# 300% Increase In Beer And Wine Taxes (proposed)



## Doc (29/4/08)

Just when you thought things couldn't get any worse.

From here


> A 300 PER CENT increase in beer and wine taxes is being proposed by the Rudd Government's new preventive health taskforce as families battle rising petrol, grocery and mortgage prices.



At least I have my stocks up.

Doc


----------



## Cortez The Killer (29/4/08)

Luckily Dane upgraded the server

If if goes ahead there'll be influx of new members 

I'd say that the major breweries will be doing all they can to block this

Cheers


----------



## andrewg1978 (29/4/08)

I'm all for an increase on the soda pop's but surely it is not common for binge drinking on beer and wine? This smells like revenue raising to me!!!!


Whats next - Tax homebrewing?


----------



## devo (29/4/08)

andrewg1978 said:


> I'm all for an increase on the soda pop's but surely it is not common for binge drinking on beer and wine? This smells like revenue raising to me!!!!
> 
> 
> Whats next - Tax homebrewing?




Has been considered before but they found it too hard to bullshit a reason to tax raw ingredients.


----------



## DJR (29/4/08)

Good way to increase the homebrewing community size and alienate half your electorate in one fell swoop...

What will be really funny is considering each excise increase due to CPI over the years has increased a schooner of beer's excise by 2c yet pubs charge 10-20c more, is that with a 46c increase on a schooner at that rate will increase the cost of beer at the pub by $2.50!!


----------



## the_purple_dragon (29/4/08)

Punish everyone fo the bingers, thats great, next we'll all be getting a speeding fine cause your neighbour got busted.


----------



## Dave86 (29/4/08)

andrewg1978 said:


> I'm all for an increase on the soda pop's but surely it is not common for binge drinking on beer and wine? This smells like revenue raising to me!!!!
> 
> 
> Whats next - Tax homebrewing?



Well they'll need the extra money to invest back into health, defence and social security after the fallout of their budget cuts. I am all for cutting jobs in canberra though!


----------



## PostModern (29/4/08)

Every change of government brings more loonies with a cause to a position where they can influence decision makers. This is ridiculous. After Denmark, Norway and Sweden, where taxes on liquor are about 40-50% of retail price, there is us. As far as I can tell, Australians have always enjoyed a drink. Taxes go up, we simply find the money and continue.

I understand their user-pays mentality for alcohol misuse, hence targeting the beverages seen to be causing a problem, but there are better ways to prevent mis-use. Drinking is not an economic problem, it's a social problem. Education, not taxation. It only becomes an economic problem when alcoholics can no longer afford to buy food or pay rent because of their drinking. And those with a real problem will reach this point. I know, my wife has worked in drug and alcohol rehab for the last 10 years (yes, the irony does not escape me).

I saw in some old report that 4% of New Zealand's GDP was lost to problems related to alcohol abuse. Ironically, alcohol production accounted for about 4% of the GDP. Get rid of the "problem" 1920's USA style and economically, they'd be in the same position. I imagine that the stats for Australia would be similar. Possibly higher GDP accounted for by alcohol production and lower GDP due to losses, as home distilling is illegal here.


----------



## Beer Guy (29/4/08)

RIP micro brewing industry, micro distilling and micro wine making.

Thank you social engineers from protecting me from the evils of free choice, thought and freedom. Thank you for cutting me loose from the burden of having to be responsible for my own actions.

Speak freely whilst you can Australia, next is word tax to curb bullies and biggots.

Thanks Krudd, thanks fundamental christian extremeists and thanks Gen Alco Pop.

governments should be afraid of thier people not the other way round. 

I am so angry right now I could pop (alco that is) :angry: :angry: :angry:


----------



## justsomeguy (29/4/08)

Ya just gotta love comments like this one too



> They need to extend the hike in taxes to premixed home brew kits, and really hit the home brew spirit kits which have some how slipped through the net, and those spirit kits can really make rocket fuel.




Well, they'd better start taxing sugar and baker's yeast to the hilt as well then so we don't all make a distillers wash (or so I've been told  ) and, umm, refine it then.

Man, there are some twits around these days...


gary


----------



## maltedhopalong (29/4/08)

PostModern said:


> ...Education, not taxation. ...



To misquote the American Independance Chant: *"NO TAXATION WITHOUT EDUMACATION!!!"*


----------



## geoff_tewierik (29/4/08)

Yeah I'd read that comment and had a good old chuckle. Wonder if I can locate that guy through the whitepages, seeing as he used his full name, and have a little chat to him.


----------



## pokolbinguy (29/4/08)

Well I'm glad I didnt vote for them.....but that makes no difference....Better hurry up and get this AG setup going!!!


----------



## Sammus (29/4/08)

I have a better proposition, they should only tax the alochol thats causing the problem. bourbon, rum, premixes, megaswill and cask wine. Leave the micros alone!


----------



## geoffi (29/4/08)

I doubt this will get up. Smells like an ambit claim.

It's so extreme that those proposing it can't seriously believe it will go ahead. All the manufactured media outrage about 'binge drinking' would evaporate in a stink about increasing prices. It would be inflationary at a time when inflation is public enemy no. 1. It would alienate a whole lot of people.

Having said that, it would worry me barely a jot. I almost never buy booze. I don't really like wine or spirits, and I brew my own beer, so I couldn't give a damn.

Anyway, the new government should take a leaf out of the Howard government playbook. When a serious issue emerges that requires firm and decisive action, send out a fridge magnet.


----------



## PostModern (29/4/08)

Sammus said:


> I have a better proposition, they should only tax the alochol thats causing the problem. bourbon, rum, premixes, megaswill and cask wine. Leave the micros alone!



You sound like one of them. You know what's best for everyone? Whatever you like?
We already have a tax on everygoodandservice called GST. It raises enough revenue.

Geoffi, you're probably right, just a distraction from the rest of the horrors they're about to propose. How silly that I walked right into it.


----------



## Fatgodzilla (29/4/08)

PostModern said:


> Geoffi, you're probably right, just a distraction from the rest of the horrors they're about to propose. How silly that I walked right into it.





Take a deep breath people, calm yourselves down. No good ranting and raving over something we don't know about.

We are about to get a Budget allowing a proposed $20 a week tax cut for the average family that will slug that same family more than that in excises. Fuel will soon be $2.00 a litre - road deaths from car accidents will decrease but bicycle accidents will more than take up that slack. Cigarettes at $20 a packet won't bother me as I don't smoke but we will soon get home grown tobacco clubs similar to homebrewing clubs starting up for the educated smokers. Or cigarettes that will recycle what is exhaled to give you more bang from the butt.

Soon we will need to organise ourselves into political organisations - think gun lobby style groups. Personally I will be prepared to stand for the Senate on an independant platform and when elected will shout (figuritively of course) loud and clearly (unless pissed, then I'll slur for effect) and rant and rave and binge until I get my ten year Qantas Gold Card and my 27.5% superannuation.

You have my word. Its as good as Krudd's.


edit : spelling


----------



## KingPython (29/4/08)

I doubt this will get through, 300% is just too much for the public to handle but there'll be a substantial rise, which will further be inflated by companies.


----------



## Uncle Fester (29/4/08)

PostModern said:


> Geoffi, you're probably right, just a distraction from the rest of the horrors they're about to propose. How silly that I walked right into it.



Sounds right to me..... He has already tried Keatings favourite attention deflection (Republic) after the 2020 crap, and it didnt raise much more than a murmur.

This one is sure to divert attention from the budget for a while, and the heat off his arse.

Fester.


----------



## kirem (29/4/08)

I doubt the Unions that back labour will entertain this.


----------



## Lobsta (29/4/08)

Fatgodzilla said:


> Take a deep breath people, calm yourselves down. No good ranting and raving over something we don't know about.
> 
> We are about to get a Budget allowing a proposed $20 a week tax cut for the average family that will slug that same family more than that in excises. Fuel will soon be $2.00 a litre - road deaths from car accidents will decrease but bicycle accidents will more than take up that slack. Cigarettes at $20 a packet won't bother me as I don't smoke but we will soon get home grown tobacco clubs similar to homebrewing clubs starting up for the educated smokers. Or cigarettes that will recycle what is exhaled to give you more bang from the butt.
> 
> ...



I'd vote for you mate. 

maybe AHB should start their own political party. we would have to have people in the majority of australian electorates. take the labour government by storm! fill the halls of parliament with cries to give incentives to hop and grain farmers!! i propose a full stage political upheaval!!! AHB - the party looking out for your fridge!!!

either that, or we could sit back, brew some excise free beer, and laugh at the poor sods paying 60 bucks for a carton of mega swill beer. 

Lobby


----------



## Lukes (29/4/08)

Time to riot ??

12 years to go, it's almost the 20's again..........


----------



## matti (29/4/08)

Tax hike on booze will not stop binge drinking, stop alcoholism or deter minors from obtaining liquor.
They will all have to pay more for quality liquor and be drawn to worse or cheaper alternative to dull their brain.
Stilling your own will be much more common and impossible to police.

Taxes on booze does not stop abusive behaviour of any kind.
It is a decease of a modern society. "The more the merrier" does no longer apply.

The government is managing this the only way they can.
"If we are going to manage the cost of alcohol abuse and related offences" ALL drinkers have to pay!

Sorry for the rant but I thought Rudd was a good bloke.
He is a sneaky socialist with a high IQ.
A capitalistic unionist, look out Carl Marx....


can't help my self :lol:


----------



## geoffi (29/4/08)

Sorry, but I really think everybody is getting their knickers in a twist over not much here.

I just think this ain't gonna happen. Remember, this is a few people appointed to a committee making noises. Not government policy. Not likely ever to be government policy.

It would be politically impossible, even if every doctor in every emergency department in Australia jumped up and down and demanded it. There are a lot fewer of them than there are drinkers. Any increases in booze excise always get bad publicity in Australia. I wouldn't be surprised if there's some rise. There always is. But Jesus sake, a 300% rise? Surely it's a total fantasy.

Would greatly increasing the price or decreasing availability of booze lead to fewer alcohol-related social problems? Probably, just like banning cars would reduce car accidents. Prohibition in the US did lead to fewer alcohol-related medical problems. But in exchange they got Al Capone and entrenched organised crime (compare current insane anti-drug laws). 

But when it comes right down to it, a few more teenage corpses is a price Australian society will cheerfully pay if it means booze prices won't rise too much. 

Oh, and come on the republic!


----------



## Linz (29/4/08)

Lobsta said:


> AHB - the party looking out for your fridge!!!




Shouldnt it be more like

"AHB - the party looking out of your beer fridge!!!"


----------



## Stuster (29/4/08)

It's all the fault of those bl**dy binge drinkers. h34r: :lol:


----------



## Fatgodzilla (29/4/08)

Stuster said:


> It's all the fault of those bl**dy binge drinkers. h34r: :lol:



Better to crawl than binge :chug:


----------



## newguy (29/4/08)

Linz said:


> Shouldnt it be more like
> 
> "AHB - the party looking out of your beer fridge!!!"



I prefer "AHB - the party with its ass sticking out of your beer fridge."


----------



## Uncle Fester (29/4/08)

Anyway, who the hell is Kevin "too pissed to remember the strippers" Rudd to tell any of the rest of Australia how they should or should not approach binge drinking?


----------



## geoffi (29/4/08)

Uncle Fester said:


> Anyway, who the hell is Kevin "too pissed to remember the strippers" Rudd to tell any of the rest of Australia how they should or should not approach binge drinking?



At least he can speak from a position of experience.  

I find it more grating when, say, celibate priests lecture people about their sex lives.


----------



## Uncle Fester (29/4/08)

Geoffi said:


> At least he can speak from a position of experience.
> 
> I find it more grating when, say, celibate priests lecture people about their sex lives.



Thene there are the "supposedly celibate" priests who can talk from a position of experience :huh:


----------



## PostModern (29/4/08)

Geoffi said:


> But when it comes right down to it, a few more teenage corpses is a price Australian society will cheerfully pay if it means booze prices won't rise too much.



Darwin's law. Somehow I managed to live long enough to procreate! Phew!



Fatgodzilla said:


> Better to crawl than binge :chug:



One until the other


----------



## geoffi (29/4/08)

Uncle Fester said:


> Thene there are the "supposedly celibate" priests who can talk from a position of experience :huh:



I had considered qualifying that statement. I've known of more than a few 'celibates' who've spent plenty of time 'on the job'.


----------



## barry2 (29/4/08)

Why did they increase the tax on the alcopops a few weeks before the Budget when they could easily have left it until then? Perhaps to get an idea of the public response to such an increase before fine tuning other liquor tax increases.


----------



## Mantis (29/4/08)

barry3 said:


> Why did they increase the tax on the alcopops a few weeks before the Budget when they could easily have left it until then? Perhaps to get an idea of the public response to such an increase before fine tuning other liquor tax increases.



Yep, tell em %300, then when we only put it up %50 then they will say "phew" and accept it.


----------



## geoff_tewierik (29/4/08)

barry3 said:


> Why did they increase the tax on the alcopops a few weeks before the Budget when they could easily have left it until then? Perhaps to get an idea of the public response to such an increase before fine tuning other liquor tax increases.



Maybe, but I reckon it was more a chance to a appeal to the namby pambys who've been kicking up a fuss lately as well as pad the budget out by a few more billion in revenue.


----------



## joecast (29/4/08)

Uncle Fester said:


> Anyway, who the hell is Kevin "too pissed to remember the strippers" Rudd to tell any of the rest of Australia how they should or should not approach binge drinking?


and surely if the booze had been more expensive he never would have drank so much. thats the logic here right?


----------



## barry2 (29/4/08)

Mantis said:


> Yep, tell em %300, then when we only put it up %50 then they will say "phew" and accept it.



The public response to the alcopops increase has been such that the Treasurer may be encouraged to go a bit further say 150% especially on wine casks.
We will all know in two weeks.


----------



## Darren (29/4/08)

I feel good about all this. I was worried I might have been a binge drinker but I have never had an alcopop so I am OK. Phew!!

cheers

Darren


----------



## geoffi (29/4/08)

Whatever harm is done by boozing teenagers and their taste for alcoholic lolly water, I reckon it will pale into insignificance compared to the long-term financial consequences of their insatiable appetite for mobile phones and ever-changing ringtones.

Now that's a crisis, but tabloid TV prefers images of teenage girls spewing in gutters.


----------



## LethalCorpse (29/4/08)

Easy you lot. You're making a storm in a middy glass. It's what sounds like a throwaway statement made by a member of an advisory committee on public health, on the back of a sudden tax hike that she was stunned got through without a whimper. It's a long shot, a "hey, that was easy, let's see how far we can ride it" type thing. I'm surprised if it gets any more attention than the referenced piece in a rag like the courier mail. It's not even something that's been proposed by a member of parliament, let alone government policy or proposed legislation. 

And how the hell did this become about priests? I'm more than over any mention of priests needing to be linked to sexual proclivity, let alone as a standin for all things distasteful. I've known personally at least a dozen priests, each of whom does more good in his lunch hour than most of us do in the proverbial month of Sundays. A few of them have dedicated almost all of their work to helping and protecting the children they're so quick to be written off as rampantly buggering. I've had an absolute gutful of it, and I'm an atheist. How do you reckon it makes the priests feel?


----------



## DarkFaerytale (29/4/08)

Fatgodzilla said:


> Cigarettes at $20 a packet won't bother me as I don't smoke but we will soon get home grown tobacco clubs similar to homebrewing clubs starting up for the educated smokers.



this kind of thing is already being done, "chop chop" is cheaper and much better for you (pure tobacco without all the yummy additives that the company's like to add) and is quite easy to obtain if you know the right people. it's just unfortunate that unless it's got a massive amount of government tax on it it's illegal


----------



## Duff (29/4/08)

Go Labor!! The party that looks after the workers by slugging them with extra tax on beer after a hard day :lol:


----------



## AlwayzLoozeCount (29/4/08)

I might have to take my hip flask full of metho to the pub from now on and just order orange juice.


----------



## Sammus (29/4/08)

PostModern said:


> You sound like one of them. You know what's best for everyone? Whatever you like?



Basically yeah :lol: but seriously the point I was making was semi tongue in cheek - just a bit of social commentary. the ones that tend to binge and cause problems also tend to live off VB or new (The older crowd) or fruity lexia/UDL/woodies/whatever for the younger crowd.


----------



## sinkas (29/4/08)

Uncle Fester said:


> Thene there are the "supposedly celibate" priests who can talk from a position of experience :huh:



Or more likely many "positions" of experience....


----------



## LethalCorpse (29/4/08)

sinkas said:


> Or more likely many "positions" of experience....


Refer to above.


----------



## peas_and_corn (29/4/08)

Geoffi said:


> It's so extreme that those proposing it can't seriously believe it will go ahead. All the manufactured media outrage about 'binge drinking' would evaporate in a stink about increasing prices. It would be inflationary at a time when inflation is public enemy no. 1. It would alienate a whole lot of people.



Lobby groups always pitch for much more than they ever expect to get. However, here I think they went too far... I'd say they would be happy with 20-40%




Fatgodzilla said:


> We are about to get a Budget allowing a proposed $20 a week tax cut for the average family that will slug that same family more than that in excises. Fuel will soon be $2.00 a litre - road deaths from car accidents will decrease but bicycle accidents will more than take up that slack. Cigarettes at $20 a packet won't bother me as I don't smoke but we will soon get home grown tobacco clubs similar to homebrewing clubs starting up for the educated smokers. Or cigarettes that will recycle what is exhaled to give you more bang from the butt.



Actually, the penalties for growing tobacco are MASSIVE.




Stuster said:


> It's all the fault of those bl**dy binge drinkers. h34r: :lol:



And the immigrants  



barry3 said:


> Why did they increase the tax on the alcopops a few weeks before the Budget when they could easily have left it until then? Perhaps to get an idea of the public response to such an increase before fine tuning other liquor tax increases.



Since it's excise, it's an executive power, not a legislative power- thus it won't ever be a part of a budget.




AlwayzLoozeCount said:


> I might have to take my hip flask full of metho to the pub from now on and just order orange juice.



Elitist. B)


----------



## boingk (29/4/08)

The hell with the Government and the HELL with Kevin Rudd...goddamn I'm pissed off at this! Guy looks like he's never had a decent beer in his life, and the hell with the public forums condemning booze - ask the 'oldies' and they'll tell you that they got written off just as much as the next person, its just somone else is condemning it now. However, this time the Government is actually listening to the minority instead of the majority; making choices for them on their behalf under the guise of 'its good for you'. Well, I say they can shove it right up the place where Western society traditionally shoves things!

I mean, come on, taxing booze [as others have said] is just going to irritate the hell out of people and make them demand its tax either be lowered, or the tax on something else [petrol maybe, hint hint Mr Rudd] be lowered.

Man, this is getting me worked up...where's my homebrew at...


----------



## justsomeguy (29/4/08)

It probably worked liked this,

"Hey let's get some more cash by taxing grog again" government dweeb 1 says
"Cool, well a 25% increase would just about get us there" government dweeb 2 replies.

The press release goes out saying a 300% percent increase is on the cards. There is public outrages.

Government dweeb 1 says to the public, "well we've had a look at it and we share your pain so we'll only bring in a 30% increase".

The public breathes a sigh of relief, meanwhile government dweeb 1 and 2 sit in the corner giggling like little girls because they got a 30% increase when they were only after 25, along with a bonus cheque for a job well done.

:huh: 

gary


----------



## the_fuzz (29/4/08)

People do realise this is all a beat up

This is no government policy nor has it be raised in parliament.

Grab a beer, sit down and calm down


----------



## LethalCorpse (29/4/08)

Whats_Wrong_with_Hahn said:


> People do realise this is all a beat up
> 
> This is no government policy nor has it be raised in parliament.
> 
> Grab a beer, sit down and calm down


No, WWWH, I'm afraid they don't. It's now been said by at least three different people in this thread, but listening to that sort of reason just isn't as much fun as ranting about the guvmint.


----------



## Sammus (29/4/08)

LethalCorpse said:


> No, WWWH, I'm afraid they don't. It's now been said by at least three different people in this thread, but listening to that sort of reason just isn't as much fun as ranting about the guvmint.


Hear hear!


----------



## brendanos (29/4/08)

This seems like an appropriate time to point out that bugger all Australian's have signed this:

http://www.gopetition.com.au/petitions/exc...alian-beer.html


----------



## peas_and_corn (29/4/08)

That's because online petitions are not worth the paper they're not printed on.


----------



## boingk (29/4/08)

Be that as it may, I signed it anyway. I'm all for micro's getting less tax out of the bargain - who else is up for that?


----------



## Tony (29/4/08)

boingk said:


> However, this time the Government is actually listening to the minority instead of the majority;



This time? 

:lol: 

I recal a certain gun byback years ago that was called for by extremist anti gun groups. THe government (Little Johny) spent about 3 billion on it and all they got was about 3.2% of all pump action and semi auto weapons sold in australia (that they know about)
Imagine the hospitals and schools, roads and whatever else that could have been built with that money.

All it did was to effect the law abiding licenced owner and the crims just kept theirs, because they were unlecenced...... noone knows who or where they are.

So it was a pointless excercise.

See........... knocking Mr Rudd, isnt the answer............. it wouldnt matter if the Greens or Pauline hanson were in............ the result is the same. They are all the same just with different party names.

And relax! If your a home brewer, what are you worried about.

cheers


----------



## Dave86 (29/4/08)

Tony said:


> And relax! If your a home brewer, what are you worried about.



The micros


----------



## andrewg1978 (29/4/08)

Tony said:


> And relax! If your a home brewer, what are you worried about.
> 
> cheers



Heres something to ponder, what if kits hit $50+ on the shelves down the track? Unlikely I know but I might start looking at growing ones own yeast.


----------



## Duff (29/4/08)

Don't worry folks, Strip Club Kev will trot out shortly and gloss some diplomatic spin on the whole 'mis-understanding'.

Then everyone like Tony can get back to kissing his feet even with another interest rate rise next month


----------



## geoffi (29/4/08)

andrewg1978 said:


> Heres something to ponder, what if kits hit $50+ on the shelves down the track? Unlikely I know but I might start looking at growing ones own yeast.



Then you'd better go AG.

Get in now and beat the rush! :beer:


----------



## Darren (29/4/08)

Duff said:


> Don't worry folks, Strip Club Kev will trot out shortly and gloss some diplomatic spin on the whole 'mis-understanding'.
> 
> Then everyone like Tony can get back to kissing his feet even with another interest rate rise next month




Won't be long before we will all need to kiss the feet of 

BARREN VON GILLARD

(At least the new GG has kids)

cheers

Darren


----------



## Brewtus (29/4/08)

PostModern said:


> I saw in some old report that 4% of New Zealand's GDP was lost to problems related to alcohol abuse. Ironically, alcohol production accounted for about 4% of the GDP. Get rid of the "problem" 1920's USA style and economically, they'd be in the same position. I imagine that the stats for Australia would be similar. Possibly higher GDP accounted for by alcohol production and lower GDP due to losses, as home distilling is illegal here.



You would loose 4% GDP in higher policing and another 4% in the cost of keeping a new type of criminal in gaol and another 4% lost production from those people being in gaol.


----------



## Trent (29/4/08)

Gday
I am yet to see anybody comment on exactly how the taxes will effect the cost of a beer (not that I ever buy any). Is it the excise on beer made that will be going up (proposed ), or the sales tax in bottle shops and pubs? IIRC, beer under 5% is charged at about $16/L of alcohol - it may be $33, but I cannot be sure, as I cannot be arsed looking up the ATO website. At $16/L, there is 9L in a case of megaswill (VB for example), at 4.8% = 0.432L actual alcohol. Charged at $16/L that is about $6.90 per case in tax. As others have stated, it will probably end up heading skywards by about 30-50%, or around an extra $3 per case. I could be wrong, as my number are based on memory rather than fact (so it could be said to be based on fantasy!), but it probably wont be that bad. Mind you, anything that puts micro's further behind the eight ball than they already are should be opposed solely on principle.
As an aside, growing tobacco at home will get you in more merde than growing pot, or so I am lead to believe. And I am sure that there are good priests out there, but dont get too upset about if people take pot shots at em - I mean, look at the Irish and the Scottish, and even Jews - they all get the piss taken out of em for being stupid, or being tight. Its just stereotypes that everbody can relate to, despite the fact they are more often than not incorrect.
Anyway, I'm off to do something really important - watch gordon ramsay swear at stupid people :lol:
All the best, and fingers crossed the bill only gets passed if it includes a tax reduction for micros.
All the best
Trent


----------



## dr K (29/4/08)

Trent brings some sense to a rather mixed up and knee jerk debate.
The Government has not proposed thsi, a lobby group has:
Now to quote from my pst to Canberra Brewers earlier this evening, spellin g mistakes an all:"


> I can tell you , and I speak with a decent amount of background knowledge, not stained by the way by political affiliation..that this current government is any thing but pro alcohol.
> The problem is (for beer drinkers and breweries, small breweries in particular) that they see alco-pops and beer as the same thing..alcohol.
> What happened over the weekend is that the tax on alcohol in alcopops increased from a previous concessional rate, as the opos were under 10% alcohol to the same rate (per litre of alcohol) as standard spirits (bar brandy) to $ 66.67 per litre, thus a 333ml bottle of 5% pop , having 16.66 (that number keeps popping up) ml of alco has $1.22 0f tax (GST inc) at the manufacturers end, tax is a cost and margins are made on cost...work it out..
> Beer follows a strange scheme, but some historical insight may help here.
> ...



Between the Numbers and Reality..
Falls the Shadow

K


----------



## Darren (29/4/08)

Hey K,

As usual I find it hard to interpret your post but can read between the lines (I think)

Does this mean that once again bottled (maybe cask) wines running in at 12% alcohol are not effected by this.

Yes, yes, I understand that these are not legislated changes.

cheers

Darren


----------



## dr K (29/4/08)

Wine is taxed in a different away again.
It is what might be thought of as the influence of lobby groups.
The ever mounting problem of course is that for every concession another group wants an equal.
The rates are all published by the ATO, remember though that there is an insidious tax component built in where the excise actually rise twice per year in concert with the CPI...

EDIT: Was it my reference to blue singlets that confused??


----------



## /// (29/4/08)

One must remember who Kev 'will he make it past 08' is married too. Therese Rein owned the Ingeus Group, with coverage into the job network via WorkDirections. Huge number of clients are unemployed due to alcoholism and stupid things like DUI's. Also owned counseling services etc. So she covered it all.

Look at Kev's policy, and you can see alot come of it out of this context.

Scotty


----------



## dr K (29/4/08)

Does this mean that the increase in taxes will reduce the client base of companies such as Ingeus or that Therese has identified a valuable revenue source, alco's who who do not care what they pay.....not very differnt to the fuel guzzling motor vehicle drivers...
On the other hand a total beat up about 300% increase will salve the 2.1% won't it??

Koitz


----------



## barry2 (30/4/08)

The ABC radio station 612 in Brisbane has a facility where people can phone in anytime and leave their comments on any matter on a answering machine.These calls are then replayed in a section named Cereal Box around 7am weekdays.

Today in amongst calls on traffic hassles,complaints on this and that,and general whinges there was one on homebrewing.

The male caller was making the point that if liquor taxes are increased by 300% homebrewing activity will increase greatly especially in spirits.He said that a new cottage industry could take hold producing Queensland Moonshine.

I don't know if the caller was tongue in cheek,a wowser,a do-gooder or just stating the obvious.

However such comments draw attention to homebrewing and "concerned citizens" may feel some action is required.

I don't expect any levies on homebrewers of beer for personal consumption.After all it was Whitlam who allowed home brewing of beer shortly after he was elected in 1972.

"Home brewing was legalised in Australia under Prime Minister Gough Whitlams Labor government in 1973 in fact, the home-brew law was one of the very first among a raft of new legislation introduced by the highly reformist regime. Before that, it had been legal to make beer at home but only if it was around 1 per cent alcohol (in other words, gnats bladder weak). 

The exact wording of the new law introduced under Whitlam allows home brewers to make 22 litres of beer per week. Of course, thats more than enough for any individual to consume but, really, this is only a guideline and I dont know of anyone who has ever been prosecuted for making more than the allowable volume. "

http://www.penguin.com.au/lookinside/spotl...mp;page=extract


----------



## geoffi (30/4/08)

barry3 said:


> I don't expect any levies on homebrewers of beer for personal consumption.After all it was Whitlam who allowed home brewing of beer shortly after he was elected in 1972.
> 
> http://www.penguin.com.au/lookinside/spotl...mp;page=extract



Careful Barry. There are some people on this thread who might experience a brain explosion at the thought that a Labor government could ever do something good. :lol:


----------



## geoffi (30/4/08)

/// said:


> One must remember who Kev 'will he make it past 08' is married too. Therese Rein owned the Ingeus Group, with coverage into the job network via WorkDirections. Huge number of clients are unemployed due to alcoholism and stupid things like DUI's. Also owned counseling services etc. So she covered it all.
> 
> Look at Kev's policy, and you can see alot come of it out of this context.
> 
> Scotty




Wouldn't that mean it's in their interest to encourage binge drinking? The more alcoholics in need of assistance, the more money will be around to help them.

Win-win, really.


----------



## peas_and_corn (30/4/08)

Ahh yes, the old "no matter what gets done it confirms the conspiracy" problem...


----------



## geoffi (30/4/08)

Don't you know that anyone who expresses doubts about a conspiracy theory...is in on it!!!!  



peas_and_corn said:


> Ahh yes, the old "no matter what gets done it confirms the conspiracy" problem...


----------



## Beer Guy (30/4/08)

I think i will stage a Coup in the Hut River provence and call all beer lover's to take up arms against the Krudd Social Justice Truck and the evil buzzard of the unions Gillard.

Failing that I will accept the inevitable rise in the price of grog move to Christmas island and brew beer in a cave.


----------



## maltedhopalong (30/4/08)

Dave86 said:


> Tony said:
> 
> 
> > And relax! If your a home brewer, what are you worried about.
> ...



But compared to megaswill, the price of micro beer is made up of SOOOO much more overheads/ingredients cost than tax. Therefore if all tax goes up, the effect is much larger on megaswill than micro beer (of the same alcohol content). In other words, both will go up, but the mega might go up by X% of its original price, whereas the micro would go up by a lesser percentage of its original price. This brings their prices closer together and makes micro beer COMPARATIVELY more affordable.


----------



## Dave86 (30/4/08)

maltedhopalong said:


> The micros
> 
> 
> But compared to megaswill, the price of micro beer is made up of SOOOO much more overheads/ingredients cost than tax. Therefore if all tax goes up, the effect is much larger on megaswill than micro beer (of the same alcohol content). In other words, both will go up, but the mega might go up by X% of its original price, whereas the micro would go up by a lesser percentage of its original price. This brings their prices closer together and makes micro beer COMPARATIVELY more affordable.



Comparatively yes, but for me $30 a sixer (assuming thats what it goes to if there was a 300% rise (which there won't be, I know)) for a microbrew is too pricey. On a sixer of 4.8% beer in 330ml stubbies, there is about $3.75 tax at the moment, an extra ten is a bit too much for me to stomach. I'm going to grab the coopers over a smaller label if I really have to, but on the most part I'll just make sure I never run out of my own again.

They would lose my patronage unfortunately


----------



## maltedhopalong (30/4/08)

Using your example, your example micro would be $20 currently. The mega would be say $13.50.

After tax hike:

example micro would be $30 (up by 50%). The mega would be $23.50 (up by just over 74%).

Also, while you're right $30 seems like too much to cop for a micro brew, it's even more ridiculous to buy Fosters Light Ice for $23.50.

Coopers would be somewhere in the middle, which then makes the micro seem even MORE affordable.

EDIT: Better point out, I don't disagree they would lose your patronage. But from a Joe Average point of view, I feel the micro becomes MORE affordable comparatively than it is now.


----------



## devo (30/4/08)

Maybe if we all hi-jack the corner of Flinders st and Swanston street in Melb, get our gear off in protest the Gov't may do something about meeting our demands? Seems to have worked for these taxi drivers!!!  





...I'm sure our guts are bigger.


----------



## warrenlw63 (30/4/08)

devo said:


> Maybe if we all hi-jack the corner of Flinders st and Swanston street in Melb, get our gear off in protest the Gov't may do something about meeting our demands? Seems to have worked for these taxi drivers!!!
> 
> View attachment 18928



:lol: :lol: Muslim Haka?

Warren -


----------



## sinkas (30/4/08)

Darren said:


> Won't be long before we will all need to kiss the feet of
> 
> BARREN VON GILLARD
> 
> ...



If you actually find that amusing, you are a total douchbag


----------



## dr K (30/4/08)

Darren

Do us all a favour and edit that crap right out.
It is insulting, not just to women but makes you a right jerk.
Fool.

K


----------



## LethalCorpse (30/4/08)

Trent said:


> I mean, look at the Irish and the Scottish, and even Jews - they all get the piss taken out of em for being stupid, or being tight. Its just stereotypes that everbody can relate to, despite the fact they are more often than not incorrect.


I'll take anyone to task who uses those stereotypes maliciously or flippantly too.


----------



## AlphaOne (1/5/08)

I'll be in that riot!


----------



## /// (1/5/08)

dr K said:


> Does this mean that the increase in taxes will reduce the client base of companies such as Ingeus or that Therese has identified a valuable revenue source, alco's who who do not care what they pay.....not very differnt to the fuel guzzling motor vehicle drivers...
> On the other hand a total beat up about 300% increase will salve the 2.1% won't it??
> 
> Koitz



Nahhhhh... seems they both share that social conscience thing and 'better' world ideals.... 

Could be just like the US - folks just start on other substances if they cannot get another. The amount of potheads, acid droppers, mushroom munchers and speedsfreaks under the age of 21 when i lived in a dorm with 300 odd kids was amazing. As one guy said to me once 'you want a buzz and you take what you can to get it'. 

Scotty


----------



## geoffi (1/5/08)

/// said:


> Nahhhhh... seems they both share that social conscience thing and 'better' world ideals....
> 
> Could be just like the US - folks just start on other substances if they cannot get another. The amount of potheads, acid droppers, mushroom munchers and speedsfreaks under the age of 21 when i lived in a dorm with 300 odd kids was amazing. As one guy said to me once 'you want a buzz and you take what you can to get it'.
> 
> Scotty



Good point, Scotty.

The other night there was an amazing doco on SBS following some British soldiers as they patrolled with Afghan soldiers. The squaddies could hardly wait to get back home so they could get on the piss. Meanwhile, the teetotal Afghans, in the middle of a massive firefight, were passing around joints and getting noticeably stoned.

People like to get high. Even the religious nutjobs who tend to push the 'abstinence' bandwagon are high...on whatever their own brand of irrationality is.


----------



## Darren (1/5/08)

Oh Dear K

Got your panties in a bunch there!!

Why would anyone man support a women who by her own admission say she "Did not have time for children". 

I dont want want any women (or man for that matter) who by their own choice, did not have children, making decisions that will affect my children. 

Perhaps you forgot the ONLY reason we are here in this Earth is too pass on our genes.

cheers

Darren






dr K said:


> Darren
> 
> Do us all a favour and edit that crap right out.
> It is insulting, not just to women but makes you a right jerk.
> ...


----------



## geoffi (1/5/08)

Darren said:


> Oh Dear K
> 
> Got your panties in a bunch there!!
> 
> ...



The ONLY reason?

What are you doing on this forum, Darren?

You're wasting valuable gene-transmission time.

And heaven knows how much of that time you wasted with your anti-no-chill Jihad. You could have fathered scores of sprogs in that time.


----------



## Darren (1/5/08)

Geoffi said:


> The ONLY reason?
> 
> What are you doing on this forum, Darren?
> 
> ...




Geoffi,

You should be a comedian not a brewer

cheers

Darren


----------



## Tony (1/5/08)

Darren...... are you really Pete from wagga?


----------



## Dave86 (1/5/08)

FWIW, I think the human population is spiralling out of control, you can't possibly support errant breeding when in 30 years time (if not sooner) the world is not going to be able to feed itself? I know here in Australia we're ok, but its hardly a good idea.. On a related note, check out a movie called idiocracy, the humour is a bit hit-and-miss but the message is funny/scary


----------



## devo (1/5/08)

Darren said:


> Perhaps you forgot the ONLY reason we are here in this Earth is too pass on our genes.
> 
> cheers
> 
> Darren



Now I'm a tad more concerned that you have been passing on your potentially recessive genes rather than being worried about an "elected" politician choosing not to do the same.


----------



## Darren (1/5/08)

Devo,

Good point.

What will you do when minority means you?

cheers

Darren


----------



## geoffi (1/5/08)

Maybe someone should tell Darren to 'go forth and multiply'.


----------



## Darren (1/5/08)

Tony said:


> Darren...... are you really Pete from wagga?



Ah Tony,

No Darren from Adelaide actually. Tell me again about the coppers bends and NaOH.

Hope you are not still no-chilling :icon_cheers: 

cheers

Darren


----------



## Darren (1/5/08)

Geoffi said:


> Maybe someone should tell Darren to 'go forth and multiply'.




Geoffi,

If I wasn't such an OLD homebrewer I would :icon_cheers: 

Darren


----------



## jlm (1/5/08)

Darren said:


> Devo,
> 
> Good point.
> 
> ...



But I thought as a homebrewer I was the minority? Oohhh wait, are you playing the race card? I'll just go back to my halwa sabji and sit in the corner.


----------



## Dave86 (1/5/08)

Darren said:


> Devo,
> 
> Good point.
> 
> ...



As long as you end in the minority I'll be happy :lol:


----------



## Darren (1/5/08)

jlm said:


> I'll just go back to my halwa sabji and sit in the corner.




jlm,

hide the alcohol.

cheers
Darren


----------



## LethalCorpse (1/5/08)

Darren said:


> Oh Dear K
> 
> Got your panties in a bunch there!!
> 
> ...


I see. A woman's place is in the nursery then? Perhaps you think The Right Honourable Ms. Gillard should get back in the kitchen and pour you a beer? Perhaps you'd prefer that she, and the rest of them, weren't allowed to vote, let alone hold office, because it gets in the road of the business of incubating your diseased spawn?
I can only hope that the above was a deliberately inflammatory post, what's known as trolling. Generally it's confined to somewhat less mature fora, and peters out altogether by the age of 16, but I guess it's possible that that's what's going on here. The only alternative we have to consider is that you're a misogynistic bigot with your head so far up your arse that _all_ your brews, chilled or otherwise, must be infected with faecal coliform bacilli by the time they reach your lips. Anyone wondering why evolution occurs so slowly only needs to be shown posts like this, in conjunction with the species-defeating notion we hold that even _you_ should be allowed to procreate, to understand that it's really two steps forward one step back. 
Huge swathes of legislation have been written specifically to make it possible to prosecute people like yourself for acting on opinions such as this. Would that holding the opinion itself were prosecutable. I hope that it's at least worthy of a solid doing with the admin stick, if it were up to me I'd sewer your account like an infected brew. You're a slimy wee turd, and I'd flush you accordingly.


----------



## KingPython (1/5/08)

Dave86 said:


> FWIW, I think the human population is spiralling out of control, you can't possibly support errant breeding when in 30 years time (if not sooner) the world is not going to be able to feed itself? I know here in Australia we're ok, but its hardly a good idea.. On a related note, check out a movie called idiocracy, the humour is a bit hit-and-miss but the message is funny/scary


The population numbers aren't the problem, it the resources consumed to either maintain or increase the quality of life are. The increase in food prices isn't simply because of numbers but rather a new middle class in China, India etc which are getting fatter and/or eating better. Combine this with poor food production and growing fuel instead of food these past few years and the issue is compounded.


----------



## Murray (1/5/08)

LethalCorpse said:


> I see. A woman's place is in the nursery then? Perhaps you think The Right Honourable Ms. Gillard should get back in the kitchen and pour you a beer? Perhaps you'd prefer that she, and the rest of them, weren't allowed to vote, let alone hold office, because it gets in the road of the business of incubating your diseased spawn?
> I can only hope that the above was a deliberately inflammatory post, what's known as trolling. Generally it's confined to somewhat less mature fora, and peters out altogether by the age of 16, but I guess it's possible that that's what's going on here. The only alternative we have to consider is that you're a misogynistic bigot with your head so far up your arse that _all_ your brews, chilled or otherwise, must be infected with faecal coliform bacilli by the time they reach your lips. Anyone wondering why evolution occurs so slowly only needs to be shown posts like this, in conjunction with the species-defeating notion we hold that even _you_ should be allowed to procreate, to understand that it's really two steps forward one step back.
> Huge swathes of legislation have been written specifically to make it possible to prosecute people like yourself for acting on opinions such as this. Would that holding the opinion itself were prosecutable. I hope that it's at least worthy of a solid doing with the admin stick, if it were up to me I'd sewer your account like an infected brew. You're a slimy wee turd, and I'd flush you accordingly.



I'm not a fan of the misogyny either, but this attack is way over the top. People are entitled to their views.


----------



## Inge (1/5/08)

So, uhh, guys.

How's about that beer and wine tax? :lol:


----------



## PostModern (1/5/08)

Um guys, since it's only a proposal, and we've all agreed that it's a Bad Thing, how about I close this topic before we get even further off course?

If/when the excise on beer and wine changes let's have another beer and a whine.


----------

