I'm going to get into trouble for this one day, but as this will disappear officially from the interweb within a week I don't feel guilty.
A clip from the radio - it features me trying to explain why strong beer shouldn't be taxed any more than it already is.
6 comments:
Well spoken, Sir! That's the best way of getting the facts out there. After all, so much of this blogging (though we do love it so) only winds up reaching more bloggers. Heroic turns on the airwaves are always going to prove invaluable! Great stuff. Be happy to include one of your brews in my epic (foolhardy) quest if you fancy. Anyhow, great to have found your site - will be following from now on.
They haven't thought of that one here. Yet.
BUL180,
Indeed, you guys benefit from the fact that you have a flat beer taxation that is almost none-existent. You pay per US barrel made irrespective of strength; similar to our cider makers duty.
Imagine if you had our system. Imagine you had to pay per volume of pure alcohol. Imagine you then also had an extra tax that then caused it to become exponential for certain strengths.
Imagine, a good word for today I feel.
Good work Dave, though I don't think the higher tax rate is to pay for the lower tax rate.
The higher tax rate is to please the press and was going to happen anyway. The lower tax rate is a sop keep the opposition muted.
Ed,
If you look at the government document it clearly states that the changes have been designed to be broadly revenue neutral.
Overall the change has been made for all the reasons you state.
The gossip I heard from people who'd talked to ministers before the tax change was that they were going to do something to please the papers. And as industrial cleaner ciders have already been done tramp juice lagers was the next obvious target, it's real shame that quality beers will suffer too.
Post a Comment