If you enjoy a little Jack in your Coke, you may be paying more for it soon. The tax man and the "fair share" screamers have a new target:
Jack Daniel’s and Lynchburg have been inseparable since a young man named Jack Daniel came there more than a century ago to learn the art of distilling corn mash into whiskey. He set up shop on the northeastern end of town and the company has never looked to go anywhere else. It produces 23 million gallons of amber gold – about a billion dollars worth, every year.
But the company’s deep pockets make it a prime target for a local government that is strapped for revenue – and now a private citizen wants to slap the storied whiskey producer with a $10 tax on each and every barrel the distillery fills.
“We are entitled to more money from the only industry in the county – Jack Daniel’s distillery,” said Charles Rogers, a 75-year-old retiree and self-described “concerned citizen” of Moore County – home to Lynchburg and Jack Daniel’s.
Rogers wants the proposed tax to pay the bills for new schools, roads, bridges, even a new water treatment plant.
Rogers says Moore County is “entitled” to more money because Jack Daniel’s used bucolic images of small-town life in Lynchburg to sell its product. And as Norman Rockwell made a living off of his iconic images of Americana, so too should Lynchburg, according to Rogers.
“They (Jack Daniel’s) created the image of this little old hamlet down here being the place where this fantastic whiskey is being made,” Rogers said. “And the people didn’t realize what was going on. They were being marketed all over the world as ‘the place.’”
In the same way a film company would pay ‘usage’ fees for a location, Rogers believes Jack Daniel’s should too. It’s a way, he says, of giving back to the community.
But isn't the Jack Daniel's company already doing its part to give back to the community through employment opportunities, tourism revenue and economic growth? Jack Daniel's management and employees of the of the company sure think so:
That idea infuriates Jack Daniel’s management. The distillery is Moore County’s largest employer. It accounts for a third of its tax base. And already, nearly 60 percent of the price of a bottle of Jack Daniel’s is in some form of tax. General Manager Tommy Beam says where does it stop?
“It’s a job killer because it ups our costs. We’re competing in a global marketplace,” Beam said.
The tax would add about 3.4 cents to the price of a bottle of JD. While that doesn’t seem like much on the surface, considering the distillery sells more than 100 million bottles of whiskey every year, it quickly adds up to about $4 million a year. That’s a million dollars more than the entire county budget. And a cost, says Beam, that could affect the company’s growth.
“We have been able to hire 25 or 30 people in the last four or five months. And if our costs go up $4 or $5 million dollars, that’s probably going to make us a little less competitive. So, we might not grow as much,” Beam said.
But of course:
That argument rings hollow for Rogers. He figures the company could easily tack a nickel on to the price of a bottle, recover the tax and make a little money in the process.
And there’s another thing that really bugs Rogers. The Jack Daniel’s distillery attracts tourists. Lots of them. About a quarter of a million every year. More than 20,000 are expected this weekend alone for the Jack Daniel’s World Championship Invitational Barbecue Competition.
Let me get this straight, Mr. Rogers is willing to give up millions of dollars in tourism revenue for schools, roads and bridges simply because tourists cause an "inconvenience," but is more than happy to force Jack Daniel's, the largest employer in the area, to pay more taxes and therefore employ less people. Huh? The worst part is Rogers' entitlement attitude surrounding the situation.
Happy Friday everyone.
Katie Pavlich is the Editor at Townhall.com. Follow her on Twitter @katiepavlich. She is a New York Times Best Selling author. Her latest book Assault and Flattery: The Truth About the Left and Their War on Women, was published on July 8, 2014.