Browse News Articles and Recipes

I’ve been a fan of Bartender Magazine (and the website) since my first day in the booze business. So it’s no surprise that I would turn to Ray Foley and ask to introduce you to my website http://www.boozebusiness.com

I’m Arthur Shapiro and I’ve been on the manufacturer side of the spirits business for over 25 years. I started with the Seagram Company (including a long stint as head of US marketing) and when their lights went out, stayed in the booze biz as a marketing consultant to the top companies. I put up this blog so I can share some industry insights, great stories and say what’s on my mind.

Over the years I’ve learned that if you want to know what’s going on in the market, talk with the men and women behind the bar. And, if you want to talk to bartenders, then do it through Bartender Magazine.

Check it out, you might enjoy. Oh, and let me hear from you.

Check us out on Twitter

Follow us on Facebook

Get all the news on Tumblr!

Read Ray Foley’s newest book, 1001 Sandwiches You Must Eat Before You Die, available from Amazon!

Source: AP

Dec 16, 2009 – 3:41:18 PM

A proposed North Dakota ballot measure would raise the state tax on wine, beer and liquor. The tax collections would be reserved for spending on alcohol education and prevention.

Duane Peterson of Gwinner submitted the measure to Secretary of State Al Jaeger on Wednesday. Jaeger has until Christmas Eve to review the proposal and draft a short explanation of what it does. The secretary of state cannot change the measure’s wording.

Once Jaeger’s review is completed, supporters of the tax increase may begin gathering signatures to put it on North Dakota’s statewide ballot. They need to get signatures from almost 13,000 North Dakota voters

Source: Journal Sentinel

By Patrick Marley

Oct 29th

For all coverage in the Wasted in Wisconsin series visit our special section. Madison – An effort to strengthen the state’s drunken driving law will not include an increase in the liquor tax.

Instead, state senators will look to raising the fee for suspended and revoked driver’s licenses to help pay for the tougher laws, said Sen. Jim Sullivan (D-Wauwatosa), the lead Senate sponsor of the bill.

Leaders in the Senate and Assembly have not agreed on a final package, but senators have removed the biggest hurdle to a deal by dropping the liquor tax.

Democrats control both houses. They have made reforming drunken driving laws a top priority but have differed over the liquor tax.

The bill would make some fourth drunken driving offenses felonies and require more ignition interlock devices.

Sullivan said new estimates show the bill will cost about half as much as previously believed. That gives lawmakers a chance to drop the liquor tax increase, he said.

Assembly leaders welcomed the breakthrough.

“Now that they’re off the tax increase, I think we can work with them,” said Rep. Tony Staskunas (D-West Allis), lead Assembly sponsor of the measure.

“I think we’re moving in the same direction,” said Rep. Mark Pocan (D-Madison), co-chairman of the Joint Finance Committee.

The committee had planned to take up the bill Wednesday, but had to drop it because of the disagreement over the liquor tax.

Now, the committee plans to take up the bill Tuesday. That would give the two houses a chance to pass the measure by Thursday, the last day they are scheduled to be on the floor this year.

The Assembly unanimously passed a bill in September to toughen drunken-driving laws. A Senate committee earlier this month passed a similar bill and added the liquor tax to it.

A recent cost estimate said the tougher laws would cost $36.5 million to $73.7 million a year, but Sullivan said a new estimate shows a range of about half that amount. Sullivan said the new estimate is lower because it recognizes the deterrent effect of requiring more ignition interlocks – Breathalyzer-like devices that allow vehicles to start only if drivers show they don’t have alcohol in their systems.

Sullivan has not fully refined his proposal and has not yet determined whether the increased fee would be for reinstating all suspended and revoked licenses or for just those of drunken drivers. Now, it costs $60 to reinstate a license.

Senate aides said they were considering a range of increases to make sure they generated enough money to pay for the drunken driving bill.

Move criticized

Joe Volk, executive director of the Milwaukee anti-poverty group Community Advocates, said a fee increase on suspended and revoked licenses would unfairly hit the poor. “This is just one more obstacle, more piling on, to poor people,” Volk said.

Sullivan’s plan would also raise an existing penalty on offenders from $20 to $163. That increase was part of an earlier version of the bill.

The bill would:

. Make a fourth offense a felony if it occurs within five years of the previous offense. Now, drunken driving isn’t a felony until the fifth offense.

. Require ignition interlocks for all repeat drunken drivers and for first-time offenders with blood-alcohol levels of 0.15 or greater – nearly twice the legal limit for driving.

. Make a first-offense drunken driving a misdemeanor if a child younger than 16 is in the vehicle. Wisconsin is the only state to treat first offenses as traffic tickets, rather than crimes. The provision wouldn’t affect punishments for those with two or more offenses if they were caught driving with a child in the vehicle.

. Expand statewide a Winnebago County program that gives judges the option of offering reduced jail time to offenders who complete alcohol or drug treatment. Backers say it saves money while reducing recidivism.

The version of the bill the Senate Judiciary Committee approved two weeks ago would have raised the tax on hard liquor 58%, from 85.86 cents per liter to almost $1.36. It would have raised $25 million a year

Lawmaker says time is right for raising rates on alcoholic beverages

Source: The New Mexican

By Steve Terrell

11/3/2009

When lawmakers return to Santa Fe in January to consider ways to cover the state’s budget deficit, one likely target is raising taxes on alcoholic beverages.

During the recent special session, two lawmakers – Rep. Brian Egolf, D-Santa Fe, and Sen. Bernadette Sanchez, D-Albquerque – introduced bills that would have raised the state’s excise tax on beer, wine and distilled spirits. Neither bill received serious debate because of Gov. Bill Richardson’s proclamation precluding tax-increase legislation during the short special session.

But with all financial bills fair game in the regular 30-day session – and the budget crisis continuing – Egolf said Tuesday that he’ll introduce his “dime-a-drink” tax hike again next year, along with legislation to raise cigarette taxes and motor-vehicle registration fees.

The last time legislators seriously considered raising taxes on alcohol, during a special session in 2003, the liquor industry fought hard – and won. At the end of that session, Richardson, who had supported a liquor tax hike, declared, “If the liquor industry thinks they’ve beaten Bill Richardson, they’re wrong.” But Richardson never raised the issue again.

Egolf believes the idea’s time has come. He points to a poll – commissioned last month by the New Mexico Education Partners, which includes teachers unions and other professional educator organizations – that shows 70 percent of the 400 registered voters surveyed supported increasing taxes on tobacco and alcohol products to increase revenues for public schools. In that poll, which has a margin of error of 4.9 percent, only 27 percent opposed the idea of increasing what are sometimes referred to as “sin taxes.”

Egolf said his bill would raise the rates on the various types of alcoholic beverages by an amount that would boost the price of a single serving by about 10 cents. This, he said, would generate between $43 million and $50 million in new revenue for the state.

But the liquor industry argues that such an increase would hurt business.

“In a recession, it’s a bad idea to raise any tax,” longtime liquor lobbyist Ed Mahr told a reporter Tuesday. “Things are tough out there for businesses. The excise taxes here are too big already.”

Mahr pointed out that New Mexico has some of the highest excise taxes in the country.

Both the excise tax on beer (41 cents per gallon) and wine ($1.70 per gallon for most wines) are among the top 10 highest such state taxes, according to a study published this year by The Tax Foundation, a Washington, D.C.-based nonpartisan tax-research group. The state excise tax on distilled spirits ($6.06 per gallon) is the 17th highest such levy in the nation.

In 2003, when the Legislature was considering a tax increase on alcohol, a national liquor industry group called the Distilled Spirits Council of the United States launched a campaign of radio ads saying the proposed tax increase would seriously hurt New Mexico hotels and restaurants and the people who work there. The group still maintains this would be the case.

Council spokesman Ben Jenkins, in a phone interview Tuesday, called the alcoholic beverage excise tax “the hospitality tax.”

“Any increase is going to have an effect on your hospitality industry and your tourism industry,” Jenkins said. He pointed out that the industry has suffered in the state. According to the latest report from the state Department of Workforce Solutions, the hospitality and leisure industry lost 1,300 jobs between September 2008 and September 2009.

But Egolf disputed the contention that his tax increase would hurt the hospitality industry. “That’s crazy,” he said. “If you are going out with your friends to have three or four beers – with a designated driver, of course – you’re not going to stay home just because it’s going to cost you an extra 40 cents.”

Jenkins said he didn’t know whether his organization would run radio ads in New Mexico next year to fight a tax increase.

But one thing bound to continue is the liquor industry giving campaign contributions to legislators and other state officials.

Last year, according to the National Institute on Money in State Government, the alcoholic beverage industry dropped $109,926 on state politicians. Of that, more than $39,000 went to state Senate candidates, while more than $42,000 went to House candidates.

In the last gubernatorial race in 2006, liquor manufacturers and distributors contributed $57,425 to Richardson and $14,378 to Lt. Gov. Diane Denish. J.R. Damron, a Republican gubernatorial candidate, received $500.

Richardson’s rhetoric against the liquor industry might have cost him though. In 2002, when he first ran for governor, he had received more than $152,000 from liquor interests.