The California Legislature is looking at a bill that would put a "sin tax" of 25 cents a 750 bottle to help "erase" our HUGE deficit.

How much would this translate to at retail?

Would it be on "production" therefore affecting all wine bottled in California?

Would you be in favor of this? It doesn't sound like much. And most of the bottles by far is $9-plonk out of California's Central Valley. First glance for me would be to go ahead and do it.

The article on the winespectator site said the tax would be $0.25 per bottle of wine (I assume 750ml here so mags would be twice that). I'd think that would raise the price on a bottle about a buck by the time it hits the customer. This will obviously effect the lower end much more than the higher end wines as a $4 bottle goes up 25% whereas it would barely be felt on a $100 bottle. The tax would be collected at the Distributor I believe so it would hit everyone.

I am totally against it 101%. At what point, enough is enough?!? At what point are the tax-payers, overtaxed? And on, & on...

Can you say, Stamp Act ?

"The question was never the immediate amount of taxation that the British were asking of the colonists. The question was whether the British had the right to do it at all. We're talking about people [the American colonists] with enormous sensitivity to the dangers of power. If you conceded the right to Parliament to tax and if there was no check on it, no limit, it could go on indefinitely. You could be bled white. The power to tax was the power to destroy."

Pauline Maier, Scholar

Time for the people of California to say, "Enough is enough!"

This veers off topic, but they also want to repeal the part of Prop 13 which says that you need a 2/3's majority to change property taxes. They folks in Sacramento want this adjusted to needing only 55% to pass changes.

I don't want this to sound like a political statement but I think California may be the only state that all statewide offices and both houses of the legislature are held by one party.

Anybody wanna guess which one.

For those of you not from California....

All the statewide elected offices are currently held by Democrats. Both houses of the legislature are also controlled by the Democrats. There are some Republicans who are state senators and representatives.

I know. NY/NJ is not much better/different...

ga,

it is a sad state of affairs when an incompetent slime-ball like gray davis gets re-elected after such a disastrous first term. when the primary opponent essentially bought the republican nomination with his own money (okay, his father's money & what he milked from their charitable foundation) & the incumbent has a huge war-chest & one of the most efficient fund-raising organizations in state politics & together they keep anyone else from being heard, what viable option did the california voters have? unless we have some serious election reform, these are the choices we will be faced with. remember george2 v gore? i am quite certain there are better candidates out there who are willing to run, but they lack the funding.

i'm getting off my soap box now.

Ah come on, you know CA never had an original idea.

FL has had a small tax like this on all drinks for the last eight - nine years. Some bars will list it as a line item to get the point across, and others just include it in the total bill.

Yes we have a democracy with taxation with representation, but do you really think those dinks in Tallahassee really represent us, or the liquor industry??

whether it's at the state or national level, democrat or republican, i have yet to see the congressperson capable of managing the state/federal finances in a judicious and prudent manner. it seems everyone is heady with power, eager to repay their political cronies who supported them. the states are divided roughly 50/50 between dem/rep governors. i have yet to hear of a state currently that is saying, gosh, we've got a surplus. we've done so well managing our finances.

sorry, ok, back to wine. my answer, no there are enough taxes as it is. further, for the out of staters that ship wine from CA, are we going to pay that too?

Of course we will find a way to donate more money to CA tax coffers.

In addition, the CA wine-heads are now pushing a means of limiting wine imports [part of the trade agreement], and if they acheive that, we will pay more for CA wines, and not have a lot of European wines we have been accustomed to drink. Not at any price.

Yep, those politicians have way of keeping their hand in my pocket.

i think its time to start taxing someone else....like Iraq....

On the other hand, in Florida just to balance it off, we have the house, senate, and gov all republican. Most of the House reps [fed] are republican, and the senators are dem.

Agree on both coasts, money talks.

At least our gov. can''t drink Davis's wine.

In reply to:

---

Ah come on, you know CA never had an original idea.
FL has had a small tax like this on all drinks for the last eight - nine years.

---

Did you all vote on this?
``````` ``````

As to the Florida governor and legistature, do you want to trade?

We'll throw in ex governor Jerry Brown.

GA,

Throw in Nancy Pelosi, and I bet you got yourself a deal!

Throw her in?

Throw her in front of a train maybe.

Throw her into a Texas NRA meeting.

The train idea would probably be less bloody.

Lets see,

If we take Jerry Brown off your hands, I'll toss in OJ Simpson and a bag of oranges.

Mike Dukasis is also open for a trade. Maybe an empty bottle of Gallo will get that going. He shows up to teach at a local college once in a while.

Rhetorically speaking, since when is a glass of wine a "sin? " Darn, I remember (sorry guys) when my hard earned nickel bought 5 baseball cards and a stick of gum and I was happy for a day.

Dick