I-1183 Liquor Initiative

[bigtex]

in the long run there wont be any competition because the distribution jobs that will be eliminated, now all of the restaraunts will get their booze at...yes you guessed it..costco (along with the rest of us)

And if they don't get it there they can get it directly from the producer of the product. I think people are unaware of the current system.

So here is a quick snapshot of the current system:
The restaurants/bars/store have to go thru a distributor to get their booze from the booze producer. So essentially it goes:

Producer>
Distributor>
Bar/restaurant/store

Under the proposed system with the initiative the distributor is essenitally cut out and the bar/restuarant/store can deal directly with the producer. So it would go:

Producer>
Bar/restuarant/store

There are some pretty big distributing companies in this state which employ a lot of people...

[xd2005]

Boy, maybe the state should take control of all industries and require people purchase from them for all goods. Let's start with cigarettes, it's close enough it should be an easy sell. Then we can move on to ipods and ipads, that should generate some serious money. Milk, eggs, cars...there's no limit! Why didn't anyone think of this before? No more deficit or unemployed for Washington! Just set up state distribution companies throughout the state for each good, that should increase revenues and jobs for the state. Then the state will own special stores that will have exclusive rights to sell the goods. 

1. Hopefully you noticed the sarcasm and realize this is not a good idea.
2. If this is a bad idea, how is this truly different? ESPECIALLY if you are against this proposal based on "economic" reasons.

[xd2005]

Where has it undisputedly been stated that revenues to the state will decrease? At least one report shows revenues will actually INCREASE. Also, the bill doubles existing fines and penalties to retailers.

Increase?? get the govmt to not sell and they will make more money from something that they arent selling anymore?? huh

Lets not forget rajn cajn's concern about all of the distribution jobs that will go in the toilet once the big box stores go to the manufactures directly.

Sounds like a win win for big business

So getting back to my original question.. If the government is going to make any money off the liquor anymore they will have to raise the tax.. which in turn will eat up any savings you thought you would get by voting yes on the initiative. Whats to stop the big box stores from selling at the price of the gov liquor stores? competition?
[/quote]

Straight from the Voter's Pamphlet:
The fiscal impact cannot be precisely estimated because the private market will determine bottle cost and markup for spirits. Using a range of assumptions, total State General Fund revenues increase an estimated $216 million to $253 million and total local revenues increase an estimated $186 million to $227 million, after Liquor Control Board one-time and ongoing expenses, over six fiscal years. A one-time net state revenue gain of $28.4 million is estimated from sale of the state liquor distribution center. One-time debt service costs are $5.3 million. Ongoing new state costs are estimated at $158,600 over six fiscal years.   

http://wei.secstate.wa.gov/osos/en/PreviousElections/2011/general/Pages/OVG_20111108.aspx?ElectionID=42&sorttype=Measures#ososTop

[Armadillo]

Where has it undisputedly been stated that revenues to the state will decrease? At least one report shows revenues will actually INCREASE. Also, the bill doubles existing fines and penalties to retailers.

Increase?? get the govmt to not sell and they will make more money from something that they arent selling anymore?? huh

Lets not forget rajn cajn's concern about all of the distribution jobs that will go in the toilet once the big box stores go to the manufactures directly.

Sounds like a win win for big business

So getting back to my original question.. If the government is going to make any money off the liquor anymore they will have to raise the tax.. which in turn will eat up any savings you thought you would get by voting yes on the initiative. Whats to stop the big box stores from selling at the price of the gov liquor stores? competition?

Straight from the Voter's Pamphlet:
The fiscal impact cannot be precisely estimated because the private market will determine bottle cost and markup for spirits. Using a range of assumptions, total State General Fund revenues increase an estimated $216 million to $253 million and total local revenues increase an estimated $186 million to $227 million, after Liquor Control Board one-time and ongoing expenses, over six fiscal years. A one-time net state revenue gain of $28.4 million is estimated from sale of the state liquor distribution center. One-time debt service costs are $5.3 million. Ongoing new state costs are estimated at $158,600 over six fiscal years.   

http://wei.secstate.wa.gov/osos/en/PreviousElections/2011/general/Pages/OVG_20111108.aspx?ElectionID=42&sorttype=Measures#ososTop
[/quote]

"using a range of assumptions" thats not very vague now is it?

They dont propose how those numbers are generated nor does this account for the hundreds of millions that will be drained out of education nor the thousands of distribution jobs that will be now placed on unemployment for god knows how long

[Armadillo]

in the long run there wont be any competition because the distribution jobs that will be eliminated, now all of the restaraunts will get their booze at...yes you guessed it..costco (along with the rest of us)

And if they don't get it there they can get it directly from the producer of the product. I think people are unaware of the current system.

So here is a quick snapshot of the current system:
The restaurants/bars/store have to go thru a distributor to get their booze from the booze producer. So essentially it goes:

Producer>
Distributor>
Bar/restaurant/store

Under the proposed system with the initiative the distributor is essenitally cut out and the bar/restuarant/store can deal directly with the producer. So it would go:

Producer>
Bar/restuarant/store

There are some pretty big distributing companies in this state which employ a lot of people...

The smaller restaraunts and bars might find that ordering directly from a manufacturer can be a pain in the butt because of the minimum orders that are usually required when you order direct (we're talking pallets and pallets of booze)

[Wenatcheejay]

The penalty for selling/serving alcohol to a minor is a 5000 dollar fine. Up to a year in jail. And a criminal record. How more aggressive should the law be?

You couldn't be more wrong.

My friend is a Enforcement Officer for the Liquor Control Board. The fine for selling/serving/providining alcohol (no difference for a clerk or a 21 yr old giving a beer to a kid at a party) is UP TO $5,000 and/or a year in jail. He has told me that probably 98% of the cases his agencies have end up with less then a $250 fine and many times result in a deferal which basically means no fine and be a good boy for 6-12 months and this all goes away, including no criminal record. This officer says every year they have around 20 people who are cited and they learn they have been cited for this offense before. This is the same penalty for underage drinking. I know many kids that got MIP's nobody got over a $500 fine.

In the state of California if you are found guilty of serving to a minor you face a MINIMUM $1,000 fine (no minimum in WA). Your business also loses liquor license for a minimum of 14 days for the first violation, in WA it is a $500 fine for the store.

Two years ago 4 republican house members wanted to institute a $500 minimum for selling to minors in WA, it never made it out of comittee. If there was a minimum fine of atleast $500 I would have no problem privitizing liquor.

Regardless of how  1183 is voted on I agree with what you say here. 

[xd2005]

"using a range of assumptions" thats not very vague now is it?

They dont propose how those numbers are generated nor does this account for the hundreds of millions that will be drained out of education nor the thousands of distribution jobs that will be now placed on unemployment for god knows how long

This means they have run a number of scenarios to come up with these numbers, therefore a range is used. This is coming from the STATE Office of Financial Management, not the proponents. And how does it not take into consideration education funds when it addresses both state and local funds (both of which increase btw)? Will we lose some distribution jobs? Probably, but not all of them. Smaller businesses will still need distribution warehouses, and existing retailers will need to add staff to accommodate the increased inventory.

I'm sure you would have no problem buying all firearms and ammunition from the state as well, would sure make for more jobs and revenue for the state, and that's what's important right?

[Armadillo]

"using a range of assumptions" thats not very vague now is it?

They dont propose how those numbers are generated nor does this account for the hundreds of millions that will be drained out of education nor the thousands of distribution jobs that will be now placed on unemployment for god knows how long

This means they have run a number of scenarios to come up with these numbers, therefore a range is used. This is coming from the STATE Office of Financial Management, not the proponents. And how does it not take into consideration education funds when it addresses both state and local funds (both of which increase btw)? Will we lose some distribution jobs? Probably, but not all of them. Smaller businesses will still need distribution warehouses, and existing retailers will need to add staff to accommodate the increased inventory.

I'm sure you would have no problem buying all firearms and ammunition from the state as well, would sure make for more jobs and revenue for the state, and that's what's important right?

No, things that dont have a detrimental worth to society should not be controlled directly by the government.. guns can be debated but so can cars because they benefit society too.

I'm all for the sin taxes...if you engage in acts that have detrimental worth to society then why shouldnt that be taxed through the roof.

[ribka]

"using a range of assumptions" thats not very vague now is it?

They dont propose how those numbers are generated nor does this account for the hundreds of millions that will be drained out of education nor the thousands of distribution jobs that will be now placed on unemployment for god knows how long

This means they have run a number of scenarios to come up with these numbers, therefore a range is used. This is coming from the STATE Office of Financial Management, not the proponents. And how does it not take into consideration education funds when it addresses both state and local funds (both of which increase btw)? Will we lose some distribution jobs? Probably, but not all of them. Smaller businesses will still need distribution warehouses, and existing retailers will need to add staff to accommodate the increased inventory.

I'm sure you would have no problem buying all firearms and ammunition from the state as well, would sure make for more jobs and revenue for the state, and that's what's important right?

No, things that dont have a detrimental worth to society should not be controlled directly by the government.. guns can be debated but so can cars because they benefit society too.

I'm all for the sin taxes...if you engage in acts that have detrimental worth to society then why shouldnt that be taxed through the roof.

The problem lies in the fact that the govt bureaucrats determine what a "sin" is and how it should be taxed. A gun or ammo tax? Now that would be bad.

[Bigshooter]

I will be voting  YES I don't want the government running anything.

[ribka]

We need to QUIT throwing more money at "schools". How many of you think that your tax dollars are being properly allocated? We keep throwing more money at our problems and not getting good results.

Government needs to be rolled back, especially at the state and federal level. What needs to be addressed is the promises made to state and federal unions as well as the tenure system for teachers, which is the biggest problem regarding education. The union mentality is what is draining our resources and it is NOT producing positive results.

A good place for us to begin to roll back state government is privatizing liquor sales. I will vote yes for anything that rolls back government and no against anything that raises taxes, even if it is "for the kids".

Yeah lets cut back on our kids so we can pay $5 less a bottle for idiot juice!! The average college professor makes 60k, how is that too high as to be a major problem in their budget requiring hundreds of millions to be taken out of KID'S the education system? What should a college professor earn?

I know 4 college professors. My sister is a college professor. All the professors I know make over 100 k a year. They spend about 10 hours a week teaching.I would not call their work schedule rigorous. Getting tenure is difficult but once tenure is obtained they have very high paying and desirable jobs. I give my college professor sister a hard time re this. Then they have sabbaticals. Not a bad gig.

It has been shown again again that the more money spent on students in secondary schools the worse the education. Test standards are lowered every year and grades are so inflated now 1/2 the graduating classes have 4.0 or higher GPA's.An 8th grade education 40 years ago is better than a lot of college educations these days I have met so many illiterate college grads these days it is scary.

[xd2005]

"using a range of assumptions" thats not very vague now is it?

They dont propose how those numbers are generated nor does this account for the hundreds of millions that will be drained out of education nor the thousands of distribution jobs that will be now placed on unemployment for god knows how long

This means they have run a number of scenarios to come up with these numbers, therefore a range is used. This is coming from the STATE Office of Financial Management, not the proponents. And how does it not take into consideration education funds when it addresses both state and local funds (both of which increase btw)? Will we lose some distribution jobs? Probably, but not all of them. Smaller businesses will still need distribution warehouses, and existing retailers will need to add staff to accommodate the increased inventory.

I'm sure you would have no problem buying all firearms and ammunition from the state as well, would sure make for more jobs and revenue for the state, and that's what's important right?

No, things that dont have a detrimental worth to society should not be controlled directly by the government.. guns can be debated but so can cars because they benefit society too.

I'm all for the sin taxes...if you engage in acts that have detrimental worth to society then why shouldnt that be taxed through the roof.

Taxes and monopolistic management of an industry/product are two completely different things. This is not about the taxes on the product, only the state's monopoly on it.

[Wenatcheejay]

"using a range of assumptions" thats not very vague now is it?

They dont propose how those numbers are generated nor does this account for the hundreds of millions that will be drained out of education nor the thousands of distribution jobs that will be now placed on unemployment for god knows how long

This means they have run a number of scenarios to come up with these numbers, therefore a range is used. This is coming from the STATE Office of Financial Management, not the proponents. And how does it not take into consideration education funds when it addresses both state and local funds (both of which increase btw)? Will we lose some distribution jobs? Probably, but not all of them. Smaller businesses will still need distribution warehouses, and existing retailers will need to add staff to accommodate the increased inventory.

I'm sure you would have no problem buying all firearms and ammunition from the state as well, would sure make for more jobs and revenue for the state, and that's what's important right?

No, things that dont have a detrimental worth to society should not be controlled directly by the government.. guns can be debated but so can cars because they benefit society too.

I'm all for the sin taxes...if you engage in acts that have detrimental worth to society then why shouldnt that be taxed through the roof.

Taxes and monopolistic management of an industry/product are two completely different things. This is not about the taxes on the product, only the state's monopoly on it.

Stop trying to bring logic & reason to this issue. In order for 1183 to be defeated we must keep up the emotional spects in play. That is how all the Union/Democrat ploys play out now days.

[MikeWalking]

There is a post here talking about Square Footage being the deciding factor on Mini Marts etc getting to sell liquor.

I just got a flyer in the mail from the Anti side.  It shows what claims to be Text from I-1183  "...license to sell will not be denied based on the size of the premises to be licensed"

I don't think anyone's campaign Ads can be trusted...

[xd2005]

There is a post here talking about Square Footage being the deciding factor on Mini Marts etc getting to sell liquor.

I just got a flyer in the mail from the Anti side.  It shows what claims to be Text from I-1183  "...license to sell will not be denied based on the size of the premises to be licensed"

I don't think anyone's campaign Ads can be trusted...

To clarify, this is what the Initiative says:

...
(3)(a) Except as otherwise provided in subsection (c) of this section, the board may issue spirits retail licenses only for premises comprising at least ten thousand square feet of fully enclosed retail space within a single structure, including storerooms and other interior auxiliary areas but excluding covered or fenced exterior areas, whether or not attached to the structure, and only to applicants that the board determines will maintain systems for inventory management, employee training, employee supervision, and physical security of the product substantially as effective as those of stores currently operated by the board with respect to preventing sales to or pilferage by underage or inebriated persons.
(b) License issuances and renewals are subject to RCW 66.24.010 and the regulations promulgated thereunder, including without limitation rights of cities, towns, county legislative authorities, the public, churches, schools, and public institutions to object to or prevent issuance of local liquor licenses. However, existing grocery premises licensed to sell beer and/or wine are deemed to be premises "now licensed" under RCW 66.24.010(9)(a) for the purpose of processing applications for spirits retail licenses.
(c) The board may not deny a spirits retail license to an otherwise qualified contract liquor store at its contract location or to the holder of former state liquor store operating rights sold at auction under section 102 of this act on the grounds of location, nature, or size of the premises to be licensed. The board shall not deny a spirits retail license to applicants that are not contract liquor stores or operating rights holders on the grounds of the size of the premises to be licensed, if such applicant is otherwise qualified and the board determines that:
(i) There is no retail spirits license holder in the trade area that the applicant proposes to serve;
(ii) The applicant meets, or upon licensure will meet, the operational requirements established by the board by rule; and
(iii) The licensee has not committed more than one public safety violation within the three years preceding application.
...

It may talk about it further, but this seems be the area under discussion.