Rising insurance costs are forcing SC bars to close and lawmakers are rushing to find a fix
The familiar refrain from Semisonic's hit 'Closing Time' has long been a last-call anthem for bars, but in South Carolina, many establishments fear they'll be closing for good.
Skyrocketing liquor liability insurance premiums, driven by a 2017 requiring businesses serving alcohol after 5 p.m. to carry $1 million in liability coverage are forcing some bars and restaurants to shut their doors permanently.
A near-record number of Americans are grappling with $1,000 car payments and many drivers can't keep up. Here are 3 ways to stay ahead
5 ways to boost your net worth now — easily up your money game without altering your day-to-day life
Home prices in America could fly through the roof in 2025 — here's the big reason why and how to take full advantage (with as little as $10)
The Brew Cellar, a beloved establishment in Charleston, announced its closure after 11 years in business, citing rising insurance costs as the primary reason.
"We made it through COVID, and we're getting taken down by laws 11 years after being open. It's like a death in the family, honestly," owner Ryan Hendrick told ABC 4 News.
State lawmakers are pushing for legislative changes to help restaurants and bars keep their doors open. State Senator Ed Sutton said he believes a solution can be found.
'We got insurance companies on one side fighting, and we got trial attorneys on the other side fighting with each other," he said. "In the middle, the person getting the short of the stick is that small business owner," he told ABC 4 News.
Why are the rates soaring now? The issue stems from the 2017 law requiring all businesses that serve alcohol after 5:00 p.m. to carry at least $1 million in liquor liability coverage.
The legislation was intended to ensure that victims of alcohol-related incidents could receive compensation. However, it has also driven up insurance costs for business owners. Many insurance companies have either exited the South Carolina market or raised their rates, making it challenging for small establishments to afford the required coverage.
Why is the impact hitting businesses now? Most insurance policies renew annually, meaning rate hikes happen gradually, not all at once. As insurers reassessed risk and adjusted pricing over time, premiums steadily climbed — until they became unsustainable for many bars and restaurants.
Zach Dennis, owner of the bar Peacock and an insurance agent, has seen both sides of the issue.
"I have clients right now whose renewals are coming through that, for the first time, have to answer the question: Do I renew my insurance, or do I close my doors? Because I cannot continue to make money or operate in this economy." Dennis shared.
Read more: Rich, young Americans are ditching the stormy stock market — here are the alternative assets they're banking on instead
In response to this crisis, Sutton has introduced a bill to amend the current liquor liability laws. The proposed changes would refine liability standards and shift the burden of proof to focus on clear, observable signs of intoxication rather than imposing blanket liability. This could reduce financial risks for responsible establishments while still allowing victims to seek damages. Sutton said he hopes this will lead to lower insurance rates for businesses.
"We need to land in a spot where rates aren't $100,000 for a liquor liability premium, but also allow for victims of operators that overserved, don't check IDs, or don't do the proper thing for those victims to be compensated,' Sutton said, emphasizing the need for balance. 'And I absolutely believe we can get there."
Another proposal seeks to reduce the mandatory insurance coverage from $1 million to $250,000 for establishments that implement specific risk mitigation measures, such as comprehensive server training programs.
Sutton's bill has gained support from the hospitality industry and business community, who see it as essential to preventing closures and preserving South Carolina's vibrant culinary scene. He plans to have the legislation on the governor's desk by May.
However, for some businesses, the changes may come too late. The Brew Cellar plans to close its doors on February 17, just two days after its 11th anniversary.
Hendrick urged patrons to support their local establishments before it's too late, "We're not going to beg for people to come through to keep our doors open, but go support your favorite places; they need it."
I'm 49 years old and have nothing saved for retirement — what should I do? Don't panic. Here are 5 of the easiest ways you can catch up (and fast)
Is your savings account struggling to keep up with soaring grocery prices? Here's how 2 minutes can earn you 9X the US national average — with no monthly fees
One dozen eggs in America now costs $4.15 — and $14.35 for a pound of sirloin steak. Both record highs. 3 simple ways to protect your wealth in 2025
This article provides information only and should not be construed as advice. It is provided without warranty of any kind.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Opinion - Fix the wealth gap by changing the corporate tax code
As Congress crafts yet another budget, it is time to confront a quiet enabler of America's growing wealth gap: the way we tax corporate profits. The U.S. corporate tax system is a maze of complexity, distortion and avoidance. At the same time, the richest Americans — who own the lion's share of corporate stock — see their wealth balloon not from income, but from capital appreciation fueled by retained corporate earnings. They pay little or nothing in taxes until they choose to sell — if ever. Here is a simple idea that could transform that system: Replace the corporate income tax with a flat tax on retained earnings. Instead of taxing corporate profits on paper, tax the portion that companies choose not to distribute — those retained earnings that quietly accumulate on balance sheets, inflate stock values and end up driving inequality. The logic is straightforward. Retained earnings represent profits that aren't reinvested in capital or returned to shareholders. They sit — often offshore and untaxed — fueling stock buybacks or simply increasing book value. Meanwhile, shareholders can borrow against those unrealized gains, grow richer by the year and legally avoid income tax altogether. Under the current system, corporations face a 21 percent statutory income tax rate. But due to loopholes and global tax arbitrage, the effective rate is often much lower — closer to between 9 percent and 15 percent. At the same time, the top 1 percent of Americans own more than 90 percent of stocks and mutual fund wealth, much of which compounds through retained earnings without triggering taxable events. A 20 percent flat tax on retained earnings, applied at the corporate level, would be lower than the statutory income tax but much harder to evade. It would simplify the tax code, eliminate gamesmanship and ensure that profits benefit society, whether distributed or not. Companies could avoid the tax by issuing dividends — thereby transferring the tax burden to shareholders, who would then pay ordinary dividend taxes. Or companies could reinvest in productive capital expenditures or research and development, which could be exempted from the tax base. People often complain that the rich don't pay their fair share in taxes. A retained earnings tax addresses this directly, since the wealthy are by far the largest shareholders. By inducing higher dividend payouts, the tax would convert more untaxed wealth into taxable income — ensuring the rich pay more, proportionally and predictably. This plan is fair. Wealth would no longer accumulate tax-free inside corporations. Ultra-wealthy shareholders would see more of their income flow to dividends, triggering taxes like ordinary Americans face on wages. In 2024, S&P 500 companies earned approximately $1.9 trillion in pre-tax profits. Of that, they paid only about $248 billion in corporate taxes — just 13 percent of total profits — and distributed around $650 billion in dividends to shareholders. That left well over $1 trillion in earnings to be retained or used for stock buybacks. A 20 percent tax on just the retained portion — estimated near $870 billion — would yield $174 billion annually. More importantly, it would encourage companies to issue more dividends — triggering personal income tax obligations at rates of 15 percent to 23.8 percent. For the first time in decades, untaxed paper wealth held by the ultra-rich would convert into real, taxable income. This plan is earnings are already reported as a line item on corporate financial statements, so no need for armies of tax accountants. This plan also encourages efficiency. Corporations would be nudged to either distribute profits or reinvest productively — reducing hoarding, stock buybacks and financial manipulation. The scale of profit hoarding is not theoretical. As of late 2024, Apple held over $65 billion in cash and equivalents. Microsoft held more than $71 billion. Alphabet, parent company of Google, sat on over $95 billion and Amazon was at $100 billion. These figures represent retained capital sitting in balance sheets — largely untouched by taxation. In many cases, this hoarded cash fuels share repurchases or simply adds to paper valuations, thus benefiting the wealthiest shareholders while contributing nothing to public coffers. Of course, this idea has precedents. President Franklin D. Roosevelt experimented with an undistributed profits tax in the 1930s. Today, a version survives as the Accumulated Earnings Tax, but it's rarely enforced and easy to circumvent. This proposal is simpler, bolder and broader. Critics may worry this plan would discourage reinvestment or burden growth. But a well-designed system can exempt reinvested earnings tied to clear capital investment or innovation. What this proposal targets is not growth but excessive hoarding of profits that serves only the wealthy few. Others may fear that such a tax would prompt corporations to switch to alternative structures or shift operations abroad. But a retained earnings tax can be applied based on financial disclosures for U.S.-based public companies and expanded to large LLCs or partnerships. In fact, it may reduce incentives to move profits offshore, since it targets where wealth stays, not where it's reported. The politics are promising. A retained earnings tax is lower than the current corporate income tax — yet may raise more consistent, sustainable revenue. It eliminates the need to police every deduction, credit and carve-out. It also aligns with populist sentiments on both the left and right: no more tax-free stockpiling, no more billionaires (referred to by some today as 'oligarchs') borrowing off their gains while avoiding taxes. Congress has a chance to reset how we think about taxing wealth — not by chasing every dollar of income, but by targeting the retained profits that silently fuel inequality and sidestep the tax system. Fixing the corporate tax code is essential not just for raising revenue but for restoring fairness, transparency and trust in the American economic compact. Peter D. Wells is principal at Ancient Wisdom Consulting. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
Sen. Cory Booker says he won't accept campaign donations from Elon Musk
Sen. Cory Booker on Sunday said he would not accept campaign donations from tech mogul Elon Musk but urged the former Trump adviser to 'get involved right now in a more substantive way' in Democrats' push against the sweeping GOP-backed spending bill. 'This bill is disastrous for our long-term economy,' Booker told NBC News' 'Meet the Press.' 'This is an American issue, and I welcome Elon Musk not to my campaign. I welcome him right now, not to sit back and just fire off tweets, get involved right now in a more substantive way in putting pressure on Congress people and senators to not do this.' Asked directly whether he would ever accept campaign funding from Musk, Booker said, 'I would not accept money from Elon Musk for my campaign, but I would be supportive of anybody, including Elon Musk, putting resources forward right now to let more Americans know' about the bill. Booker's remarks come as other Democrats, like Rep. Ro Khanna of California, have floated welcoming Musk into the Democratic Party after a feud between President Donald Trump and the Tesla and SpaceX CEO exploded into public view last week. 'We should ultimately be trying to convince him that the Democratic Party has more of the values that he agrees with,' Khanna told Politico last week after Musk and Trump fired off a series of social media posts criticizing each other. The falling out started after Musk called the budget bill a 'disgusting abomination' in a post on X. In subsequent posts on Truth Social, the president accused Musk of 'wearing thin' and said 'he just went crazy.' Musk later accused Trump of 'ingratitude' in another post on X after he spent $250 million boosting Trump's campaign in 2024 and accused Trump of links to deceased sex offender Jeffrey Epstein in a now-deleted post. On Saturday, in a phone call with NBC News, Trump said he has no desire to repair his relationship with Musk after their public spat. The president also responded to a direct question about what might happen if Musk decided to financially support Democrats in the 2026 midterm elections, days after Musk wrote in a post on X, 'In November next year, we fire all politicians who betrayed the American people,' appearing to refer to Republicans who voted for the GOP-backed spending bill in the House. 'If he does, he'll have to pay the consequences for that,' Trump told NBC News, adding that there could be 'serious consequences.' In May, House Republicans passed a sweeping domestic policy bill called the 'One Big Beautiful Bill Act' that would extend tax cuts passed in the first Trump administration, increase funding for border security and eliminate federal taxes on tips and overtime pay. The bill has also drawn scrutiny from Democrats for slashing funding for Medicaid and some food stamps while adding work requirements for Medicaid, which provides health care for low-income Americans. Musk and some Senate Republicans have blasted the bill for estimated effects it could have on the federal debt and deficit, though Trump and House Republicans have downplayed those concerns. 'More Americans have to understand that if this bill passes, average Americans are going to see their costs skyrocket as this president again pushes legislation that is indicative of his chaos, corruption and cruelty towards Americans,' Booker said on Sunday. This article was originally published on
Hamilton Spectator
4 hours ago
- Hamilton Spectator
U.S. envoy closely eyes Canada defence spending; says NATO about collective defence
OTTAWA - The American ambassador to Canada is closely watching as Ottawa shapes its defence budget, but says the U.S. will not dictate what the Canadian government must spend. 'We're not expecting anything; that's not our job to make those expectations,' Ambassador Pete Hoekstra said in an interview with The Canadian Press this past Friday, a day after NATO defence ministers endorsed new spending targets. Hoekstra also said the point of the NATO military alliance is to defend each other when under attack. He noted Americans haven't forgotten the 'investment and the sacrifice' Canadian troops made in Afghanistan when the U.S. invoked the NATO treaty's article on collective defence. 'They were fulfilling the commitment that they made to NATO — that when one of us is attacked we are all attacked, and we will defend each other,' Hoekstra said of Canadian soldiers. Hoekstra was not directly commenting on U.S. President Donald Trump's statement in March that Washington would not necessarily come to the aid of countries that don't pay their fair share on defence and that Canada has been freeloading on American defence of the continent. He did acknowledge Canada's defence spending has been an 'irritant' in the relationship with the U.S. This past week, defence ministers from NATO countries met in Brussels to discuss raising the member spending target on defence to as much as five per cent of GDP. Canada has never met NATO's existing spending target of two per cent since it was established in 2006. Trump and Prime Minister Mark Carney are engaged in what both sides have characterized as 'intensive' discussions toward the new economic and security deal the two leaders agreed to work on once the Canadian election concluded in April. NATO figures suggest Canada's defence spending rose from about one per cent in 2014 to 1.33 per cent in 2023. The NATO secretary-general's annual report, released in April, said Canada's defence spending would hit 1.45 per cent for 2024. In terms of absolute dollars, a Canadian Global Affairs Institute analysis last year said Canada ranks as the seventh largest spender in NATO, and the 14th largest in the world. Carney promised during the recent election campaign to move up Canada's deadline for meeting the 2 per cent threshold from 2032 to 2030 or sooner but has not yet shown a plan for how to do that. It will require Canada to add billions of new dollars annually. The prime minister is set to join other heads of government from NATO countries for an annual summit starting June 24 in the Netherlands. They are expected to approve a new defence investment plan that defence ministers hammered out this week, which would have member nations invest 3.5 per cent of GDP on core defence spending, and 1.5 per cent on defence and security-related investment such as infrastructure and resilience. That proposal is coming amid waning American commitments and a revanchist Russia. In recent years, both Democrats and Republicans have urged Canada to boost its Arctic defence, and the previous Biden administration praised much of what Ottawa outlined in an Arctic foreign policy last year. Trump has suggested defence of the Arctic is part of his 'Golden Dome' plan for a continental missile-defence shield. On May 27, the president said he told Ottawa it would cost US$61 billion to be part of the project. Hoekstra said he hasn't seen a breakdown of the costs, but said the 'really awesome technology' is likely estimated at 'proportionally what we think the Canadian share should be.' Defence Minister David McGuinty said Canada was reviewing its defence spending from 'top to bottom' and would have more to say about its plans soon, though the government isn't planning to table a budget until the fall. Hoekstra framed NATO as part of the wide partnership the U.S. has with Canada in security, which also includes secure energy flows and stopping illicit drugs. 'We need to do the things that will keep our citizens safe,' Hoekstra said. 'There are a lot of things that Americans and Canadians have in common, and we're looking forward to great days.' Hoekstra said Trump is trying to take the U.S. off an unsustainable trajectory, which he framed as millions of people crossing the U.S. border undocumented, spending way beyond government revenue and large trade deficits. 'The president is transforming that, because we need to,' he said. Trump's discussions with Carney will likely include the sweeping reform of border security that the Liberals tabled in Parliament last week. Hoekstra had yet to go through the legislation as of Friday. The ambassador said he's focused on win-win policies for both countries and not the prospect of Canada becoming an American state, despite Trump raising the notion as a way for Canadians to save on the cost of joining his Golden Dome project. Former Canadian diplomat Colin Robertson has said Hoekstra is limited in how much he can diverge from Trump's comments. But he said the ambassador has great access to the president, and his public messaging likely reveals how he has been advising Trump. This report by The Canadian Press was first published June 8, 2025.
