Do you have adblock enabled?
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  
•       •       •

11455 clicks; posted to Main » on 19 Jul 2012 at 5:10 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
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
 
2012-07-19 08:25:37 AM  

Itstoearly: 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.


I don't see anyone breaking up the companies that do have monopolies or near monopolies. Might as well have one where the revenue from it goes right back to the people. A company that measurably helps people is a nice change of pace.
 
2012-07-19 08:27:23 AM  
One of the best liquor stores in Nova Scotia is the privately owned Premium Wine and Spirits in Halifax. It is also surprisingly one of the only places to buy Ironworks rum which is distilled in Nova Scotia. I asked the owners of Ironworks what the deal was and they told me thatthe markup that NSLC imposes is such that it would increase their price to more than people would spend on rum so they only retail it at farmer's markets and private retailers (of which there are maybe 3 in the province).
 
2012-07-19 08:27:49 AM  

Dancin_In_Anson: 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.


As opposed to your answer of the market magically fixes everything. How that is the case has never been explained to any degree of adequacy, but it doesn't stop you from claiming it's the solution to everything, does it?
 
2012-07-19 08:29:14 AM  

GAT_00: 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.


Then they should find another tax stream. Just raising the taxes to the point of screwing the consumers and boarder stores is a bit asine.
 
2012-07-19 08:32:13 AM  

Cybernetic: Washington State's ridiculous taxes on liquor leads to surge in liquor sales...in Oregon


Thank you! Lawmakers take a 27% cut for doing what they should have been doing all along... GTFO was the message from the people. Those who are crossing the border are giving the big middle finger to the retards in charge.
I purchase my alcohol in California since it's almost half the price of what we are required to pay in Oregon. My wife and I make 1 large purchase a year and save at least 35-40 percent under Oregon prices.
 
2012-07-19 08:32:13 AM  

legendary: Who are the idiots that voted for this?


The mistake wasn't for the state to get the hell out of the liquor business (which it has no business being in) but imposing such an idiotic tax.
 
2012-07-19 08:35:38 AM  

Uh Oh Chongo Danger Island!: 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.


LOL, ask anyone from PA about temporary sin taxes on booze.

/hint it's mentioned above you
//it's not too far from the century mark
 
2012-07-19 08:39:28 AM  

trotsky: 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.


Ohio hasn't had state stores for well over a decade! What we do have is state warehouse that is the sole wholesaler to the distribution companies and it means good luck getting anything not in the big book (and even then I've had an open order for a few listed items for the last two years, ended up getting them while on vacation in less stupid states).
 
2012-07-19 08:40:27 AM  

Uh Oh Chongo Danger Island!: The additional taxes [in Washington] are supposed to be temporary.


I Am The Bishop Of East Anglia: [Pennsylvania] charges 18% on liquor sales to help the survivors of the Johnstown flood from 1936...


That's how temporary taxation tends to work.
 
2012-07-19 08:42:54 AM  

Uh Oh Chongo Danger Island!: The additional taxes are supposed to be temporary


So was income tax witholding.

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

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


Before, the state marked up the booze to make revenue.

Now the retailers are doing the same thing except.... [the state] 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.

This isn't about free enterprise, it's about shiat taxes.
 
2012-07-19 08:49:26 AM  
What's sad is that Washington State already had almost the highest liquor prices in the country. (I think it was 3rd after AK and HI). This is why many people voted for the initiative. They thought it would lower the prices somewhat.
 
2012-07-19 08:50:41 AM  

Uh Oh Chongo Danger Island!: The additional taxes are supposed to be temporary. Still, it's nice to have a greater selection of liquor to choose from.


Ahem...
 
2012-07-19 08:53:20 AM  
Speaking of liquor stores, I've got to stop by and grab a handles of Jim Beam. Since there on sale for $15 a gallon.

/NH ftw!
 
2012-07-19 08:58:20 AM  

DownDaRiver: Pelvic Splanchnic Ganglion:

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


Let me guess what kind: a flacid, scab covered kinda dick?
 
2012-07-19 09:02:13 AM  

tedthebellhopp: Speaking of liquor stores, I've got to stop by and grab a handles of Jim Beam. Since there on sale for $15 a gallon.

/NH ftw!


There will be cameos from Jim Beam and the Reverend Jack Daniels.
 
2012-07-19 09:03:09 AM  
Statewide, liquor sales grew by just 12 percent.

Any growth is good, and 12% ain't bad at all. Would anyone here mind a 12% raise because the company next door made a policy change? And then complain that it's just 12%?

Damn, I'm just getting just one more BJ a week, oh the humanity.
 
2012-07-19 09:04:51 AM  

farkityfarker: What's sad is that Washington State already had almost the highest liquor prices in the country. (I think it was 3rd after AK and HI). This is why many people voted for the initiative. They thought it would lower the prices somewhat.


^^^^THIS^^^^

Also, it was supposed to increase the choice of brands & from what I can tell it's DECREASED them. Not to mention stores like Safeway & QFC never seem to have a full shelf. It is the exact opposite from what we were told it would be. However, I'm not going to waste the gas on a 3 hr. trip to Portland to save $5-$10 bucks. It sucks all the way around. :-(
 
2012-07-19 09:07:41 AM  
The law replaced the State Stores with another layer of taxation, and the result for almost all liquor sold has been price increases. Merchants have made up for this by selling some very high volume sales alcohols at near wholesale price, in effect loss-leaders. So you occasionally see $5 less than before on really popular stuff, Crown Royal, Smirnoff's, etc.

On all Single Malt Scotch, a $50 bottle from before's pricing is now more in the range of $75 once the new taxes are applied.

Everyone voting in favor of this measure took one "bad," the State Stores, and replaced it with a "Worse," the extra taxes. Costco makes out like a bandit since all they sell is big volume booze. For the rest of us, that don't only drink Crown Royal, our costs for what we always used to buy just went up significantly.

A whole lot of people posting on forums took this as a big chance to hit the 900 or so unionized state store employees, and gave no f--ks about what it did to final retail costs by adding in the extra taxes, if they even noticed the fine print about the extra taxes.

Now as costs retail are more, because of the extra taxes, that most in the public didnt understand would happen, you get the bump in sales in Oregon.

I voted against. Most people I know voted against. But most people I know are literate and educated. And actually read the fine print on something that will bump taxes on a product we buy by 30%.

A whole lot of the public just said "unions bad warrrrr savings wharrrr" and voted in favor, equating ALL "free market" with "better than the damn unions." What we got really isn't that free of a market though. huge tax bump at the wholesale level. We swapped state monopoly for private industry monopoly, with big tax floor built in to all sales regardless.

The "private market competition" can't correct for that. Except very little around the margins, and only if you forget that the store price now doesn't include the tax you pay at checkout.
 
2012-07-19 09:12:11 AM  

AbbeySomeone: 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.


That's not including the 7% sales tax, either.
 
2012-07-19 09:12:49 AM  

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


No, but Costco subsidized the last election there...
 
2012-07-19 09:13:36 AM  

casey17: farkityfarker: What's sad is that Washington State already had almost the highest liquor prices in the country. (I think it was 3rd after AK and HI). This is why many people voted for the initiative. They thought it would lower the prices somewhat.

^^^^THIS^^^^

Also, it was supposed to increase the choice of brands & from what I can tell it's DECREASED them. Not to mention stores like Safeway & QFC never seem to have a full shelf. It is the exact opposite from what we were told it would be. However, I'm not going to waste the gas on a 3 hr. trip to Portland to save $5-$10 bucks. It sucks all the way around. :-(


Thats been my experience as well. The State Stores carried about 300 varieties of Single Malt scotch, as well as a full range of fledgling local distilleries.

Big ass stores like Safeway have a whole bunch of Crown Royal. And because of the wholesale tax increase, as well as the 10,000 foot / inventory requirements in the law, unless you are a big box store with a big variety on hand already .. you won't be carrying many of the niche brands the state stores used to have to carry.

Its a big damn dirty shame how much the public didn't care about the negative impact. They voted to hand Costco a big payday, as well as out of state wholesalers. Small local distilleries are threatened with survival now, and any fan of niche brand alcohol is having to scramble around to figure out where to buy, if they can find their favorite brands at all. Variety is way down at retail, even the newer just-opened stores don't have the same variety. And likely won't, since there's no "private market incentive" for them to. And niche liquor stores cant afford to open because they can't afford to be 10,000 square foot. Beautiful catch-22 Costco and the voters created.
 
2012-07-19 09:15:35 AM  
There's legislation being proposed in PA to privatize wine and liquor sales. I have the feeling that if it passes, we'll have the same issue as Washington. Wine does cost more here than in some states, not because of the licensing, but because of the taxes. Privatizing won't do anything to change that. I'd rather buy a bottle of wine in the current stores, where the employees know their wines, than in a grocery store where there isn't anyone you can talk to about wine. If you compare the knowledge of the liquor store employers about wine to the beer distributor employees about beer, there's no competition. The exception is the new Giant Eagle near me that now sells beer. They have people there that really know beer. For someone who likes to try new micro brews, it's great. I was steered to Flying Dog Gonzo Imperial Porter the other day. Not only is it a great beer, but the price was right at $10 for a 6-pack.
 
2012-07-19 09:17:01 AM  

YakBoy42: Just wanted to point out that the picture from TFA -

[media.king5.com image 600x337]

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


Why no Dry Fly!? Even in stupid stock photos, it always about Seattle all the time in this state!
 
2012-07-19 09:17:18 AM  

legendary: Who are the idiots that voted for this?


Washingtonians. It's a red state whose claim to fame is they're Not Oregon. Until you get to Clark County. Then they're Not Portland (even though it's a Portland suburb, and the only one of size with a sales tax), and Not British Columbia (even though they are a Vancouver, they're not the good Vancouver, and they're somehow proud of this).

/Vantucky
 
2012-07-19 09:19:26 AM  

Generation_D: Its a big damn dirty shame how much the public didn't care about the negative impact.


Why is it the public's fault the state has draconian taxes on alchohol?

The problem is the taxes, not the privatization or anti-union feeling. Eliminate the taxes and you'll get niche stores and more competition and lower prices.
 
2012-07-19 09:20:44 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.


I'm going to probably look weird for saying this, but I kind of like how Oklahoma's ABLE ensuring convenience stores can only sell 3.2% pretty much ensured there's a liquor store on every major intersection with a decent beer selection and the hard stuff in one convenient place.
 
2012-07-19 09:20:50 AM  

I Am The Bishop Of East Anglia: 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.



Those poor people. Will they ever get a break?
 
2012-07-19 09:21:39 AM  

MugzyBrown: Generation_D: Its a big damn dirty shame how much the public didn't care about the negative impact.

Why is it the public's fault the state has draconian taxes on alchohol?

The problem is the taxes, not the privatization or anti-union feeling. Eliminate the taxes and you'll get niche stores and more competition and lower prices.


Uh, because the state IS the public. We're one in the same. We voted for the taxes. Pretty much our fault.
 
2012-07-19 09:22:53 AM  

MarkEC: There's legislation being proposed in PA to privatize wine and liquor sales. I have the feeling that if it passes, we'll have the same issue as Washington. Wine does cost more here than in some states, not because of the licensing, but because of the taxes. Privatizing won't do anything to change that. I'd rather buy a bottle of wine in the current stores, where the employees know their wines, than in a grocery store where there isn't anyone you can talk to about wine. If you compare the knowledge of the liquor store employers about wine to the beer distributor employees about beer, there's no competition. The exception is the new Giant Eagle near me that now sells beer. They have people there that really know beer. For someone who likes to try new micro brews, it's great. I was steered to Flying Dog Gonzo Imperial Porter the other day. Not only is it a great beer, but the price was right at $10 for a 6-pack.


Why would you have to buy wine at the supermarket? If the PCRB was gone, then you could get awesome wine stores like a few in Jersey that have rows and rows of great wine. I got the PCRB store looking for some Argentinean wine, I'm lucky if there are 3 to choose from. At Total Wine & More or Hops & Grapes there are 20+ cheaper than I can get in Argentina.
 
2012-07-19 09:23:05 AM  

Noah_Tall: 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.


That's about the only thing cheaper. One cannot get hammered on vodka alone. Unless you're looking to become friends with Bill W.

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.

A lot of them (importantly, the state-owned ones) closed.
 
2012-07-19 09:23:13 AM  

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


Maybe wine and beer, but not hard liquor.
 
2012-07-19 09:24:17 AM  

rohar: Uh, because the state IS the public. We're one in the same. We voted for the taxes. Pretty much our fault


But why was that the only option? Either state owned or state farked?
 
2012-07-19 09:24:29 AM  

mr_a: 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.


It's a bummer voter registration isn't contingent on successful completion of a reading comprehension quiz.
 
2012-07-19 09:26:59 AM  

legendary: Who are the idiots that voted for this?


Republican alcoholics.
 
2012-07-19 09:28:15 AM  

meat0918: Well, hopefully the windfall helps out Oregon a bit.


It's going to take a lot more than a few boozers to help out when Oregon's got a long history of letting companies like Intel and Facebook stay without paying into the public commons.
 
2012-07-19 09:28:25 AM  

sycraft:
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.


Being a native here, this never really clicked as a "big deal". My wife's family all hails from TN, where you can only buy wine at liquor stores (luckily they don't have to be state run). They were shocked the first time out here when you could get anything and everything at Walmart, Target, grocery stores, walgreens, etc. Hell, you can get free samples of tequila occasionally at Costco for chrisakes. And, I think there are only like 4 hours in a day in which you are unable to buy alcohol (2A-6A).
 
2012-07-19 09:30:14 AM  

sycraft: 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."


It was the liquor lobby that was saying exactly the opposite in Washington. Combined with "it'd be cheaper."
 
2012-07-19 09:30:50 AM  
Was up there recently before this change and couldn't believe the prices, can't imagine how high they are now.
Kansas has some stupid liquor laws but at least it's just an 8% sales tax on alcohol
 
2012-07-19 09:31:42 AM  

Cybernetic: Washington State's privatization of liquor sales ridiculous taxes on liquor leads to surge in liquor sales...in Oregon


You don't get to reframe how private industry sold it after the fact.
 
2012-07-19 09:32:12 AM  

MugzyBrown: rohar: Uh, because the state IS the public. We're one in the same. We voted for the taxes. Pretty much our fault

But why was that the only option? Either state owned or state farked?


The initiative process in WA is completely retarded.

Some special interest group says to themselves "Hey, I've got a really shiatty idea!" then the ball starts rolling. But their shiatty little idea has no chance in hell unless people vote for it. In come the focus groups. WA is heavily red east of the Cascades, pretty blue for much west of the Cascades (big generalization, I know, but bear with me). So you gotta appease both types. So, to get the democrats on board for an initiative that only the republicans will support, you gotta give them something. Taxes and benefits it is. You just stick it on there like a rubber stamp, muddle the wording of the initiative a bit and BINGO successful initiative. We call it compromise. Probably why our state is so compromised.
 
2012-07-19 09:32:33 AM  

Baloo Uriza: Cybernetic: Washington State's privatization of liquor sales ridiculous taxes on liquor leads to surge in liquor sales...in Oregon

You don't get to reframe how private industry sold it after the fact.


Retroactively
 
2012-07-19 09:32:34 AM  

GAT_00: 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.


Or, you know, they could actually make enough cuts to handle the loss in revenue. I bet anything that their revenue actually increases dramatically from these outrageous taxes, because government cannot run anything efficiently. They cannot point out a loss in revenue without also pointing out a reduction in spending (due to fewer employees, bills, maintenance of buildings, etc.).
 
2012-07-19 09:32:36 AM  

Noah_Tall: 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.


3/.27 = $11.11

$11.11 for a bottle of Grey Goose? What was it one of those airplane bottles? Or are you one of those right-wing shills who probably doesn't even live anywhere near Washington, making up a bullshiat story for the sake of "free market" hurr durr!!!

/pics of receipt or you're full of rethuglican shiat
 
2012-07-19 09:33:48 AM  

viscountalpha: Hopefully oregon doesn't decide to pull the same stunt here.


/I don't drink

//sucks to be those addicted to alcohol :/


Sucks more that smoking pot and drinking are the only things to do in Oregon on an Oregonian's income. It's like the tech industry's version of West Virginia.
 
2012-07-19 09:36:22 AM  
Quitcherbiatchin'. I live in a dry county. 30 miles to Thayer, MO, to buy their overpriced adult beverages because they have the only game in town. 60 miles to closest town (West Plains, MO) where there is competition and, therefore, somewhat lower prices.
 
2012-07-19 09:38:08 AM  

Deathfrogg: legendary: Who are the idiots that voted for this?

Republican alcoholics.


Washingtonians, Republican alcoholics, honestly, what's the difference?
 
2012-07-19 09:39:33 AM  
"If you've been successful, you didn't get there on your own. You didn't get there on your own. I am always struck by people who think, "It must be because I was just so smart." There are a lot of smart people out there. "It must be because I worked harder than everybody else." Let me tell you something: There are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there. If you are successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you've got a business, you did not build that-somebody else made that happen."

Barack Obama, Roanoke, VA, 7/13/2012
 
2012-07-19 09:39:53 AM  

one small post for man: Was up there recently before this change and couldn't believe the prices, can't imagine how high they are now.
Kansas has some stupid liquor laws but at least it's just an 8% sales tax on alcohol


On the other hand, it's often worth the trip up US 75 to Kansas to get some decent beer without chancing it having gone bad on the liquor store shelf, since Oklahoma doesn't allow the liquor stores to store beer cold (even though beer is perishable...).
 
2012-07-19 09:41:46 AM  

Baloo Uriza: sycraft: 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."

It was the liquor lobby that was saying exactly the opposite in Washington. Combined with "it'd be cheaper."


Don't believe blithering public internet posters who equate ALL privatization with "optimal for the consumer" privatization. Lots of overlap.

But do by all means keep hating "high central control." If thats what you need to feel important.

Will you be paying the $50 to $100 in extra taxes that 1183 added to my bi-monthly liquor bill?

No? Then you and everyone else who fell for Costco's spin are an a--hole.
 
2012-07-19 09:42:36 AM  

legendary: Who are the idiots that voted for this?


The Religious.

You know, the ones who believe, despite all evidence to the contrary, things like:

"The Free Market always produces the Best Result"

and

"The Government cannot do anything well"

and

"Anything the Government does, Private Enterprise can do better"

Regardless of how things actually work.

You know, the Religious.
 
2012-07-19 09:44:35 AM  
I like how I and some others post hard facts from experience with the new law, showing how its worked out worse in most cases for the consumer ... and the opposition posts "durr unions bad private market good" typical noise.

Not all private markets are set up right, you incompetent asswits. What you thought you voted for and what we actually got are pretty far apart.

But thanks for voting to raise my taxes on booze without even realizing it, eff-for-brains.
 
2012-07-19 09:59:34 AM  

Lucky LaRue: So, basically, Washington had been subsidizing using its liquor industry as a cash cow, and decided to tax the everloving sheeeeit out of it in retaliation of lost buttrape money?

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


FTFY.
And FTFA: 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.

Can't decide who's more of an idiot, you or Failmitter.
 
2012-07-19 10:02:07 AM  

Brew78: Lucky LaRue: So, basically, Washington had been subsidizing using its liquor industry as a cash cow, and decided to tax the everloving sheeeeit out of it in retaliation of lost buttrape money?

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

FTFY.
And FTFA: 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.

Can't decide who's more of an idiot, you or Failmitter.


You realize this was an initiative right? Our state government didn't do this. We did.
 
2012-07-19 10:02:40 AM  

trotsky: 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.


Enjoy that trip to Indiana to buy Everclear!
 
2012-07-19 10:04:06 AM  
For those of you lamenting how far you have to drive to get decent beer: It really isn't that hard
to make your own very good beer. you need a certain amount of inexpensive equipment and a
good purveyor of brewmaking supplies. try morebeer.com.

a month ago I turned a friend on to making beer. we did a sierra nevada knockoff. the hardest
part of the whole thing was waiting two weeks for it to age enough to drink. his cheif complaint was
"it's too flat". My response was "It's sorta like a line at a whorehouse- you want good head you have
to wait a while"
 
2012-07-19 10:04:39 AM  

MugzyBrown: Why would you have to buy wine at the supermarket? If the PCRB was gone, then you could get awesome wine stores like a few in Jersey that have rows and rows of great wine. I got the PCRB store looking for some Argentinean wine, I'm lucky if there are 3 to choose from. At Total Wine & More or Hops & Grapes there are 20+ cheaper than I can get in Argentina.


Yeah, I thought the same thing. Privatization doesn't eliminate the liquor store.

The current PA system just flat out sucks. Limited selection, less convenient, and more expensive. Luckily I'm just a few minutes from the Delaware border.
 
2012-07-19 10:06:35 AM  
Could someone from Washington please explain this to me:

When the state was running the liquor stores, who decided what they would carry? A political appointee? If the Bordeaux region was looking to have a good season, could a Washington wine merchant place a large advance order to cellar for the next ten years, or would their hands be tied?
 
2012-07-19 10:07:56 AM  
They bring the charger back and now Washington is giving some yokel an excuse to paint one bright orange and race across the state border hauling booze. Next we'll have a new show, Dukes of KIickitat.
 
2012-07-19 10:08:16 AM  

pciszek: Could someone from Washington please explain this to me:

When the state was running the liquor stores, who decided what they would carry? A political appointee? If the Bordeaux region was looking to have a good season, could a Washington wine merchant place a large advance order to cellar for the next ten years, or would their hands be tied?


Wine has been available in private retail for years. It's availability wasn't affected by this initiative.
 
2012-07-19 10:11:04 AM  
I live in Washington..... and can see oregon from my porch. I was already buying my cigarettes in oregon, now I pick up liquor there as well!

The taxes do suck..... but the selection sucks a lot worse. The law only allows stores that are 10K sq. ft. or larger to sell booze......and that just leave supermarkets, and they aren't going to offer anything but the most popular selling brands.

/Oh, well..... at least I can still buy in Oregon.
//Voted against it. But, nobody ever listens to me.
 
2012-07-19 10:11:53 AM  
This has nothing to do with increasing weed sales from Mexico. Totally different situation. Nothing.
 
2012-07-19 10:13:42 AM  
The original reason for the State Liquor Control Board was the Conservatives. They wanted to keep prohibition in place. The Conservatives were the ones who pushed the 18th Amendment through, and they would not agree to the 21st without some measure of control of Liquor sales by the Government. The WSLCB was a direct compromise by the Liberals to Conservatives to ratification of the 21st Amendment to the US Constitution by the Washington State legislature.

Bear in mind, that before the 18th Amendment, alcoholism was so prevalent that people regularly drank themselves to death by their mid 40's in the US, and there were almost no restrictions on who could buy it. That was the original reason for the religious nuts to shove the 18th Amendment through in the first place. Alcohol related diseases were the number one cause of premature death in the country. There are hundreds of photographs of old saloons and taverns that show kids as young as 12 drinking.

I voted against the bill, as I see the value of a revenue stream to the State. The State does in fact have the right to impose taxes, it is both in the State Constitution and the Federal Constitution. The States paramount duty to its citizens is education, that is also spelled out quite specifically in the State Constitution. This system was supported in large part by the States profits on liquor. The loss of those profits had to be compensated for by taxation of retail sales. Now, those profits are going to private companies, and the State has lost that revenue stream.

Washington State has had several major tax reductions over the last 15 years. The "privatize everything" crowd are really just people who cannot stand the fact that the State has the right to enforce the law. The law is supported by taxation. so they claim to want to reduce the number of laws. But those laws did not appear in a vacuum, they were imposed for a reason. Food safety, workplace safety, labor laws, child and family protections, traffic laws, standards on how residences can be built, standards on how gas stations can sell fuels. Prisons, road construction, sewers, water treatment and delivery. There are too many to list of course, but the fact is, nearly all of those laws were put in place because someone was running a scam somewhere, or poisoning people or stealing from people and people wanted to have laws put in place to restrict people from running those scams, and have a means of punishing the ones who did.

I have no sympathy whatsoever for the drunks in this State. You made your bed, now pass out and puke in it, morons.
 
2012-07-19 10:14:20 AM  

Posh Naranek: This has nothing to do with increasing weed sales from Mexico. Totally different situation. Nothing.


LOLWUT? This is WA. We either grow our own or bring it down from B.C. Nobody wants that crap from Mexico!
 
2012-07-19 10:16:39 AM  
Whew, this country's puritan focus on regulating alcohol has resulted in some truly byzantine, expensive and inefficient systems.

You would think that a certain 'party of small government' would look to fixing this clusterfark before anything else.

Ah but wait, there's all those people that benefit from the regulation like the distributors. Well, then, ideology can wait I suppose
 
2012-07-19 10:17:44 AM  

Baloo Uriza: 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.

I'm going to probably look weird for saying this, but I kind of like how Oklahoma's ABLE ensuring convenience stores can only sell 3.2% pretty much ensured there's a liquor store on every major intersection with a decent beer selection and the hard stuff in one convenient place.


We have a similar thing here in Colorado, so there are even more liquor stores than marijuana dispensaries. It's disgusting!
 
2012-07-19 10:17:58 AM  

rohar: pciszek: Could someone from Washington please explain this to me:

When the state was running the liquor stores, who decided what they would carry? A political appointee? If the Bordeaux region was looking to have a good season, could a Washington wine merchant place a large advance order to cellar for the next ten years, or would their hands be tied?

Wine has been available in private retail for years. It's availability wasn't affected by this initiative.


And Wine availability has decreased (but to a lesser extent).... The liquor stores had the largest selection of wines in most areas of Washington.
 
2012-07-19 10:19:07 AM  
This was a bad law. I knew it was a bad law. Anyone who was paying attention knew it was a bad law.

The 10k foot requirement was thrown in as a money grab by Costco and Safeway, and sold as a "think of the children!" idea, since people were freaking out that their snowflakes might be able to buy liquor at the gas station. It was, as others have said, also supposed to increase competition, but the state stores actually had some decent microbrands that are totally absent from the big stores now.

I'm happy about the taxes because our state is already screwed since idiots here refuse to implement an income tax, and the major businesses threaten to pick up and leave for Carolinistan any time the words "corporate taxes" are whispered. I like having schools, working roads, world-class public universities, and health care for low income children. So do most Washingtonians. But we have to pay for it somehow and if the booze has to now make a profit for Sam Walton as well as pay for our stuff, it's gonna cost more. And anyone paying attention should have figured that out.
 
2012-07-19 10:20:11 AM  

Sammichless: rohar: pciszek: Could someone from Washington please explain this to me:

When the state was running the liquor stores, who decided what they would carry? A political appointee? If the Bordeaux region was looking to have a good season, could a Washington wine merchant place a large advance order to cellar for the next ten years, or would their hands be tied?

Wine has been available in private retail for years. It's availability wasn't affected by this initiative.

And Wine availability has decreased (but to a lesser extent).... The liquor stores had the largest selection of wines in most areas of Washington.


Sorry, we didn't notice the same affect over here. Sometimes I forget that the rest of the state doesn't have Huckleberry's and Yokes. The state stores in this area never could compete with them on selection.
 
2012-07-19 10:24:25 AM  

pciszek: Could someone from Washington please explain this to me:

When the state was running the liquor stores, who decided what they would carry? A political appointee? If the Bordeaux region was looking to have a good season, could a Washington wine merchant place a large advance order to cellar for the next ten years, or would their hands be tied?


Actually, there were almost no restrictions on what was available. The local liquor store could order nearly anything if they didn't have it on the shelves. They did their market research just like any company would, and kept the most popular brands on the shelves. But one could order specific brands with a phone call and a couple days wait. Now, most of the stores just carry the knockoff store brands, and the nice single-malt Whisky that I buy two or three times a year is impossible to find.

As for beer and wines, that was not restricted to State stores, and there were already many specialized stores where the finer wines were sold. There was one near my old place in Seattle that specialized in French wines that became the regular target of vandals after 9/11 when the Republicans started blaming the French for everything. That guy was almost put out of business, he had his glass smashed about 20 times, someone broke in at one point and smashed about 200 bottles. One person tried to burn the place down but his little gasoline bomb went out before it could do much damage.

Thanks Republicans! You sure have a lot of class.
 
2012-07-19 10:24:46 AM  

Eatin' Queer Fetuses for Jesus: We have a similar thing here in Colorado, so there are even more liquor stores than marijuana dispensaries. It's disgusting!


You mean it doesn't just grow wild wherever there's dirt and water there? That sucks.
 
2012-07-19 10:25:56 AM  

rohar: Posh Naranek: This has nothing to do with increasing weed sales from Mexico. Totally different situation. Nothing.

LOLWUT? This is WA. We either grow our own or bring it down from B.C. Nobody wants that crap from Mexico!


Wow.... that's a fact. You wouldn't see a Washingtonian smoking that dirtweed even if you were handing it out for free!! We're connoisseurs here!
 
2012-07-19 10:26:55 AM  
Whenever I hear about these places where the government is making revenue from liquor sales I always think, what country is that in where it would actually be in the government's interest to have more people drinking.
 
2012-07-19 10:27:31 AM  
I've been driving to Oregon to buy hard liquor since way before 1183 passed. Neither WA nor ID stores have sold Everclear (95% ETOH) for years, but I can be at the liquor store in beautiful downtown Umatilla in just over 3 hours.

/I use it to make shellac...no, really.
 
2012-07-19 10:27:40 AM  

Sammichless: rohar: Posh Naranek: This has nothing to do with increasing weed sales from Mexico. Totally different situation. Nothing.

LOLWUT? This is WA. We either grow our own or bring it down from B.C. Nobody wants that crap from Mexico!

Wow.... that's a fact. You wouldn't see a Washingtonian smoking that dirtweed even if you were handing it out for free!! We're connoisseurs here!



Washington is a "Green" state. If it's brown, turn it down. No exploding bowls!
 
2012-07-19 10:33:47 AM  

rohar: LOLWUT? This is WA. We either grow our own or bring it down from B.C. Nobody wants that crap from Mexico!


No doubt! You try to give someone some dirty mexican brick here in Seattle and they'll look at you like your yam bag is hanging out the bottom of your shorts.

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

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



They slapped a big ole tax on it on their way out the door. For a 1.75l of vodak that's on sale for 18.99, add 6.60 bucks liter fee and a 20.5% sales tax on top of it.
 
2012-07-19 10:34:21 AM  

GAT_00: 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.


yes yes.... god freaking help it that any cuts in overspending be considered. no... that would be insane.

just tax more.
 
2012-07-19 10:36:03 AM  

inner ted: GAT_00: 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.

yes yes.... god freaking help it that any cuts in overspending be considered. no... that would be insane.

just tax more.


'bagger please!
 
2012-07-19 10:39:22 AM  

rohar: Brew78: Lucky LaRue: So, basically, Washington had been subsidizing using its liquor industry as a cash cow, and decided to tax the everloving sheeeeit out of it in retaliation of lost buttrape money?

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

FTFY.
And FTFA: 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.

Can't decide who's more of an idiot, you or Failmitter.

You realize this was an initiative right? Our state government didn't do this. We did.


So the tax increases were included in the wording of the bill that was voted on and passed?

If I missed it and that's the case, then shame on the voters and representatives for letting it get through un-amended!

Still.. doesn't change Failmitter's assertion that "privatization" was to blame for the movement of sales (it was fees and taxes), or Dipstick's assertion that "the government was subsidizing the industry" which is why its now more expensive (its fees and taxes).
 
2012-07-19 10:42:07 AM  

inner ted: GAT_00: 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.

yes yes.... god freaking help it that any cuts in overspending be considered. no... that would be insane.

just tax more.


Alright, where would you cut? Schools, prisons? How about we eliminate vehicle inspections or workplace safety laws. Perhaps getting rid of child protective services. Maybe we should stop inspecting restaurants and slaughterhouses. Or perhaps we should just stop maintaining our roads and freeways. Or maybe sell off our State lands to the timber companies and developers like Reagan did in California and then magically fail to charge them for the damage they do when feling the timber or building access roads. That land isn't going to slide by itself you know

Oooh, I have an idea, lets sell off our prisons to the same companies that lobby the Legislature for higher prison sentences for everything, and then charge the prisoners for their incarceration, arbitrarily adding time to those sentences when the convicts can't pay the bill.

You privatize everything people are insane, and terribly stupid.
 
2012-07-19 10:43:16 AM  

inner ted: GAT_00: 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.

yes yes.... god freaking help it that any cuts in overspending be considered. no... that would be insane.

just tax more.


I agree..... tax me more! This place is coming apart, roads are falling apart, teenagers are dumber than ever, unemployed people are all over...... someone needs to fix this..... and the free market isn't bothering.
 
2012-07-19 10:52:00 AM  

Noah_Tall: 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.


They're not open where I am (Seattle). The Northgate one is now closed, the one by my work Downtown is closed and it pisses me off. The same dude that's been selling me bottles for the last 14 years now is out of a job. Also, the selection at QFC Farken sucks. Ouzo? Linie Aquavit? Not in my store.
 
2012-07-19 10:59:14 AM  

Brew78: rohar: Brew78: Lucky LaRue: So, basically, Washington had been subsidizing using its liquor industry as a cash cow, and decided to tax the everloving sheeeeit out of it in retaliation of lost buttrape money?

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

FTFY.
And FTFA: 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.

Can't decide who's more of an idiot, you or Failmitter.

You realize this was an initiative right? Our state government didn't do this. We did.

So the tax increases were included in the wording of the bill that was voted on and passed?

If I missed it and that's the case, then shame on the voters and representatives for letting it get through un-amended!

Still.. doesn't change Failmitter's assertion that "privatization" was to blame for the movement of sales (it was fees and taxes), or Dipstick's assertion that "the government was subsidizing the industry" which is why its now more expensive (its fees and taxes).


No it doesn't address the failed assertions here so far. But neither does your response.

The tax increases weren't included in the wording of any bill. It wasn't voted and passed by our representatives. It wasn't a bill, it was an initiative. We did this by ourselves bypassing our government. We can't place ANY of the blame on the state government, they had nothing to do with it.
 
2012-07-19 10:59:22 AM  

Deathfrogg: The original reason for the State Liquor Control Board was the Conservatives. They wanted to keep prohibition in place. The Conservatives were the ones who pushed the 18th Amendment through, and they would not agree to the 21st without some measure of control of Liquor sales by the Government. The WSLCB was a direct compromise by the Liberals to Conservatives to ratification of the 21st Amendment to the US Constitution by the Washington State legislature.

Bear in mind, that before the 18th Amendment, alcoholism was so prevalent that people regularly drank themselves to death by their mid 40's in the US, and there were almost no restrictions on who could buy it. That was the original reason for the religious nuts to shove the 18th Amendment through in the first place. Alcohol related diseases were the number one cause of premature death in the country. There are hundreds of photographs of old saloons and taverns that show kids as young as 12 drinking.

I voted against the bill, as I see the value of a revenue stream to the State. The State does in fact have the right to impose taxes, it is both in the State Constitution and the Federal Constitution. The States paramount duty to its citizens is education, that is also spelled out quite specifically in the State Constitution. This system was supported in large part by the States profits on liquor. The loss of those profits had to be compensated for by taxation of retail sales. Now, those profits are going to private companies, and the State has lost that revenue stream.

Washington State has had several major tax reductions over the last 15 years. The "privatize everything" crowd are really just people who cannot stand the fact that the State has the right to enforce the law. The law is supported by taxation. so they claim to want to reduce the number of laws. But those laws did not appear in a vacuum, they were imposed for a reason. Food safety, workplace safety, labor laws, child and family protections, traffic laws ...

Seriously? You're really going to blame prohibition on the conservatives? No sir, it took an unholy alliance of feminist progressives and religious conservatives to push through something so vile as the 18th amendment. This is why I'm mostly FOR a do nothing Congress with lots of gridlock, whenever both sides agree on something it's inevitably among the worst things for the citizenry.
 
2012-07-19 11:03:41 AM  

hurdboy: 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.


That may all be true, but you have this:

Malvaxia Reserve Passito 2007

I can't get it shipped to me and I live too far away to run down and get some. Next time I head down to VA to visit friends, I'll have it shipped to their place and bring it back with me.
 
2012-07-19 11:04:50 AM  

rohar: Brew78: rohar: Brew78: Lucky LaRue: So, basically, Washington had been subsidizing using its liquor industry as a cash cow, and decided to tax the everloving sheeeeit out of it in retaliation of lost buttrape money?

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

FTFY.
And FTFA: 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.

Can't decide who's more of an idiot, you or Failmitter.

You realize this was an initiative right? Our state government didn't do this. We did.

So the tax increases were included in the wording of the bill that was voted on and passed?

If I missed it and that's the case, then shame on the voters and representatives for letting it get through un-amended!

Still.. doesn't change Failmitter's assertion that "privatization" was to blame for the movement of sales (it was fees and taxes), or Dipstick's assertion that "the government was subsidizing the industry" which is why its now more expensive (its fees and taxes).

No it doesn't address the failed assertions here so far. But neither does your response.

The tax increases weren't included in the wording of any bill. It wasn't voted and passed by our representatives. It wasn't a bill, it was an initiative. We did this by ourselves bypassing our government. We can't place ANY of the blame on the state government, they had nothing to do with it.


Other than imposing fees and taxes after the fact?
 
2012-07-19 11:11:53 AM  
People just drive the few miles across the border to Idaho in these parts. Of course the store still clears nearly $5,ooo some days in liquor sales.
 
2012-07-19 11:14:10 AM  

Chameleon: The 10k foot requirement was thrown in as a money grab by Costco and Safeway,



No it wasn't. It was a concession because Costco supported the first privitization initiative, but that wasn't good enough for the soccer moms who were soooo concerned about liquor sales at gas stations.
 
2012-07-19 11:16:26 AM  

Baloo Uriza: legendary: Who are the idiots that voted for this?

Washingtonians. It's a red state whose claim to fame is they're Not Oregon. Until you get to Clark County. Then they're Not Portland (even though it's a Portland suburb, and the only one of size with a sales tax), and Not British Columbia (even though they are a Vancouver, they're not the good Vancouver, and they're somehow proud of this).

/Vantucky


I really find the claim that Washington is a red state as being difficult to believe, given that:

* No US Senator from Washington has been a Republican since 2001
* There hasn't been a Republican governor since 1985
* Democrats currently outnumber Republicans 56-42 in the state House of Representatives
* Democrats have held a majority in the state House since 2002
* Democrats currently outnumber Republicans 27-22 in the state Senate
* Democrats have held a majority in the state Senate since 2005

Yes, there are pockets of the state (mainly east of the Cascades) that will primarily vote Republican. With 60 percent or more of the state's population, though, living in or around Seattle, and overwhelmingly voting Democrat, blaming the passage of this referendum on the Republicans is laughable, especially because it passed by a 16-point margin.

Blame the stupidity of voters who can't read or who didn't understand what the law would do. They're out there, in all political parties.
 
2012-07-19 11:16:29 AM  

pciszek: Could someone from Washington please explain this to me:

When the state was running the liquor stores, who decided what they would carry? A political appointee? If the Bordeaux region was looking to have a good season, could a Washington wine merchant place a large advance order to cellar for the next ten years, or would their hands be tied?



The state liquor stores used to carry a small selection of wines, but it didn't really matter because wine was already sold at grocery stores and wine shops.
 
2012-07-19 11:17:38 AM  

happyleper: I really find the claim that Washington is a red state as being difficult to believe, given that:



I'm just glad we're red when it comes to firearms.
 
2012-07-19 11:18:54 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? 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.


SHUT UP! The headline was outing the window lickers. It's fun to read!
 
2012-07-19 11:19:14 AM  

Chameleon: I'm happy about the taxes because our state is already screwed since idiots here refuse to implement an income tax,



Yes, I'm an idiot for not supporting a state income tax....never mind the fact that I already pay my fair share with my property taxes and 9.2% sales tax.
 
2012-07-19 11:19:50 AM  

Noah_Tall: 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.


You sound al key hall icky
 
2012-07-19 11:23:00 AM  

happyleper: I really find the claim that Washington is a red state as being difficult to believe


It's like Oregon, highly conservative, but don't have the balls to vote Republican. So with rare exceptions like Oregon's Blumenauer and Wyden, both states vote in the most conservative Democrats they can find.

/Not that it makes a huge lick of difference when the Democrats are very conservative and the Republicans are dangerously conservative
 
2012-07-19 11:24:09 AM  

The_Sponge: Chameleon: I'm happy about the taxes because our state is already screwed since idiots here refuse to implement an income tax,


Yes, I'm an idiot for not supporting a state income tax....never mind the fact that I already pay my fair share with my property taxes and 9.2% sales tax.


You are an idiot for supporting a sales tax instead of an income tax, though.
 
2012-07-19 11:29:11 AM  

robodog: Seriously? You're really going to blame prohibition on the conservatives? No sir, it took an unholy alliance of feminist progressives and religious conservatives to push through something so vile as the 18th amendment. This is why I'm mostly FOR a do nothing Congress with lots of gridlock, whenever both sides agree on something it's inevitably among the worst things for the citizenry.


Look it up nitwit. ALL the hard core prohibitionists were right wing religious conservatives. The Ku Klux Klan supported the Amendment and was a major influence on it being passed by Legislatures across the country. The Baptists and evangelical christians who supported the Volstead Act were supported by their close association with the Klan and other religious organizations. Carrie Nation was a evangelical christian. The "Womens Christian Temperance Union" was a direct offshoot of the Klan.

Here, educate yourself.

Heres another.

The whole idea of Prohibition was a right-wing religious conservative movement that got started in 1874. At that time, several States had already gone totally dry and had eliminated liquor sales altogether. Washington State created the Liquor Control Board as a direct compromise to the religious conservatives in the Klan and other similar organizations as a compromise to allow the State to ratify the 21st Amendment that revoked the Volstead Act. Calvin Coolidge, a Klan-elected President ran for Governor of Massachusetts in 1918 on a prohibitionist platform. When he ran as Vice-President to Warren Harding, he ran on strengthening the Volstead Act and with Hardings hard-core stance against alcohol sales. Harding ran on his record as a strict prohibitionist with the support of the Ku Klux Klan and the religious conservatives.

Look it up. Prohibition was a CONSERVATIVE idea.
 
2012-07-19 11:30:26 AM  

robodog: trotsky: 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.

Ohio hasn't had state stores for well over a decade! What we do have is state warehouse that is the sole wholesaler to the distribution companies and it means good luck getting anything not in the big book (and even then I've had an open order for a few listed items for the last two years, ended up getting them while on vacation in less stupid states).


Whoops, thanks for the clarification.
 
2012-07-19 11:34:52 AM  

Baloo Uriza: The_Sponge: Chameleon: I'm happy about the taxes because our state is already screwed since idiots here refuse to implement an income tax,


Yes, I'm an idiot for not supporting a state income tax....never mind the fact that I already pay my fair share with my property taxes and 9.2% sales tax.

You are an idiot for supporting a sales tax instead of an income tax, though.



Oh no....I would gladly make that trade and have a system similar to Oregon. What I don't want is to be like California.....having a state income tax and a sales tax.

/Although I would love to have a liquor system like California.
 
2012-07-19 11:39:17 AM  

KierzanDax: I can't get it shipped to me and I live too far away to run down and get some. Next time I head down to VA to visit friends, I'll have it shipped to their place and bring it back with me.


*scribbles down*

Not much of a wine drinker, honestly. Wife won't drink it at all, and I'm normally good with only one glass.

But they could sell that in a grocery store. The same can't be said for bitters or vermouth.
 
2012-07-19 11:39:27 AM  

Brew78: rohar: Brew78: rohar: Brew78: Lucky LaRue: So, basically, Washington had been subsidizing using its liquor industry as a cash cow, and decided to tax the everloving sheeeeit out of it in retaliation of lost buttrape money?

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

FTFY.
And FTFA: 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.

Can't decide who's more of an idiot, you or Failmitter.

You realize this was an initiative right? Our state government didn't do this. We did.

So the tax increases were included in the wording of the bill that was voted on and passed?

If I missed it and that's the case, then shame on the voters and representatives for letting it get through un-amended!

Still.. doesn't change Failmitter's assertion that "privatization" was to blame for the movement of sales (it was fees and taxes), or Dipstick's assertion that "the government was subsidizing the industry" which is why its now more expensive (its fees and taxes).

No it doesn't address the failed assertions here so far. But neither does your response.

The tax increases weren't included in the wording of any bill. It wasn't voted and passed by our representatives. It wasn't a bill, it was an initiative. We did this by ourselves bypassing our government. We can't place ANY of the blame on the state government, they had nothing to do with it.

Other than imposing fees and taxes after the fact?


Correct, other than imposing fees and taxes to cover the government's cost of doing nothing, the state had nothing to do with the price increase...

Let this be a warning to anyone else who gets some wise idea about trying to do something cheaper or better than any level of government.
 
2012-07-19 11:44:33 AM  
So basically Washington State imposed a stealth tax on liquor and liberals are now screaming with butthurt.
 
2012-07-19 11:45:08 AM  

GAT_00: As opposed to your answer of the market magically fixes everything. How that is the case has never been explained to any degree of adequacy, but it doesn't stop you from claiming it's the solution to everything, does it?


You do realize this story exemplifies the market at work don't you?

(you don't)
 
2012-07-19 11:46:04 AM  

Baloo Uriza: meat0918


bbbbbut, Oregon is a socialist paradise!!!!11ty
 
2012-07-19 11:46:10 AM  

casey17: farkityfarker: What's sad is that Washington State already had almost the highest liquor prices in the country. (I think it was 3rd after AK and HI). This is why many people voted for the initiative. They thought it would lower the prices somewhat.

^^^^THIS^^^^

Also, it was supposed to increase the choice of brands & from what I can tell it's DECREASED them. Not to mention stores like Safeway & QFC never seem to have a full shelf. It is the exact opposite from what we were told it would be. However, I'm not going to waste the gas on a 3 hr. trip to Portland to save $5-$10 bucks. It sucks all the way around. :-(


This as well. The selection is limited to fifths and handles, so try finding what you want in pints. And minis? Forget it. I might excuse that the prices on what I used to buy is up a third, but I fail to see the real covenience. Safeway aint much better than the old state stores, atmosphere wise
 
2012-07-19 11:47:30 AM  

Dancin_In_Anson: GAT_00: As opposed to your answer of the market magically fixes everything. How that is the case has never been explained to any degree of adequacy, but it doesn't stop you from claiming it's the solution to everything, does it?

You do realize this story exemplifies the market at work don't you?

(you don't)


The market corrects prices, but price correction does not necessarily mean lower prices.
 
2012-07-19 11:51:27 AM  

beta_plus: So basically Washington State imposed a stealth tax on liquor and liberals are now screaming with butthurt.



As Liberal, I have no problem with it. The taxes were stated quite clearly in the initiative. I voted against it, knowing full well that those taxes would be imposed on top of the 50% markup the retailers were going to impose. I liked the State Stores. they weren't on every street corner like liquor stores are in California. And they were kept clean, well-stocked and they supported the State with revenue.

The State has the right to support itself with taxes. If you TeaBagger imbeciles want to live in a place where taxes are low, schools are nonexistent, roads are left unpaved, water is poisonous, corruption is the norm, and crime is rampant, move to Somalia. The TeaBaggers paradise.
 
2012-07-19 11:54:16 AM  

meat0918: bbbbbut, Oregon is a socialist paradise!!!!11ty


I'd love to know when that was true. I know it wasn't before the Californian Invasion to Oregon, and it definitely isn't after...
 
2012-07-19 11:56:01 AM  

Deathfrogg: If you TeaBagger imbeciles want to live in a place where taxes are low, schools are nonexistent, roads are left unpaved, water is poisonous, corruption is the norm, and crime is rampant, move to Somalia. The TeaBaggers paradise.



That argument is old and tired....it would be like me telling your to move to Cuba or North Korea.
 
2012-07-19 11:58:33 AM  

The_Sponge: Deathfrogg: If you TeaBagger imbeciles want to live in a place where taxes are low, schools are nonexistent, roads are left unpaved, water is poisonous, corruption is the norm, and crime is rampant, move to Somalia. The TeaBaggers paradise.


That argument is old and tired....it would be like me telling your to move to Cuba or North Korea.


Liberals aren't welcome in those places, especially in North Korea. North Korea is a Conservative nation. Not liberal.
 
2012-07-19 12:08:36 PM  
Seattle resident who voted for it and is glad it passed. It's not perfect legislation by any means. But the state monopolizing one kind of spirits sales is so far out of their mandate it makes my head hurt. I voted for the other alternative before and I'd have voted yes on any of them. Present me a better bill in the future and I'll vote for that one too.

Sorry about the guy whose liquor checkout guy lost his job. Me, I think everyone should get a state pension. But I don't have one, nor do most people. Until everyone does, liquor store checkout guys are not at the top of my list for lifetime pensions and state benefits. Very poor use of limited state resources.
 
2012-07-19 12:13:18 PM  

beta_plus: So basically Washington State imposed a stealth tax on liquor and liberals are now screaming with butthurt.


I guess it was stealthy. If you can't read that is. I have no pity for people who voted for initiatives they didn't understand.
 
2012-07-19 12:15:51 PM  

Deathfrogg: inner ted: GAT_00: 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.

yes yes.... god freaking help it that any cuts in overspending be considered. no... that would be insane.

just tax more.

Alright, where would you cut?Link how bout you start with examples like this? ever think that the reason you and i are always bombarded with ads to 'save the poor schools & children' is because we are paying administrators salaries in the 6 figure range and have football coaches making that for retirement?
Schools, prisons? . Or maybe sell off our State lands to the timber companies and developers like Reagan did in California and then magically fail to charge them for the damage they do when feling the timber or building access roads. That land isn't going to slide by itself you know
ya, better to shutter every mill & have ghost towns & destroyed communities. even better is to just let the forests burn cause we don't even manage them at all as all the infrastructure (mills) are either closed or refitted to produce small young trees. no, we wouldn't want to prosper from our natural resources. better just let em burn. also: notice our neighbors to the north - Canada is a massive producer of forest products and are a great example as to how it can be done responsibly. the problems you are alluding to are far more prevalent in the southern hemisphere. yet even that timber gets labeled "fsc" and soccer moms around the country rejoice on their "reclaimed" (from some poor bastards house, while he was living in it.) deck.
Oooh, I have an idea, lets sell off our prisons i don't care for privatized prisons.

You privatize everything people that assume so much are insane, and terribly stupid.

ftfy

this is why people laugh at you silly libs: dare to ask for any fiscal responsibility and i'm automatically a Tea-hadist. strange.

anyhow.
 
2012-07-19 12:28:34 PM  

Deathfrogg: Alright, where would you cut?


Marijuana prohibition. Cost to the state for enforcement, courts and prisons vastly exceeds the losses in liquor revenues.

You privatize everything people are insane, and terribly stupid.

You're right! But why should we stop there? The state had an iron-clad monopoly on liquor sales and it reaped the benefits. If you're willing to grant the state a monopoly on one type of retail good, why not another? How about a monopoly on auto sales? Or maybe food? We can keep going back to this well forever!

I'd like to hear your justification for why the state f*cking government can and should declare a legal monopoly for itself in the retail sector, going so far as to establish its own government stores and banning all sales elsewhere and telling the entirety of the state's private retailers they can just go suck it.
 
2012-07-19 12:28:53 PM  

Sammichless: inner ted: GAT_00: 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.

yes yes.... god freaking help it that any cuts in overspending be considered. no... that would be insane.

just tax more.

I agree..... tax me more! This place is coming apart, roads are falling apart, teenagers are dumber than ever, unemployed people are all over...... someone needs to fix this..... and the free market isn't bothering.


or we could cut out the waste in the government and pay for all that without raising taxes.

/i know, blows minds right?
 
2012-07-19 12:29:10 PM  

JohnBigBootay: But the state monopolizing one kind of spirits sales is so far out of their mandate it makes my head hurt.


This right here. Someone in this thread gets it.
 
2012-07-19 12:29:58 PM  

The_Sponge: Chameleon: The 10k foot requirement was thrown in as a money grab by Costco and Safeway,


No it wasn't. It was a concession because Costco supported the first privitization initiative, but that wasn't good enough for the soccer moms who were soooo concerned about liquor sales at gas stations.


Little bit of column A, little bit of column B. Do you think Costco was upset that smaller stores wouldn't be able to compete?
 
2012-07-19 12:31:43 PM  

meat0918: The market corrects prices, but price correction does not necessarily mean lower prices.


People are going where the lower prices are, no?
 
2012-07-19 12:37:29 PM  

inner ted: Sammichless: inner ted: GAT_00: 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.

yes yes.... god freaking help it that any cuts in overspending be considered. no... that would be insane.

just tax more.

I agree..... tax me more! This place is coming apart, roads are falling apart, teenagers are dumber than ever, unemployed people are all over...... someone needs to fix this..... and the free market isn't bothering.

or we could cut out the waste in the government and pay for all that without raising taxes.

/i know, blows minds right?


You've got a perfectly good state down there to show us how it's done. We'll wait and watch 'bagger.
 
2012-07-19 12:37:53 PM  
State-owned liquor stores is a dumb idea. Period. There are certain things government can and should do; retail is not one of those things.

I'd rather the taxes not be as high as they are currently. But the good news is that there are now four places selling liquor within walking distance from me and, prior to privatization, the nearest store was a five-to-ten minute drive. On top of that, the hours are more convenient and the service is typically better.

I voted for the law and I'm glad that I did.
 
2012-07-19 12:41:36 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: People are going where the lower prices are, no?


Speaking of going where lower prices are... I just visited some folks who will drive to hell and back to get to the gas station that's three cents a gallon cheaper. We tried to have a conversation about it but I wasn't getting through. Finally I went with, "It's nine miles away. You have a 15 gallon tank. 15x3 = 45 cents, right? Well _____________ is nine miles away - will you drive over there for no reason if I pay you 45 cents?
 
2012-07-19 12:43:43 PM  

YakBoy42: Ebb & Flow Gin which is distilled less than 2 miles from my house and is the best gin I have ever tasted.


"Didja ever drink a juniper tree?"

-Euell Gibbons
 
2012-07-19 12:44:18 PM  

The_Sponge: Deathfrogg: If you TeaBagger imbeciles want to live in a place where taxes are low, schools are nonexistent, roads are left unpaved, water is poisonous, corruption is the norm, and crime is rampant, move to Somalia. The TeaBaggers paradise.


That argument is old and tired....it would be like me telling your to move to Cuba or North Korea.


Well, the validation for that argument is dead and busted at this point. Even Ayn Rand didn't buy into Atlas Shrugged, and she wrote the damned thing.
 
2012-07-19 12:45:02 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: meat0918: The market corrects prices, but price correction does not necessarily mean lower prices.

People are going where the lower prices are, no?


Of course, but there is always more than price of product to consider.

You haven't forgotten about opportunity cost, have you?

Plus, not everyone lives near the border.

Although I am reminded of a little town back in Michigan where I grew up. They passed an ordinance that all but banned medical marijuana dispensaries within city limits. The dispensaries opened outside city limits instead. Here is the ordinance.
 
2012-07-19 12:46:07 PM  

IntertubeUser: I'd rather the taxes not be as high as they are currently. But the good news is that there are now four places selling liquor within walking distance from me and, prior to privatization, the nearest store was a five-to-ten minute drive. On top of that, the hours are more convenient and the service is typically better.


A-freakin'-men. I don't really care what the suburbanites think about this. It certainly seems like a win win win for city dwellers. Now I can walk to several liquor outlets and I can buy it on the day and time and location of my choosing. The first couple of trips have actually been cheaper. Not that I give two squats about the money. If liquor expense is a substantial portion of your budget, well..., I don't know what to tell you. Drink wine or beer. Or perhaps consider some healthful lifestyle changes.
 
2012-07-19 12:53:58 PM  
The market will eventually sort prices out. I've seen a mix of savings and gouging on the shelves. What I'm disappointed with is the absolute lack of selection. The top shelf stuff has completely gone away. I can get 98 different shiatty vodaks, but can't find Jamison 18, Red Breast, or Pimms anywhere.

I voted for it, and I'd do so again.
 
2012-07-19 12:58:32 PM  

rohar: inner ted: Sammichless: inner ted: GAT_00: 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.

yes yes.... god freaking help it that any cuts in overspending be considered. no... that would be insane.

just tax more.

I agree..... tax me more! This place is coming apart, roads are falling apart, teenagers are dumber than ever, unemployed people are all over...... someone needs to fix this..... and the free market isn't bothering.

or we could cut out the waste in the government and pay for all that without raising taxes.

/i know, blows minds right?

You've got a perfectly good state down there to show us how it's done. We'll wait and watch 'bagger.


since your reading comprehension seems a bit ... low, i'll just giggle at you.
 
2012-07-19 01:05:42 PM  

Noah_Tall: 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.


3 bucks? The bottle fee maybe. I'm not really opposed to the end of state run liquor stores. I am sad at the loss of choice, but my tastes are pretty run-of-the-mill anyway, and liquor is expensive enough no matter how you look at it that I'm not going to just regularly throw down on a bottle to see if I like it. However, booze now costs more here. The distillery wants the same amount of money. The state wants the same amount of money. The only difference is we've added a 3rd party that needs to be paid: the retailer. To my understanding, state taxes are 20.5% plus sales tax plus a bottle fee which is a tax that's based on volume-not price. It comes out to about $3.50 for a fifth. It's like they couldn't decide who to screw more-the people who went in for premium liquor once in a while (sales tax) or the people who bought 5 bottles of rotgut (Monarch) a week (bottle tax) so they nailed both.

/Liquor stores can remain open. The one here in small-town Eastern Washington is trying to make a go of it. They still can get stuff for you, although it's not cheaper than it was before the monopoly. I talked to the lady who runs it, though, and Safeway is running them out of business. She said they're running a fifth of the business they used to do and they'll be gone by the end of the year, if not the end of summer. I think the only ones that will survive will be the specialty ones that carry all the weird, premium stuff you people all seem to want. I predict 2 will survive in Seattle (that's all the demand will support), 1 more south (Tacoma or Olympia), and 1 in Spokane. Maybe one in Yakima since they're not convenient to anything.
 
2012-07-19 01:10:21 PM  

sabreWulf07: Deathfrogg: Alright, where would you cut?

Marijuana prohibition. Cost to the state for enforcement, courts and prisons vastly exceeds the losses in liquor revenues.

I'll be the first person to agree with that, legalize it, regulate how it can be produced and sold, and tax it. But first you need to convince the Conservatives that the country isn't going to go Communist and turn into North Korea (where possession gets one the death penalty, incidentally) if it is legalized. The biggest and strongest influence on maintaining that prohibition comes directly out of the religious and racist Conservatives.

You privatize everything people are insane, and terribly stupid.

You're right! But why should we stop there? The state had an iron-clad monopoly on liquor sales and it reaped the benefits. If you're willing to grant the state a monopoly on one type of retail good, why not another? How about a monopoly on auto sales? Or maybe food? We can keep going back to this well forever!


Strawman arguments. It is obvious that your reading comprehension is seriously lacking. As I said before, the WSLCB was created as a compromise by the liberals, who were all for getting rid of the 18th Amendment and had opposed it from the beginning, to the Conservatives who wanted to continue the prohibition of alcohol at the Federal level. The marijuana laws were put in place to maintain that system of prohibition that could be imposed almost entirely on the minority population of Blacks and Latinos. This was specifically stated as the reason for them by Henry Anslinger, J. Edgar Hoover, Henry Ford and Adolph Coors, as well as Prescott Bush and Herbert Hoover. The Marijuana laws were put in place to give the States and the Federal Government a reason to convict, imprison and restrict access to Government by "undesirable" (meaning non-white) portions of the population without stirring up the angst of the white majority population. You are obviously ignoring the blatant racism of the Jim Crow period and the overall institutionalized hatred of non-whites in this country before the 1960's. The Conservatives would do anything to make them feel unwelcome, and to impose a form of martial law upon those populations without having the same effect on the white folks.

I'd like to hear your justification for why the state f*cking government can and should declare a legal monopoly for itself in the retail sector, going so far as to establish its own government stores and banning all sales elsewhere and telling the entirety of the state's private retailers they can just go suck it.


See above. I had no issue with the State running the liquor stores. I'm not an alcoholic. I support the Governments right to support itself through taxation, be it by direct taxation or maintaining that monopoly of what is considered by everyone involved with the medical field and the Justice System to be a highly dangerous substance that creates crime, violence, economic hardship and short, unhealthy lifetimes. Alcohol is a direct neurological toxin. It is a poison. The State has the right to restrict access to poisons, and regulate how they can be produced and sold. If that means maintaining a monopoly on that, so be it. The State has the absolute right to support itself as a Governing body. Without that, there is no regulation or restriction at all on the use of force or imposition of Will.

That is what the entire concept and purpose of Law is all about. Thats what Government is, by definition. There must be Order. If you don't like that Order, either move somewhere where there is no such Order, or work to change how that Order is defined. People have the absolute right to define and regulate social Order, especially in this Country.
 
2012-07-19 01:15:27 PM  

inner ted: rohar: inner ted: Sammichless: inner ted: GAT_00: 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.

yes yes.... god freaking help it that any cuts in overspending be considered. no... that would be insane.

just tax more.

I agree..... tax me more! This place is coming apart, roads are falling apart, teenagers are dumber than ever, unemployed people are all over...... someone needs to fix this..... and the free market isn't bothering.

or we could cut out the waste in the government and pay for all that without raising taxes.

/i know, blows minds right?

You've got a perfectly good state down there to show us how it's done. We'll wait and watch 'bagger.

since your reading comprehension seems a bit ... low, i'll just giggle at you.


I think I understood what you wrote just fine. What, specifically, would your criticism be?
 
rka
2012-07-19 01:20:39 PM  

Deathfrogg: The Conservatives were the ones who pushed the 18th Amendment through


The 18th Amendment to the Constitution was not Conservatives.

It was progressive do-gooders coupled with an ever increasing woman's suffrage movement looking to flex it's muscle.

Most liquor/blue laws are not in place because of "conservatives" or the religious either. They are maintained because some business interest is protected by it. Find the business interest you'll find the largest supporter of the blue law.
 
2012-07-19 01:22:26 PM  

Deathfrogg: The State has the right to restrict access to poisons, and regulate how they can be produced and sold. If that means maintaining a monopoly on that, so be it.


That's your entire legal justification in the land of the free and the home of the brave? "So be it"? Regulation is working fine. Proofs are printed right on the bottle. Quality controls are in place. Liquor licenses are still strictly controlled. Enforcement of ID checks is going strong. The WSLCB is still protecting you from pants-pissingly scary products like Four Loco by banning them.

I'm just unable to make the jump from all of that to ... oh, and we need a monopoly on sales as well. You wrote a huge wall of text that failed to address a simple question. It is obvious that your reading comprehension is seriously lacking. Try again: Why, specifically, does the state require a monopoly on sales on top of all the other regulatory mechanisms that are already in place? What value does the monopoly bring to the table, in and of itself, that must be preserved? Can you demonstrate that states where the government does not have a monopoly on sales suffer more liquor-associated societal ills, solely as a result of booze being available from private retail?
 
2012-07-19 01:24:40 PM  

sabreWulf07: Deathfrogg: The State has the right to restrict access to poisons, and regulate how they can be produced and sold. If that means maintaining a monopoly on that, so be it.

That's your entire legal justification in the land of the free and the home of the brave? "So be it"? Regulation is working fine. Proofs are printed right on the bottle. Quality controls are in place. Liquor licenses are still strictly controlled. Enforcement of ID checks is going strong. The WSLCB is still protecting you from pants-pissingly scary products like Four Loco by banning them.

I'm just unable to make the jump from all of that to ... oh, and we need a monopoly on sales as well. You wrote a huge wall of text that failed to address a simple question. It is obvious that your reading comprehension is seriously lacking. Try again: Why, specifically, does the state require a monopoly on sales on top of all the other regulatory mechanisms that are already in place? What value does the monopoly bring to the table, in and of itself, that must be preserved? Can you demonstrate that states where the government does not have a monopoly on sales suffer more liquor-associated societal ills, solely as a result of booze being available from private retail?


You didn't read a single word I wrote, did you.
 
2012-07-19 01:32:04 PM  

rohar: inner ted: rohar: inner ted: Sammichless: inner ted: GAT_00: 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.

yes yes.... god freaking help it that any cuts in overspending be considered. no... that would be insane.

just tax more.

I agree..... tax me more! This place is coming apart, roads are falling apart, teenagers are dumber than ever, unemployed people are all over...... someone needs to fix this..... and the free market isn't bothering.

or we could cut out the waste in the government and pay for all that without raising taxes.

/i know, blows minds right?

You've got a perfectly good state down there to show us how it's done. We'll wait and watch 'bagger.

since your reading comprehension seems a bit ... low, i'll just giggle at you.

I think I understood what you wrote just fine. What, specifically, would your criticism be?


well, to your credit, it was in response to someone else up thread. so maybe you missed it. it was kind of long and shockingly, i'm actually busy at work - so just scroll up a bit - or even click on an earlier page.
 
2012-07-19 01:34:57 PM  

inner ted: rohar: inner ted: rohar: inner ted: Sammichless: inner ted: GAT_00: 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.

yes yes.... god freaking help it that any cuts in overspending be considered. no... that would be insane.

just tax more.

I agree..... tax me more! This place is coming apart, roads are falling apart, teenagers are dumber than ever, unemployed people are all over...... someone needs to fix this..... and the free market isn't bothering.

or we could cut out the waste in the government and pay for all that without raising taxes.

/i know, blows minds right?

You've got a perfectly good state down there to show us how it's done. We'll wait and watch 'bagger.

since your reading comprehension seems a bit ... low, i'll just giggle at you.

I think I understood what you wrote just fine. What, specifically, would your criticism be?

well, to your credit, it was in response to someone else up thread. so maybe you missed it. it was kind of long and shockingly, i'm actually busy at work - so just scroll up a bit - or even click on an earlier page.


Oh, thanks! We found the reading comprehension problem. You thought that when I typed 'bagger I meant something other than carpetbagger. You see, a big part of reading comprehension is having a vocabulary larger than a dime store parrot. Now, would you like to explain how what you're doing isn't carpetbagging?
 
2012-07-19 01:40:06 PM  

meat0918: Dancin_In_Anson: meat0918: The market corrects prices, but price correction does not necessarily mean lower prices.

People are going where the lower prices are, no?

Of course, but there is always more than price of product to consider.

You haven't forgotten about opportunity cost, have you?

Plus, not everyone lives near the border.

Although I am reminded of a little town back in Michigan where I grew up. They passed an ordinance that all but banned medical marijuana dispensaries within city limits. The dispensaries opened outside city limits instead. Here is the ordinance.


The town of Bad Axe? That's hilarious.
 
2012-07-19 01:42:22 PM  

Deathfrogg:
Here, educate yourself.

Here's one back at you by someone who actually took the time to study the issue in a scholarly manner

willing to form alliances with any and all constituencies that shared its sole goal: a constitutional amendment that would ban the manufacture, sale and transportation of alcohol. They united with Democrats and Republicans, Progressives, Populists, and suffragists, the Ku Klux Klan and the NAACP, the International Workers of the World, and many of America's most powerful industrialists including Henry Ford, John D. Rockefeller, Jr., and Andrew Carnegie - all of whom lent support to the ASL's increasingly effective campaign.link.

The conservatives had been trying to push sobriety on people for over 90 years by the time the 18th was passed, they only got traction when enough progressives (mostly women) got on board.
 
2012-07-19 01:45:30 PM  
Hmm... so the distance from the tri-cities (Richland, Pasco, or Kennewick, WA) to Umatilla, OR is around 27 miles. Assuming WA residents have cars that get decent gas mileage, that's maybe 6 to 8 bucks per trip. Assuming they drive some kind of old hillbilly pickup truck, double that amount (at least).

Perhaps it's worthwhile if they get someone to do a liquor run, or have the capacity to haul several passengers. The question is, are they any good at math?
 
2012-07-19 01:47:33 PM  

cyberspacedout: Hmm... so the distance from the tri-cities (Richland, Pasco, or Kennewick, WA) to Umatilla, OR is around 27 miles. Assuming WA residents have cars that get decent gas mileage, that's maybe 6 to 8 bucks per trip. Assuming they drive some kind of old hillbilly pickup truck, double that amount (at least).

Perhaps it's worthwhile if they get someone to do a liquor run, or have the capacity to haul several passengers. The question is, are they any good at math?


Won't matter. Shortly WSP is going to be busting people for bringing in booze from ID and WA just as they do with cigarettes now. Another revenue stream.
 
2012-07-19 01:53:44 PM  

rohar: inner ted: rohar: inner ted: rohar: inner ted: Sammichless: inner ted: GAT_00: 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.

yes yes.... god freaking help it that any cuts in overspending be considered. no... that would be insane.

just tax more.

I agree..... tax me more! This place is coming apart, roads are falling apart, teenagers are dumber than ever, unemployed people are all over...... someone needs to fix this..... and the free market isn't bothering.

or we could cut out the waste in the government and pay for all that without raising taxes.

/i know, blows minds right?

You've got a perfectly good state down there to show us how it's done. We'll wait and watch 'bagger.

since your reading comprehension seems a bit ... low, i'll just giggle at you.

I think I understood what you wrote just fine. What, specifically, would your criticism be?

well, to your credit, it was in response to someone else up thread. so maybe you missed it. it was kind of long and shockingly, i'm actually busy at work - so just scroll up a bit - or even click on an earlier page.

Oh, thanks! We found the reading comprehension problem. You thought that when I typed 'bagger I meant something other than carpetbagger. You see, a big part of reading comprehension is having a vocabulary larger than a dime store parrot. Now, would you like to explain how what you're doing isn't carpetbagging?


i get it - just a bored troll?

cause ya.. i see here on fark so often people using the word 'carpetbagging.' totally... and folks here never ever ever (constantly) use " 'bagger " as a reference to the Tea party.

but please do use this as some opportunity to exhibit your huge brain and astound us all with your wit. leave our mouths agape at the depth and breadth of your knowledge. we're on pins and needles.

/love how your poor use of slang equates to me having a slim vocabulary.
//and if by carpetbaggin you mean i'm new to this area, then you are just a dolt. and probably moved here from back east complete with your "i love oregon" sticker on the back of your subaru wagon. awesome.
 
2012-07-19 02:03:18 PM  

inner ted: and if by carpetbaggin you mean i'm new to this area, then you are just a dolt. and probably moved here from back east complete with your "i love oregon" sticker on the back of your subaru wagon. awesome.


No, by carpetbagging, I mean comming from a generally republican position and trying to affect the politics of a democratic majoirty state you have no stake in. The same meaning it's had since the revolutionary war.

WA != OR.

Now, if you don't mind, your state isn't doing all that great either. We do things a little different than you. Maybe you go sort out your state, we'll watch and let you know what we think. In the interim, we'll continue to do the best we can for our population k?

/wow I can't believe you didn't see that coming
//it was in context and everything
 
2012-07-19 02:11:15 PM  
WTF is wrong with you people? You seriously want the state to run your liquor stores?

My liquor store cleans up because of blue laws, but they have a sommelier and rack after rack of fine wine. And they're friendly.

Yeah, let's turn that into the farking DMV.
 
2012-07-19 02:15:01 PM  

rohar: inner ted: and if by carpetbaggin you mean i'm new to this area, then you are just a dolt. and probably moved here from back east complete with your "i love oregon" sticker on the back of your subaru wagon. awesome.

No, by carpetbagging, I mean comming from a generally republican position and trying to affect the politics of a democratic majoirty state you have no stake in. The same meaning it's had since the revolutionary war.

WA != OR.

Now, if you don't mind, your state isn't doing all that great either. We do things a little different than you. Maybe you go sort out your state, we'll watch and let you know what we think. In the interim, we'll continue to do the best we can for our population k?

/wow I can't believe you didn't see that coming
//it was in context and everything


the idea that as a resident of oregon i have no stake in the happenings of washington is just ignorant. in fact, it's that kind of 'head up ass' thinking that keeps the bridges between portland & vancouver jammed for miles. instead of everyone paying their part to alleviate congestion by running the MAX train up there - no.. we get dipshiats like you thinking that vancouver is somehow independent of portland & shouldn't have to contribute.
newsflash: it's a suburb.

for you to assume that i come from a 'generally republican position' is laughable. but you do lots of assuming it seems. maybe most just don't bother calling you on it.

god help that we require any responsibility on part of our public sector.

& why do you have such a hard on over who's state is doing better? jesus. nobody else here is in such a pissing match. feeling inferior are you? like you have something to prove?
 
2012-07-19 02:16:12 PM  
This is more of an idiot tax anyway.

The price of my fav rum is $1 more expensive than it was before. If I tried driving more than a few extra miles to buy it, the fuel cost negates the savings.
 
2012-07-19 02:17:02 PM  

robodog:

The conservatives had been trying to push sobriety on people for over 90 years by the time the 18th was passed, they only got traction when enough progressives (mostly women) got on board.


And it was the Liberals who first recognized the problem with enforcement, the Mafia became so powerful in such a short period of time that they were directly influencing the enforcement of the law. Alcohol was nearly as available after the Volsted Act was passed as before the 18th Amendment was passed. Only it became the realm of violent criminals and created a huge burden on the Government that saw no real social benefit and created costs that could not be supported.

The first people to really start agitating for getting rid of Prohibition were the Veterans of WW1, who had seen how alcohol could be used in a reasonable manner while they were serving in France, they came back to the United States after fighting one of the bloodiest wars in history to a nation where the religious nutballs had entirely eliminated the availability of wine and beer except through a black market controlled by violent criminal organizations. The German immigrants and their offspring were the primary brewers of Beer in this country, and the brewing of Beer was touted as a form of supporting the Germans during WW1. Drinking beer was propagandized as supporting the Germans and therefore a form of treason.

After the Volstead Act was passed, people were not drinking good beer or fine wines, they were drinking an entirely unregulated market consisting of bathtub gin, sugar liquor and liquor made from wood chips. People were drinking Sterno and gasoline. People were burning their houses down trying to make their own liquor.

The good stuff from Canada and Cuba or wherever was terribly expensive and rather hard to find in any case. Using alcohol became a catspaw that facilitated blackmail by the same people that were selling it. Drink a glass of wine? If you were running for office or held a position of responsibility, that meant that you could be denounced and arrested. The cop on the beat who was already underpaid and left to their own devices as to how to make a decent living. That mayor of that big city or the Congressman that wanted his afternoon glass of Scotch. That working blue collar man that wanted to have a beer or three in the afternoon after work. Blackmail got to be normal and so common that nearly everyone had to be on the take to prevent it.

Or, you could just go along with the Mafia, and do what they say, and they'll let you keep your booze, keep you supplied, and nobody would have to know. People started agitating for Repeal almost from the first day after the Volstead Act was passed. It was the Conservatives who were the most vehemently opposed to legalization. It wasn't until the St. Valentines Day massacre happened that people really started to understand what the illegal market was all about. It was a totally unenforceable law, and the black market that resulted became a murderous, uncontrollable nightmare.
 
2012-07-19 02:19:48 PM  

sno man: 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?


Or maybe...hear me out lib...they didn't see the sticker shock tax until after this initiative went through, and said "fark THAT NOISE" and decided to go elsewhere. It's one thing if you think a fifth is 24 bucks...it's another if it's supposed to be 14 but then they add the rape.

Time and again it's been shown when taxes get too high, people will find another way not to have to pay it.

At least we're not paying for retail entry level with those tax dollars anymore.
 
2012-07-19 02:57:24 PM  

Rent Party: The market will eventually sort prices out. I've seen a mix of savings and gouging on the shelves. What I'm disappointed with is the absolute lack of selection. The top shelf stuff has completely gone away. I can get 98 different shiatty vodaks, but can't find Jamison 18, Red Breast, or Pimms anywhere.

I voted for it, and I'd do so again.


I knew Washington's privatization of liquor law would hurt selection and that was the reason I voted against it. The fact that it also increased prices just further confirms my decision.

Here, I've only seen Redbreast for sale at Fred Meyer. It was going for about $58 for a 750 ml bottle (not counting taxes). That was about the same price it cost at the old state liquor stores but at least they sometimes had it on special for $42.

At least where I live, there are Idaho state liquor stores only ten miles away.
 
2012-07-19 03:01:12 PM  

Chameleon: Do you think Costco was upset that smaller stores wouldn't be able to compete?



Not at all....but that still ignores the point that they tried to pass an initiative that opened up sales to everyone the first time around. If they wanted to crush "the little guy", they would have made that a part of their first initiative.

/So damn glad that my Costco stock is over $95.50 per share right now.
 
2012-07-19 03:20:00 PM  

Surool: This is more of an idiot tax anyway.


That, and paying more to do the gas station's job for them. One nice thing about the Oregon side of the Portland Metro region: Mini serve costs less.
 
2012-07-19 03:32:09 PM  

NDP2: Rent Party: The market will eventually sort prices out. I've seen a mix of savings and gouging on the shelves. What I'm disappointed with is the absolute lack of selection. The top shelf stuff has completely gone away. I can get 98 different shiatty vodaks, but can't find Jamison 18, Red Breast, or Pimms anywhere.

I voted for it, and I'd do so again.

I knew Washington's privatization of liquor law would hurt selection and that was the reason I voted against it. The fact that it also increased prices just further confirms my decision.

Here, I've only seen Redbreast for sale at Fred Meyer. It was going for about $58 for a 750 ml bottle (not counting taxes). That was about the same price it cost at the old state liquor stores but at least they sometimes had it on special for $42.


I think what we will eventually see is "Liquor Barn" type superstores, which should be good for selection and pricing, but that will take a while while the blue hairs that run this state get all upset thinking about the children.
 
2012-07-19 03:39:16 PM  
Just got back from a trip to Oregon where I picked up hundreds of dollars of liquor for myself and friends. The savings was between 30-75% per bottle, and I also bought liquor that you can no longer find in many Washington stores.

1183 was a cash grab by Costco, plain and simple. What's sad is the people who voted for it are blaming the state taxes for the higher prices. You know, the taxes that were clearly written into the initiative that they voted for.

Thanks for driving up prices and gutting selection, assholes. The initiative process is why we can't have nice things in this state.
 
2012-07-19 03:45:48 PM  

Telephone Sanitizer Second Class: 1183 was a cash grab by Costco, plain and simple. What's sad is the people who voted for it are blaming the state taxes for the higher prices. You know, the taxes that were clearly written into the initiative that they voted for.

Thanks for driving up prices and gutting selection, assholes. The initiative process is why we can't have nice things in this state.



Oh really? Was it a cash grab when they supported the far better initiative back in 2010? Or did the pro-government monopoly and "for the children" soccer moms force them to compromise on what they originally wanted?

And you're right in part....thanks to the initiative process, I can no longer light up a stogie inside a cigar bar or smoke shop.

But like I said, I own a nice chunk of Costco stock, so I'm loving this.
 
2012-07-19 04:02:00 PM  

The_Sponge: Oh really? Was it a cash grab when they supported the far better initiative back in 2010? Or did the pro-government monopoly and "for the children" soccer moms force them to compromise on what they originally wanted?

But like I said, I own a nice chunk of Costco stock, so I'm loving this.


Yes, the 2010 initiative was an attempted cash grab for Costco as well. Not sure why you think it wasn't. Do you think they spent millions of dollars on the initiative process and advertising out of humanitarianism?

But, hey, I'm real happy about your stocks that you keep mentioning. The "fark you, I got mine" attitude makes me very sympathetic to your cause.
 
2012-07-19 04:15:02 PM  

Telephone Sanitizer Second Class: Yes, the 2010 initiative


Both of these things are true...

The Wa State initiative process is farked up

Wa. State has no business being in a liquor monopoly

As for the prices - I've found the price change minimal and even cheaper in a couple of instances. I honestly give a rat's ass. Liquor is not a substantial portion of my net income. For those whom it is, taxes are the least of your worries. I just got back from a trip where gas was almost a dollar less than I'm used to paying and cigarettes are literally half. I don't really care - different things cost different prices in different places and sometimes prices change. Feel free to move about as you wish.

/owns 100 shares of costco too, but that's not why I voted yes - I'd have voted for any bill that got the state out of the liquor selling business. I voted for the last one too.
 
2012-07-19 04:59:55 PM  
The fark do you people mean "Washington State has no business being in a liquor monopoly".

If the people of the state want it, they'll get it.

So fark you with that attitude.


The people of the state didn't want the monopoly any more, and now they're paying the price.


So congratulations, morons. You now have shiatty selection thats a little easier to get to because you were too stupid to buy alcohol between the horribly inconvenient hours of 9am to 9pm.
 
2012-07-19 05:10:45 PM  

WSUCanuck: The fark do you people mean "Washington State has no business being in a liquor monopoly".

If the people of the state want it, they'll get it.



Right. The citizens of Wa State 'wanted' state run liquor control so they requested their governor appoint a 3 man liquor control board back in 1933. Clearly, that was the collective will of the citizens at work.
 
2012-07-19 05:12:42 PM  
While it's a bit easier to get liquor now I still told every one of you farkers how it would decrease selection and increase prices. The responses I got back were basically "BUT...BUT.... SOCIALISMS!!!!!" And now I'm paying around 10 dollars more for pretty much everything I buy. Not only that the stores don't even include the taxes in the price. You literally have to figure it will go up another 25 percent when you take it to the register.
 
2012-07-19 05:17:19 PM  

Telephone Sanitizer Second Class: Yes, the 2010 initiative was an attempted cash grab for Costco as well. Not sure why you think it wasn't. Do you think they spent millions of dollars on the initiative process and advertising out of humanitarianism?

But, hey, I'm real happy about your stocks that you keep mentioning. The "fark you, I got mine" attitude makes me very sympathetic to your cause.



1) True....but it wasn't a cash grab that involved farking over all competitors.

2) It's not so much "fark you I got mine", it's more along the lines of common sense that I would vote yes....considering the money they spent....and I want a return on that investment. What would you have done if you were in the same position?
 
2012-07-19 05:18:15 PM  
JohnBigBootay

They elected the governor. I'm sure they had a fair idea what his alcohol platform was.
 
2012-07-19 05:19:43 PM  

insertsnarkyusername: While it's a bit easier to get liquor now I still told every one of you farkers how it would decrease selection and increase prices. The responses I got back were basically "BUT...BUT.... SOCIALISMS!!!!!" And now I'm paying around 10 dollars more for pretty much everything I buy. Not only that the stores don't even include the taxes in the price. You literally have to figure it will go up another 25 percent when you take it to the register.


Welcome to the tax burden smokers have been living with for a long time now. No one needs liquor. Don't want to pay for it, don't buy it or go elsewhere. Drinking liquor is completely optional.
 
2012-07-19 05:24:54 PM  

WSUCanuck: They elected the governor. I'm sure they had a fair idea what his alcohol platform was.


Undoubtedly. What right-thinking Washingtonian would not have foreseen the repeal of the 18th amendment when they chose their governor almost a year before?
 
2012-07-19 05:29:33 PM  

JohnBigBootay: insertsnarkyusername: While it's a bit easier to get liquor now I still told every one of you farkers how it would decrease selection and increase prices. The responses I got back were basically "BUT...BUT.... SOCIALISMS!!!!!" And now I'm paying around 10 dollars more for pretty much everything I buy. Not only that the stores don't even include the taxes in the price. You literally have to figure it will go up another 25 percent when you take it to the register.

Welcome to the tax burden smokers have been living with for a long time now. No one needs liquor. Don't want to pay for it, don't buy it or go elsewhere. Drinking liquor is completely optional.


I'm a smoker as well so I know what that is like. Yes it's completely optional, and I've been choosing not to drink nearly as much. The extra cost pisses me off but screw it, I'd pay up if they actually carried the higher end stuff that I used to buy. I'd rather spend 60 on a bottle of really good bourbon than drink the cheap crap that is every where now. But I don't even have that option any more.
 
2012-07-19 05:32:48 PM  

insertsnarkyusername: I'm a smoker as well so I know what that is like. Yes it's completely optional, and I've been choosing not to drink nearly as much. The extra cost pisses me off but screw it, I'd pay up if they actually carried the higher end stuff that I used to buy. I'd rather spend 60 on a bottle of really good bourbon than drink the cheap crap that is every where now. But I don't even have that option any more.


I have to admit I really don't care much about liquor or its cost. My health premiums went up 17% last year. Water, garbage, and electricity went up this year. The cost of a bottle of booze is the least of my worries. It was on the ballot and it passed. Personally I'm ready to move on.
 
2012-07-19 05:35:50 PM  

JohnBigBootay: insertsnarkyusername: I'm a smoker as well so I know what that is like. Yes it's completely optional, and I've been choosing not to drink nearly as much. The extra cost pisses me off but screw it, I'd pay up if they actually carried the higher end stuff that I used to buy. I'd rather spend 60 on a bottle of really good bourbon than drink the cheap crap that is every where now. But I don't even have that option any more.

I have to admit I really don't care much about liquor or its cost. My health premiums went up 17% last year. Water, garbage, and electricity went up this year. The cost of a bottle of booze is the least of my worries. It was on the ballot and it passed. Personally I'm ready to move on.


Yah, I've got hit on all those things as well. But this thread is about booze and frankly I love my bourbons and irish whiskys and this pisses me off.
 
2012-07-19 07:04:19 PM  
There's a lot of confusion over what's happening with this law and the new higher prices.

The taxes did not go up; Washingtonians have been paying these same two taxes in the same amount since forever. If you don't believe me, I can show you the old price sheets they used to have. The difference is that the taxes were included in the shelf-tag price in the state stores. Most private stores aren't doing that, so it seems like an increase. It's not.

The price increase is ONE HUNDRED PERCENT wholesaler + retailer markups, not tax.

The reason the wholesale price went up is because, according to the law, if the tax receipts to the state in the first year of operation fall short of what they were in the last year of the old system, the wholesalers have to make up the difference. They're required to set aside I think $150 million for this purpose. The wholesalers are a little nervous about this.

I'm guessing a big part of why people are going to Oregon is because they don't HAVE liquor stores nearby anymore. Safeway or QFC is great if you're looking to buy one of the ten most common brands, but if you're looking for anything else, where are you supposed to go? Some of the old stores were bought by private citizens, but the ones I've seen are woefully undercapitalized (the one closest to me has seemingly 10,000 bottles of Jim Beam and absolutely nothing else). Any new stores have to be 10,000 sq. ft. or more -- the "Costco rule" designed to keep small business OUT. And even if you have one of those nearby, how are you supposed to know it's there?
 
2012-07-19 07:16:33 PM  

Generation_D: casey17: farkityfarker: What's sad is that Washington State already had almost the highest liquor prices in the country. (I think it was 3rd after AK and HI). This is why many people voted for the initiative. They thought it would lower the prices somewhat.

^^^^THIS^^^^

Also, it was supposed to increase the choice of brands & from what I can tell it's DECREASED them. Not to mention stores like Safeway & QFC never seem to have a full shelf. It is the exact opposite from what we were told it would be. However, I'm not going to waste the gas on a 3 hr. trip to Portland to save $5-$10 bucks. It sucks all the way around. :-(

Thats been my experience as well. The State Stores carried about 300 varieties of Single Malt scotch, as well as a full range of fledgling local distilleries.

Big ass stores like Safeway have a whole bunch of Crown Royal. And because of the wholesale tax increase, as well as the 10,000 foot / inventory requirements in the law, unless you are a big box store with a big variety on hand already .. you won't be carrying many of the niche brands the state stores used to have to carry.

Its a big damn dirty shame how much the public didn't care about the negative impact. They voted to hand Costco a big payday, as well as out of state wholesalers. Small local distilleries are threatened with survival now, and any fan of niche brand alcohol is having to scramble around to figure out where to buy, if they can find their favorite brands at all. Variety is way down at retail, even the newer just-opened stores don't have the same variety. And likely won't, since there's no "private market incentive" for them to. And niche liquor stores cant afford to open because they can't afford to be 10,000 square foot. Beautiful catch-22 Costco and the voters created.


Well luckily speciality shops are opening up. I live in washinton, when the law first changed we went to oregon to buy shooters to take on a plane trip since we didn't know where to buy them in washington(we left from PDX) . When we got back into our town a brand new huge retail store that sells beer/liquor and wine had openened up with any brand we could ask for and a few we never heard of. I think the selection at normal retailers will be limited since they don't specialize in liquor sales anyways but as more speciality stores open the selections will all be available.
 
2012-07-19 07:32:03 PM  

fnarf: There's a lot of confusion over what's happening with this law and the new higher prices.

The taxes did not go up; Washingtonians have been paying these same two taxes in the same amount since forever. If you don't believe me, I can show you the old price sheets they used to have. The difference is that the taxes were included in the shelf-tag price in the state stores. Most private stores aren't doing that, so it seems like an increase. It's not.

The price increase is ONE HUNDRED PERCENT wholesaler + retailer markups, not tax.

The reason the wholesale price went up is because, according to the law, if the tax receipts to the state in the first year of operation fall short of what they were in the last year of the old system, the wholesalers have to make up the difference. They're required to set aside I think $150 million for this purpose. The wholesalers are a little nervous about this.

I'm guessing a big part of why people are going to Oregon is because they don't HAVE liquor stores nearby anymore. Safeway or QFC is great if you're looking to buy one of the ten most common brands, but if you're looking for anything else, where are you supposed to go? Some of the old stores were bought by private citizens, but the ones I've seen are woefully undercapitalized (the one closest to me has seemingly 10,000 bottles of Jim Beam and absolutely nothing else). Any new stores have to be 10,000 sq. ft. or more -- the "Costco rule" designed to keep small business OUT. And even if you have one of those nearby, how are you supposed to know it's there?


The 10K sq ft rule wasn't meant to keep small businesses out, it was meant to please the biatchy soccer moms.....Costco's original initiative is proof.
 
2012-07-19 08:51:42 PM  

fnarf: There's a lot of confusion over what's happening with this law and the new higher prices.

The taxes did not go up; Washingtonians have been paying these same two taxes in the same amount since forever. If you don't believe me, I can show you the old price sheets they used to have. The difference is that the taxes were included in the shelf-tag price in the state stores. Most private stores aren't doing that, so it seems like an increase. It's not.

The price increase is ONE HUNDRED PERCENT wholesaler + retailer markups, not tax.

The reason the wholesale price went up is because, according to the law, if the tax receipts to the state in the first year of operation fall short of what they were in the last year of the old system, the wholesalers have to make up the difference. They're required to set aside I think $150 million for this purpose. The wholesalers are a little nervous about this.

I'm guessing a big part of why people are going to Oregon is because they don't HAVE liquor stores nearby anymore. Safeway or QFC is great if you're looking to buy one of the ten most common brands, but if you're looking for anything else, where are you supposed to go? Some of the old stores were bought by private citizens, but the ones I've seen are woefully undercapitalized (the one closest to me has seemingly 10,000 bottles of Jim Beam and absolutely nothing else). Any new stores have to be 10,000 sq. ft. or more -- the "Costco rule" designed to keep small business OUT. And even if you have one of those nearby, how are you supposed to know it's there?


QFT.

What baffled me was why Washingtonians voted for the initiative, despite the obvious flaws in it. (I voted against it, obviously.) It was pretty damned clear that prices would rise, selection size would fall, and the big players who wrote and funded the legislation would make a killing at the expense of Washington citizens. The legislation itself guaranteed that the decision would be expensive to reverse - Washington laid off the employees that handled the retail and distribution of alcohol, and then auctioned off the properties on which the state liquor stores stood.

And yet, a majority of Washington citizens voted for it. Baffling.

And, no, it's actually still cheaper to go to Oregon, especially if you're buying in quantity, than it is to buy high-end liquors here in Washington. Retailers are jacking up the prices - in some cases, the high-end stuff has tripled or more in price - enormously, even as the selection dried up because some of the big box folks have negotiated sweetheart deals with specific distributors.
 
2012-07-19 08:59:55 PM  

FormlessOne: Retailers are jacking up the prices - in some cases, the high-end stuff has tripled or more in price - enormously, even as the selection dried up because some of the big box folks have negotiated sweetheart deals with specific distributors.


I'll bite, show me an example of a liquor selling at more than triple the price.
 
2012-07-19 09:43:59 PM  
I haven't seen a 300% increase, but my favorite booze, Zaya rum, did go up 87% at the closest store to my house, which seems punishing. Almost every rum they carry is up 30% or more.
 
2012-07-19 09:55:00 PM  

JohnBigBootay: FormlessOne: Retailers are jacking up the prices - in some cases, the high-end stuff has tripled or more in price - enormously, even as the selection dried up because some of the big box folks have negotiated sweetheart deals with specific distributors.

I'll bite, show me an example of a liquor selling at more than triple the price.


Don't hold your breath waiting for an example. For some reason a bunch of folks here seem to think that the government should be in the business of selling booze because they seem to believe that the benevolent government is so much more efficient and better at pricing and selling alcohol than shady free market private business assholes. You know because the government does such a great job of not completely farking up everything it meddles in. The government could fark up the recipe for a glass of milk.

To be honest I think the last thing this person or the farking dimwit towards the beginning of the thread who said that red states should look at the former government run monopoly on alcohol sales WA used to have as an example of how free enterprise should work need is access to cheaper alcohol. When in your mind government monopoly = free enterprise it's time to put the sauce down.
 
2012-07-19 10:21:34 PM  

MoeSzyslak: JohnBigBootay: FormlessOne: Retailers are jacking up the prices - in some cases, the high-end stuff has tripled or more in price - enormously, even as the selection dried up because some of the big box folks have negotiated sweetheart deals with specific distributors.

I'll bite, show me an example of a liquor selling at more than triple the price.

Don't hold your breath waiting for an example. For some reason a bunch of folks here seem to think that the government should be in the business of selling booze because they seem to believe that the benevolent government is so much more efficient and better at pricing and selling alcohol than shady free market private business assholes. You know because the government does such a great job of not completely farking up everything it meddles in. The government could fark up the recipe for a glass of milk.

To be honest I think the last thing this person or the farking dimwit towards the beginning of the thread who said that red states should look at the former government run monopoly on alcohol sales WA used to have as an example of how free enterprise should work need is access to cheaper alcohol. When in your mind government monopoly = free enterprise it's time to put the sauce down.


I won't.

Here's how I feel about it in general... there's an adjustment period going on right now, some odd retailer behavior with respect to this reserve fund and they don't want to get caught with their pants down but it will eventually settle out and the market will do what it does. People in Washington want to drink booze. People who sell booze want to sell it to anyone, they don't care where they live. And the state wants to collect tax on shiat that gets sold here. The equalization will happen as it always does. And border dwellers will continue to do as they have always done and drive over the border to make the purchases that seem worth going out of their way for. I don't see the big deal - and even if it was a big deal, the state still has no business in the liquor trade.
 
2012-07-19 10:38:03 PM  
And of course the gop from penntucky want to do the same thing as washington. The taxpayers and customers are going to pay more either way when you priviatize a source of income. PA residents complain now about prices and having to drive out of state, they are going to be more up in arms when they realize they asked for it.
 
2012-07-19 11:06:11 PM  

soj4life: And of course the gop from penntucky want to do the same thing as washington. The taxpayers and customers are going to pay more either way when you priviatize a source of income. PA residents complain now about prices and having to drive out of state, they are going to be more up in arms when they realize they asked for it.


TFA: 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.

So the business is privatized and the government raises taxes fees 27% driving up the prices of alcohol and chasing away customers but the problem here isn't with the government but rather the private sector for having the audacity to get involved in the retail sale of goods? Some how this is the fault of the GOP? Do you honestly believe the government should be in the retail business?
 
2012-07-19 11:45:02 PM  

MoeSzyslak: soj4life: And of course the gop from penntucky want to do the same thing as washington. The taxpayers and customers are going to pay more either way when you priviatize a source of income. PA residents complain now about prices and having to drive out of state, they are going to be more up in arms when they realize they asked for it.

TFA: 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.

So the business is privatized and the government raises taxes fees 27% driving up the prices of alcohol and chasing away customers but the problem here isn't with the government but rather the private sector for having the audacity to get involved in the retail sale of goods? Some how this is the fault of the GOP? Do you honestly believe the government should be in the retail business?


The state raised the taxes to keep the level of income the same, which is the same thing that PA is going to do. Like I said, privatizing income for the state will either hurt tax payers or customers, or both. If the state gives away the profits from the liquor stores, taxpayers will have to pay more in taxes. If the state keeps the income levels the same, customers pay more by paying a middle person.

The system is not perfect but it works out more for customers and taxpayers then people want to admit.
 
2012-07-19 11:54:44 PM  

soj4life: The system is not perfect but it works out more for customers and taxpayers then people want to admit.


Actually, it doesn't. That's the problem. Thanks to the way the initiative was written, the big boys got to keep smaller stores out of the picture.

Folks thought they were voting for a "get the government's hands off my booze" initiative, as you can see from some of the responses. What they got was something a bit different - the state is still getting their revenue, albeit with a different mechanism. Big-box stores are now using their marketing leverage to control what gets sold. Small businesses got locked out, and the end result for customers was higher prices.

Don't take my word for it. See for yourself. The link goes to a database, maintained by the Seattle Times, of state liquor prices prior to the law taking effect on June 1. Compare those numbers with what you're seeing in stores. You'll note that the linked article anticipated a "15% to 35% increase" in prices. In more than a few cases, it's a hell of a lot more than that. But, like I said, don't take my word for it.
 
2012-07-20 12:01:29 AM  
Thanks to some stores dodging the sticker shock by leaving taxes off their posted prices, the actual prices jumped enormously when the "final price" was calculated at check-out time.

From this article (emphasis mine):
Beginning June 1, when large retailers began selling liquor in Washington, most posted signs showing customers how to calculate taxes themselves. It involves adding 20.5 percent for liquor sales tax, plus a liter tax that varies depending on the size of the bottle. In some cases, those taxes can double the initial retail price of the liquor.

Most stores are now posting final prices, and that's where some, but not all, the sticker shock is coming from - the pre-tax prices also went up on quite a few things, as well. Washington's liquor taxes are now incredibly high, but, that's what we apparently voted for - we didn't vote to "get the government out of the liquor business." We simply voted to get the goverment out of distributing liquor - they're still in the business, just from a different angle.
 
2012-07-20 12:27:14 AM  

JohnBigBootay: I'll bite, show me an example of a liquor selling at more than triple the price.


While not triple, Monopolova gin has gone from under $17 to over $40. I know some high end tequilas and Scotches have seen similar increases. The 300% number may be an exaggeration, but you can't pretend things haven't gotten worse.

To the anti government folk, all I have to say is I don't give a damn who is in charge of selling me booze. I just want a good selection of liquor at a reasonable price, and since 1183 took effect, I've had neither.
 
2012-07-20 12:34:55 AM  

MoeSzyslak: So the business is privatized and the government raises taxes fees 27% driving up the prices of alcohol and chasing away customers but the problem here isn't with the government but rather the private sector for having the audacity to get involved in the retail sale of goods?


No, the problem is that the private sector sponsored an initiative that included the 27% tax in it, and people who didn't read the fine print are pissed off that they got what they voted for.
 
2012-07-20 02:22:24 AM  
Just wait. BevMo will realize WA has a market that needs selection and we will get them.
 
2012-07-20 02:47:44 AM  
Lick her?
 
2012-07-20 03:01:32 AM  

hoihoi8: Just wait. BevMo will realize WA has a market that needs selection and we will get them.


They already have a BevMo somewhere near Tacoma. More are starting to open up in the state.

As for the selection, give it some time. It's going to take a while for liquor stores to open up and stock their shelves.
 
2012-07-20 03:07:32 AM  
I'd say I'm glad I no longer live in Washington, but since I lived so close to the border and I don't drink hard alcohol, it wouldn't have mattered to me, anyway.

Actually, I kind of MISS not having to send the state a farking income tax check every year... especially when much of my shopping was done in bulk in Oregon. ;)

/bought gas in Washington... saves a lot of time
 
2012-07-20 06:55:45 PM  

legendary: Who are the idiots that voted for this?


I knew the price would go up. I knew some small stores would go away. I voted for it.


First, the state shouldn't be in the business of operating the stores.

Second, because the WA selection outright sucked. Maybe if you were in Seattle or Spokane you could find something. Get out in the small towns and you had the choice of Jack Daniels or Crown Royal.

Third, there will be some pain while things settle down, but it won't last. Say what you will about the WA state initiative process, but we use ours. I bet you see some modifications coming up soon.


One other thing. WA isn't a red state. We're a bunch of independent hippies out here. Even the eastern side of the state is a bit odd.
 
2012-07-20 07:34:28 PM  

Outlander Engine: We're a bunch of independent hippies out here.


You think you are. But you're not. Right-leaning hypocrites more like it. Like western Oregon, western Washington likes to tell itself it's all hip and progressive, but it's just where rich kids go to retire. And they vote that way.
 
2012-07-20 07:54:12 PM  

Telephone Sanitizer Second Class: The "fark you, I got mine" attitude makes me very sympathetic to your cause.


pictures.mastermarf.com
 
Displayed 235 of 235 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report