Proposed Beer Tax Hike Draws Smuttynose's Ire
House Ways and Means Committee to review legislation that seeks 10-cent beer tax increase.
A House bill that is calling for a 10-cent beer tax hike is threatening to put the state’s beer breweries over a barrel.
“This affects all of us,” said JT Thompson, the minister of propaganda at Smuttynose Brewing Co. in Portsmouth. He called it a “sin tax” that will adversely affect larger breweries and microbreweries.
“We should be encouraging local businesses to grow instead of raising taxes on them,” Thompson said.
If Smuttynose has to pay an additional 10 cents per gallon, Thompson said that represents a pretty big spike they would have to absorb. In 2012, he said Smuttynose brewed 43,000 barrels of beer and each barrel contains 31 gallons. The proposed tax increase would leave Smuttynose with just over $133,000 in additional costs.
“With a new brewery opening up, we feel like that money could be put to much better use to hire staff or increase production,” said Thompson. Smuttynose is currently building a new brewery in Hampton that is scheduled to be done by Thanksgiving.
House Bill 168 is co-sponsored by Reps. Charles Weed, D-Keene, and Richard Eaton, D-Greenville. If passed, the bill states that it would raise an additional $4,295,108 for the New Hampshire Department of Health and Human Services alcohol abuse treatment and prevention fund by increasing the current beer tax from 30 cents to 40 cents per gallon.
Weed said he believes the bill is good for New Hampshire because “I think that government provides a service and people ought to pay for it.”
He also said the state needs more revenue and has been underfunded for quite some time. More importantly, Weed said the 10 cent tax increase would fund additional rehabilitation for people who are suffering from drug and/or alcohol abuse.
Rep. Laurie Sanborn, R-Bedford, who serves on the House Ways and Means Committee and co-owns The Draft restaurant and bar in Concord, said she doesn’t think it is a good idea to raise taxes on anybody.
“Now is a really bad time to be taking money out of the economy,” she said.
Rep. Patrick Abrami, R-Stratham, another member of Ways and Means, said he is also hesitant to approve an additional tax, especially the beer tax. He said if the bill is approved, New Hampshire would have the highest beer tax compared to Maine (35 cents per gallon), Vermont (27 cents per gallon) and Massachusetts (11 cents per gallon).
The Ways and Means Committee is comprised of 11 Democrats and nine Republicans, and Sanborn believes most of the GOP members would oppose this bill.
Thompson questions why the state lawmakers want to make brewers pick up the tab instead of getting the money from the sale of spirits at the New Hampshire Liquor and Wine Outlet stores.
Thompson said New Hampshire breweries do a great deal for the state as far as drawing visitors and promoting the state’s image. On Thursday, he said he was reaching out to brewers across the state to get them involved in the effort to reach out to the state Legislature to come out against this bill.
Thompson said the New Hampshire Wholesalers Association and state Grocers Association also have a vested interest in this.
Thompson said the negative ripple effect of a higher beer tax would be felt by restaurants, grocery stores, bed and breakfasts – any business that sells beer – and they would have to pass the additional cost onto their customers. He said consumers might have to pay somewhere in the neighborhood of 15 additional cents per six pack.
“People aren’t willing to pay as much for beer as they are for wine,” he said.
Joe
1:48 pm on Friday, January 11, 2013
Cancer, how does it kill a person? One cell at a time.
Democrats, how do they kill economic prosperity? One new tax at a time.
My suggestion; "Spend less time figuring out how to confiscate people's assets and spend more time figuring out how to cut the cost of government."
Atlant Schmidt
9:28 am on Saturday, January 12, 2013
Oddly enough, Joe, your philosophy of government was put to the test in November and it lost pretty decisively.
People *DON'T WANT* a zero-services zero-taxes form of government, even if you do. People want a balanced approach to government, raising adequate revenues to provide adequate services.
Seamus Carty
10:52 am on Tuesday, January 15, 2013
"a zero-services zero-taxes form of government"
When did anyone vote on that? When has anyone ever proposed a zero-services government?
Timothy Harden
4:40 pm on Friday, January 11, 2013
Democrats talk about jobs and do not deliver. Democrats do not talk about taxes and sure do deliver that.
Proud Conservative
9:28 am on Saturday, January 12, 2013
Communications tax, electricity consumption tax, room & meals tax, tobacco tax, gasoline tax, alcohol tax, etc., etc., etc., and now a beer tax. Good old New Hampshire. We won't enact a sales tax to get some bucks from the hoards of tourists that flood the state all year, but we'll tax just about everything the residents buy or use.
Atlant Schmidt
12:14 pm on Monday, January 14, 2013
Proud Conservative:
> We won't enact a sales tax to get some bucks from the hoards
> of tourists that flood the state all year...
You never heard of the 9% "Rooms and Meals" tax?
http://www.revenue.nh.gov/faq/dra_700.html
Kevin Kervick
10:01 am on Monday, January 14, 2013
Atlant: Democrats won because they demonized Republicans and micro-targeted single issue voters. When residents see what the Dems have in mind - more taxes, more spending, and their own brand of bullying, it will be an eye-opener. This is a good example of that.
Atlant Schmidt
12:18 pm on Monday, January 14, 2013
Sez you.
Most of the voters I talked to, even traditional Republican voters, were disgusted with the 2010-2012 NH Republicans' politics and policies.
And if you're talking about who demonizes whom, you've obviously not been reading the comments here on Patch. May I call your attention to your very own post?
Watts
4:54 pm on Monday, January 14, 2013
Thompson of Smuttynose is pretty much right that it is a sin tax, but so what? Let me start by saying that I am one of the biggest craft beer advocates in the country. But that doesn't make me blind to the realities of drinking and why "sin taxes" exist. Alcohol is a poison and a lot of costs to our society (from health issues to enforcement) related to alcohol consumption need to be subsidized through taxes. Now would you like to see public schooling get less tax dollars to cover the additional costs related to alcohol or go the more obvious route of increasing taxes on the cause goods?
If you don't want to be the target of sin taxes, the obvious thing is to have taken your business know how and entered a different industry. I have had this discussion a thousand times over with brewers, distributors, etc. who all cry foul, but the reality is that sin taxes make far more sense than most taxes that we have.
Watts
7:11 am on Wednesday, January 16, 2013
Wow, this thread died fast. I guess that most people don't care much about if there is an additional beer tax or not, compared to the infinitely lengthy threads on things like tobacco tax, etc.
Kevin Kervick
7:11 am on Wednesday, January 16, 2013
Sin taxes do not work. " This gets at the problem with attempts by advocates of sin taxes to have it both ways when they argue for those taxes. On the one hand they’re all trying to save us from some vice, like driving to work or enjoying a drink. On the other they promise a new, friendly way of financing public spending. To the extent that you succeed in changing behaviour that revenue will evaporate. The fact that some of these taxes raise so much money shows that they are mostly about politicians’ just taking the cash to prop up wasteful spending – often particularly from people on low and middle incomes – rather than improving the nation’s health or helping the environment." Tax Payers Alliance
Watts
2:55 pm on Wednesday, January 16, 2013
That sounds a little paranoid. I don't think that there is anybody proposing this beer tax hoping that it curbs anybody's behavior nor who have any expectation that it would do so.