Comments on: Will voters swallow seven buck Chuck?

By: Mark

Mark — Wed, 07 Apr 2010 22:20:37 +0000

Unfortunately, these type of sales taxes are going to continue being part of the national conversation. We have politicians (or want to bee’s) like the guy who started Move On that is running for governor basically on the platform that he’ll increase taxes. It’s certainly an interesting time to be an independent in California.

All that being said, no chance this gets passed. For all the talk, whenever something like this goes on the ballot it loses huge.

By: Ben

Ben — Mon, 05 Apr 2010 16:54:14 +0000

The Massachusetts legislature recently applied the 5% sales tax to alcohol. This tax was in addition to state excise taxes and was sold as “reversing the alcohol sales tax exemption”. Of course it was also derided as double taxation (including a tax on a tax) by opponents and we will have a ballot initiative to repeal it this year. It looks like the repeal has a good shot, but this is the state where voters rejected selling beer and wine in supermarkets, so I’m not holding my breath.

By: John Cesano

John Cesano — Sun, 04 Apr 2010 04:17:38 +0000

I wrote about this, and followed up the next day with a look at who was behind the initiative. Fark and other forums and sites linked to my posts, and my traffic has been huge as people try to figure out what goes on inside of an asshat’s brain, or in this case a pair of asshats.

First, not that it matters much in impact, but let’s pretend all wine writers can do math instead of copy each other’s incorrect numbers. $.04/$5.11=100%/12,775%. Just edit in the correct number, and if enough of us are using it, soon everyone will.

It would cost about $650k to signature qualify this initiative for November’s ballot, and if on the ballot it stands virtually no chance of passage. Ten years ago, I would have laughed at the thought of Arnold Schwarzengger being elected as my Governor. strange things happen.

Due to loss of commerce, impartial analysts forecast a loss of hundreds of millions of dollars in tax revenue. It appears that the authors have crafted a neo-prohibitionist sin tax, perhaps fueled by fundie sentiment, and may stand to see financial benefit if the initiative were to receive a majority of votes cast.

By: Steve Howe

Steve Howe — Sat, 03 Apr 2010 15:52:56 +0000

What’s really funny is….all of the wine blogs are giving this proposal lots of free publicity!

By: dustbury.com » We must discourage sales at all cost

dustbury.com » We must discourage sales at all cost — Thu, 01 Apr 2010 21:40:56 +0000

[...] Dr. Vino, who wonders if Trader Joe’s will end up selling seven-buck [...]

By: bob rohden

bob rohden — Thu, 01 Apr 2010 15:30:50 +0000

Maybe the analysts[sic] are figuring on the huge public switcheroo to buying out-of-state and online purchasing for most of their billions in revenue.
It surely will have the effect of putting a rather large number of tax-paying, employment-producing, tourist-attracting wineries out of business.

By: Claude Kolm/The Fine Wine Review

Claude Kolm/The Fine Wine Review — Thu, 01 Apr 2010 05:03:51 +0000

“hi Claude – This is true, it’s just not the right reason to raise taxes. Kind of like raising prices because I haven’t raised prices in a while.”

But we’re not really talking about raising taxes, just about restoring them to to where they were 20 years ago (in real, not nominal, terms). As Captain Blue notes, a progressive tax is fairer. A tax based on percentage of wholesale price would be such a progressive tax and would have the advantage of automatically adjusting for inflation.

By: Captain Blue

Captain Blue — Thu, 01 Apr 2010 03:58:55 +0000

I live in a jurisdiction with a flat tax per bottle and what this means is the low end gets killed. Above $20 or so wine becomes a managed consumer good and the prices are pretty constant across jurisdictions. If a progressive tax were to be implemented I don’t think the Harlan drinkers have anything to fear. Harlan on the other hand would have lots to fear.

By: Captain Blue

Captain Blue — Thu, 01 Apr 2010 03:55:46 +0000

How do they get the $9B raised – is this tax on every bottle produced and exported? $9B divided by $6 = 1.5B bottles. Does California consume this much? This is around 35 liters per capita which seems high. Taxing exported products is kind of backwords don’t you think?

By: Dr. Vino

Dr. Vino — Thu, 01 Apr 2010 01:59:36 +0000

Btw, apparently signatures can be collected for $1 each (see here http://bit.ly/cYLaqx ) so it’s not really a lot of money to get this on the ballot…where it would meet a crushing defeat.

Blake – good idea!

By: chris

chris — Thu, 01 Apr 2010 00:44:26 +0000

HAHAHAHA. This will never in a Million years pass. They have been trying to do this for many years and it will never happen if they can’t come up with realistic numbers.

By: Charlie Olken

Charlie Olken — Thu, 01 Apr 2010 00:16:00 +0000

It is wrong, in my opinion, to be opposed to a small and reasoned increase in the tax on wine in CA. Taxes exist to pay for services. Unless one wants to argue for a complete repeal on all taxes that are specific like gasoline, telephone, alcohol, for example, then the appropriate question is how much tax. In the case of taxes on wine, four cents is a ridiculously low amount and could easily be raised to eight cents, about the inflation rate, without making a dent in wine sales.

By: El Jefe

El Jefe — Wed, 31 Mar 2010 23:34:05 +0000

hi Claude – This is true, it’s just not the right reason to raise taxes. Kind of like raising prices because I haven’t raised prices in a while.

By: Blake Gray

Blake Gray — Wed, 31 Mar 2010 23:19:51 +0000

My dream is a California ballot initiative that eliminates the right to ballot initiatives. Starting with Proposition 13, they have screwed up this state more than anything politicians have done.

By: Steve Howe

Steve Howe — Wed, 31 Mar 2010 22:21:18 +0000

Hopefully even nondrinkers will realize the wide ranging effects of this proposed tax on businesses in California and vote it down!