UK beer tax and tax yield 1930 - 1939

As promised, some numbers to go with yesterday's post.

I started collecting statistics years ago, long before this blog kicked off. It was a lot of effort for no particular direct return. Longterm, it's a totally different matter. I'm so glad I put the work in because I have most of the numbers I need to hand. Like this set.

A couple of notes. The tax in 1930 and 1934 - 1939 wasn't really 80 shillings a barrel. It was 100/- per standard barrel with a 20/- rebate per bulk barrel. Which meant that the tax was effectively higher the stronger the beer. For example, a barrel of 1027.5º (half standard gravity) would be 50/- minus 20/- making the tax 30/-. While a beer at the standard gravity of 1055º would be 100/- minus 20/- leaving tax of 80/-. You can see that the stronger beer paid more than double the tax of the weaker beer.

The average tax per pint I've calcutated in a very simple way: by dividing the total tax collected by the number of pints brewed.

UK beer tax and tax yield 1930 - 1939
Year	Total Tax £	Bulk Barrels	Std. Barrels	Tax/Std. Brl	Av. sg	tax pint
1930	71,254,674	25,061,956	19,550,867	80s	1042.9	2.37d
1931	69,269,299	23,900,213	18,488,400	114s	1042.54	2.42d
1932	68,710,020	20,790,812	15,514,209	114s	1041.04	2.75d
1933	67,097,581	17,950,303	12,658,324	114s	1039.52	3.11d
1934	53,884,405	20,182,308	15,043,120	80s	1040.99	2.22d
1935	53,582,335	20,864,814	15,577,836	80s	1041.06	2.14d
1936	55,451,926	21,969,763	16,386,985	80s	1041.02	2.10d
1937	57,318,585	22,724,450	16,985,231	80s	1041.1	2.10d
1938	61,241,404	24,205,631	18,055,539	80s	1041.02	2.11d
1939	62,370,034	24,674,992	18,364,156	80s	1040.93	2.11d
Sources:
1928 Brewers' Almanack
1955 Brewers' Almanack

You can see that Sir Edgar Sanders was correct when he said that the tax on a pint of beer was 3d a pint in 1933. Though the tax yield was even lower that £74,000,000 and didn't even reach £70 million. The amount of tax collected only got back to the level of 1931 in 1940, after extra wartime taxation had been levied.

The tragedy of Macbeth!

I've been reviewing my self-published book sales for 2017. A useful exercise, as it gives me an idea of what you bastards are interested in.

There's a pretty big variation between the different titles. Some sell much better than others. Some don't sell at all. Macbeth! being a good example. Only one copy exists. The one I got for myself.

Which means no-one owns all my books. Because I've given away several personal copies and not replaced them.

This may sound weird, but I don't know how many books I've written. 30-odd, I think. More if you count each edition of Yule Logs!!!!, which is completely different every year.

I'd be interested to see who owns the most of my books. Will it be me?

Comment with your count. There's a special prize for the winner - though I will expect photographic evidence.

Over-taxed Beer

One of the effects of WW I was to turn beer into a highly-taxed producr. A situation which still endures today.

Obviously, the brewing industry like to complain about the level of taxation. This article is basically one lone whinge. Though, when you compare the taxation on other commodities, he does have a point. And there was a reason beer was picked out for special punishment: temperance bastards. Who still had considerable influence in some political parties.

"OVER-TAXED BEER
"Effort Ought to be Made to Save this Industry"
EFFECTS OF HEAVY DUTY
In April of last year, Mr. Nevllle Chamberlain, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, stated it was his opinion that beer was overtaxed. That statement contained the germ of the whole of the position regarding the beer trade, declared Sir Edgar Sanders, director of the Brewers' Society, when speaking at a luncheon of the Fellowship of Freedom and Reform at the Savoy Hotel, London, yesterday.

The comparison of the taxation on beer before the war and to-day showed that it had increased out of all proportion to any other taxation. While the taxation was 7s. 9d. per standard barrel before the war it was now 114s., nearly 15 times as much.

Compared with other taxation, the increase was stupendous. The tax on tobacco had been increased three times, on cocoa half as much again. Coffee was unchanged. Tea was actually one-fifth less.

The result was reflected in the consumption of these beverages. The consumption of beer had fallen by more than one-half, tobacco had increased by one-half, tea by more than one-third , coffee by one-fifth , and cocoa by two-thirds.

BEER CONSUMERS AND ELECTIONS
The beer consumer-was traditionally without a spokesman, but he had a habit of making himself unpleasant when he had an opportunity at election times of saying that he thought that he had been unjustly treated.

For many years beer had produced nearly one-tenth of the whole of the national revenue. At the same time, sinco 1925 receipts for beer duties had never reached the Budget estimate. Speaking generally, it might be said that for every 3d of beer to-day, 3d. was added for tax , making the price 6d. At the rate at which the beer consumption was falling as the result of penal taxation, it could not on the present scale of duty hold its place as a revenue producer for long.

A real effort ought to be made by Parliament now to save this purely British industry, and to keep alive a remunerative form of taxation rather than wait until it was killed by the burden of the present taxation.

The Chancellor estimated that for the year ending March 31 1933, the total yield in beer duty would be £80,000,000. From official figures already given it was clear that the yield would not be much above £74,000,000. In consequence, the Budget would be thrown out by £6,000,000 on this head alone.

RE-ESTABLISHING A NATIONAL DRINK
If it could be brought home to the public that it was bad national business to tax beer so heavily that its consumption was falling away to such an alarming extent it would be so much easier, for the Chancellor to formulate in the Budget that policy which he evidently wished to pursue. If the Budget contained a bold reduction in the present duties it would be the first step towards the re-establishment of beer as our national drink. Unless an adjustment was made by means of which beer could be reduced by a penny a pint, we were going to hear a great deal of discontent.

Mr Frank Whitbread said, the Government suffered from an unfortunate delusion that the purse of the brewer was obviously bottomless, but the brewer could not continue in the future to carry the retail licensed victualler as he had so often in the past.

The report from the Prison Commissioners, he said, supported the view that our expert criminals were almost invariably teetotallers. Why should the Government desire to give preferential treatment to criminals? Criminals were a rapidly increasing body, while the community of beer drinkers were decreasing. It was clear-that somehow the power of the beer drinker should be increased and that of the criminal should be checked."
The Scotsman - Thursday 16 March 1933, page 13.

 This article was written at an interesting moemt in time, just before the 1933 budget. Where the disastrous tax increase of 1931 was reversed. The tax increase wasn't just disastrous for brewers and drinkers, it was disastrous fron the government, too. Because rather than increasing, the revenue gathered fell.

We'' be looking at the numbers for tax and revenue next.

Let's Brew - 1917 Kidd Stout

Though they didn’t parti-gyle them together, Kidd still had the same basic recipe that they used for their Porter and Stout.

Which doesn’t leave me much to say about the grist. Everything I said about the porter also applies here. Except that the Stout contains no oats.

There is a difference in the hopping. Porter had 2/3rd 1914 Sussex and one third 1916 Farnhams. Stout was 50-50 1916 Kents and 1916 Farnhams. Again, all fresh hops is a sign that this was a posher beer.

Like the Porter, the Stout recipe also contained “Spanish juice”, this time one pound. It works out to 0.03 oz for a brew of this size (5 Imperial, 5 US gallons, 23 litres).

1917 Kidd Stout
pale malt	8.50 lb	58.62%
brown malt	1.00 lb	6.90%
black malt	1.00 lb	6.90%
crystal malt 60 L	1.00 lb	6.90%
caramel 1000 L	1.00 lb	6.90%
No. 4 invert sugar	1.75 lb	12.07%
malt extract	0.25 lb	1.72%
Fuggles 120 mins	2.50 oz
Goldings 30 mins	2.50 oz
OG	1063
FG	1019
ABV	5.82
Apparent attenuation	69.84%
IBU	56
SRM	57
Mash at	148º F
Sparge at	165º F
Boil time	120 minutes
pitching temp	59º F
Yeast	Wyeast 1099 Whitbread Ale

Kidd beers in mid-1917

1917 must have been a stressful year to be a brewer. Because the rules and restrictions changed several times.

Between 1914 and the end of 1916, beer output had been limited and the beer tax more than trebled, but the beer itself hadn’t changed that much. Until July 1st 1917, when a new regulation came into force stipulating that half the beer a brewery produced had to have a gravity no greater than 1036º.

This new rule had an immediate effect on the gravity of beers, especially the more popular ones. At many breweries a few beers made up a large percentage of sale. For example, in 1917 Whitbread London Stout made up 42% and X Ale 28% of their total output. Though a more typical brewery would have sold mostly Mild Ale and lower-gravity Bitter.

You can see here proof of how little average OG changed before 1917.

UK beer production and average OG 1913 - 1920
Year	bulk barrels	average OG
1913	36,296,317	1052.64
1914	37,558,767	1052.80
1915	34,765,780	1052.35
1916	32,110,608	1051.88
1917	30,163,998	1048.54
1918	19,085,043	1039.81
1919	23,264,533	1030.55
1920	35,047,947	1039.41
Source:
Brewers' Journal 1921, page 246.

You can see here the effect of the gravity restriction of Kidd’s beers:

Kidd beers in mid-1917
Date	Year	Beer	Style	OG	FG	ABV	App. Atten-uation	lbs hops/ qtr	hops lb/brl	boil time (hours)		Pitch temp
13th Jul	1917	GA X	Mild	1033.8	1009.4	3.22	72.13%	9.95	1.43	2.25	2	58º
18th Jul	1917	GA	Mild	1033.2	1008.3	3.30	75.00%	9.95	1.42	2.25	2.25	58º
27th Aug	1917	GA	Mild	1034.9	1007.8	3.59	77.78%	9.96	1.50	2.25	2	58º
30th Aug	1917	GA	Mild	1035.5	1008.3	3.59	76.56%	10.00	1.47	2.25	2	58º
24th Aug	1917	LPA	Pale Ale	1037.1	1010.0	3.59	73.13%	9.53	1.54	2.25		58.5º
31st Aug	1917	LPA	Pale Ale	1039.3	1011.1	3.74	71.83%	10.04	1.68	2	2	59º
24th Jul	1917	Porter	Porter	1034.9	1008.9	3.44	74.60%	10.29	1.55	2.5		58º
28th Aug	1917	Porter	Porter	1037.1	1008.3	3.81	77.61%	10.29	1.80	3.25		58º
Source:
Kidd brewing record held at the London Metropolitan Archives, document number ACC/305/16/013.

Sure enough, their most popular beer, X Ale, has dropped below 1036º. The its name was changed to GA (Government Ale) after the first brew. At the same time the range of beer produced has been drastically reduced to just three: Porter, Mild and Bitter.

We’ll be taking a look next at how Kidd’s beers evolved as 1917 and 1918 unfolded.

Kidd beers in early 1917

Kidd was a smallish brewery just outside London in Dartford, Kent. One for which some brewing records have been preserved due to being taken over by Courage in the late 1930s.

Based on their brew length of around 150 barrels, I estimate their annual production was between 40,000 and 50,000 barrels. To put that into perspective, in 1917 Whitbread brewed 578,502 barrels.* And they weren’t even the largest brewery in London.

Kidd brewed a range of six beers in early 1917, most likely fewer than they had been making at the start of the war. As the war progressed breweries gradually discontinued less popular beers and ones with high gravities. By the time the war ended, many were just brewing four or five beers.

Surprisingly, the weakest beer of the bunch is the only Pale Ale, BB. Which I’m guessing stood for Best Bitter. Both BB and XXXX were very heavily hopped. 14-15 lbs per quarter is about as high as a hopping rate got at that time. The other beers all have a similar level of hopping as equivalent London beers. And London was well-known for hoppy beers.

These are the Kidd beers:

Kidd beers in early 1917
Date	Year	Beer	Style	OG	FG	ABV	App. Atten-uation	lbs hops/ qtr	hops lb/brl	boil time (hours)		Pitch temp
19th Mar	1917	X	Mild	1044.3	1013.9	4.03	68.75%	8.00	1.52	2.25	2.25	59º
16th Feb	1917	SXXX	Mild	1052.6	1018.0	4.58	65.79%	8.98	2.07	2.5	2	59º
15th Mar	1917	BB	Pale Ale	1038.2	1011.1	3.59	71.01%	14.08	2.30	2.5	2	59º
20th Mar	1917	Porter	Porter	1044.9	1015.0	3.96	66.67%	8.00	1.67	2.5		59º
6th Feb	1917	Stout	Stout	1062.6	1018.8	5.79	69.91%	9.00	2.28	2		59º
23rd Mar	1917	XXXX	Strong Ale	1069.8	1023.3	6.16	66.67%	15.00	4.65	2.5	2	59º
Source:
Kidd brewing record held at the London Metropolitan Archives, document number ACC/305/16/013.

As I’ve already mentioned Whitbread, let’s use them as a contextualising tool. In early 1917, they were brewing 8 beers. Well, 7 really as LS (London Stout) was identical to their Porter. The one Mild that Whitbread brewed fell inbetween the two of Kidd. Though they didn’t brew much of the SXXX.

Whitbread beers in late 1916 and early 1917
Date	Year	Beer	Style	OG	FG	ABV	App. Atten-uation	lbs hops/ qtr	hops lb/brl	boil time (hours)		Pitch temp
1st Feb	1917	X	Mild	1046.5	1007.0	5.23	84.96%	4.83	0.98	1.75	1.75	60º
21st Feb	1917	IPA	IPA	1046.5	1010.0	4.83	78.51%	11.94	2.42	1.5	1.75	60º
15th Feb	1917	PA	Pale Ale	1050.1	1012.0	5.05	76.07%	9.84	2.13	1.5	2	60º
15th Nov	1916	P	Porter	1050.4	1011.0	5.21	78.18%	5.80	1.34	1.5	1.75	61º
15th Nov	1916	LS	Stout	1050.4	1011.0	5.21	78.18%	5.80	1.34	1.5	1.75	61º
14th Mar	1917	SS	Stout	1076.0	1024.0	6.87	68.40%	7.07	2.48	1.75	1.83	57º
14th Mar	1917	SSS	Stout	1092.2	1035.0	7.57	62.04%	7.07	3.01	1.75	1.83	57º
13th Feb	1917	KKK	Stock Ale	1069.8	1024.0	6.06	65.62%	9.62	2.99	1.5	2	57º
Source:
Whitbread brewing records held at the London Metropolitan Archives, document numbers LMA/4453/D/01/082 and LMA/4453/D/09/111.

Whitbread’s Porter and Stouts are of a higher gravity than Kidd’s, though the hopping rate is lower. In fact all of Kidd’s beers are more heavily hopped than their Whitbread equivalents. Maybe it was something to do with being located in Kent. Though Shepherd Neame, another Kent brewer, had very low hopping rates.

The other big difference between the two breweries is the boil times, which were quite a bit longer at Kidd. Most breweries reduced their boil times during WW I as part of a deal with the government. Brewers promised to reduce their coal usage in return for not being nationalised.



* Whitbread brewing records held at the London Metropolitan Archives, document numbers LMA/4453/D/01/082 and LMA/4453/D/09/111.

Let's Brew Wednesday - 1914 Boddington AK

At the outbreak of WW I Boddington produced three Pale Ales, of which AK was the weakest.

I have a bit of an obsession with AK, you might recall. It’s strange to think now of just how excited I was when I saw my first AK brewing record (Fullers, if you’re interested). Even now, after seeing dozens of AKs from several different breweries, it still sends a certain frisson down my spine when I spot one.

The grist is pretty damn simple, just pale malt, flaked maize and a little sugar. Though there were two different types of pale malt, 20 quarters from UK barley, 3 quarters from foreign barley. As you can see, this grist produces a very pale beer.

I’ve knocked down the hopping by about a fifth because some hops were from the 1910 and 1912 season. Not that there were a great deal of hops to start with. Weirdly, AK is less bitter than most of Boddington’s Milds. The hops were a combination of English and Bohemian in the copper and English and Californian in the cask. I’ve interpreted them as Fuggles, Saaz and Cluster.

Not really much else to say about this very light beer.

1914 Boddington AK
pale malt	8.50 lb	85.00%
flaked maize	1.25 lb	12.50%
No. 2 invert sugar	0.25 lb	2.50%
Fuggles 165 mins	0.25 oz
Fuggles 90 mins	0.25 oz
Fuggles 60 mins	0.25 oz
Saaz 30 mins	0.25 oz
Cluster dry hops	0.125 oz
Fuggles dry hops	0.125 oz
OG	1044
FG	1013
ABV	4.10
Apparent attenuation	70.45%
IBU	13
SRM	5
Mash at	156º F
Sparge at	168º F
Boil time	165 minutes
pitching temp	63º F
Yeast	Wyeast 1318 London ale III (Boddingtons)

Nut Brown Ale and Golden Bitter Ale

Remember how I keep telling that there's almost nothing new in the world of beer? Here's some more proof. It's anotherr 19th-century sighting of Golden Ale. Well, Golden Bitter Ale.

But that's not the only reason for me to post this paricular advertisement. It's one of the earliest examples I can think of where there's an explicitly stated difference between the colour of Bitter and Mild. I'm still trying to track down exactly when Mild started going dark. Sometime around 1890-1900 is about as precise as I can get.

Lincolnshire Free Press - Tuesday 15 October 1889, page 1.

Joseph Wyles doesn't seem to have been a great success. Accoding to "A Century of British Brewers plus plus" (by Norman Barber , 2012, page 86) the brewery kicked off in 1889, the same year as this advert. But in 1897 it went into liquidation. There was a retart the following year, followed by a second bankruptcy in 1901. The company and its 12 tied houses were sold and were eventually merged with Soames & Co of Spalding and the brewery closed.

The 1880s and 1890s were some of the best years ever for British brewing. Most breweries were making good profits. Going bust was quite an achievement.

Average UK draught beer prices 1973 - 2017

What better way to kick off the New Year than a load of numbers? No, don't thank me. It's the least I could do.

Do you want some words as well? OK, I'll throw you a few. The 1970s weren't a great time in many ways. Especially when it came to inflation. In the ten years 1973 to 1982 the price of Bitter more than quadrupled. While in the following ten years it merely doubled.

I was surprised to see how much the price differential between Bitter and Lager varied. Starting at a massive 30% - incredibly poor value given that Bitter was stronger than Lager - it fell to just 8% in 1983, after which it rose again. Not sure why that was. Perhaps the introduction of stronger Lagers was behind the trend.

This is all very different from pre-WW II. Between the wars beer prices were very stable, with just a blip 1931-1933. Pre-WW I, prices were even more stable, not really changing at all for around 50 years. Which is why WW I, with its big price increases, must have come as a huge shock to drinkers.

Funnily enough, the table just about exactly covers my drinking years. Unlike Victorian drinkers, I was used to frequent increases in the price of a pint.

Average UK draught beer prices 1973 - 2017
Year	Bitter	Lager	% difference
1973	13	17	30.77%
1974	15	19	26.67%
1975	20	23	15.00%
1976	23	28	21.74%
1977	27	32	18.52%
1978	29	35	20.69%
1979	34	40	17.65%
1980	41	47	14.63%
1981	49	57	16.33%
1982	54	63	16.67%
1983	62	67	8.06%
1984	66	73	10.61%
1985	72	80	11.11%
1986	76	86	13.16%
1987	82	92	12.20%
1988	88	99	12.50%
1989	96	108	12.50%
1990	110	123	11.82%
1991	126	140	11.11%
1992	131	147	12.21%
1993	137	154	12.41%
1994	142	159	11.97%
1995	148	167	12.84%
1996	156	174	11.54%
1997	165	183	10.91%
1998	170	190	11.76%
1999	174	195	12.07%
2000	178	200	12.36%
2001	182	204	12.09%
2002	185	210	13.51%
2003	195	228	16.92%
2004	203	234	15.27%
2005	213	242	13.62%
2006	221	252	14.03%
2007	231	263	13.85%
2008	241	276	14.52%
2009	249	281	12.85%
2010	258	295	14.34%
2011	269	308	14.50%
2012	280	319	13.93%
2013	287	330	14.98%
2014	294	337	14.63%
2015	296	345	16.55%
2016	299	348	16.39%
2017	305	358	17.38%
Sources:
Statistical Handbook of the British Beer & Pub Association 2003, p. 44.
Statistical Handbook of the British Beer & Pub Association 2017, p. 45.