What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
Take Advantage of Ridiculously Low Holiday Airfares view!
travelzoo.com - Flights $52 and up for Thanksgiving, Christmas & New Year. But move on it now.
268 Comments
- airwalkery2k, on 02/16/2009, -10/+152Outrage is "brewing", eh? That would really make the alcoholics "hop" with anger, eh? It's enough to make somebody "stout" about the price of beer and feeling almost "ale" to their stomachs. It would be as though a "draught" of beer has overtaken the countryside.
Ah, puns... - Maddoktor2, on 02/16/2009, -2/+78Way to contribute to a failing economy, Oregon!
That's right, chase those job producing businesses out!
Idiots. - gbudavid, on 02/16/2009, -4/+62It is almost a revolution all right,,,
- zelig, on 02/16/2009, -3/+53That will leave them with what - Coors, Bud Light and Pabst Blue Ribbon to drink? Blechh...
- noderunner, on 02/16/2009, -0/+41Can't tax interstate commerce, it's in the constitution
- arch3r, on 02/17/2009, -2/+35That was "barley" even funny.
- tavallai, on 02/16/2009, -15/+48Wanna keep money in the state? Slap a tax on out-of-state beers.
I doubt the legality of that approach, but it'd be much more fair to the people of the state. Especially if it makes any Miller or Busch product unaffordable. - zacharytelschow, on 02/16/2009, -2/+30If this law passes no one will brew beer in Oregon in five years or less. Say goodbye to those jobs.
- zacharytelschow, on 02/16/2009, -4/+32Protectionism doesn't work on a national or a state level. Idiotic idea.
- ThsGuyRightHere, on 02/16/2009, -1/+25This is a foolhardy idea. Businesses in the area aren't opposed to a more reasonable tax, but the figures proposed in this legislation are disproportionate to the damage caused by the "evils" of alcohol consumption. If anything this bill would likely encourage Oregonians to switch to liquor. Good move guys.
- usefulidiot127, on 02/16/2009, -5/+28“If that tax is passed it would mean consumers would pay $315 million more (in 2009) to buy the same amount of beer they bought in 2008," De Kalb claimed. "A pint of beer would go from $4.50 to $6.”
Rep. Ben Cannon, one of the bill's sponsors, questions whether the true hit to consumers would be as high as beer makers claim. He told KGW his office measured the increase at 15 cents per glass not $1.50. "
This whole article sounds like a giant pile of mathematical fail. - Ymeg, on 02/16/2009, -8/+30***** taxes.
- shawns, on 02/16/2009, -5/+26this would be a crime against nature and god
- IAmTheGuy, on 02/17/2009, -2/+20I don't understand why people hate puns.
- sulthernao, on 02/16/2009, -2/+19That's unconstitutional.
- inactive, on 02/16/2009, -1/+17Relax -- Don't Worry
HAVE A HOMEBREW! - robmille, on 02/16/2009, -7/+22Welcome to the new era of liberalism. Tax the brewers to fund alcoholism treatment? So now its the beermakers fault that some people have no self control? What ever happened to owning up? We live in a culture now that thinks nothing is their fault..... disgusting
- Paulish, on 02/17/2009, -1/+15That is called mercantilism; something from the feudal ages. It fails miserably, and is possibly unconstitutional when states do it to one another.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dormant_Commerce_Clau ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merchantilism - esilverski, on 02/17/2009, -0/+14"Beer is living proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy."
Ben Franklin - inactive, on 02/17/2009, -1/+13You will see this kind of nonsense happening everywhere. Local governments have found themselves suddenly without money to pay the hordes of useless bureaucrats they employ. Said bureaucrats are trying to create new taxes and fees to pay their salaries as fast as they can.
- sulthernao, on 02/17/2009, -3/+14Some taxes are necessary, these are not.
- inactive, on 02/16/2009, -1/+12This is utterly ***** ridiculous. Morality police everyone, better watch out.
- ajde, on 02/17/2009, -0/+11Well, plenty of good beer brewed inside Oregon. Why mess with a good thing?
- Vektuz, on 02/17/2009, -0/+11Just brew your own, its a lot easier than it seems.
- sulthernao, on 02/17/2009, -0/+10Someone is off by a factor of 10.
- krellor, on 02/16/2009, -2/+12I'm not such a big fan of this. I'm kind of tired of lawmakers trying to blame producers for the behavior of addicts. So the tax will go to help treat alcoholics. Lets start taxing cocaine too to fund rehab for that. Seriously, it isn't the alcohol producers fault that some people are alcoholics, and I say this having several recovering alcoholics in my extended family. I have a drink like twice a year, so why should I pay extra taxes because other people have compulsive behavior and addictive personalities? Besides, if they are going to tax a product, they should tax all incoming product as well to keep a level playing field. As it is, they are just encouraging people to buy non-local, and make the local producers leave.
- qwertydvorak, on 02/17/2009, -1/+10if you do the math:
one barrel holds approx 165 - 12 oz beers. most places pour 16 - 20 oz. just doing the math on the 12 oz beers gives you $49.61 / 150 beers (can't forget spillage and foam) = $0.33 per 12 oz glass at wholesale. the state's math at $0.15 is total bs right off the bat. it goes up to $0.4125 with a pint pour. goes to $0.528 at a 20 oz pour. once the retailer doubles the tax increase to keep margins the same, it will cost anywhere from $0.66 - $1.05 more at retail at a minimum. - TheAbsintheHare, on 02/17/2009, -3/+12Draught is pronounced like Draft, not Drought
- jgzman, on 02/17/2009, -0/+9No possibly about it. It is utterly unconstitutional.
Article 1, Section 10, Paragraph three:
No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress. - ajde, on 02/17/2009, -0/+9It may be the hipster's ***** drink of choice, but it was never brewed in OR. Rainier was brewed in Washington, hence the Rainier (i.e. Mt. Rainier), and now in California.
- PopcornDave, on 02/16/2009, -1/+10But he's against it because he says it legitimizes it, not because he's against the taxes.
- crimoid, on 02/16/2009, -2/+11"$49.61 tax on each barrel of beer produced by Oregon brewers..."
Around 250 pints per US barrel. If brewers and everyone else in the food chain hikes costs more than $0.25 or so per pint they're just doing so to rip off the consumer. Frankly I hate taxes (and love Oregon beers!), but if brewers are getting their panties in a wad over this they better do so on principle not by saying that it will raise consumer's costs that much. - niradg, on 02/17/2009, -0/+9Why would a state with a huge beer industry want to tax it out of existence? The city of Portland itself is home to many fine breweries, so this isn't a case of legislators in one part of the state trying to tax those in another. Serious question: are the lawmakers in question Mormons?
- ShogunWarPig, on 02/17/2009, -0/+9Oregon Beer Party anyone?
- yngtimmy, on 02/17/2009, -2/+11Democrats, all of them. The word progressive has been injected more and more in the democratic party.You all know who put prohibition on the books right? Progressives. Drink to that. Or...you know....not, if you're a liberal progressive.
This has all happened before and will happen again. - inactive, on 02/16/2009, -1/+9Wow and I thought Washington was ***** up for its Liquor laws/taxes.
- Mothrog, on 02/17/2009, -0/+8Oh yeah. Move to Cali, where you can get taxed out the ass and pay half a million to actually be able to own a home. Pass.
- l33tspam, on 02/16/2009, -0/+8hahahahahaha,
thank you. - publiclurker, on 02/17/2009, -0/+8No, we brew beer here.
- dexaroni, on 02/17/2009, -1/+8Here in Oregon we call PBR Portlands Best Reserve.
- PopcornDave, on 02/16/2009, -4/+11Dream on my ass. This is just the logical step in the anti smoking type campaigns. First you go after tobacco by taxing it because you're trying to get money back to cover the costs of treating the results. That's the same thing these legislators are arguing here.
I never intended to argue that it was a new religious movement unless you want to count people who want to control your life a religious movement. Besides that, they're both sin taxes. How is taxing what religious people would consider sinful not a form of puritanism? - Shadic, on 02/17/2009, -0/+7...Why would you want to live in California?
- Ravenlark, on 02/17/2009, -0/+7Prohibition didn't work either.
- airwalkery2k, on 02/17/2009, -0/+7But I was on a roll...
- bdbr, on 02/17/2009, -1/+8I live in Portland and I haven't had a PBR in decades; I don't plan to, either. I'll have to remember that "gassy" excuse if I'm ever offered. ;-)
- HamSandwich, on 02/17/2009, -1/+8By all means, stick to your pisswater that the big 3 make. Most of the craft breweries started out as homebrewers.
- ace429k, on 02/17/2009, -1/+7i like beer.
- chanop, on 02/16/2009, -1/+7Patterson isn't taxing for puritan reasons. He wants to tax absolutely EVERYTHING! itunes, soda, beer, more on cigs... He's cutting money going to schools and was just busted for giving his staff up to 50% raises when he says the state needs to be fiscally responsible (cutting state workers salaries). ***** patterson
- seanmc303, on 02/17/2009, -0/+6I live in Portland, and I know Pabst outsells the competition. Too bad it makes me gassy :(
- inactive, on 02/17/2009, -0/+5No, it will not end or lower drunk driving. Nothing will, some people are just irresponsible.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 271 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is