What's The Law.

[MarkBastard]

Also worrying is some feminist crap; can't find the original but it's here -= future tax submission vic health=-
here's a boring quote.

Privately produced beer is beer made for personal use by private individuals and is exempt
from the payment of excise. The cost of this tax benefit is estimated by Treasury at $40
million for 2008-09. Whether beer is brewed for private purposes or not the effect of the
alcohol on the consumer is the same. There is no case for the consumer of home-brew to
be tax-preferred to the consumer of commercial brews. Alcohol is alcohol and like products
should be taxed alike. We assume the difficulty lies with the Tax Office trying to assess the
quantity brewed by each home-brewer and then trying to ensure compliance with the
excise. For practical reasons this concession may have to remain, but that should be stated
as the reason for the concession, not the preferment of one type of beer drinker over
another.​

fkn crap hey.
next would be sugar - yeast - honey taxes.
<_<

KNOW YOUR ENEMY

 

[Phoney]

As for distilling, it's complete crap that it's legal in NZ but not here. Although from what ive heard from friends over on the other side of the ditch, Kiwi land is fast becoming a nanny state too. Just the same as in the UK, bit by bit our rights are slowly being eroded away, nobody seems to give a **** and both of our main political parties are just as bad as each other. Even in the USA I suspect that if their govt tried to get away with half of the stuff that ours do, people would be rioting in the streets. These arseholes wont stop until the day comes in Australia when people must have their hands taped behind their backs and rubber mouth guards inserted in their mouths in order to appear in public because they could possibly cause harm to someone else.

Even though I dont agree with more than half of their policies, i'll be voting LDP come next election. Hopefully they get just one senator in talk some sense into our politicians.

/rant.

If we're only allowed to make 22L a week then why are 60L fermenters so readily available? To avoid breaking this law should I bottle half 1 week & the other half the week after?

I wonder if they would look at it in averages over say, a 12 month period?

ie: You might brew two 50L batches in one day but not brew again for a month.

 

[Pete2501]

I'm not making any money out of it. I don't sell it. I don't see the big deal.

 

[bkmad]

I'm not making any money out of it. I don't sell it. I don't see the big deal.

Ahh, but the govt isn't making any money out of it, but they probably want to.

 

[Pete2501]

The government is there to look after the people. IF what I'm doing has little to no impact on those around me then I don't understand the reasoning.

It's not like I'm buying crack and breaking into peoples houses to keep my addiction up.

It's making something and I'm enjoying it

 

[argon]

+1 on the only reason we have legislation is that the government can make money...not that you'll potentially make money.

Here's something i prepared earlier...in relation to us in Aus getting screwed over.. particularly in beer making.

Snip...

Why have 2 separate tax/excise structures based on the product being produced. All Australian manufacturers, distillers, brewers and distributors of alcoholic beverages not subject to wine equalisation tax have a responsibility under the Excise Tariff Act 1921 to pay excise duty. The Wine Equalisation Tax rate is 29% on across the board, regardless of ABV. Whereas beer starts at 29.36% for ABV less than 3% up to 34.22% above 3.5% ABV. It might seem small amounts but when you consider that the ATO took $1.7 billion from beer excise in 02-03 the money stacks up.

Now consider that the US Tax rates for beer is an average of $0.278per gallon or in percentage terms 7% thats a huge discrepancy. The same year the ATO took $AU1.7billion from beer excise the US took $US8 billion (approx $AU14billion). In 2003 our population was almost 20million, whereas the US had a population of 290millon. Based on the ATO rate they should have been taking almost $AU25 billion.

Were getting screwed and dont get me started on what it costs to own a license and run a pub

 

[cdbrown]

Ahh, but the govt isn't making any money out of it, but they probably want to.

They get GST on some of the stuff.

 

[Phoney]

The government is there to look after the people. IF what I'm doing has little to no impact on those around me then I don't understand the reasoning.

Governments are not your friend. Giving money and power to politicians is like giving whiskey and car keys to schoolboys.

 

[bkmad]

They get GST on some of the stuff.

My comment was a bit of a throwaway comment, but what I was getting at is that they would obviously love to charge us excise as well. The article earlier in this threat alluded to the govt 'losing' 40 million due to missing out on excise on homebrewers. That number seems ******** to me as well as the reasoning behind it. Using that reasoning, the govt are also missing out on millions by not putting an excise on crossing the road or a cheese excise.

 

[earle]

IIRC it is prohibited to brew in a rental property. Has anyone heard of this before?

 

[tcraig20]

next would be sugar - yeast - honey taxes.
<_<

Been there, done that:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malthouse#Malt_tax

Apparently it went out of fashion back when we were still hanging highwaymen.

BTW: Am I the only one who finds it interesting that we are ferretting around for a piece of legislation that gives us permission to do something?

 

[roller997]

Not sure if the $40Mil is an accurate estimate, however......

From past research, 1 liter of 5% beer has close to $1.80 of excise on it if sold in >48 liter kegs. Smaller kegs / bottles etc attract more excise but I can't remember how much. Considering that a lot of folks use 23 liter fermenters, it is likely that the excise will be more than $1.8 per liter.

Using $1.8 per liter $40,000,000 is 22,222,222 liters of beer per annum.
It would take 1 in 100 Australien residents homebrews, to brew an average of five * 23 liter batches each year to amount to the $40Mil in excise.

I do suspect that with the bureaucratic overheads, the cost of collecting this excise would be quite a bit more than the money they would collect.

 

[MarkBastard]

bit by bit our rights are slowly being eroded away, nobody seems to give a **** and both of our main political parties are just as bad as each other.

Couldn't agree more. Look how much people care about that god damn super mining tax, yet no one is up in arms about the civil-liberties erosion that is occurring at the same time.

It's sickening. People in this country treat political parties like they're football teams.

 

[Dazza_devil]

IIRC it is prohibited to brew in a rental property. Has anyone heard of this before?

Can't be. The cops searched my place recently, taking an interest in my fermenter and set-up but that was all. Apart from asking if I was brewing anything other than beer they weren't fussed. They was keen to find something too but came up empty handed :lol:
There was 6 of them but only half a brain between them.

 

[MarkBastard]

I do suspect that with the bureaucratic overheads, the cost of collecting this excise would be quite a bit more than the money they would collect.

There is NO way those pricks would be getting any of my money from my own home brew. I don't care if it's illegal or not.

 

[Dazza_devil]

There is NO way those pricks would be getting any of my money from my own home brew. I don't care if it's illegal or not.

It'd probably work out to be more profitable to fine us for making it or having over a certain amount than taxing it in anyway.
I reckon it may be prudent to put some yeasties in a vault just in case though.
The yeast is the culprit after all.

 

[501]

I'd be more worried than that the way they would do it ;
with 500% taxes on anything remotely homebrew.
I know hard to implement.

Using $1.8 per liter $40,000,000 is 22,222,222 liters of beer per annum.
It would take 1 in 100 Australien residents homebrews, to brew an average of five * 23 liter batches each year to amount to the $40Mil in excise.

I agree with you on $40 mil guess they just pulled it out their a....s.

$1.80 a liter I get slightly lower purely for the excise.
Rates are here from tariff act schedule

1.1.6 is for microbrews, samples etc (guessing) and is only 2.58 per liter of alcohol above the 1.15% content.
but if they charged us at the commercial rate it would be 36.98 per liter of alc or 26.03 in larger kegs .....

#excise only calcs:-
23 liters @ 5% minus the Allowable 1.15% alc = 3.85% * 23 liters = 0.8855 liters alcohol
0.8855 liters * 36.98 = $32.74579 (about $1.40 per liter / ~ 53cents per stubbie)

1 brew per week * 52 weeks == $1702.78 per person per year. (and that ain't much beer?)
+ gst + whatever else

$40000000/the above = 23490 brewers. (No idea how many of us there are).
My dodgy maths it would take 1 in 1000 citizens brewing 23 liters per week to hit the 40mill ?

-=I'm drinking some excise-exempt items now so forgive dodgy maths etc if applicable=-

Guessing that they're accounting for lost wages,
other taxes etc gained along the way.

 

[manticle]

Also worrying is some feminist crap; can't find the original but it's here -= future tax submission vic health=-
here's a boring quote.

Privately produced beer is beer made for personal use by private individuals and is exempt
from the payment of excise. The cost of this tax benefit is estimated by Treasury at $40
million for 2008-09. Whether beer is brewed for private purposes or not the effect of the
alcohol on the consumer is the same. There is no case for the consumer of home-brew to
be tax-preferred to the consumer of commercial brews. Alcohol is alcohol and like products
should be taxed alike. We assume the difficulty lies with the Tax Office trying to assess the
quantity brewed by each home-brewer and then trying to ensure compliance with the
excise. For practical reasons this concession may have to remain, but that should be stated
as the reason for the concession, not the preferment of one type of beer drinker over
another.​

While I agree that suggestion is a big load of horseshite I'm having trouble seeing the relevance to feminism. Was it written by Catherine McKinnon?

 

[mika]

The government is there to look after the people. IF what I'm doing has little to no impact on those around me then I don't understand the reasoning.

.............

You say that, but playing devils advocate. They're now advertising on the TV that beer can cause cancer now (what doesn't ?)
And the problems associated with excessive (binge) drinking is well documented.
So it would not suprise me that in their 'cost of home brewing' sums, they're including a cost to the tax payer for the hospital bed that you'll use in later life due to the health complications caused by the 'evil drink'.

Nanny state ? .... we've only just seen the tip of the iceberg.

 

[501]

While I agree that suggestion is a big load of horseshite I'm having trouble seeing the relevance to feminism. Was it written my Catherine McKinnon?

Yes I agree that is not the correct term, no offence was meant by that.