I-1183 Liquor Initiative

[Antlershed]

Piano - Of the $140.6 distributed in 4th quarter SFY2011, $27.8 of that was from profits while the remainder was from taxes and a little bit from violations. I do not know the breakdown of the $2M that was paid to Vancouver.

EDIT: just to clarify, the $2M is an annual figure. In 4Q2011, $20.6M went to cities and counties, of which I don't know the breakdown between profits and taxes.

[pianoman9701]

Thanks antler

[Antlershed]

Wenatcheejay - What are you talking about a 25% hidden tax? The state currently has a markup of 51% which includes the tax portion. If 1183 passes, there will still be a 27% tax.

You threw out the statement that there will be more revenue. I would like to see the proof and how you come to that conclusion. My numbers show the state will lose out on the $111M of excess profits. They will have to make cuts somewhere, or increase some sort of tax to fill that void. I don't disagree with people being able to keep more of the money they earn, but if the cost of alcohol affects someones personal budget so bad, maybe they shouldn't drink   

[Special T]

[/quote]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...
[/quote]

If the city of Vancouver is making 2 mill a year there aren't enough people driving to Jansen beach liquor store to save nearly $10 a half gallon...  you can buy a half gal for almost the same price of a fifth in WA...
I'm tired of getting shook down in nearly every way in this state. Fee based taxes are the most fair when it's not turned into a shell game like all our taxes have been. I don't care where the state says the money is going... They are liars and cannot be trusted. Those who bought special Licence plates to help support the WDFW got hosed by the Governor when she decided that their budget would be reduced by that amount... They don't care about tax paying citizens so why should i support the machine?

[DOUBLELUNG]

The state made $425 million off liquor sales in FY 2011 (July 2010-June 2011).  Of that, $77.5 million went to costs of the state liquor control board - most of which cost is employees. 
 
I will be voting yes, I would rather see the bulk of that $77.5 million go to law enforcement enforcing liquor laws, than to state employees selling liquor to the public. 

[Wenatcheejay]

Wenatcheejay - What are you talking about a 25% hidden tax? The state currently has a markup of 51% which includes the tax portion. If 1183 passes, there will still be a 27% tax.

You threw out the statement that there will be more revenue. I would like to see the proof and how you come to that conclusion. My numbers show the state will lose out on the $111M of excess profits. They will have to make cuts somewhere, or increase some sort of tax to fill that void. I don't disagree with people being able to keep more of the money they earn, but if the cost of alcohol affects someones personal budget so bad, maybe they shouldn't drink   

Brent, I took that from you saying that the extra 25% mark up is not for the expense of selling liquor but to redistribute to the City of Vancouver.

" 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.

Your words. To me it shows that the CONTROL and the PRICE is about taxes and monopolies.

You asked me if I am in favor of even higher taxes. You make my point, 27% is not enough? How much is enough?

You state people should not drink if they can't afford the Government Monopoly Prices. Why? How is that reasonable for policy and economic basis? Personally I don't think that forcing people to pay more, get less, and I believe that tax revenue suffers under the current system so people get less all the way around. I makes no sense unless you are strait up against hard liquor all together. That I can understand. I am all for tough DUI laws. I am in favor of higher penalties for the illegal selling of any alcohol product. I think that if Costco & Retailers can sell this merchandise more efficient than our Government can it is a good thing. There will be plenty of revenue for our Governments cut. They need to stop being greedy. Have you ever looked at the web pages that are in favor I-1183? It is interesting that many reputable organizations and positive changes will come of this if it passes.

 
http://yeson1183.com/

Look at the facts here. Many of your questions will be answered.

Look at this coalition and compare it to the one opposed. It shows what's going on here.

[bigtex]

Heres another enforcement related issue I found in the initiative:

The initiative will double fines for retailers who violate laws regarding to liquor sales. So if a minor purchases beer/wine they will be fined under the present fines. If they buy liquor they would be fined under the current fine X2.

However the initiative allows stores to be apart of a responsible seller program which allows them to be fined under the current fine (no doubling)! It also allows them to remain in this program if they have no more then one violation per year!

So if your local QFC is apart of this program and sells liquor to a minor they would be fined under the current fine schedule. If the Safeway down the street sells and is not in this program they would get double the penalty of QFC. AND QFC could remain in the program as long as they don't get another violation in a calendar year!

Never heard this in any of the "tougher penalty" commercials...

[xd2005]

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...?

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.   

[Atroxus]

Heres another enforcement related issue I found in the initiative:

The initiative will double fines for retailers who violate laws regarding to liquor sales. So if a minor purchases beer/wine they will be fined under the present fines. If they buy liquor they would be fined under the current fine X2.

However the initiative allows stores to be apart of a responsible seller program which allows them to be fined under the current fine (no doubling)! It also allows them to remain in this program if they have no more then one violation per year!

So if your local QFC is apart of this program and sells liquor to a minor they would be fined under the current fine schedule. If the Safeway down the street sells and is not in this program they would get double the penalty of QFC. AND QFC could remain in the program as long as they don't get another violation in a calendar year!

Never heard this in any of the "tougher penalty" commercials...

So worst case if you get one violation in a year you pay the regular fine, and any subsequent violations for the year you pay double? And if you have more then 1 violation then in subsequent years you aren't eligible to get the lesser fine for the first violation and instead pay double for all violations? I don't see a problem with that.

[bigtex]

Heres another enforcement related issue I found in the initiative:

The initiative will double fines for retailers who violate laws regarding to liquor sales. So if a minor purchases beer/wine they will be fined under the present fines. If they buy liquor they would be fined under the current fine X2.

However the initiative allows stores to be apart of a responsible seller program which allows them to be fined under the current fine (no doubling)! It also allows them to remain in this program if they have no more then one violation per year!

So if your local QFC is apart of this program and sells liquor to a minor they would be fined under the current fine schedule. If the Safeway down the street sells and is not in this program they would get double the penalty of QFC. AND QFC could remain in the program as long as they don't get another violation in a calendar year!

Never heard this in any of the "tougher penalty" commercials...

So worst case if you get one violation in a year you pay the regular fine, and any subsequent violations for the year you pay double? And if you have more then 1 violation then in subsequent years you aren't eligible to get the lesser fine for the first violation and instead pay double for all violations? I don't see a problem with that.

My problem is this pro-1183 campaign has been beating the drum that the initiative doubles fines, since last year's initiatives did nothing to increase enforcement. Do they really think any stores are not going to sign up for the responsible seller program? So in reality it only doubles fines for the stores that aren't smart enough to sign up for the program.

[Atroxus]

From what you said it sounds like you have to have no more than one violation per year for the responsible seller program. So sure everyone gets on it to start, but that second violation in a year gets them kicked up to doubled fines. If they only get one per year it's not like they get off for free, they still have to pay the current fine. So I am not sure why you have a problem with it. It's still stiffer penalties for anyone who has more than one violation a year.

[pianoman9701]

Heres another enforcement related issue I found in the initiative:

The initiative will double fines for retailers who violate laws regarding to liquor sales. So if a minor purchases beer/wine they will be fined under the present fines. If they buy liquor they would be fined under the current fine X2.

However the initiative allows stores to be apart of a responsible seller program which allows them to be fined under the current fine (no doubling)! It also allows them to remain in this program if they have no more then one violation per year!

So if your local QFC is apart of this program and sells liquor to a minor they would be fined under the current fine schedule. If the Safeway down the street sells and is not in this program they would get double the penalty of QFC. AND QFC could remain in the program as long as they don't get another violation in a calendar year!

Never heard this in any of the "tougher penalty" commercials...

So worst case if you get one violation in a year you pay the regular fine, and any subsequent violations for the year you pay double? And if you have more then 1 violation then in subsequent years you aren't eligible to get the lesser fine for the first violation and instead pay double for all violations? I don't see a problem with that.

My problem is this pro-1183 campaign has been beating the drum that the initiative doubles fines, since last year's initiatives did nothing to increase enforcement. Do they really think any stores are not going to sign up for the responsible seller program? So in reality it only doubles fines for the stores that aren't smart enough to sign up for the program.

They DO think stores will sign up for the program and the program is designed to decrease under age access to booze. The one time lower fine acknowledges that even a very prudent business can let one slip by, but that for most, the program will be a positive, preventative step to avoiding the sale to minors. This isn't a tactic. It's a good program that will have businesses be more alert regarding under age buying.

[Wenatcheejay]

Heres another enforcement related issue I found in the initiative:

The initiative will double fines for retailers who violate laws regarding to liquor sales. So if a minor purchases beer/wine they will be fined under the present fines. If they buy liquor they would be fined under the current fine X2.

However the initiative allows stores to be apart of a responsible seller program which allows them to be fined under the current fine (no doubling)! It also allows them to remain in this program if they have no more then one violation per year!

So if your local QFC is apart of this program and sells liquor to a minor they would be fined under the current fine schedule. If the Safeway down the street sells and is not in this program they would get double the penalty of QFC. AND QFC could remain in the program as long as they don't get another violation in a calendar year!

Never heard this in any of the "tougher penalty" commercials...

So worst case if you get one violation in a year you pay the regular fine, and any subsequent violations for the year you pay double? And if you have more then 1 violation then in subsequent years you aren't eligible to get the lesser fine for the first violation and instead pay double for all violations? I don't see a problem with that.

My problem is this pro-1183 campaign has been beating the drum that the initiative doubles fines, since last year's initiatives did nothing to increase enforcement. Do they really think any stores are not going to sign up for the responsible seller program? So in reality it only doubles fines for the stores that aren't smart enough to sign up for the program.

They DO think stores will sign up for the program and the program is designed to decrease under age access to booze. The one time lower fine acknowledges that even a very prudent business can let one slip by, but that for most, the program will be a positive, preventative step to avoiding the sale to minors. This isn't a tactic. It's a good program that will have businesses be more alert regarding under age buying.

The program license fee is also not cheap. It is one way the State is going to raise money. I believe I read that it requires $150 million in new fees to the Government or the distributors have to make it up but I could be wrong that's from memory and not something I have in front of me. The State will make more money. The Economy will make more money. New Jobs are probably going to be opened up. People will have more choices at lower costs. Like a gun people will have to make choices as to what they do. Criminal behavior and poor personal choices are still that, we are responsible for what we personally do. The Nanny State has not solves the problem of poor choices with the system in place. The only people are going to not win are the ones who profit from the Status quo.

[lokidog]

I am not saying the government should be in the liquor business, but I do not see anywhere that there will be an increase in jobs as a result of this.  Stores will not need more cashiers because of people lining up to  buy booze, they will simply use the current supply of labor, and if need be, the consumers can stand in longer lines. 

As I posted earlier in this, all I can see is a lot of local revenue, ie. employees and landlords, leaving the area and lining the pockets of corporate leaders.

Now, if I had Costco stock, I'd be out on the street corner waving that vote Yes  sign.

[pianoman9701]

I am not saying the government should be in the liquor business, but I do not see anywhere that there will be an increase in jobs as a result of this.  Stores will not need more cashiers because of people lining up to  buy booze, they will simply use the current supply of labor, and if need be, the consumers can stand in longer lines. 

As I posted earlier in this, all I can see is a lot of local revenue, ie. employees and landlords, leaving the area and lining the pockets of corporate leaders.

Now, if I had Costco stock, I'd be out on the street corner waving that vote Yes  sign.

Business who don't hire additional help for additional business will lose customers to those who do. People will always shop where they get the best service as long as pricing is similar. Costco knows that, Fred Meyer knows that, and every other liquor-qualified store knows that. The only people who don't know that are state employees who currently don't have to care how long I wait in line. Because competition will drive prices down and create more WA liquor sales, more people will work. It's simple economics - more business = more employees. The net change in labor will be positive. There's no way in any mathematic equation that approving this bill will result in a net loss of jobs.

As far as the state liquor employees are concerned and the loss of their jobs; it's lamentable that anyone should lose their job. But, it should not be the responsibility of our government to create jobs through monopoly, stifling private enterprise and profits in a capitalist society. As well, as soon as we can put every single IRS employee out of work, we should do it without hesitation. This goes for about 1/2 of our existing state and federal governments. When you shrink government, people living off tax dollars will suffer. But in almost every case (1183 included) the net result will be a stifled government pig and a more robust private sector economy which will create more net employment.