I-1183 Liquor Initiative

[Special T]

I could care less if booze is cheaper! I want it to pass for 1 reason. STARVE THE STATE! I buy booze in OR EVERYTIME i go there... and not just a bottle or 2. This states priorities is so screwed up that i am unsure if they can pull thier head out of thier rectum... If the state was doing an awsome job at taking care of its CORE responcibilties people like ME wouldn't go out of thier way to keep thier own money from the state.. And you know what? i bougth some cigars for me and my bro from the indian smoke shop that is next to the Fuel station! 

[Atroxus]

Personally I think that competition will drive the prices down. By how much is anyone's guess.  Even if I was convinced that the prices would not drop though, I would still vote yes because the state should not be in the liquor business.

[Antlershed]

Have any of you ever been to a costco that sells liquor? They have a very small selection and their prices aren't much better. Costco is willing to throw $11 million (so far) at this. Do you think they are going to sit there and pass on a 25% (the diffference in the numbers bigtex posted, which I know are accurate) savings to the consumer? Why wouldn't they increase their prices to eliminate that gap and drive up the bottom line? If they have thrown this much money at it, they obviously see how much they stand to profit from it. Also, I doubt costco will need to hire a bunch of the laid off employees to make up for the increased business. I will be voting no.

[rtspring]

This needs to  pass,  liquor in this state is outrageous.  The state shoul d not be in business  what so ever!

[pianoman9701]

Have any of you ever been to a costco that sells liquor? They have a very small selection and their prices aren't much better. Costco is willing to throw $11 million (so far) at this. Do you think they are going to sit there and pass on a 25% (the diffference in the numbers bigtex posted, which I know are accurate) savings to the consumer? Why wouldn't they increase their prices to eliminate that gap and drive up the bottom line? If they have thrown this much money at it, they obviously see how much they stand to profit from it. Also, I doubt costco will need to hire a bunch of the laid off employees to make up for the increased business. I will be voting no.

I've never bought liquor at a COSTCO in WA, so I have no idea what the difference will be. One thing I do know is that having competition will dictate how much profit a company can build into pricing. As we have it now, there is no competition, so 25% is the norm. I don't believe that will be the same once there is fair market competition. If COSTCO isn't competitive, they won't sell booze. We will have a choice of where to go for booze, instead of no choices at all.

[skipper]

Have any of you ever been to a costco that sells liquor? They have a very small selection and their prices aren't much better. Costco is willing to throw $11 million (so far) at this. Do you think they are going to sit there and pass on a 25% (the diffference in the numbers bigtex posted, which I know are accurate) savings to the consumer? Why wouldn't they increase their prices to eliminate that gap and drive up the bottom line? If they have thrown this much money at it, they obviously see how much they stand to profit from it. Also, I doubt costco will need to hire a bunch of the laid off employees to make up for the increased business. I will be voting no.

Yes i have in Nevada, Arizona, Hawaii and they have a way better selection then state liquor stores i drive to reno to get my alcohol and just for this reason they have different stuff then way do i will be voting yes

[Wenatcheejay]

Usually, private sector is more efficient for markets than Government/union control. Perhaps, once the State can not control the monopoly on the "sale" they will focus on enforcement and tax for revenue.

(Which is what they should have always done.  )

[Antlershed]

Have any of you ever been to a costco that sells liquor? They have a very small selection and their prices aren't much better. Costco is willing to throw $11 million (so far) at this. Do you think they are going to sit there and pass on a 25% (the diffference in the numbers bigtex posted, which I know are accurate) savings to the consumer? Why wouldn't they increase their prices to eliminate that gap and drive up the bottom line? If they have thrown this much money at it, they obviously see how much they stand to profit from it. Also, I doubt costco will need to hire a bunch of the laid off employees to make up for the increased business. I will be voting no.

I've never bought liquor at a COSTCO in WA, so I have no idea what the difference will be. One thing I do know is that having competition will dictate how much profit a company can build into pricing. As we have it now, there is no competition, so 25% is the norm. I don't believe that will be the same once there is fair market competition. If COSTCO isn't competitive, they won't sell booze. We will have a choice of where to go for booze, instead of no choices at all.

And when the city of Vancouver loses the $2 million per year that it received in 2011 from the sale of liquor, what do you suppose will be used to fill that gap? I doubt Costco will be handing that over...

[Antlershed]

Usually, private sector is more efficient for markets than Government/union control. Perhaps, once the State can not control the monopoly on the "sale" they will focus on enforcement and tax for revenue.

(Which is what they should have always done.  )

So would you be ok with the state increasing the liquor tax to make up for lost revenue?

[pianoman9701]

Usually, private sector is more efficient for markets than Government/union control. Perhaps, once the State can not control the monopoly on the "sale" they will focus on enforcement and tax for revenue.

(Which is what they should have always done.  )

So would you be ok with the state increasing the liquor tax to make up for lost revenue?

They shouldn't have to. The 25% markup they now charge covers the cost of doing business. Without those costs, the tax remains. There should be no tax increase.

[pianoman9701]

Have any of you ever been to a costco that sells liquor? They have a very small selection and their prices aren't much better. Costco is willing to throw $11 million (so far) at this. Do you think they are going to sit there and pass on a 25% (the diffference in the numbers bigtex posted, which I know are accurate) savings to the consumer? Why wouldn't they increase their prices to eliminate that gap and drive up the bottom line? If they have thrown this much money at it, they obviously see how much they stand to profit from it. Also, I doubt costco will need to hire a bunch of the laid off employees to make up for the increased business. I will be voting no.

I've never bought liquor at a COSTCO in WA, so I have no idea what the difference will be. One thing I do know is that having competition will dictate how much profit a company can build into pricing. As we have it now, there is no competition, so 25% is the norm. I don't believe that will be the same once there is fair market competition. If COSTCO isn't competitive, they won't sell booze. We will have a choice of where to go for booze, instead of no choices at all.

And when the city of Vancouver loses the $2 million per year that it received in 2011 from the sale of liquor, what do you suppose will be used to fill that gap? I doubt Costco will be handing that over...

Was that money taxes collected on liquor sales or profits above and beyond taxes? I believe it was Vancouver's chunk of the taxes. If the bill DOES pass, liquor will be more competitive and people will buy more in WA state instead of sneaking it across state lines from somewhere else. Tax revenues will increase as a result. There would be no gap. There would be more revenue collected.

[Wenatcheejay]

Usually, private sector is more efficient for markets than Government/union control. Perhaps, once the State can not control the monopoly on the "sale" they will focus on enforcement and tax for revenue.

(Which is what they should have always done.  )

So would you be ok with the state increasing the liquor tax to make up for lost revenue?

There will be more revenue for the State if I-1183 passes. Washington does not have a revenue issue it has a spending issue. Raising taxes won't fix that. There will be less Union control and less Union revenues if I-1183 passes. Distributors fear wholesalers because they sell directly to the consumer. The jobs that are lost are Public Sector Union jobs. All distributors jobs may or may not be lost but distribution will still happen so these jobs will change, many of them may not be Union. This means less money to buy Democrats into office but probably more jobs for working people. Sorry to play the single cord of "Democrat/Union/Washington" but sometimes it's the facts that are hardest for some to accept. I have already posted the facts behind why I say this. I am all for more enforcement, no, I am not opposed to high taxes on some "sin items" like liquor, they already exist anyway. I think that is separate from the I-1183 merits.

Regardless of IF this passes the State will raise the Tax on liquor and cigarettes again. That is what they do. They do not care what I think as I'd doubt they would put it to a public vote. This is about allowing for free"er" markets. The laws against illegal sale are the same. The tax revenue is the same. All this does is increase convenience to the consumer and allow competition. That is always good for revenues in a free market, but the Government is not interested in markets, it is interested in CONTROL; As are socialists, if free markets are allowed we go strait to anarchy in their minds. If I-1183 passes the sky will not fall. If it does feel free to say you told me so.

[Antlershed]

My phone won't let me quote the long posts for some reason, but I will try to address them.

The 25% markup covers more than just the cost of doing business.

The chunk of money that went to Vancouver is a mix of taxes and revenue above and beyond expenses. So, while it isn't fair to assume they will lose all $2M, you can't assume they won't take a hit at all.

For 4th quarter of SFY2011, $140.6M was distributed to the General Fund, Local Governments, UW, WSU, WSP, and a couple other programs. Of that $140.6M, $27.8M was excess funds (non-dedicated revenue after expenses). So, if we apply that to the entire year, that is $111M that the state will no longer be receiving through the sale of liquor. $71M goes to the cities and counties annually, so even cutting them completely out won't close the gap. Thinking they will make up $111M in taxes without a tax increase would mean that the border-hoppers would have to spend another $400M on liquor in WA State annually (using the proposed 27% tax rate). So, please, tell me again how there is going to be more revenue for the state...?

[pianoman9701]

My phone won't let me quote the long posts for some reason, but I will try to address them.

The 25% markup covers more than just the cost of doing business.

The chunk of money that went to Vancouver is a mix of taxes and revenue above and beyond expenses. So, while it isn't fair to assume they will lose all $2M, you can't assume they won't take a hit at all.

For 4th quarter of SFY2011, $140.6M was distributed to the General Fund, Local Governments, UW, WSU, WSP, and a couple other programs. Of that $140.6M, $27.8M was excess funds (non-dedicated revenue after expenses). So, if we apply that to the entire year, that is $111M that the state will no longer be receiving through the sale of liquor. $71M goes to the cities and counties annually, so even cutting them completely out won't close the gap. Thinking they will make up $111M in taxes without a tax increase would mean that the border-hoppers would have to spend another $400M on liquor in WA State annually (using the proposed 27% tax rate). So, please, tell me again how there is going to be more revenue for the state...?

Your math is funky. It doesn't tell us how much of that money is from taxes and how much is from profits. The taxed income will increase. I'm also not sure what non-dedicated revenue is and where that comes from and goes to.

Regardless, I don't believe that the state can do a better job running liquor than private business can. Our government shouldn't be in the money-making business. They've never, ever been better at it than private business. Obviously, I've decided to vote yes.

[Wenatcheejay]

Well Mr. Shed, you have it all worked out, if Washington State does not keep it's unefficently overpriced monopoly the Government and the people dependent on it are doomed. I never thought it would be so easy to derail the Democrat Agenda in Olympia but it seems we are close to succeeding. Who'd a thunk it all is dependent on Liquor.

It's funny I thought the Government has to over-inflate the price of Liquior by 25% to run it's monopoly, but that is not the case. That is actually a 25% hidden tax!?

Thanks, I will add that to my reasons to vote for I-1183.

Gosh, that I think people keeping more of the own money is better than letting the Government tax & spend it, sooo selfish of me.