oregon-brewed bottle, the brewers and distributors pay less than 1-cent per bottle for the privilege of selling it to you.
Yet every legislative session the beer industry cries in their beer when a legislator tries to raise the tax to a more respectable level for better alcohol-related prevention, treatment and enforcement funding, and for General Fund revenue.
Discuss.
|
May 10, 2005 |
Chuck Sheketoff | Comments (52 so far)
| Share on Facebook |
Sponsored Advertising
Comments
Posted by: Sid Leader | May 10, 2005 12:36:32 PM
The liquor lords cry in their beer every year, and then go and print some more money.
I grew up in the liquor business (Leader Liquors, corner of Irving Park Road and Sacramento Avenue in Chicago) and it is truly one business that is recession-proof.
Remember when the Oregon tavern owners whined, cried and sobbed when the state wanted to take a few more cents from their beloved video crack games? Remember when dozens of tavern owners said they would tear out the machines? Guess what? Only one or two did, more than 95% kept the games and paid the state a few more pennies. Why?
Liquor store owners know they have a license to print money, because when was the last time a drug dealer went out of business?
Answer: never.
Posted by: Yoram | May 10, 2005 12:42:25 PM
Since we can't apparently tax beer based on manufacturing location, I wish we could tax based on quality of beer (worse beer = higher tax).
Yes, it might be slightly regressive, but it would help great Oregon microbrews and cost out-of-state crap beer magnates like Pete Coors money.
And yes, I'm happy to serve as the official beer taster determining the tax rate.
Alternatively, we could tax all beer and turn around and subsidize our beermakers. That might be legal.
Posted by: Jack Bog | May 10, 2005 12:45:56 PM
Yes, let's give the independent microbrewers -- one of our last native manufacturing industries -- an excuse to pack up and move over to Clark County. Brilliant, Chuck!
Posted by: Jeff Alworth | May 10, 2005 12:46:30 PM
Well, Chuck, you've hit on one of my personal hobby horses. First off, before I go ballistic, which proposal do you reference? Last session, two got rolled out. The rebuttal you link, from the Oregon Brewers Guild, references the first, which sucked major ass. We'll deal with that in due course.
A second bill got floated that was far better. Instead of just whacking the brewer and crippling our home-grown industry, it taxed brewers by the amount of beer they brewed. Bud can afford to pay, so it does. (I wrote about that proposal here.)
That first bill would have increased the tax on 31 gallons from its current rate (as you note) of $2.60 to $33.07. A 1300% increase! There were four central reasons why it was pathetic public policy:
1) It targets one of our few, home-grown industries. Why not just tax tennis shoes?--it's as arbitrary as selecting the beer industry.2) The proposals are aimed to nail the producer, not the wholesaler or retailer. Simple math: a brewer has a tiny profit margin and sells a keg of beer to a wholesaler for about a hundred bucks. Wholesaler loads it up, drives it across town and doubles his money. Finally, the retailer doubles his money by selling it a four bucks a pint. So why are we taxing the guy who's just barely breaking even?
3) Drinking beer (back me up now, people) is not a sin, and should not be taxed.
4) Even at its draconian rate, the tax would only raise $60 million a year.
I wrote about that law here.
Generally speaking, beer taxes hurt the wrong guy in the beer chain. If you really want to recoup some of that $4.50 pint of stout, don't tax brewers--tax retailers. (Try getting that past ORA!)
You may call me the Beerax--I speak for the beers.
Posted by: panchopdx | May 10, 2005 12:47:20 PM
Chuck,
Instead of just pining for higher wholesale beer taxes, why don't you propose the sort of holistic solution that fiscal conservatives will support?
Everyone knows that Big Beer is "cutting a fat hog" under Oregon's regulatory scheme. But HB 2533 (taxing Oregon-brewed beer consumed in other states) is a ridiculous proposal that will unfairly burden Oregon's microbrews by making them more expensive in other states.
Most people (other than legislators) could care less about the beer lobby's agenda, but they don't see any benefit from just jacking up another tax. You have to offer them something better.
Good proposals have been kicked around for decades now.
See the winning proposal in Cascade Policy's Oregon Better Government Competition in 1994.
http://www.cascadepolicy.org/bgc/orla.htm
Here's how I'd do it:
First, privatize the OLCC liquor distribution monopoly.
Next equalize beer and wine and liquor taxes by only taxing the alcohol in each retail beverage by its volume (results in same tax for an alcohol serving regardless of beverage type).
Set the alcohol tax at a rate designed to break even with current revenues vis-a-vis current consumption rates.
This will lead border residents of Washington, Idaho and Montana to shop for liquor in Oregon to escape their state monopoly pricing. And Oregonians will stop shopping for liquor in California and Nevada.
The result will be higher tax revenues collected through increased liquor sales and a reduction of unnecessary public employees (and the OLCC warehouse can be shut down and sold off).
However, if your only gambit is to retain the ugly status quo and lobby for higher beer taxes, Paul Romain will kick your ass every time.
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | May 10, 2005 12:58:54 PM
This is a fascinating conversation. Seems to me that taxing beer is just another "tax the fella behind the tree" sort of item. As Jack and Jeff mentioned, beer is also a homegrown industry. Other than HRD and a few small distilleries (like Clear Creek), Oregon doesn't have much of a hard-liquor industry.
So... I think I favor a tax, as Pancho mentioned, that's based on ABV. I'd actually set it pretty high, but then dedicate half the funds to a boosting state marketing efforts on behalf of Oregon beer, wine, and liquor.
Oh, and the OLCC has to go (or at least reduce its role to liquor license enforcement). Is there really any reason for them to be tasting and approving particular flavors and brands of booze - and controlling distribution?
Posted by: Chuck Sheketoff | May 10, 2005 1:18:32 PM
Jack Bog writes "Yes, let's give the independent microbrewers -- one of our last native manufacturing industries -- an excuse to pack up and move over to Clark County. Brilliant, Chuck!"
But the tax in Washington is significantly higher (>3x)and one of the highest in the nation when you factor in the sales tax. See the table on page J13 (pdf page 78) in the Legislative Revenue Office's 2005 Basic Tax packet.
And don't forget Jack, in Washington businesses pay the B&O tax even if they make no profit, where here they get away with our low cost corporate income tax. Oregon has low business taxes while Washington has some of the highest business taxes.
Posted by: iggi | May 10, 2005 2:07:53 PM
Drinking beer (back me up now, people) is not a sin, and should not be taxed.
i got your back on that one pal. keep your stinkin' tax mitts off my stout.
Posted by: BillO | May 10, 2005 3:15:23 PM
3) Drinking beer (back me up now, people) is not a sin, and should not be taxed.
Not a sin. But neither is work, and we tax that. Should we only tax sins? Ideally, yes. But it's a non-starter of an argument.
4) Even at its draconian rate, the tax would only raise $60 million a year.
A dime a beer is not draconian. At a bar, that's 2.5% rate. Not much. Compared to the current non-tax, the percentage increase is high, but you need to look at the actual rate, not the change.
And $60 million IS a lot of money. The R's and D's are fighting over a budget amount of just about twice that -- so half the fight would be over. $60 million can do a lot of good (it's about nine times the budget of DLCD, for example). It's not the biggest chunk of change, but it's plenty to consider.
2) The proposals are aimed to nail the producer, not the wholesaler or retailer. Simple math: a brewer has a tiny profit margin and sells a keg of beer to a wholesaler for about a hundred bucks. Wholesaler loads it up, drives it across town and doubles his money. Finally, the retailer doubles his money by selling it a four bucks a pint. So why are we taxing the guy who's just barely breaking even?
As you say, "simple math," I respond, "simple economics." If the retailer and wholesaler are making out like bandits, the cost will be passed on to them (or more retailers will enter the market). Taxes are borne by those who can't escape them. If the producer really can't escape the tax, and the tiny tax on beer will drive them out of business, we should solve that problem by helping out the business, not rejecting the tax.
1) It targets one of our few, home-grown industries. Why not just tax tennis shoes?--it's as arbitrary as selecting the beer industry.
It's not completely arbitrary. Beer is a luxury good (ok, ok, many of us need it to live, but...).
There are lots of home-grown industries. All should be pitching in. But right now, we have an extremely low beer tax compared to other states, so it's a reasonable thing to look at.
Yes, we want to promote our great beer industry. But no one has demonstrated that we'd kill it through this tax. And this tax: (a) raises $60 million; (b) brings us more into line with other states.
Posted by: Jeff Alworth | May 10, 2005 3:23:13 PM
Bill--
The sin tax part was to the sin tax argument. Play fair.
Your further arguments depend on ignoring that the taxation affects only producers, not distributors or retailers. That three-tier system is one mandated by federal law, designed initially to de-fang the power of breweries which, at that time, engaged in the "tied-house practice." Still used in Britian, the tied-house system is one in which the brewery owns the retailer and can effectively freeze out other breweries. The effect? Only megabreweries survive.
So while the three-tier system has some benefits, it also minimizes the power of breweries to influence supply and demand--which was its design. So why would good public policy target the one tier of the three-tiered system that can't respond?
If you want to tax beer, why not tax it at the tap? Until you answer that, all this talk of "simple economics" is hogwash. Other industries are hobbled by three-tiered systems.
Posted by: Torrid Joe | May 10, 2005 3:47:06 PM
When BillO says "a dime a beer is not draconian," I have to laugh. The brewer doesn't pay for a beer and leave, they pay at the barrel level. Let's look at some real numbers.
The smallest brewery in the state is Philadelphia Steak and Hoagie, which produced 120 barrels. At $2.60 a barrel, their tax liability was $312. Perhaps you see that as low; fair enough. But once the bill had passed, PS&H would have been liable--using the same facilities, with the same revenue and paying the same number of employees, now--for $3696 in taxes.
So maybe they can come up with 4 grand and not suffer too badly. What about another small producer like Caldera in Ashland? Their 2004 capacity was about 1770 barrels. At $2.60 per, that's $4602. Under the new structure, they'd be forced to pay $58,584. I don't know how much you know about small business, but asking them to find another 50 grand laying around to pay taxes on, is asking an enornmous increase in their burden.
Posted by: BillO | May 10, 2005 3:53:47 PM
Ok. Here's the economist's point (that also reponds to Torrid Joe's argument): the burden of taxes falls on who can pay it.
Thus, if you tax a dress in a shop, either that tax is paid by the consumer, the dressmaker, the distributor, the store, etc. It all depends on who can pay, and the various elasticities of demand and supply.
Similarly, if you tax beer made by Caldera, then they may either (a) pay it; or (b) pass it on to who they sell that barrel to. The distributor then (a) pays it; or (b) passes on the cost.
Eventually, part of the dime cost will probably reach the consumer. Or not. As I said, it all depends. That the tax is collected from the producer has very little to do with who suffers from the tax in the long run.
Jeff's argument seems to be that the megabrewers can weather this storm better than others, Joe's that the demand is extremely elastic from everyone and that no one but the producer will bear the tax burden. I don't know if either of those are true or not. Anyone got data on demand elasticities?
Posted by: Jeff Alworth | May 10, 2005 4:05:57 PM
Jeff's argument seems to be that the megabrewers can weather this storm better than others
I have no idea about demand elasticities (though henceforth I'm gonna rave about them whenever I get in over my head on econ discussions), but yes, Caldera is at a very deep disadvantage against Anheuser-Busch. This is doubly true when you bring proprietary distributorships into the mix (like Maletis), but I won't get into that.
Posted by: torridjoe | May 10, 2005 7:20:01 PM
to clarify, my argument was generally the same as Jeff's--the smaller brewers take a real-value hit that is much tougher to absorb than for the largest brewers. That they might eventually pass on the pain wasn't my point--and in any case, before they can pass it on they have to absorb it.
Posted by: K. Sudbeck | May 10, 2005 8:10:39 PM
I miss Rainier Beer.
Generally speaking, beer taxes hurt the wrong guy in the beer chain. If you really want to recoup some of that $4.50 pint of stout, don't tax brewers--tax retailers. (Try getting that past ORA!)
You may call me the Beerax--I speak for the beers.
I concur with Jeff. I don't see the McMenamins Empire crumbling anytime soon.
Posted by: Admiral Rusty Shackelford | May 10, 2005 10:03:59 PM
So do you guys always sit around trying to figure out ways of taking more of other peoples money?
Raise beer taxes? You progressives still wondering why you lost the red states?
You might as well start taxing baby formula.
Posted by: torridjoe | May 11, 2005 6:57:35 AM
us guys? Was there a legislative quorum call and I missed it?
If you check the thread, most of us guys are actually against it...
Posted by: glenlivid | May 11, 2005 9:05:55 AM
I completely agree with Jeff on this one. Every legislative session brings yet another beer tax that is ill-conceived and punishes the local breweries too harshly. I’ve sat in on my share of Brewers Guild meetings and I’ve got to say, “Thank god for the Oregon Brewers Guild”. Not only are they able to combine marketing strategies, but also they are able to recognize an unfair tax and work towards fending it off. I don’t see Oregon Brewers as unreasonable beer barons, but instead as people that feel they are doing their fair share.
Oregon loves its beer; it’s one of the industries we are most proud of. The Oregon Brewers Festival is one of the biggest in the world, and we are one of the cities with the highest number of independent breweries per capita in the world. Most of the breweries are relatively small, which gives us a wide variety of style as well as types of beer. The beer culture in Portland brings in its share of tourism, and the average consumer of craft beer are the types of people we want visiting our city: they have a decent source of income, tend to be educated and are generally great people (I base this on 12 years in the craft brewing industry, which took me all over the northwest).
If you are going to sit around dreaming up ways to develop more tax revenue, look at the OLCC; that bloated bureaucracy has got to be useful for something. Seriously though, you’ve got to look at the big picture when you look at the craft brewing industry. I’d hate to see an overbearing tax cripple an industry that does wonders for our economy and image.
Posted by: Chuck Sheketoff | May 11, 2005 10:17:57 AM
The suggestion by Jeff and others that small breweries would have to eat the full costs and not pass it along to consumers is bizarre. Of course they would pass it along. To imply that consumers would then stop buying the microbreweries’ product with a nickel a bottle increase in cost is equally bizarre. People are already demonstrating that they are willing to pay a premium for microbrews, and if that premium goes up slightly, while the national brand swill also goes up slightly (maybe less, though I have never thought that August Bush was so generous to Oregonians that he would eat the cost or screw consumers in other states just cuz he likes Oregonians), they will still pay the higher price. How high would the price of a microbrew have to be for Jeff to start drinking national brand swill?
The average statutory state corporate tax rate on profits is about 6.8 percent (weighted by gross state product). Corporate tax collections should rise with corporate profits. When you have tax schemes like Oregon’s single sales factor apportionment, that gets distorted by large profitable companies with virtually no sales in the state.
Many of the microbreweries weren’t even in existence when the tax was last increased, 1977. Under the romantic logic of Jack Bog, Jeff Alworth and others, we’d never raise their tax, regardless of how far we fall behind states. Under their logic, the corporate minimum tax ought to be kept at $10, which was lowered to that level in 1931. How romantic!
Posted by: Tom Civiletti | May 11, 2005 11:45:46 AM
Secular governments should not tax "sins", but they should tax activity that has a high social cost, if not to reduce that activity, then to help pay for the cost incurred. Alcohol has a high social cost. This is clear. Alcohol tax can help pay for treatment programs, law enforcement against drunk drivers, and increased medical services the drug necessitates.
I like microbrew and think it is worthwhile to promote Oregon's industry. That should not mean, however, that beer is forever protected from tax increases. I promise to not switch to Coor's, Bud, or Miller if Microbrew prices increase a bit.
Posted by: Jenny | May 11, 2005 11:51:38 AM
Is there a middle ground? Could we increase the tax by 3 cents a bottle, instead of ten cents? Or is it simply: no increase, because any increase will cause the sky to fall and bad beer to rule the land?
Posted by: Jeff Alworth | May 11, 2005 12:09:28 PM
Chuck, you're missing my central point.
Everyone seems to have this faith that the market will solve all. Look, one out of every two beers sold in America is sold by Anheuser-Busch. As a result, all the ingredients they use are sold to them cheaper. They have a massive advantage at the grocery store and in pubs, because they are able to get huge shelf space/tap handles. This in turn allows them to control distribution. Bud has its own distributor in town, for example. If you raise taxes on beer, Bud can absorb it almost without it affecting their bottom line.
How high would the price of a microbrew have to be for Jeff to start drinking national brand swill?
The thing is, the tax won't hurt Budweiser, but it will cut directly into the small breweries' bottom line. They won't be able to raise the wholesale price they sell at because Budweiser, selling half of all beer (and owning parts of Widmer, RedHook, etc.) still totally undercuts them. The price won't be passed on to the consumer because the weakest guy in the chain will take the hit. He'll go out of business, but neither the distributor nor the retailer cares--they'll still be selling beer.
And I resent the implication that I'm trying to shield breweries from taxes. I'm totally in favor of business taxes. I'm a pinko commie (as are most brewers, you'll find). But tax them like any other business. You're adding an additional, selective tax onto their product. As I mentioned in my initial post, why not randomly tax tennis shoes, then? Or candy bars? Yeah, it's true we haven't raised beer taxes in years. Maybe we're just a little more enlightened now.
We don't have a habit of targeting the products of our businesspeople except when someone wants to curtail socially-detrimental behavior. And I'll tell you what, alcoholics aren't spending their money on Hair of the Dog's Fred. They're buying the cheap stuff.
So you'd destroy a vibrant segment of the local economy, do damage to a cultural institution (pubgoing and beer drinking), not help curtail alcoholism, and raise not much money. I'm still waiting to hear how this is a good deal.
(Again, I mentioned at the top that if exemption are made for small breweries, all of a sudden it starts to look a lot more reasonable.)
Posted by: LewBryson | May 11, 2005 12:22:58 PM
Raise the beer tax?
Answer me this: WHY is there a "beer tax" in the first place? Isn't a sales tax and an income tax enough? Aren't they fairly applied to all people, to raise revenue for all state projects?
There is a beer tax because it was imposed by the government. But there is no logic to a tax specifically on beer, or wine, or tennis shoes. Everyone pays taxes, everyone benefits. Drop all excise taxes, increase sales taxes and income taxes to compensate. That would be fair...but it will never happen, will it?
Hey, Jeff. Haven't run across you since hop harvest in Yakima, back in '96. How you been?
Posted by: Brian | May 11, 2005 2:13:54 PM
We don't think anyones a cheap bastard.
Here's the deal so to speak. 85-90% of the beer sold in Oregon is still from large, out of state companies. These companies are represented locally by distributors. In the Portland area each of the big three distributors represents a major brand, A-B(Bud), Miller and Coors. Bud, Miller and Coors do not want their distributors to pay more in taxes, nor do their distributors. Every one of the six large breweries in Oregon(Bridgeport, Widmer, Full Sail, Deschutes, Portland and Rogue) is with a distributor that represents Bud, Miller and Coors. These people are the ones responsible for getting Oregon beer out to the public.
The tax proposal would increase the tax by $33.16 a barrel for these large out of state breweries.
So let's look at how this tax scenario would play out and what it would really mean.
Oregon Brewers produce about 600,000 barrels a year, of which 250,000 barrels a year gets consumed in state. If the "tax" were to increase from 2.60 to 16.58(a nickel a drink)+2.60 this would equal 19.18. Let's call it $20. So the Oregon brewed beer gets to the distributor who is now paying $33 extra per barrel on 90% of what he sells. In other words, the states distributors would now be paying, instead of $6 million a year, they would now be paying $73 million. Guess what, Oregon beer just got hit with not only a $20 a barrel increase but a $33 increase as well. In other words the cost of Oregon beer at the distributor just went up $53. This is the reality of the beer business. Let's look at how the numbers play out.
We'll say each barrel of Oregon beer currently goes out to the distributor for $150, the distributor marks this up to $235 and the publican looks to make $700 profit on every barrel so he charges $4.00 a pint. This is the current scenario.
Let's look at the tax increase scenario. The distribur now gets his Oregon beer for $170. He adds $30 in tax and does his usual mark up. The price to the publican is now $315. He hopes to make his $700 in profit so now he charges. $4.30 a pint. Have you ever heard of a $4.30 pint? Let's say pints are now $4.50.
Let's take a look at the six pack cost. There is about 50 six packs in a barrel so you can see already the price has gone up a dollar at the distributor level. The retailer marks the beer up 33 per cent and now the price has gone up 1.33 a six pack. Not the $0.30 the lawmaker intended.
I could go on all day but I won't.
Thanks - Brian Butenschoen
Oregon Brewers Guild
Posted by: Jenny | May 11, 2005 3:37:03 PM
And then, the beer drinker goes home and demands his usual markup in allowance from his father, meaning another 1000% increase. Beer ends up costing twelve million dollars a bottle!
Sheesh. Let's have a little intellectual honesty here, and not make spurious arguments.
Posted by: Brian | May 11, 2005 4:38:30 PM
Nothing spurious at all about the argument. I wish people, especially legislators would be intellectually honest and do the right thing if they want to raise the beer tax, which for them would not be politically expedient.
I'm not even going to go into who pays to lobby the legislature every other year to raise the beer tax, but let's just say their favorite color would not be blue. Politics does indeed make strange bedfellows.
Cheers!
Brian @ the OBG
Posted by: Jenny | May 11, 2005 4:58:15 PM
What you've done is say a $33/barrel tax means a distributor charges $315 instead of $235. I don't buy that at all.
Posted by: David Wright | May 11, 2005 5:13:23 PM
Brian,
I'm curious, why is it that beer distributors would increase the price of Oregon beer by $53?
I get the fact that the distributor has to pay $20 more for the Oregon beer (if it's from a small-volume producer) and $33 more for the large-volume out of state beer.
What I don't get is why you add $20 to $33 to come up with an overall $53 increase per barrel. If it's a matter of price parity between local and out of state beers, why wouldn't both kinds simply go up by $33?
You said that the markup now is from $150 from the brewer to $235 at the distributor. That's about a 57% markup. Now, the Oregon beer costs $20 more because of the new tax, for $170. I'm not sure where the additional "$30 tax" comes from for that barrel (am I missing something there?) so the 57% markup from $170 is about $267. Which, if you follow through with the publican's markup would bring that $4 pint to not quite $4.10 -- hence, the dime increase for a pint of beer (though if I was a pub owner, I'd bump the price up to $4.25 and get a little extra out of it anyhow...)
So really, the difference here is why the $30 extra gets added at the distributor, when the $20 tax was already paid (and passed along) by the brewer?
I happen to think that this tax increase is a bad idea no matter how the numbers work out (personally, jacking the price of a pint up by even $0.50 or so wouldn't impact my consumption much -- but why pick on the beer industry?), I'm just trying to understand the math involved in your argument against it.
Thanks...
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | May 11, 2005 10:38:11 PM
David and Jenny, without getting into the math, what Brian is arguing is that at each step in the path to market, the markup is determined as a percentage.
Therefore, an increase of X cost at the front end causes the final price to go up by some multiple of X.
A lot of industries have very standard percentage markup rates, and beer is one of them. One can't assume that a tax levied on the producer will just get passed as-is straight on through to the consumer.
Why? Because at each step, the producer/distributor/wholesaler/retailer is taking a risk that the beer will go unsold while they're holding it.
Posted by: David Wright | May 11, 2005 11:40:29 PM
Yeah, Kari, I understand markups. I used the original markup percentage given by Brian in my calculations.
The original markup of 57% from brewer to distributor (i.e., the distributor marks up the brewer's price before passing along to the publican) would only account for an increase to the publican of not quite $32 ($20 brewer-paid tax + 57% distributor markup). That corresponds with Brian's original "distributor price" of $235 going up to my calculated appropriate distributor price of $267 instead of Brian's claim of $315.
Brian said that the brewer's price went up $20 (the original $150 price plus the new tax makes $170), then the distributor added $30, THEN the distributor marked up the result (making $315).
So what's that extra $30 all about? It's not, as far as I can tell, due to this particular tax unless I'm missing something. The brewer already paid the tax and passed that cost along to the distributor, right? That's why the brewer was charging $170 instead of $150 for the barrel in the first place. But then Brian seems to be claiming that the distributor has to pay another $30 in tax on that same barrel. And that doesn't make sense, if the tax is levied at only one point. Or does this proposal levy the tax twice, once at the brewer and once at the distributor?
I've looked up the text of HB 2533 and it says the tax is to be paid by manufacturers or importing distributors. Now, the other conditions in the bill may be a bit vague, but a common sense reading of the bill seems to indicate to me that the intent is to tax a barrel of beer only once. In the case of domestic manufacturers, the manufacturer pays the tax. In the case of imported beer, the importer (distributor) pays the tax.
Perhaps I'm misreading the bill, but I don't take that to mean that a distributor who both imports beer and distributes locally-manufactured beer would have to pay the tax on all beer distributed, but rather only the imported beer that was distributed.
IF my reading is incorrect, then this bill is far, far worse than imagined, because it would have the effect of taxing Oregon beer twice (at the brewer and distributor) while taxing imported beer only once (at the distributor). I can't imagine that would be the intent of the bill.
So back to my original question, why does Brian add a second $30 tax on Oregon beer at the distribution stage?
Posted by: Brian | May 12, 2005 1:58:07 AM
Wow! First of all, I am impressed that people read what I said and assimilated it and discussed it. Thanks to David, Kari and Jenny for expressing support and some disbelief. Perhaps politico junkies are my new best friends.
I would like to stress some points to people. First of all, I read the law to be that the producer pays the tax, which I believe to be true i.e. the beer that's produced in Oregon and distributed in Oregon, the brewer pays the tax. I believe that I am about 95% correct in this assumption. What I would like people to understand is that when a distributor in Oregon is now paying $33 a BBL more on 90% of his product, he is going to pass that cost onto the wholesale price of their product onto the price of all of their products. In other words, the distributors are not going to say, "Hey, we are now paying 1700% more in excise taxes(i.e. $33 more a BBL in excise tax), on 90% of our beers let's not raise the price of Oregon made beer more than the increase they are already paying" i.e. the beer gets to the disributor at $20 more per BBL they are not going to say let's not pass this extra $33 onto them, lets' exclude them. Which is unfortunate but understandable.
Am I winning any people over? We rely on distributors to get our beers out to the public.
There is information out there on what an excise tax increase means to the consumer done by an Ivy league school. I'll let people dig up that info.
I wish I could spell it out more for people. Are there any people with masters degrees or PhD's in Economics? Basically you cannot tax on the producer/distributor level and expect that same amount to appear out in the marketplace.
It's unfortunate that people can say and believe that raising the tax at the producer/distributor level equals the same amount that consumers would pay. Also unfortunately it makes a great soundbite becuase it sounds like such a little amount. No offense to my local legislator who loves great local beer.
Cheers!
Brian
Posted by: Jenny | May 12, 2005 8:23:32 AM
Yeah, I get it, I just don't buy it.
Industries will adjust their markup rates if they need to. That's just how the marketplace works. The distributor isn't about earning X% -- the distributor is about making the largest profit possible in the marketplace, and the X% markup is the shortcut to doing that.
But just because they use a standard percentage markup doesn't mean that the marketplace will buy what they want at the price they're offering once a tax is created. Some distributor will undercut them and win the business.
That is, some distributor will be happy with the $70 on the barrel she used to make, and not jack the price by the percentage rate. She'll adjust her percentage rate down and still make $70.
Of course, that's just how the model works, not necessarily the real world.
If you think there's collusion or undue market power or barriers to entry, which there may be, let's talk about how to break that down, not how a tax is multiplied over and over.
Posted by: David Wright | May 12, 2005 9:28:59 AM
I agree with Jenny, if distributors are able to price as Brian describes, in an apparently highly regulated marketplace, we need to examine the market to see if conditions allow or promote unreasonable business practices.
Brian, I understand what you're saying, but I don't think it makes a lot of sense to run a business that way. Of course, as a wholesaler in an open market if you can get away with raising the price of all products because your cost for some (even a majority) of those products has increased, good for you. But as Jenny said, in an open market you'd likely be forced by competition not to gouge your customers that way.
I used to work for a wholesale company, and I was involved in pricing for the products we sold. Yes, when our cost for the product went up, we'd adjust our price to maintain the desired margin. But we didn't raise prices on all products just because our cost on some products went up.
Now, following your logic, are you saying that if Coors (for example) raises the price of a barrel of beer by $10, then the distributor would raise the price of local microbrews by $15.70 as well ($10 Coors increase + 57% markup)? I mean, I presume that the distributor charges different prices for Coors and for the local beer in the first place, so I just fail to see the logic of increasing the (already distinct) price of one by the (marked-up) increase of the cost for another.
Of course, just because it doesn't make sense to me, doesn't mean it won't happen. But again, if the market environment is such that distributors can price their products this way without fear of losing business, something may be amiss. And whether or not this tax goes through (I still don't think it should), we should look at our regulation of the market to see if perhaps that should be changed.
Posted by: Sid Leader | May 12, 2005 11:18:45 AM
I can't believe all the good people defending Drug Dealers and their sacred profits. Beer is made with alcohol, one of the deadliest drugs on Earth. Beer makers are lucky we allow them to push their drugs at all. Come on, people, I grew up in a liquor store. I guarantee you Oregon could TRIPLE the beer tax and not one less bottle of beer will be brewed in the state. Where they gonna go? California? Washington? Never.
Posted by: panchopdx | May 12, 2005 12:23:21 PM
I guarantee you Oregon could TRIPLE the beer tax and not one less bottle of beer will be brewed in the state
HB 2533 proposes to increase the wholesale beer tax by a factor of thirteen (not three).
Sid, I'd take you up on your guarantee if it actually referred to the bill in question (say in the form of a $100 bet).
But this bill has no chance of going anywhere in current form, so why bother?
Posted by: Sid Leader | May 12, 2005 12:30:10 PM
Three times bigger? Thirteen times bigger? Who cares? Drug dealing is drug dealing. Read the papers. Drivers drink their lunch, a few minutes later schoolkids and their mothers crossing Foster Road die. I think $10-15 a sixpack for Oregon swillwater is a good place to start, but I grew up in a tavern and saw the damage to society firsthand, and most of you did not.
Posted by: Admiral Rusty Shackelford | May 12, 2005 1:19:13 PM
Sid - You are obviously one of the most progressive minds of 1920.
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-157.html
Posted by: glenlivid | May 12, 2005 1:26:20 PM
"Drug dealing is drug dealing. Read the papers. Drivers drink their lunch, a few minutes later schoolkids and their mothers crossing Foster Road die."
Come on, man. I'm sorry you saw a seedy side of life working in the tavern industry, but I worked in the craft brewing industry for 12 years and only knew one person that had a DUI. People that like good beer and wine aren't the same as someone that slugs down a bottle of mouthwash to catch a buzz. I feel you have a certain bitterness to your argument that undoubtedly comes from a run in with law enforcement or a rehab program, but don’t try to label everyone as drug using, homicidal maniacs.
Posted by: Sid Leader | May 12, 2005 3:00:43 PM
Never even been stopped, much less arrested, which is good because if I was arrested or in rehab, like Rush Limbaugh, then I could not have gotten an Oregon teacher license.
Beer and alcohol are drugs. Deal with it. And leave the crystal ball to Wolfie, Rummy and pals. They were spot-on on the war, right, Glennie?
Posted by: glenlivid | May 12, 2005 3:22:40 PM
"Never even been stopped, much less arrested, which is good because if I was arrested or in rehab, like Rush Limbaugh, then I could not have gotten an Oregon teacher license."
Limbaugh has an Oregon Teachers License?
"Beer and alcohol are drugs. Deal with it."
I don't mind you calling them drugs, but they are different from other drugs in the way coffee is different from meth. Coffee is an enjoyed experience, as are beer and wine, whereas meth and pure alcohol are nasty drugs that are introduced to your system for the simple reason of getting high. The drug part, for most beer and wine aficionados, is a side benefit to the overwhelming flavor compulsion. Earlier you said that:
"Beer is made with alcohol, one of the deadliest drugs on Earth."
This is not true. Beer is made with water, malt, hops and yeast (in that order). Beer and wine are wonderfully natural and healthy beverages. Alcohol is a much desired side benefit to beer and wine, but another side benefit is flavor. Don’t demean the power of your sense of smell and taste, Sid, they go a long way in dictating what you do in life. They are forces almost as powerful as the need to get loaded, and when you couple one’s enjoyment of flavor, odor and alcohol with another side benefit, social interaction, I’m here to tell you they are some of the best experiences on earth.
I’m sorry about sounding demeaning earlier, but all I’m asking you to do is consider the possibility that some of us enjoy an experience almost as old as mankind itself in a considerate and appreciative fashion. In other words, you can call us all a bunch of druggies, but I think you are seeing everything from a personally distorted point of view.
Posted by: Brian | May 12, 2005 4:31:13 PM
Just thought I would post one more time.
If people really think that if the states distributors have to pay $33 a BBL more in tax and that cost is not going to be passed on to Oregon made beer this is something that can be argued. Maybe not all of this cost will be passed on to local, craft brewers, maybe it will. I, at this point and time, very strongly believe that this additional cost will be passed onto Oregon brewed beer and onto the consumer, if it is distributed through one of the large distribution houses.
As far as the whole market/price undercutting thing goes. The large distributors in this state control about 98 or 99% of the market. There is no company to come in and undercut the price and win more business. The prices on craft beer are very similar, and the everyday prices on macro brews are even more similar. Any small distributor in this state would be happy with a 1% share of the market. Of course, going from distibuting tens to hundreds of kegs a week to thousands requires $$$ in infrastructure.
What I would like for people to understand is that when legislators say that it's a nickel a drink to raise the tax on Oregon's small producers it ain't never, ever, ever going to be a nickel. Why not be honest about it. Sure it might end up being ten cents or 20 cents a drink. Until this happens or until legislators do the economically obvious but not politically expedient thing, will keep on having this conversation.
Cheers!
Brian
Posted by: Eric | May 15, 2005 9:57:42 PM
All of the beer tax House Bills and Senate Bills are tiered (just like we do with Oregon Wineries). Therefore, brewers that produce less than 200,000 barrels per year will pay a discounted tax rate. This protects small businesses. In fact, all of Oregon Breweries produce less than 200,000 barrels. So, they would all get the discounted rate. For the most part the BIG High-Volume-Cheap-Beer producers would carry the burden of the tax. This could actually help Oregon Breweries by leveling the playing field so that they could compete against the cheap-mass-producers (Anheuser-Busch, Millers, Coors and Pabst). Senate Bill 1049 is absolute genius!!
Posted by: ron | Mar 27, 2007 12:30:34 PM
Why is it that the state always feels they have the right to put on more taxes or increase the tax. I would not mind paying more taxes if it made a diffrence, but next year they will need more, so another increase, another industry taxed and sent out of Oregon. COME ON STOP TAXING EVERY THING! We can't seem to catch a break in Oregon, between the forest industy and the owl, to the fishing industy and the dams, I ask you what are we suppose to do in Oregon, we can't keep raising taxes evetually there will be no one to tax.
Posted by: David Dean | Aug 26, 2007 12:01:59 AM
I agree with Ron. Let's allow a homegrown industry thrive for once.
Posted by: Jeff | Feb 14, 2009 12:11:19 AM
The 2009 proposal is even worse.
The state of Oregon (and in particular Portland) is pretty much the microbrewery capital of the world. We have more brew pubs per capita than anywhere in the world (Yes, including Germany and Ireland). The Oregon Lottery spent tons of money to build up Oregons Brewery export business. That means money brought into the state from elsewhere providing jobs.
Now they want to raise the tax per parel on beer in this state. Approx. 1900% From what is currently around $2.60 a barrel to over $52.00 a barrel. (That's a 31 gallon Keg in case you were wondering.) This would change Oregons beer tax from one of the cheapest in the nation to one of the most expensive. The national average is $7.87.
During the recession the beer microbrewing industry is one of the things that hasn't had major problems. And, Oregon exports a ton of it.
Here are a few statistics on what they will do to our Oregon micro-breweries tax liability on beer sold.
(based on 2008 in-state sales estimats):
New Old Lompoc Brewery: from $5,330 per year to $107,030
Hopworks Urban Brewery: from $7,857 to $157,778
Ninkasi Brewing: from $18,460 to $370,691
Rogue Ales: from $34,091 to $684,577
BridgePort Brewing: from $60,315 to $1,211,167
Deschutes Brewery: from $215,990 to $4,337,241.
Pay close attention to that last one. Deschutes Brewery is set to expand and is exploring options. The company employs about 280 workers, including 150 in Bend. The rest are in Portland, where the company opened a brewpub last year as well as a few other markets. Currently they have 35 to 40 existing tanks, which produced about 180,000 barrels of beer in 2008, and are nearing full capacity. Expansion plans if they stay in Bend are to add 10 new 45-foot-tall fermentation tanks outside the existing facility. Other growth within the next five to 10 years could include building a new packaging and warehouse facility on 7 acres immediately east of the existing brewery building. THATS NEW JOBS ANDNEW MONEY BROUGHT INTO THE STATE FROM OUTSIDE ITS BORDERS.They have stated that a Bend expansion of facilities is preferable but are now looking at expanding elsewhere or contracting with another company somewhere else to do part of their brewing.
This proposed tax could shut down much of the industry in Oregon. Also making us less marketable by driving up the price of Oregon Beers.
Using 2007 figures, the Deschutes Brewery is the seventh largest craft brewer in the U.S.Sierra Nevada Brewing in Chico is second, and Full Sail Brewing in Hood River is ninth. I would be very interested to see statistics for McMenamins and hear what they have to say on the subject.
A 2007 article provides the following -
“Portland has more breweries than any other city in the world. Portland is the largest craft beer market in the U.S. Oregon is the second largest producer of craft beer in the U.S. and Oregon is the second largest craft beer market in the U.S. No wonder Oregon is known as Beervana and is a destination for craft beer lovers from all over the U.S. and the world,” said Brian Butenschoen, Executive Director of the Oregon Brewers Guild.
“Our healthy brewing industry is good for not only beer drinkers, but the state as a whole, because it provides almost 4300 family wage jobs, a lure for tourism and an outlet for local products such as hops, malted barley, yeast and glass,” he added.
He also cited the fact that almost 11 percent of all beer consumed in Oregon is Oregon-brewed craft beer. The national market share for all craft beer is 3.5 percent, according to the Brewers Association.
Let's also not forget the hops, wheat and barley growers the beer industry supports locally. Or how about the glass industry. Willamette Hops is a big industry, so is Oregons brewers yeast industry.
How many jobs are they looking to have us lose. Are our reps in the state government insane?
What's worse Democratic Sen. Rosenbaum is a sponsor. She has 5 small breweries in her district: Lucky Labrador, Roots, Clinton Street, Hopworks, and Philadelphia's. E-mail her and let her know what you think
sen.dianerosenbaum@state.or.us
Posted by: pete | Feb 14, 2009 6:46:58 AM
So, manufacturing a product is a privilege?
Who grants this "privilege".
They haven't risen this tax since 77, huh? Wonder how much the tax on grape juice has risen since then?
Oh, yeah, that's right, there isn't one.
Why the hell should anyone have the "privilege" of deciding what taxes should be imposed on which substances?
They shouldn't.
Only "progressive" nanny staters like yourself think you are smart enough to make these decisions.
If you folks in Oregon wanna raise a tax on something your state has a pretty damn good reputation at producing, through your microbrewers, I guess it's your business, but, to decide to raise it as drastically as you want to is criminal. What are you gonna tell the struggling pub owner who just might go out of business as a result?
I guess you don't give a damn about him, just as your ilk don't give a damn about businesses you ruined through smoking bans. I'm assuming you have these in place as we do in CT. I work with a guy who owned a pool hall with his dad. It was closed about a year ago. They couldn't tolerate the 50%, yes 50%, drop in business that the smoking ban wrought.
Well, I guess home brew kit sales will be up in OR.
Posted by: Joe | Feb 15, 2009 12:21:48 PM
I am not opposed to a beer tax, but the amount the sponsors would like to increase is crazy. It's as if they are trying to make up for not increasing it since the 70's. Why couldn't the tax be increase by 300-500% which is still in line with most other states and has a less of an impact on our microbreweries. Then in another 4 or 5 years increase a little more. My other question is why only on beer? Why in the last two years have we not increased tobacco taxes? Why not increase our corporate tax, that hasn't been raised since the 1930's. They are proposing this tax hike not to pay for children's health or mental health treatment, they are proposing it to offset the state deficit of I believe $8billion. Which is easy to rack up when your governor gives generous raise to state employees in a time of ecomomic crisis. People are getting laid off and they are giving raises to state employees. So how to we better pay for there increases tax the working man's enjoyment.
Posted by: RE | Feb 15, 2009 10:28:43 PM
Well people, keep voting for "Liberals" Democrats or Republicans alike who favor social engineering, and life in the U.S. will soon make life in the 1965 movie Dr. Zhivago seem like a vacation. Anyone who favors these consumption taxes does not really understand the founding priciples of the United States. The more the government controls what we do, the less free we are. People of Oregon, whether you drink alcohol or not, you should all be banding together to oppose these ne'er-do-wells for the sake of freedom. Then vote them out of office when their terms are up.
Posted by: Steven | Feb 16, 2009 9:00:10 AM
Dear Chuck,
Why do responsible beer drinkers have to foot the bill for irresponsible beer drinkers and underaged drinkers? Why not target those who actually commit those crimes to pay for the woes we face due to their actions.
If we simply imprisoned them we can punish them to pay for their own imprisonment and treatment by having them produce shoes,boots etc to cover the costs of being in prison and for treatment. Its neither cruel or unusual to have them work off the costs of their own treatment.
As far as chuck's argument of its so low, jacking up the costs of production and sales is reasonable. So because taxes are low we should ramp them up? Whats next, a tax on using the sidewalk? A tax for the privilege of living in Oregon? The real reason why such issues are rampant to a degree is no one bothers to place the responsibility and costs on those who drive the need for such services to begin with. Do simple economics chuck, if the cost of a offender is flat across a broad group of drinkers, as they don't have to pay for their own treatment and handling,is this tax going to discourage them from continuing to seek treatment or is this going to discourage a smaller majority of people from drinking less, it wont foster responsibility.
So thanks for the useless rebuttal to something that majorty of Oregonians disapprove of.
Note: The presence of any individual above does not imply an endorsement by BlueOregon. The selection of faces shown is done by Facebook. Visit BlueOregon on Facebook.
Post a comment
Posted by: Trey | May 10, 2005 11:37:42 AM
I say raise the tax to $1 per bottle! Of course, I don't drink. ;>)