Age Article - Sweet 'beers' To Attract Higher Tax

[brettprevans]

In today's Age

now most of it concerned with amending the current lawsd to catch 'alcopop' drinks 'made like beer' like smirnof platnum. All this i dont care about. This is the worrying bit

Amendments will mean products will no longer be defined as beer if they contain more than 4 per cent sugar, any artificial sweetener or flavour and must contain hops or bitters comparable to hops.

Now correct me if im wrong, but wouldnt there be a far proportion of beers that have more than 4% sugar in their bill? now lets assume they means sugar sugar not malt. That still leaves belgians, triples etc. The only hope wwe have is that they mean 4% sugar by weight once bottled. Even then I would have thought things like RIS triples, Quads might be in the firing line.

 

[Wardhog]

Does that mean that VB cannot legally be called beer anymore?

Edit: Dammit, they'll likely mean post fermentation, so technically VB will still be beer. But the good side of that is that RIS, Tripels, etc. won't be affected.

 

[Adamt]

Yes, it would be 4% weight when bottled.

This Smirnoff platinum has sugar added to the product before bottling (after filtering/otherwise removing all yeast), to make it sweet and not taste like a wash.

Not sure about the RIS/tripels... they may be in some trouble.

 

[Supra-Jim]

The only hope wwe have is that they mean 4% sugar by weight once bottled.

If it doesn't it means the megaswill brewers are in trouble, doesn't the grain bill go something like, 1 tonne cane sugar, 1 bottle of isohop, a couple of litres of water strained through a few stale grains (and for special beers, 1 tin of powedered cold filtration).

I would say the ammendment is there to try to stop alcopop producers from making a sweet sugar laced beer
type product to market to kindergardens.

:icon_cheers: SJ

 

[Kai]

They would mean sugar in-bottle and may even specify. In terms of sucrose/glucose/fructose I don't think there would be greater than 4% left even in a big low-attenuated beer.

 

[Insight]

I'm sure the intention is to tax anything that's been back-sweetened. Since yeast eats up all the sucrose in the beer, RIS/Belgians will be fine. The beers tha immediately spring to mind that may have an issue are those with added fructose like lindemanns framboise etc.

Not sure whether those with residual lactose may also be caught (sweet stouts).

 

[Adamt]

Actually Kai, 4% by weight is closer to 4g/100g, varying of course with the FG.

I agree, if they specify simple sugars, real beer is safe as a tank rolling down a Swiss street.

 

[Muggus]

I'm sure the intention is to tax anything that's been back-sweetened. Since yeast eats up all the sucrose in the beer, RIS/Belgians will be fine. The beers tha immediately spring to mind that may have an issue are those with added fructose like lindemanns framboise etc.

Wouldn't suprise me if sweetened lambics like Lindemans, Timmermans, and fruit beers like the Florisgaarden range, would be in the firing line here.
They generally tend to taste more like a softdrink/sparkling fruit juice, and you'd barely recognise them as a beer or alcoholic.
Though they can be pretty pricey as is! :huh:

I'm just hoping nice funky unsweetened lambics and fruit beers don't come under that classification.

 

[Pollux]

Awesome, another pointless tax.....

When will they realise that if they keep doing this kids will just buy a bottle of vodka and some soft drink/juice, actually, that's how I remember my teenage years.

 

[Kai]

Actually Kai, 4% by weight is closer to 4g/100g, varying of course with the FG.

I don't know what you're talking about

caught that and edited it a little too late

 

[brendo]

When will they realise that if they keep doing this kids will just buy a bottle of vodka and some soft drink/juice, actually, that's how I remember my teenage years.

+1 If I wasn't drining beer as a young teenager, it was usually a bottle of vodka and some form of mixer - more bang for your buck.

Just goes to show that the kiddies not only drink rubbish... they are f@ckin lazy beggers as well...

Brendo

 

[brettprevans]

I know it complete stupidity. teenagers dont drink heaps of premixed cause they are too expensive. if they are at a party they always end up with a bottle of something and mix it. raising the tax on these items isnt a solution or addressing the problem. its a half arsed attemp looking at the sympton not the propblem.

I remember the girls when i was a teen prefering to buy a bottlo of cheap spitir say vodka at $22 bucks (well less back then). maybe a cask of fruitylexia or similar and mix it. the cask wine also is good for breakfast hangovers.

 

[Swinging Beef]

Excellent news.
If something costs more, people wont buy it.
It has always worked so well in the past.
More clear and well thought out legislation by our nation's leaders, because we all know that when common sense fails, legislation prevails.

 

[Pollux]

I remember the girls when i was a teen prefering to buy a bottlo of cheap spitir say vodka at $22 bucks (well less back then). maybe a cask of fruitylexia or similar and mix it. the cask wine also is good for breakfast hangovers.

Ahhh, fruity-legs-opener, I remember that evil stuff. Many games of "goon of misfortune".....BTW, did you know you could freeze it and eat it with a knife and fork, we learnt that too....

Main reason the alcopop tax pissed me off was I like to have a bundy and cola from time to time, and if I bought a bottle I'd always run out of coke mid way through it and then forget to buy more...Lets go back to 2005, UP Bundy and cola cans were the same price as a 6pk of Carlton Draught.

 

[mika]

News story on the radio yesterday arvo as we're driving home. Apparently since the Alcopop tax has been introduced, there's been no change to the number of hospital admittances for excessive alcohol consumption.

 

[brettprevans]

i'd love to know how they came up with that data. I know for a fact that in Vic we dont have that level of data available (certainly not at a state level). it would only be anticdotal evidence.

 

[peas_and_corn]

The first question I have is this- what sort of a government starts charging a tax before it's legislated?

 

[brettprevans]

The first question I have is this- what sort of a government starts charging a tax before it's legislated?

a labor govt

 

[kook]

"No longer be defined as beer if they contain more than 4 per cent sugar"

What the hell does that mean?

I see two options here, if they're refering to 4% residual sugars, then a portion of the specialty beer market will no longer produce beer for taxation purposes - it'll be alcopops. Anyone done the calculations? What kind of FG are we talking about?

If they're refering to simply 4% sucrose, then this will mean a large portion of imported Belgian beers will be considered alcopops and taxed as such, along with several offerings from small microbrewers in Australia. The amusing part is the alcopop creators can just make up a new offering, using rice, corn, potatoes or other adjuncts instead of cane sugar. They can add a "bittering agents" and "natural sweeteners" and market a new style of citrus based alcopops with bitters (think LLB but different).

Anyone from here work at a CUB / LN plant? Any idea if any of their mainstream products contain more than 4% sucrose based adjuncts? Would be highly amusing if this passed and VB or Tooheys New was suddenly taxed as an alcopop.

 

[geoffd]

Awesome, another pointless tax.....

We're gonna drink this country outta deficit, no need for future generations to pay. If people are dumb enough to buy alcopiss then why not rip the bejesus out of their wallets, they are only going to waste their dollars on some other stupid thing otherwise. We are on the cusp of a new era of economics...even dumber than the last.