Liquor taxes cut: Rick Snyder signs bill affecting retailers
Gov. Rick Snyder today signed legislation that cuts taxes on liquor sales at retail establishments.
Liquor taxes at retail establishments will fall by 1.85 percent.
File photo | AnnArbor.com
"This change is being made so retail stores can stay competitive with restaurants that cater off-premise events using their own supply of alcohol, which is not subject to the 1.8 percent tax," the governor's office said in a statement.
Sara Wurfel, a spokeswoman for Snyder, told AnnArbor.com in an email that the governor's budget office is "currently assessing" how to make up for the loss in revenue associated with the bill. She said the 2011-12 budget won't have to be rebalanced "due to recent revenue changes." A state agency announced today that it is projecting the state will take in $285 million more in tax revenue than it previously predicted, according to several reports.
The bill, which was approved 38-0 by the Senate on June 1 and 79-29 by the House on Sept. 20, drew support from Rep. Mark Ouimet, R-Scio Township; Rep. Rick Olson, R-Saline; Sen. Rebekah Warren, D-Ann Arbor; and Sen. Randy Richardville, R-Monroe. Rep. Jeff Irwin, D-AnnArbor, and state Rep. David Rutledge, D-Ypsilanti, voted against the bill.
Supporters described the bill as a way to boost Michigan retailers and eliminate an extra tax on liquor sales that does not apply to sales at restaurants.
But the legislation also drew the ire of a policy group that fights laws that expand the availability of alcohol.
Mike Tobias, executive director of Michigan Alcohol Policy, an all-volunteer group, told AnnArbor.com in June that the legislation “makes no sense” in light of the state’s budget problems and the societal implications of lowering alcohol taxes.
“Price is a factor in consumption and alcohol related problems,” Tobias said. “In general, the higher the price, the lower the problems. Conversely, the lower the price, the higher the problems.”
In an email to supporters in September, Michigan Alcohol Policy described the bill's opponents as "heroes" and vowed to track lawmakers' voting on issues affecting alcohol.
An analysis by state fiscal analyst Josh Sefton showed that eliminating the extra 1.85 percent tax on retail liquor sales would lead to a $14 million drop in tax revenue for the Liquor Purchase Revolving Fund, dollars that are “regularly transferred to the General Fund,” Sefton wrote.
Contact AnnArbor.com's Nathan Bomey at (734) 623-2587 or nathanbomey@annarbor.com. You can also follow him on Twitter or subscribe to AnnArbor.com's newsletters.
Comments
Jim
Thu, Oct 13, 2011 : 3:49 p.m.
From an older new article: In recent weeks, there have been rumblings among some lobbyists and lawmakers that Michigan's cigarette tax and beer and wine taxes are too high and should be reduced. But the governor on Friday told reporters that his degree of support for the idea is "none." The governor says his first concern is a balanced budget and spending time on cutting tobacco and liquor taxes "would not be the best use of the legislature" right now. The Friday noted in the quote would be July 9 (possibly July 16) of 2011. So, I'm not sure why he signed this bill.
RoboLogic
Wed, Oct 12, 2011 : 4:55 p.m.
I am now going to save approx. 39 cents on a fifth of Yukon Jack or Jack Daniels. Isn't that special?
Peter Eckstein
Wed, Oct 12, 2011 : 4:24 p.m.
Isn't this all about jobs? If we lower taxes on some retailers we will encourage them to sell more liquor, which will fuel Michigan's economic resurgence. La La La.
Kai Petainen
Wed, Oct 12, 2011 : 5:10 p.m.
it might help the healthcare sector as well.
Kai Petainen
Wed, Oct 12, 2011 : 3:56 p.m.
I was trying to figure out the 'pro' side to this story. Congratulations to Kelley Cawthorne and WineMichigan. This change might help Michigan's economy -- by helping the vineyards and tourism? "The wine industry contributes $300 million annually to Michigan's economy." <a href="http://www.michiganwines.com/page.php?menu_id=19" rel='nofollow'>http://www.michiganwines.com/page.php?menu_id=19</a> Here's a link to a map of the vineyards: <a href="http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?msid=208909284977021999052.00049e76f900f8037d48b&msa=0" rel='nofollow'>http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?msid=208909284977021999052.00049e76f900f8037d48b&msa=0</a> Let's follow the money (and power)... #3 on this list is Kelley Cawthorne. <a href="http://www.mcfn.org/pdfs/reports/lobbyingSummer2011.pdf" rel='nofollow'>http://www.mcfn.org/pdfs/reports/lobbyingSummer2011.pdf</a> I was looking at #37, MI Beer & Wine Wholesalers, but then I noticed #3 on the list. Kelley Cawthorne brings up this list <a href="http://www.kelley-cawthorne.com/e-fishbowl" rel='nofollow'>http://www.kelley-cawthorne.com/e-fishbowl</a> "Vineyard Tour with the owner of Leelanau Cellars and a $100 Gift Certificate for the Leelanau Cellars Tasting Room" Which lead me to this: <a href="http://www.michiganwines.com/docs/About/history_winemichigan.pdf" rel='nofollow'>http://www.michiganwines.com/docs/About/history_winemichigan.pdf</a> Which states: "About the same time, Jacobson and other vintners were communicating with Robert Elhenicky, a partner of the lobbying and law firm Kelley Cawthorne based in Lansing. Eventually, the group hired Elhenicky, who represented the legislative interests of the state's wineries in regards to the shipping issue." "Today (2009), WineMichigan is still in existence to lobby on behalf of the wineries to address political issues affecting the industry. The organization hosts a website at <a href="http://www.winemichigan.org" rel='nofollow'>www.winemichigan.org</a> to keep members and consumers informed of the issues."
Ron Granger
Wed, Oct 12, 2011 : 1:33 p.m.
Make sure you are not getting ripped off on price. GRANHOLM's administration removed the requirement that liquor be priced the same everywhere in Michigan. Now retailers can jack up the prices. The state only sets a minimum price. You can check the minimum here: <a href="http://www.michigan.gov/documents/dleg/Price_Book_1-30-11_thru_4-30-11_342054_7.pdf" rel='nofollow'>http://www.michigan.gov/documents/dleg/Price_Book_1-30-11_thru_4-30-11_342054_7.pdf</a>
snoopdog
Wed, Oct 12, 2011 : 1:28 p.m.
Liquor prices are as someone noted earlier much higher in Michigan than surrounding states. I go to Ohio frequently for business and stock up on pop/beer and distilled spirts because of the huge cost savings. Plus there is no 10 cent deposit on pop or beer cans and the smaller pop and beer companies use the same cans in Ohio that they use in Michigan so you can actually make money if so inclined. Good Day
Edward R Murrow's Ghost
Wed, Oct 12, 2011 : 4:24 p.m.
". . . so you can actually make money if so inclined." Illegally so. GN&GL
Edward R Murrow's Ghost
Wed, Oct 12, 2011 : 12:43 p.m.
Just another example of the fact that the state government is bought-and-paid for by business. Welcome to Rick Snyder's Plantation. Good Night and Good Luck
Bluefire
Wed, Oct 12, 2011 : 6:17 p.m.
Oh snap Ghost!
Edward R Murrow's Ghost
Wed, Oct 12, 2011 : 4:23 p.m.
Funny. I don't see the word "republican" anywhere in my post. Me thinks thou doth protest too much. GN&GL
Yeah buddy
Wed, Oct 12, 2011 : 1:42 p.m.
It passed 38-0 in the senate, but I am sure all 38 senators were republican right?
snapshot
Wed, Oct 12, 2011 : 4:37 a.m.
Liquor cost about 30 percent more in Michigan than "uncontrolled" states..........there should be such a tax for "Tee Fees" because golf can be addictive and cause social and physical injuries. How about a high school and college sports tax because of all the medical problems that result from injuries? Maybe we would see reductions in our medical premiums.
dfossil
Wed, Oct 12, 2011 : 3:58 a.m.
Standard Republican behavior: Tax elderly folks benefits that they saved and let big business make any amount of money tax free. On top of that the old folks never figure that out and keep voting republican! Love it!
Marvin Face
Wed, Oct 12, 2011 : 1:59 a.m.
My grandmother is over eighty and still doesn't need glasses. Drinks right out of the bottle. ~Henny Youngman
treetowncartel
Wed, Oct 12, 2011 : 2:55 a.m.
I want to hang with you and grandma
Marilyn Wilkie
Wed, Oct 12, 2011 : 2:37 a.m.
I vote this best response.
treetowncartel
Wed, Oct 12, 2011 : 1:13 a.m.
Years ago, when there were Stae liqour stores, retailers were forvced to sell their liqour within a few cents of another. Now that private distributors supply retail establishments, and bars and restaurants, the prices are not on par wherever you go. I'm not sure how this will change the prices for the consumer, maybe a follow up in a few months? Do a little price shopping now for your storyy in a few months? I will say I am glad to see a sin tax being reduced. The sinners support teat toattlers to much.
thecompound
Tue, Oct 11, 2011 : 11:49 p.m.
Does anyone even drink Southern Comfort anymore, lol?
treetowncartel
Wed, Oct 12, 2011 : 2:56 a.m.
only with mountain dew as a chaser
Kai Petainen
Tue, Oct 11, 2011 : 10:56 p.m.
I like to learn the pros/cons of a debate... ... I'm having a hard time understanding who this will benefit (the pros) of the deal.
Lolly
Wed, Oct 12, 2011 : 1:25 p.m.
The pros for the legislators will be the swelling of their PAC money from the liquor industry, apparently.
Sparty
Tue, Oct 11, 2011 : 10:52 p.m.
Sure, cut alcohol taxes so the unemployed can afford more alcohol to stay warm. How they will afford those DUI fines, go to closed jails, get ticketed by fewer and fewer police, get catastrophic insurance coverage that you're trying to do away with, get rehab services that you're eliminating, hmmm. Well, at least they won't have time to see how you are absolutely ruining this state, Governor.
Sue
Tue, Oct 11, 2011 : 10:45 p.m.
Really? Really???? We slash $ for roads, hit pensioners and now.... add MORE to the budget deficit by eliminating some measly tax on alcohol??? Really? Does anyone in Lansing have a clue about honestly making a difference for the BETTER for our great state?
Edward R Murrow's Ghost
Wed, Oct 12, 2011 : 12:45 p.m.
Easy answer: Nope. Good Night and Good Luck
Ryan Bowles
Tue, Oct 11, 2011 : 10:20 p.m.
There goes another $15 million for our schools.
snoopdog
Tue, Oct 11, 2011 : 10:19 p.m.
My wallet thanks you , my liver not so much ! Good Day
Cash
Tue, Oct 11, 2011 : 9:57 p.m.
Well, here is the lobbyist list for this summer: <a href="http://www.mcfn.org/pdfs/reports/lobbyingSummer2011.pdf" rel='nofollow'>http://www.mcfn.org/pdfs/reports/lobbyingSummer2011.pdf</a>
Roadman
Tue, Oct 11, 2011 : 9:45 p.m.
What is disappointing is that the Associated Food and Petroleum Dealers PAC nor any other liquor trade association organization or political action committee is mentioned in the article when these type of organizations are ones who initiate such proposed legislation. They have the lobbyists and campaign contributions that bring smiles to members of the Michigan Legislature even though the state could be footing the bill for increased Medicaid and Medicare costs produced by the spike in retail liquor sales that can be assumed from increased liquor sales. In countries like Great Britain, the first tax the government raises is on alcohol and tobacco consumtion relecting a polict that icresed taxes mean decreased sales and a corresponding expected decrease in unwanted consumtion-related societal evils. Worst of all, what is happening is that the Snyder administration is cutting funding for substance abuse treatment programs statewide.
heraclitus
Tue, Oct 11, 2011 : 9:25 p.m.
Did any alcohol lobbyist contribute to the State Rep that voted yes voters and, if so, how much?
just a voice
Tue, Oct 11, 2011 : 9:14 p.m.
Who does this really benefit? With the state budget how it is, this could not be the right move.
Atticus F.
Tue, Oct 11, 2011 : 9:12 p.m.
This is disgusting...Do you honestly think the guy at the liquor store os going to lower the price on the shelfs?...He's gonna keep the price the same and stick the extra cash in his own personal bank acount. And in the meantime, state services are going to suffer. Also, in what way do liquor retailers create jobs, but restruants don't? How brainless can you be to believe that party stores create more jobs than restaurants? Basically, if the plan works, people are going to be going out to eat less.
Adam Jaskiewicz
Wed, Oct 12, 2011 : 12:01 p.m.
Well, the state sets the minimum price... so they can't pass the savings along anyway.
kmgeb2000
Tue, Oct 11, 2011 : 8:50 p.m.
". . . budget office is "currently assessing" how to make up for the loss in revenue associated with the bill." In our current budget situation, shouldn't that have BEEN done before the bill was signed? Like asking the simple question so this cuts $14 million what happens next . . . increase revenue/taxes somewhere else or cut another health, education, human services and environmental program. An please explain how this is good for Michigan citizens, other than a retailer who may have higher liquor sales. I don't see the point.
sig.melvin
Wed, Oct 12, 2011 : 8:40 p.m.
making up for LOSSES..NO Smoking in BARS or Tavern ...We lost 7 business already in the city......so now kids drink at parks. etc etc
Woman in Ypsilanti
Tue, Oct 11, 2011 : 8:50 p.m.
It's not like anyone with some juice and some yeast can't just make their own booze anyways. When I was a teenager, we used to make it out of koolaid in plastic 2 liter bottles. No taxes and no one to check your id.
5c0++ H4d13y
Tue, Oct 11, 2011 : 8:40 p.m.
I'll dring to that.
kochmann
Tue, Oct 11, 2011 : 8:39 p.m.
He can fill that hole by obeying the MMMA and taxation/regulation of non-medical sales of cannabis...see how easy that was to accomplish...just gotta reschedule cannabis from Level1 and hope the LIE just goes away....
johnnya2
Tue, Oct 11, 2011 : 8:10 p.m.
So I guess Rick Snyder and those that voted for this bill think lower taxes on retail alcohol will increase jobs? Let's say every party and grocery store in the state increased liquor sales by 20%. How many employees does that add up to? ZERO. The liquor store manned by an owner and his family is not going to hire somebody for those extra sales. Do you really think Buschs or Meijer will need xtra man hours for this? The logical thing to do would be to increase the restaurant tax to level the playing field AND bring extra money to the budget. I also love how the republican governor has spent the projected extra $285 million the state will bring in this year. With tax cuts for big business of course.
Yeah buddy
Wed, Oct 12, 2011 : 1:39 p.m.
They haven't spent the $285 million, thus they don't have to worry about where the money is going to come from this year. Try reading!
Dave
Tue, Oct 11, 2011 : 8:44 p.m.
It's not about making jobs; it's about keeping them. 1.8% tax might not make a big difference in sales, but that small improvement might help strengthen the stability of those stores affected. Besides, this is one tax cut that doesn't solely benefit your despised 'big business'.
godsbreath64
Tue, Oct 11, 2011 : 8:01 p.m.
More counter-republican extremism hatred for Michigan.
xmo
Tue, Oct 11, 2011 : 7:59 p.m.
I was surprised to see the Local Democrats (Jeff Irwin and Dave Rutledge) trying to balance the State Budget on the backs of the poor? This tax does not matter to the Rich but the Poor need anything we can give them and look who voted to keep this unfair tax on the POOR!
Anthony Clark
Wed, Oct 12, 2011 : 4:28 a.m.
"The poor" don't need to be spending their hard earned money on liquor.
Elaine F. Owsley
Tue, Oct 11, 2011 : 7:58 p.m.
Oh sure, now Rickie can make up the difference by taking bites out Education, or road repair.
Roadman
Tue, Oct 11, 2011 : 9:47 p.m.
Funding for road repairs is something the residents of Michigan need. Remember that when you hit those potholes.
quetzalcoatl
Tue, Oct 11, 2011 : 7:19 p.m.
If those tightwad medical marijuana dispensaries had bellied up to the ticket window and plopped down their 1.85 percent payoffs, why, the streets wouldn't now be crowded with all those high-and-dry desperate panhandlers. Just goes to prove you get the laws you pay for.
Roadman
Tue, Oct 11, 2011 : 7:17 p.m.
This bill makes no sense at all. It was likely spearheaded by retail liquor associations. It only benefits party stores and other liquor retailers and encourages consumption by the public. Better liquor sales means increased health care costs, employee absenteeism, alcohol-related accidents, drinking-related arrests and other societal problems too numerous too mention. Jeff Irwin and Dave Rutledge are in the right on this issue.
Thick Candy Shell
Wed, Oct 12, 2011 : 12:42 a.m.
Well, in that case, I think we should add an additional 400% tax on electricity and heating fuels (nat gas, fuel oil, prop. etc) cause we all know the government knows best how things should be. I mean if we want to protect every one to that extreme, I believe the highest fine for any driving issue should be not wearing a seat belt. $1000 for first offense! And if a parent lets their child ride a bike without a helmet, prison for at least 2 years!
Dave
Tue, Oct 11, 2011 : 8:39 p.m.
"Better liquor sales means increased health care costs, employee absenteeism, alcohol-related accidents, drinking-related arrests and other societal problems too numerous too mention." You're making the assumption that the additional liquor purchased is going to be consumed irresponsibly. You may not reflect positively on liquor consumption, but needless to say, there's no proof to back up your claim.
Jim
Tue, Oct 11, 2011 : 7:03 p.m.
Translation: Big liquor pays off our State reps to compete better against microbreweries.
Jim
Wed, Oct 12, 2011 : 3:44 p.m.
You are correct Adam. My mistake. This bill confuses me. Since it relates to (distilled) spirits, it's probably tied up in the cronyish distribution system for alcohol that exists in Michigan. That's apparently why Leopold Brothers left town; it was way too problematic to sell/distribute their spirits. So 74 folks should unvote this..... :)
Adam Jaskiewicz
Wed, Oct 12, 2011 : noon
Looks like it only applies to distilled spirits. Beer and wine are handled differently.
Mick52
Wed, Oct 12, 2011 : 3:45 a.m.
Won't microbreweries who sell their beer in retail stores benefit too? Are you thinking that people will buy from retail and stop going to bars? For less than two percent I don't see people changing those habits.
zigziggityzoo
Wed, Oct 12, 2011 : 12:18 a.m.
It affects the retail operations of microbrews just the same.
Charlie Brown's Ghost
Tue, Oct 11, 2011 : 8:56 p.m.
"Big liquor" Translation: put the word "big" in front of any industry to scare people.
local
Tue, Oct 11, 2011 : 7:08 p.m.
Isn't that how politics work today? Special interest get what they want while everyone else fights to simply make it. This shouldn't be a surprise at all, a republican governor isn't going to raise taxes like DonBee suggested, he simply gives tax breaks. Where will the 14 million dollars come from, another cut to education? We shall see.
DonBee
Tue, Oct 11, 2011 : 6:48 p.m.
Rather than lowering taxes to level the playing field, maybe they should have raised them for people who had lower taxes. Raising or lowering the price of booze by less than 2 percent will not change the number of bottles bought.