Chances are you may have already signed this petition - it's the one to close the state liquor stores and to let retail outlets sell liquor. I know Costco six-liter bottles of gin sound appealing, but beside the increase in alcohol-fueled problems we will see on the streets, it will take a big chunk of money out of the state budget. Of course that trickles down to Spokane's budget. From the Seattle PI:
"In 2009, the state Liquor Control Board said taxes, markup and fees provided more than $332.7 million for programs and services throughout the state. Of that, $199 million went to the state's general fund, almost $63 million went to cities and counties and $49 million went to help pay for the state's health insurance for the poor."
Glug glug.
9 comments:
Your hysteria is pretty sad.
Our government stores do nothing, absolutely nothing, to reduce alcohol consumption or abusive drinking. Most states with normal private-sector liquor sales have lower incidences of alcohol problems than we do.
And the "big chunk of money out of the state budget"? Nearly all of that $332.7 million is from taxes and fees that will still be collected after privatization. Only a trivial amount of the state budget, and of any city budget, comes from the "markup". That revenue will be more than replaced from selling off the state liquor store assets to someone who can use them more productively.
I hope you're better at fighting fires than you are at understanding the facts on this issue.
Anonymous, Thanks for taking the time to write.
First off - "hysteria." What in the posting sounds "hysterical" to you? The quote from the Seattle PI? Me thinks you might be spiking your tea at the party. When somebody presents facts that conflict with your feelings it is not necessarily hysteria. So sorry, you gain no ground by starting off in such a tired, formulaic manner.
Now to the facts:
Regarding abusive drinking, I do know that some of the profits from Washington State liquor sales go to fund alcohol treatment programs. Also, Washington State has the best record of not selling liquor to minors with a compliance rate of 94%. Privatized states range from 76% to 84%.
And you are wrong about the state budget. The state makes huge profits off of liquor sales.
Can they adjust the tax rate to make up for the loss of profits? Yes, but not until they are back in session, and I would suspect that they would come under a lot of fire - just like they did for raising the tax a nickle on a can of beer. So, at least for a while, we will have the shortfall that is documented in the Seattle PI (hysterical?) quote.
Here's what small businesses and distributors have to say about I 1101:
"Despite support by larger grocers, small grocers said they oppose the proposed measure. Washington Food Industry Association president and chief executive Jan Gee said they worry about the consequences of removing so many controls. 'This initiative doesn't just privatize liquor; it deregulates it beyond what any other state has done,' said Gee. The association represents independent grocers."
"Wine & Spirits Wholesalers of America President Craig Wolf said the proposed measure is 'not about privatization, it's about deregulation.' 'Deregulation,' said Wolf, would remove the checks on selling spirits and could lead to problems in the state. 'They want to use their power to dictate terms. The retailers use market power to bully suppliers. Costco is not about a free market,' added Wolf."
These quotes were taken from ballotpedia, here:
http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Washington_Privatize_State_Liquor_Stores_Act,_Initiative_1100_%282010%29
Gosh. Deregulation has sure helped our country, state, city a lot so far hasn't it?
Anonymous commenter, since you aren't as much into research as you are into rhetoric, let me help you out. From what I have read, there is a chance that making alcohol more available will help sell more alcohol which, in turn, would generate more tax revenue. That money would go into the state coffers. There is a chance that could happen. However, one would have to weigh that against the cost (financial, societal, productivity, etc.) of having more people drinking more alcohol.
There is certainly more to the two sides to this proposal. You didn't do much of a job presenting your side. I hope I helped you.
Lastly, your closing paragraph (much like your opening one) in your comment says more about you than it does about me.
Thanks again for the courage of your anonymity. Cheers! John
Okay, Bill. Since you're confident in your command of the facts, please show us some authoritative documentation of the following facts that you assert:
1) "Washington State has the best record of not selling liquor to minors with a compliance rate of 94%. Privatized states range from 76% to 84%." And I don't mean a quote from a campaign brochure or in the media from an opponent of privatization. I mean an actual documented study that did research on rates of alcohol sales to minors in different states.
2) "The state makes huge profits off of liquor sales."
"huge" is subjective, but how much "profit" does the state actually make? And let's not talk about taxes and license fees which will continue to be collected under privatization. But actual revenues that come from the state operating the stores and which won't flow to the state after privatization
3) "I do know that some of the profits from Washington State liquor sales go to fund alcohol treatment programs." How much of the profits go to fund alcohol treatment programs, and which programs are these? Again, not taxes and license fees which will be collected whether or not the state operates the stores, but revenues that would go away when the state stops selling liquor.
I'll check your blog from time to time to see whether you've found any authoritative sources to back up your alleged facts. And if you produce any, then I thank you in advance for convincing me that you are correct.
OK. Fair enough. Likewise, I will look to this space for you to give proof to your claims. Namely:
1. "Our government stores do nothing, absolutely nothing, to reduce alcohol consumption or abusive drinking."
2. "Most states with normal private-sector liquor sales have lower incidences of alcohol problems than we do."
3. That the state does not make much profit from liquor sales.
Number three is paramount and timely. I think if there is not much profit to be made on liquor sales then you should let Costco and others know ASAP so they don't wast any more time and money on this campaign.
On another note, I do think the state liquor store system does illuminate an ongoing problem with our legislature, no matter if it's Dem or Repub led.
I think back to $1000 car tabs and what a bizarre thing that was. They had a chance to remedy this and they let it go. So, the initiative process was used. It created a huge revenue shortfall when the tab collection fee was reduced.
Likewise, state liquor stores seem like an antiquated, inconvenient way of doing business to most. Granted, one of the first things that Gregoire did was to keep some open on a Sunday - a nod to normalcy. But still, instead of leading the way out of state-run liquor stores, the state holds tight and will, once again - thanks to this mindset, have to deal with the disaster of losing a big chunk of $. I think Costco had, over the years, lobbied for reform. Costco is/was a big contributor to Dems. I don't know why they didn't see this coming.
In the end, the only way, in my opinion, to start normalizing things is to do what most other states do and institute a state income tax. Our sales tax is almost 10%. Our fuel tax is high too. All these taxes will have to increase until they look too bizarre and then we will cut them. A proactive approach is a state income tax to take the pressure off raising fees and sales taxes to a bizarre level. Again, this is just my opinion.
Thanks for the conversation.
the state makes 60 percent profit margin on liqour on top of the tax.
this means they lose 200 million if costco wins.
we end up moving from 300 liquor stores to over 4000. most of the new ones will be open until 2 am and sell flasks at gas stations.
the state will probably take taxes up more to cover thier loss.
so the consumer doesnt get a price break and we ge tons of people buying booze at 1 am to keep partying. super. this is one of those simple ideas that is not.
let deregulate the oil industry too.
perhaps the desire to rid ourselves of the state owned liquor stores wouldn't be so great if they actually wanted to sell liquor. I work swing shift and I look forward being able to buy a bottle of Jameson at the end of the week from Safeway.
get the state out of the liquor business! I do not beleive any of their statisics. Even in Europe you do not see this stupidy of govt owned liquor systems.
Yes, anonymous, I am with you! Whenever someone confronts me with "statisics" that contradict my irrational ideology I don't "beleive" them either. That's why Ise am so smmaart too.
I DO NOT like the presnt system!! I want to buy liquor when I want too. I do not beleive all the BS from the opponents hysteria. I have been all over the world and have never seen all the BS they are telling us. Vote yes on 1100.
Post a Comment