If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(NBC News)   Washington State's privatization of liquor sales leads to surge in liquor sales...in Oregon   (nbcnews.com) divider line 235
    More: Obvious, Oregon, tri-cities, sales lead, Columbia River, Walla Walla, liquors  
•       •       •

11443 clicks; posted to Main » on 19 Jul 2012 at 5:10 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



235 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-07-18 09:35:17 PM
Oh wow. I wonder when people will realize that they're spending more money doing it that way than if they just bought their tequila at the damn QFC.
 
2012-07-18 10:06:09 PM
Washington voters last fall approved an initiative taking the state out of the liquor business for the first time since Prohibition. The measure allows large retailers like grocery stores and Costco to sell liquor, but it also imposed an additional 10 percent distributor fee and 17 percent retail fee to replace money the state lost when it shut down its state-run liquor stores. The result was higher prices for consumers at many retail outlets.

Washington Lawmakers:

ih3.redbubble.net
 
2012-07-18 10:35:04 PM
I saw this coming. Carpool to PDX for booze and smokes, visit a decent strip club, make a day of it. The taxes are ridiculous - 27%. Beer and wine are only 10%.
Oh well, the res has a steady flow of traffic.
 
2012-07-18 11:34:56 PM
So now the state just takes their 27% tax and doesn't do the job they never should have had. Wonderful. Time for a new ballot initiative.
 
2012-07-18 11:38:57 PM
So, basically, Washington had been subsidizing its liquor industry?

Pay attention, Red States... You may learn something here about free enterprise...
 
2012-07-18 11:41:15 PM
17% at retail, holy shiat how did they calculate that tax, and furthermore think it wasn't going to hurt the small businessman?
 
2012-07-18 11:52:05 PM

Lucky LaRue: So, basically, Washington had been subsidizing its liquor industry?

Pay attention, Red States... You may learn something here about free enterprise...


but showshulism?
 
2012-07-19 12:11:19 AM
Ontarioans wish the province didn't own the liquor stores so they could buy liquor in grocery stores and convenience stores.
 
2012-07-19 12:15:32 AM
Who are the idiots that voted for this?
 
2012-07-19 12:17:38 AM

legendary: Who are the idiots that voted for this?


The ones who are driving across state lines to get to the "cheaper" booze.

/voters in my state lack the comprehension of reading
 
2012-07-19 12:19:58 AM

ontariolightning: Ontarioans wish the province didn't own the liquor stores so they could buy liquor in grocery stores and convenience stores.


The cool part of the LCBO is how big it is... the variety of wines and for that matter everything else, would likely diminish without it. Yea we pay too much for booze, but that's not up to the LCBO, that all taxes...
 
2012-07-19 12:20:23 AM

legendary: Who are the idiots that voted for this?



Washingtonians. ie, most of my relatives.

/lives in Oregon
 
2012-07-19 12:24:24 AM
"'s"
last post needs that so I read a little closer to how I sound in my head.
 
2012-07-19 12:27:55 AM

legendary: Who are the idiots that voted for this?



Considering that I own a lot of Costco stock, voting no would have been idiotic on my part.

/But the better initiative that was up for a vote back in 2010....it's a shame that one didn't pass.
 
2012-07-19 12:29:16 AM

The My Little Pony Killer: /voters in my state lack the comprehension of reading



That was really obvious when the smoking ban passed back in 2005.

"Oh really? I had no idea it would ban smoking in tobacco shops and cigar bars."

/Well f*ck you.
//F*ck you very much.
 
2012-07-19 12:53:33 AM

sno man: ontariolightning: Ontarioans wish the province didn't own the liquor stores so they could buy liquor in grocery stores and convenience stores.

The cool part of the LCBO is how big it is... the variety of wines and for that matter everything else, would likely diminish without it. Yea we pay too much for booze, but that's not up to the LCBO, that all taxes...


Quebec looked like they had a healthy selection in their variety stores.
 
2012-07-19 01:17:41 AM

sno man: The cool part of the LCBO is how big it is... the variety of wines and for that matter everything else, would likely diminish without it.


False. In Japan, you see no centralization of booze sales. So convenience stores and super markets carry a small selection of wine, liquor, and booze freely.

But what you see is small specialty shops with a variety of selection of special vintages you can't find at the supermarket. You can get anything, and there's still super stocked liquor stores, it's just that there's no need to go out of your way for a bottle of standard plonk anymore.
 
2012-07-19 01:57:29 AM
Ummmmm.... Last week I picked up a bottle of Grey Goose for about $5 less than I'm used to paying in liquor stores. And the "HUGE" extra taxes and fees came to $3.

The old liquor stores are still in business only their prices are lower. AND (this is an important one) they are (a really important one) open on Sundays.
 
2012-07-19 02:05:01 AM
The real fun part of this is that the prices on the shelves do NOT show the tax- instead it only shows up after you are checked out.

So somebody buys a $20 2-liter bottle of Vodka, then gets to the checkout and gets hit with another $11 in tax. Of course the customer (who never bothered to read what he was voting for) takes it out on the clerk.
 
2012-07-19 02:20:50 AM
Well, hopefully the windfall helps out Oregon a bit.
 
2012-07-19 05:18:51 AM
Don't do alcohol. It's a ghetto drug.
 
2012-07-19 05:19:09 AM

Lucky LaRue: So, basically, Washington had been subsidizing its liquor industry?

Pay attention, Red States... You may learn something here about free enterprise...


.
.
It sounds like you have as much business experience as Dear Leader. No, that state's employees were not working for free, the states store's did not receive free utillities, free insurance, etc., etc......facepalm.jpg
 
2012-07-19 05:23:50 AM

doglover: sno man: The cool part of the LCBO is how big it is... the variety of wines and for that matter everything else, would likely diminish without it.

False. In Japan, you see no centralization of booze sales. So convenience stores and super markets carry a small selection of wine, liquor, and booze freely.

But what you see is small specialty shops with a variety of selection of special vintages you can't find at the supermarket. You can get anything, and there's still super stocked liquor stores, it's just that there's no need to go out of your way for a bottle of standard plonk anymore.


Even more so in Arizona. Grocers can sell any and all booze they wish, and most have a large selection from cheap shiat to nicer shiat, all kinds of hard liquor and beer and wine. However for all that there are specialty liquor stores that have a greater selection. They usually cater to particular kinds so you go to a place that carries the type of stuff you are interested in.

So really it doesn't hurt variety. Stores just carry as much or as little as they like. Specialty stores still exist. Don't believe the hype from liquor lobbies when they pull the "Oh only if there is high central control can you get good stuff." No, turns out that when there's not the special shops still exist, and you can get stuff at a regular grocer.
 
2012-07-19 05:25:54 AM

mr_a: The real fun part of this is that the prices on the shelves do NOT show the tax- instead it only shows up after you are checked out.

So somebody buys a $20 2-liter bottle of Vodka, then gets to the checkout and gets hit with another $11 in tax. Of course the customer (who never bothered to read what he was voting for) takes it out on the clerk.


That's what pissed me off when I lived in the USA : show me the pricetags with taxes included, goddammit ! I'm an individual, not a company, I don't get refunds on my VATs !
 
2012-07-19 05:28:03 AM

The My Little Pony Killer: legendary: Who are the idiots that voted for this?

The ones who are driving across state lines to get to the "cheaper" booze.

/voters in my state lack the comprehension of reading


Hey I resent tha.... Oh wait, I was smart enough to read through the initiative.
 
2012-07-19 05:37:07 AM
And I was all for voting for the privatization. Then, after it passed, my company informed me that I wasn't get an employee discount. there goes that cunning plan...
 
2012-07-19 05:40:54 AM
Looks like I picked a bad time to quit sniffing glue.
 
2012-07-19 05:56:12 AM
Washington State's privatization of liquor sales ridiculous taxes on liquor leads to surge in liquor sales...in Oregon
 
2012-07-19 06:07:44 AM
With all the great local breweries in Washington, it's a wonder anyone buys out of state liquor.
 
2012-07-19 06:15:41 AM

violentsalvation: the job they never should have had


Why exactly is it wrong for the state to sell booze?
 
2012-07-19 06:16:58 AM
I live in Pennsylvania, where the state runs the liquor stores, and the beer stores have to sell beer by the case, and the state charges 18% on liquor sales to help the survivors of the Johnstown flood from 1936...so I am getting a kick out of these replies.

/but I work and buy my hooch in Jersey
 
2012-07-19 06:21:50 AM
The taxes are about the same that they have been from when there was a state monopoly on liquor sales. A lot of the huge price increases are from large retail markups. This voted initiative was largely funded by Costco. I imagine that Costco was counting on a lot of retailers to put huge markups so more people would buy at Costco.

About a year before this initiative was voted on there was a very similar initiative which would have removed the taxes, and that initiative failed. Trying to remove a large amount of state income during a recession when the state was doing massive service cuts was not very popular. So they came out with this new initiative which effectively kept the taxes in place, and most people don't drink liquor regularly anyway, so it was easy to vote to keep the tax on liquor. I think most people knew what they were voting for and didn't give a damn if the heavy liquor drinkers got taxed.
 
2012-07-19 06:23:25 AM

Eve L. Koont: The My Little Pony Killer: legendary: Who are the idiots that voted for this?

The ones who are driving across state lines to get to the "cheaper" booze.

/voters in my state lack the comprehension of reading

Hey I resent tha.... Oh wait, I was smart enough to read through the initiative.


I overheard a few old codgers grousing about how they had been duped with this initiative passing.
 
2012-07-19 06:24:27 AM
The logical result of both parties' derp on taxation.

Republicans: don't raise income or property taxes, ever, but taxes on goods are fine.
Democrats: lost revenue must be replaced, and vice taxes aren't regressive taxation.

This debate happened here in Virginia last session. Since we don't have much in the way of direct referendum, the state stores stay open, but they'll all be open Sundays. Yes, a bottle of gin is still ten bucks more than it is across the river at a liquor store in DC. Yes, you still can't get things pretty common other states, but no revenue lost.
 
2012-07-19 06:28:42 AM

Lucky LaRue: So, basically, Washington had been subsidizing its liquor industry?

Pay attention, Red States... You may learn something here about free enterprise...


The government is driving paying customers away by taxing the holy hell out of booze now because they no longer have a monopoly on it's profits and your solution is more government involvement? There was never a subsidy. The government used to get all of the profits and now they only get their tax cut so they raised taxes in a short sighted attempt to make up the entire difference by fleecing the public.

These government geniuses can never seem to understand that raising taxes isn't just a license to print money and when prices go through the roof people aren't just going to continue buying as much and as often as they used to. It's nothing more than a great way to create black markets or just drive business out of their state such as this case.
 
2012-07-19 06:38:06 AM
Hopefully oregon doesn't decide to pull the same stunt here.


/I don't drink

//sucks to be those addicted to alcohol :/
 
b3x
2012-07-19 06:59:04 AM
I live in NY so I am really getting a kick out of people being butthurt over sin taxes ...
 
2012-07-19 07:07:45 AM
In Germany right now.

Lots of bottles of wine from 3 Euro.

An imitation/knockoff of Jaeger for 5 Euro for 0.70L. (Works out to be around $6 for a fifth). The real stuff isn't that much more expensive.
 
2012-07-19 07:19:51 AM

darkscout: In Germany right now.

Lots of bottles of wine from 3 Euro.

An imitation/knockoff of Jaeger for 5 Euro for 0.70L. (Works out to be around $6 for a fifth). The real stuff isn't that much more expensive.


I live in Sweden. The cheapest 0.7Lbottle of vodka is 188kr, about 25 dollars. I loved living in Germany and having cheap booze.

/Was on a boat to Russia a week ago, and they had a 1L bottle of Vodka for 4.5 Euro, 41kr or 5.25. I nearly had a heart attack it was so cheap.
 
2012-07-19 07:20:52 AM

doglover: Washington voters last fall approved an initiative taking the state out of the liquor business for the first time since Prohibition. The measure allows large retailers like grocery stores and Costco to sell liquor, but it also imposed an additional 10 percent distributor fee and 17 percent retail fee to replace money the state lost when it shut down its state-run liquor stores. The result was higher prices for consumers at many retail outlets.

Washington Lawmakers:


Nothing went wrong. At least not for the people who wrote the legi$lation.
 
2012-07-19 07:24:09 AM

MoeSzyslak: Lucky LaRue: So, basically, Washington had been subsidizing its liquor industry?

Pay attention, Red States... You may learn something here about free enterprise...

The government is driving paying customers away by taxing the holy hell out of booze now because they no longer have a monopoly on it's profits and your solution is more government involvement? There was never a subsidy. The government used to get all of the profits and now they only get their tax cut so they raised taxes in a short sighted attempt to make up the entire difference by fleecing the public.

These government geniuses can never seem to understand that raising taxes isn't just a license to print money and when prices go through the roof people aren't just going to continue buying as much and as often as they used to. It's nothing more than a great way to create black markets or just drive business out of their state such as this case.


The additional taxes are supposed to be temporary. Still, it's nice to have a greater selection of liquor to choose from.
 
2012-07-19 07:25:06 AM
The measure allows large retailers like grocery stores and Costco to sell liquor, but it also imposed an additional 10 percent distributor fee and 17 percent retail fee to replace money the state lost when it shut down its state-run liquor stores.

Screw you, state. Not even a liquor drinker but that's bull.
 
2012-07-19 07:30:40 AM

Satanic_Hamster: The measure allows large retailers like grocery stores and Costco to sell liquor, but it also imposed an additional 10 percent distributor fee and 17 percent retail fee to replace money the state lost when it shut down its state-run liquor stores.

Screw you, state. Not even a liquor drinker but that's bull.


The money they were making to be used for public works programs had to be replaced. If the people in the state wanted booze to be cheaper, they should have left things as is.

Revenue doesn't magically reappear when you destroy a revenue stream after all, and that money was being used.
 
2012-07-19 07:45:01 AM

sno man: ontariolightning: Ontarioans wish the province didn't own the liquor stores so they could buy liquor in grocery stores and convenience stores.

The cool part of the LCBO is how big it is... the variety of wines and for that matter everything else, would likely diminish without it. Yea we pay too much for booze, but that's not up to the LCBO, that all taxes...


Weird, as I sell a lot of wine and booze to snowbirds from Ontario... who look around in amazement when they see how much wine and booze we carry (and how much less it costs). LCBO, SAQ, PLCB, et al, all have very little incentive to carry a broad variety of products, since they're monopolies. It's like the old SNL skit -- "we're the phone company. We don't have to care."

/~8500 wines. ~2500 liquors. ~1500 beers.
//Private enterprise FTW.
///Yep, we did just open in WA, as well. Doing quite nicely up there, it appears.
 
2012-07-19 07:48:09 AM

MyToeHurts: doglover: Washington voters last fall approved an initiative taking the state out of the liquor business for the first time since Prohibition. The measure allows large retailers like grocery stores and Costco to sell liquor, but it also imposed an additional 10 percent distributor fee and 17 percent retail fee to replace money the state lost when it shut down its state-run liquor stores. The result was higher prices for consumers at many retail outlets.

Washington Lawmakers:

Nothing went wrong. At least not for the people who wrote the legi$lation.


HAHA! I see what you did there! You changed the "s" in "legislation" with a dollar sign! That's brilliant! No one has ever done that before!
 
2012-07-19 07:52:08 AM

Pelvic Splanchnic Ganglion: MyToeHurts: doglover: Washington voters last fall approved an initiative taking the state out of the liquor business for the first time since Prohibition. The measure allows large retailers like grocery stores and Costco to sell liquor, but it also imposed an additional 10 percent distributor fee and 17 percent retail fee to replace money the state lost when it shut down its state-run liquor stores. The result was higher prices for consumers at many retail outlets.

Washington Lawmakers:

Nothing went wrong. At least not for the people who wrote the legi$lation.

HAHA! I see what you did there! You changed the "s" in "legislation" with a dollar sign! That's brilliant! No one has ever done that before!


Wow, you're kinda of a dick
 
2012-07-19 07:53:05 AM

GAT_00: violentsalvation: the job they never should have had

Why exactly is it wrong for the state to sell booze?


It's not wrong for the state to sell booze so much as it's wrong for the state to sell booze and make any competition to it's own business illegal. If it was some rich corporation that was buying itself a monopoly you would be crying on Fark so hard your head would explode, but since it's the government, you openly accept it.
 
2012-07-19 08:18:35 AM
The Ohio model is pretty decent: hard stuff in state stores, watered down stuff in groceries.

I actually don't have a problem with the privatization of the Ohio Liquor monopoly. What I DO have a problem with is how Kasich wanted to sell it off to his cronies and donors. That's my problem. I would rather see it left intact than sold off to the same group of supporters he put in JobsOhio.
 
2012-07-19 08:19:15 AM

MoeSzyslak: The government is driving paying customers away by taxing the holy hell out of booze now because they no longer have a monopoly on it's profits and your solution is more government involvement?


Sadly that's the answer to everything for many.
 
2012-07-19 08:24:30 AM
Just wanted to point out that the picture from TFA -

media.king5.com

Features Ebb & Flow Gin which is distilled less than 2 miles from my house and is the best gin I have ever tasted.

We now return you to your regular Farking
 
Displayed 50 of 235 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report