Front Page  »  

Voter initiative wants to raise tax on wine 12,675%

April 3, 2010

California wine lovers are becoming uncorked over a voter initiative, intended for the November ballot, that would increase the excise tax on wine by 12,675 percent. [KSBW]

Under the proposed Alcohol Harm and Related-damages Act of 2010, the current tax of four cents on a bottle of wine would go up to $5.11. The tax on beer would increase 8,255 percent; distilled spirits would see an increase of 2,703 percent.

Money from the tax increase would go to funding programs that address alcohol-related injuries and damages.

Supporters of the initiative have until August 23 to collect 434,000 valid signatures to put the measure to a November vote.

Critics argue that the most popular wine selling today goes for between $7 and $8 a bottle–a $5 tax, they worry, would kill off sales completely.

The alcohol tax initiative was co-authored by Josie B. and Kent M. Whitney, a San Diego couple who appear to be heavily involved in promoting wellness.


Loading...
Subjects:
Related:


12 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

The California Wineries are posting 2009 loses and anticipate that 2010 isn’t going to get any better. The industry is already on the edge and these turkeys want to increase the wine tax to treat alcohol programs. Cripe the DUI fines are more than funding the drug and alcohol services in this state, or should be. More gov is the last thing we all need in our lives, what a couple of jokers, that’s you Josie B. and Kent M. Whitney.


0

Why not a Twinkie tax, a Pepsi tax, and for that matter, anything that has high fructose corn syrup in it tax? I think there is more harm being done from that crap than from wine or beer.


0

Because there are no corn syrup recovery and education centers to route the money to from a tax.. However, we could put a tax on all text messages, apportion some of that income towards driver education and then start a company which does public outreach about driving while distracted. All we need next is to be related to the right bureaucrat who kick back that money to our program. Why not? It’s just business as usual in Sac and D.C.


Every time you think they passed a bill to deal with some issue, this is what they actually did, using whatever issue it was as the bogus focus of debate.


0

How about a tax on all fattening food and beverage items? We could rake in a killing for the coffers and create more gov to ticket over weight people, say anyone with an extra 10 lbs+. Since excess weight is the #1 cause of poor health in this country we would have a right to control what a person consumes because we will all be paying into the same health care system which they will probably incur a greater % of services.


0

I highly recommend that everyone click on the link in the article labeled ” Josie B. and Kent M. Whitney”… this is a big scam in the making, and that is the more important issue than the general idea of taxation. I doubt very seriously that it has any chance of even getting enough signatures, but it’s a good idea that everyone know the particulars of this scam, so that in the event it does get on the ballot, we can get the word out and shut this thing down.


0

I agree with hotdog.


http://cspinet.org/booze/taxguide/TaxCAPrint.htm


0

“Alcohol -related injuries and damages.” This sounds like our state government.


0

Here we go again. The way to solve are problems is with a sin tax. Talk and or read any economist. Most will tell you that sin tax is a MORONIC idea!!


Even worse is to try and fund a program from it. Here is the rub. People who come up with these luntic ideas figure if you have x number of whatever sin users now of said product and you tax them at y amount you will get z number of millions. SORRY! Doesn’t work that way. You WILL lose x number of people that WILL QUIT or lower consumpution, as way of dealing with said tax. Hence you WILL NOT get the amount of money you propose you will. Simple economic FACT.


I seem to remember reading about five years ago, someone in the state complaining that the money that was imposed years ago on tobacco was not bringing in as much as hoped to fund the medical program it was designed to do. Go figure.


0

Josie and Kent should spend the rest of their lives with their heads in a cesspool. After reading their justifications, I had to laugh a little. They talk about the negative consequences of alcohol but fail to mention the good. A lot of jobs are dependent on alcohol from hops fields and vineyards to delivery to end users. Take away the tax revenue from say 1/4 of those people and it would out way any negatives. People usually fail to look at the whole picture which was obviously the case here.


0

Taxation without intoxication….this would be unamerican. I can see it now a Boston barley party for the beer tax and cannons blazing with grapeshot from here to Napa. If this passes we will really have to get serious about taking back our country. On a serious note, if we raise the tax it will merely take the incentive away from the state to try and curb the outrageous spending and the gross feather bedding that goes on in the state government. Seriously when you include the UC and CSU systems there are over 410,000 state employees and 27% of them make over $100,000 a year. There are 65,000 in the corrections department alone and almost half of them make over 100,000 a year and they could be replaced by $10 an hour rent a cops. We have a serious problem that calls for sacrifice but not suicide….Don”t tax the wine and beer, hell i would have to go back to smoking dope it would be cheaper.


0

This is a great idea. Raise taxes on booze and legalize pot to put all on an equal footing. Our idiotic prohibition has brought us nothing but trouble.


0
1 2