EXCLUSIVE INTERVIEW: Trader Joe’s Price Increases Due to California Taxes and Fees



Hey California hippie liberals – if any of you dare to complain about the fact that Trader Joe’s iconic $1.99 “Two Buck Chuck” wines are no longer available in California at that price, you deserve to choke on your own sour grapes. Because it was you morons who gave the Dems in this state damn near unlimited power to hike taxes and fees on businesses.

As reported this week, “Two Buck Chuck” (the nickname for the $1.99 Charles Shaw wine) is no more in California. Which made me curious, as I saw the liberal media spinning the story to blame the price increase on “bad crops” and a harsh winter (read this San Francisco Weekly story for a perfect example of that spin).

And this San Jose Mercury News piece blames the price increase on (drum roll) THE 2008 ECONOMIC COLLAPSE!!! (i.e., BUSH).

Yeah, fine, okay. But none of that explains why the price only went up in Dem-controlled California. So, I called Trader Joe’s. And I spoke to customer relations honcho Hazel Bowman. And, with only a modicum of dragging, I got the truth. Below is the transcript. And below the transcript is the audio file (edited only to remove the long intervals when I was on hold).

And yes, Trader Joe’s hippie liberal Democrat zombies, the prices went up because of our beloved Dem-controlled state legislature’s taxes and fees on businesses. So embrace those new higher prices, because you made ‘em.


[Begin transcript]


DAVE: I had a question about the increase in price of the Charles Shaw wine.

HAZEL: Okay.

DAVE: I read a statement online, I think it was probably on ABC News, about why the price was increased, and it seemed a little vague. What specifically was the reason, if I may ask?

HAZEL: Let me put you on hold for just a moment, and let me see the information we have, specifically, okay?

DAVE: Thank you.

HAZEL: Thank you.

HAZEL: Okay, so for Trader Joe’s, any time we’ll ever increase our prices are when our, the costs of the product increases, and we actually held back, the prices haven’t increased on that product in eleven years…

DAVE: Sure.


DAVE: Uh, yeah, but, I’m just wondering, why now? Like, there must have been some catalyst for it to happen this month.

HAZEL: Well, again. you know, we held off as long as we could, but without you know, uh, continuing to take, uh, ‘cause everything across the board, I’m sure you can imagine, uh, is certainly subject to, you know, there is a number of factors also that go into that, uh, but again, for us, we do work really really hard not to…

DAVE: Oh, of course, I understand that. But it’s also my understanding that California is the only state where the price increase has happened. Am I correct?

HAZEL: I’m not quite sure. Let me, let me put you on hold for one more second. I apologize…

DAVE: That’s okay, that’s okay…

HAZEL: (inaudible) that we had that was shared here in that regard, hold on…

DAVE: It’s no problem.

HAZEL: You’re correct sir. It was just in the California area.

DAVE: So I guess that’s really what my question comes down to is, what specifically made the price go up in my state, whereas it didn’t in the other forty-nine states. You know, I’m assuming these things are not arbitrary, and that, you know, you guys didn’t flip a coin and it could have been California or it could have been Iowa. I’m assuming there was a reason, and that’s really what I’m calling about. I’m just very interested in knowing the reason that the price went up in this state specifically, the state where in fact I believe the wine is actually, where the grapes are grown, uh, and why it went up in this state, but not the other forty-nine states. That’s really where my curiosity lies.

HAZEL: The cost increases for the product were specific to California.

DAVE: You speaking about taxes?

HAZEL: Pardon me?

DAVE: Are you speaking about state taxes? New taxes?

HAZEL: It doesn’t specify that particular, any specific reason, just the additional costs that are, were, uh, were specific to California, so that could very well…let’s see…yeah, so it does say tax, and some other additional fees as well.

DAVE: Okay, so it’s taxes and fees that are unique to this state. That is the cause of why it went up specifically in this state.

HAZEL: Right.

DAVE: Okay, one last question, I don’t mean to keep you on the line, does it say specifically what type of taxes or fees went up that caused the price increase here?


DAVE: Okay. But they are taxes and fees that are unique to California.

HAZEL: Right.


[End transcript]


So choke on those sour grapes, libs. Choke on ‘em. And don’t complain about the higher prices. You have no right to.

Audio file here.


5 Responses to “EXCLUSIVE INTERVIEW: Trader Joe’s Price Increases Due to California Taxes and Fees”
  1. Kender Breitbart MacGowan says:

    BWAHAHAHAHAA…I hope they choke on it til they turn blue

  2. skinnedquail says:

    Wow, you mean it wasn’t really Bush’s fault???
    well done

  3. Daniel says:

    I don’t know how the rep you spoke of could say that the increases were unique to California, unless California Trader Joe’s stores were keeping their prices there artificially low to begin with. In Seattle “Two Buck Chuck” in 2008/2009 cost about $2.99, and in Charlottesville, VA, where I just (1/24/2013) bought a bottle at a newly constructed TJ’s, the cost was about $3.99.

    Maybe the rest of the States were subsidizing California’s cheap wine drinkers. But I haven’t seen “Two Buck Chuck” for a good 5 or 6 years.

    • EZ Does It says:

      Trader Joe’s is a California company, and Charles Shaw is a California winery. Up until this month, CA understood the value of not piling on ridiculous taxes and fees on a successful local business. Other states might have had their own laws and levies regarding alcohol, but the change in January 2013 was specifically in CA, targeting one of its home-grown success stories. Typical leftist self-destructiveness., penalizing a successful enterprise, and getting the media to blame it on Bush and “climate change.”

  4. Keith Merrill says:

    I think the point of the piece isn’t so much whether other states also have taxes on wine, but the fact that the media was trying to spin the California increase on “bad weather” and 2008/Bush, instead of the real culprits — Sacramento’s tax-crazy bureaucrats.

Leave A Comment