Booze Fizz

Privatization usually doesn’t bring in the money that’s promised, as the assets tend to sell for less than the state expects.

This is more about the ideological preferences of the state GOP than about sensible revenue solutions.

Privatization usually doesn’t bring in the money that’s promised, as the assets tend to sell for less than the state expects.

This is more about the ideological preferences of the state GOP than about sensible revenue solutions.

Privatization usually doesn’t bring in the money that’s promised, as the assets tend to sell for less than the state expects.

This is more about the ideological preferences of the state GOP than about sensible revenue solutions.

Op-ed. Much better.

Op-ed. Much better.

Op-ed. Much better.

Good work. Also, privatization will lower retail prices, but the state could raise taxes so that the cost to the end-consumer after privatization is the same as the cost to the end-consumer pre-privatization. Washington consumers have already indicated they will spend $330MM on booze, so the state would just make taxes high enough so that they still spend $330MM on booze, just a different allocation between taxes and non-taxes. See my comment on morning fizz for an economic explanation of how this would all work.

Good work. Also, privatization will lower retail prices, but the state could raise taxes so that the cost to the end-consumer after privatization is the same as the cost to the end-consumer pre-privatization. Washington consumers have already indicated they will spend $330MM on booze, so the state would just make taxes high enough so that they still spend $330MM on booze, just a different allocation between taxes and non-taxes. See my comment on morning fizz for an economic explanation of how this would all work.

Good work. Also, privatization will lower retail prices, but the state could raise taxes so that the cost to the end-consumer after privatization is the same as the cost to the end-consumer pre-privatization. Washington consumers have already indicated they will spend $330MM on booze, so the state would just make taxes high enough so that they still spend $330MM on booze, just a different allocation between taxes and non-taxes. See my comment on morning fizz for an economic explanation of how this would all work.

Forgive me for my ignorance, but why would the state lose liquor tax revenue if it shut down the WSLCB?

If Safeway could sell liquor (as it does in CA and NV, for instance), wouldn’t there still be a tax on liquor sold? Couldn’t there be a tax on liquor sold regardless of where it is sold?

Please explain. Thanks.

Forgive me for my ignorance, but why would the state lose liquor tax revenue if it shut down the WSLCB?

If Safeway could sell liquor (as it does in CA and NV, for instance), wouldn’t there still be a tax on liquor sold? Couldn’t there be a tax on liquor sold regardless of where it is sold?

Please explain. Thanks.

I have no GOP axe to grind, but would love to see liquor sales privatized – state run liquor stores are a blue law anachronism that should have gone away years ago.

I have no GOP axe to grind, but would love to see liquor sales privatized – state run liquor stores are a blue law anachronism that should have gone away years ago.

Forgive me for my ignorance, but why would the state lose liquor tax revenue if it shut down the WSLCB?

If Safeway could sell liquor (as it does in CA and NV, for instance), wouldn’t there still be a tax on liquor sold? Couldn’t there be a tax on liquor sold regardless of where it is sold?

Please explain. Thanks.

I have no GOP axe to grind, but would love to see liquor sales privatized – state run liquor stores are a blue law anachronism that should have gone away years ago.

Whether or not it’s a GOP idea, I like the idea of privatization of booze a lot. And, I’m a progressive.

There’s no reason for Washington State to be in this business. It’s an outdated notion held over from the Prohibition era.

Ahem. Thank you.
But your math is still incomplete:
1. does opening up booze sales beyond the little monopoply of liquor stores help lower the price, helping consumers of booze?
2. does expanding distribution to every grocery store result in more sales, thus higher sales and booze tax revenue stream?
3. pluses and minuses of state employee pensions savings, real estate taxes on privatized liquor store sites, etc.?
4. and most of all why not go cups?

Ahem. Thank you.
But your math is still incomplete:
1. does opening up booze sales beyond the little monopoply of liquor stores help lower the price, helping consumers of booze?
2. does expanding distribution to every grocery store result in more sales, thus higher sales and booze tax revenue stream?
3. pluses and minuses of state employee pensions savings, real estate taxes on privatized liquor store sites, etc.?
4. and most of all why not go cups?

Ahem. Thank you.
But your math is still incomplete:
1. does opening up booze sales beyond the little monopoply of liquor stores help lower the price, helping consumers of booze?
2. does expanding distribution to every grocery store result in more sales, thus higher sales and booze tax revenue stream?
3. pluses and minuses of state employee pensions savings, real estate taxes on privatized liquor store sites, etc.?
4. and most of all why not go cups?

The State of WA liquor system is bizarre and a holdover from the end of prohibition. I say let it go. Prohibition ended 80 years ago.

I don’t think the State should even be in the liquor biz. Poor selections and most of the stores have all the warmth and customer service going to the DMV.

Some things are left best to the private sector and this is a good example.

The State of WA liquor system is bizarre and a holdover from the end of prohibition. I say let it go. Prohibition ended 80 years ago.

I don’t think the State should even be in the liquor biz. Poor selections and most of the stores have all the warmth and customer service going to the DMV.

Some things are left best to the private sector and this is a good example.

The State of WA liquor system is bizarre and a holdover from the end of prohibition. I say let it go. Prohibition ended 80 years ago.

I don’t think the State should even be in the liquor biz. Poor selections and most of the stores have all the warmth and customer service going to the DMV.

Some things are left best to the private sector and this is a good example.

@1 you are often correct but the solution is to make sure THIS sale of assets does NOT result in a bunch of sweetheart lowball deals.
Real estate values are fairly measurable, price per square foot etc. etc. should be possible to throw enuf sunlight on sales, to prevent corruption.

Also spread out the sales over a few years and use e bay.

@1 you are often correct but the solution is to make sure THIS sale of assets does NOT result in a bunch of sweetheart lowball deals.
Real estate values are fairly measurable, price per square foot etc. etc. should be possible to throw enuf sunlight on sales, to prevent corruption.

Also spread out the sales over a few years and use e bay.

@1 you are often correct but the solution is to make sure THIS sale of assets does NOT result in a bunch of sweetheart lowball deals.
Real estate values are fairly measurable, price per square foot etc. etc. should be possible to throw enuf sunlight on sales, to prevent corruption.

Also spread out the sales over a few years and use e bay.

This is not a “progressive” vs “conservative” idea. The only reason why the Democrats oppose it is because WA Federation of State Employees oppose it.

That’s it. Almost all the pols in Oly hate the current system, they don’t want to get in a pissing match with AFSCME.

This is not a “progressive” vs “conservative” idea. The only reason why the Democrats oppose it is because WA Federation of State Employees oppose it.

That’s it. Almost all the pols in Oly hate the current system, they don’t want to get in a pissing match with AFSCME.

This is not a “progressive” vs “conservative” idea. The only reason why the Democrats oppose it is because WA Federation of State Employees oppose it.

That’s it. Almost all the pols in Oly hate the current system, they don’t want to get in a pissing match with AFSCME.

I’ll never forget the shock of discovering that Washington has state-run liquor stores. It was Labor Day weekend 2001, and I’d just moved to Wedgwood from California. My apartment had a nice deck and with a sunny, warm afternoon, I thought it was perfect daiquiri weather.

So I went to the QFC there on 35th Ave NE to stock up. I found ice, strawberries, and even daiquiri mix. But no rum. I walked up and down every aisle, and found the beer and wine, but no hard alcohol.

Certain I was just blind and missing something, I stopped a 16-year old stockboy and asked him where the alcohol was. He said “the beer and wine is in Aisle #.” I said “no, I mean the liquor.” He looked at me as if I was crazy and said “sir, you have to go to a state-run store for that.”

That was obnoxious enough. The 10% markup at the state-run stores, and their absurd hours, were even worse. Just last month I stopped at a Native American casino/gas station/store near Shelton to pick up some vodka on Christmas Eve and the place was packed with folks buying booze.

So I very much agree that having to buy liquor from a state-run store is not ideal, and I’ve always been in favor of letting retailers sell it directly to the public.

My point above was that the reasons for the WA GOP supporting privatization weren’t the same as mine – they’re not looking out for the vodka-thirsty consumer, but advancing an ideological agenda. One that usually doesn’t work out financially.

Here in California, Arnold Schwarzenegger has sold off several state assets in recent years, from state insurance compensation funds to county fairgrounds. In every case, the sale has brought in much less money than the state expected, below the assessed value of the asset.

In short, while there is a good consumer choice argument for privatizing the Liquor Control Board’s operation, there is a much weaker financial argument for doing so.

I’ll never forget the shock of discovering that Washington has state-run liquor stores. It was Labor Day weekend 2001, and I’d just moved to Wedgwood from California. My apartment had a nice deck and with a sunny, warm afternoon, I thought it was perfect daiquiri weather.

So I went to the QFC there on 35th Ave NE to stock up. I found ice, strawberries, and even daiquiri mix. But no rum. I walked up and down every aisle, and found the beer and wine, but no hard alcohol.

Certain I was just blind and missing something, I stopped a 16-year old stockboy and asked him where the alcohol was. He said “the beer and wine is in Aisle #.” I said “no, I mean the liquor.” He looked at me as if I was crazy and said “sir, you have to go to a state-run store for that.”

That was obnoxious enough. The 10% markup at the state-run stores, and their absurd hours, were even worse. Just last month I stopped at a Native American casino/gas station/store near Shelton to pick up some vodka on Christmas Eve and the place was packed with folks buying booze.

So I very much agree that having to buy liquor from a state-run store is not ideal, and I’ve always been in favor of letting retailers sell it directly to the public.

My point above was that the reasons for the WA GOP supporting privatization weren’t the same as mine – they’re not looking out for the vodka-thirsty consumer, but advancing an ideological agenda. One that usually doesn’t work out financially.

Here in California, Arnold Schwarzenegger has sold off several state assets in recent years, from state insurance compensation funds to county fairgrounds. In every case, the sale has brought in much less money than the state expected, below the assessed value of the asset.

In short, while there is a good consumer choice argument for privatizing the Liquor Control Board’s operation, there is a much weaker financial argument for doing so.

I’ll never forget the shock of discovering that Washington has state-run liquor stores. It was Labor Day weekend 2001, and I’d just moved to Wedgwood from California. My apartment had a nice deck and with a sunny, warm afternoon, I thought it was perfect daiquiri weather.

So I went to the QFC there on 35th Ave NE to stock up. I found ice, strawberries, and even daiquiri mix. But no rum. I walked up and down every aisle, and found the beer and wine, but no hard alcohol.

Certain I was just blind and missing something, I stopped a 16-year old stockboy and asked him where the alcohol was. He said “the beer and wine is in Aisle #.” I said “no, I mean the liquor.” He looked at me as if I was crazy and said “sir, you have to go to a state-run store for that.”

That was obnoxious enough. The 10% markup at the state-run stores, and their absurd hours, were even worse. Just last month I stopped at a Native American casino/gas station/store near Shelton to pick up some vodka on Christmas Eve and the place was packed with folks buying booze.

So I very much agree that having to buy liquor from a state-run store is not ideal, and I’ve always been in favor of letting retailers sell it directly to the public.

My point above was that the reasons for the WA GOP supporting privatization weren’t the same as mine – they’re not looking out for the vodka-thirsty consumer, but advancing an ideological agenda. One that usually doesn’t work out financially.

Here in California, Arnold Schwarzenegger has sold off several state assets in recent years, from state insurance compensation funds to county fairgrounds. In every case, the sale has brought in much less money than the state expected, below the assessed value of the asset.

In short, while there is a good consumer choice argument for privatizing the Liquor Control Board’s operation, there is a much weaker financial argument for doing so.

I don’t care about the revenue, I just want to be able to be alcohol at Costco and QFC. I also want to be able to go to a store that specializes in say scotch so I can have more options that the shitty selection the state stores provide.

Oh and wouldn’t it be nice to have to mess around with beer gardens and other nonsense at events? But now I am just dreaming since we live in a state with liquor laws designed by jesus freaks in the early 1900′s.

Your calculations though should also include the taxes on the extra revenue the private stores generate. Its not just the tax on the alcohol it self but also B&O and other taxes on corporate revenue.

I don’t care about the revenue, I just want to be able to be alcohol at Costco and QFC. I also want to be able to go to a store that specializes in say scotch so I can have more options that the shitty selection the state stores provide.

Oh and wouldn’t it be nice to have to mess around with beer gardens and other nonsense at events? But now I am just dreaming since we live in a state with liquor laws designed by jesus freaks in the early 1900′s.

Your calculations though should also include the taxes on the extra revenue the private stores generate. Its not just the tax on the alcohol it self but also B&O and other taxes on corporate revenue.

I don’t care about the revenue, I just want to be able to be alcohol at Costco and QFC. I also want to be able to go to a store that specializes in say scotch so I can have more options that the shitty selection the state stores provide.

Oh and wouldn’t it be nice to have to mess around with beer gardens and other nonsense at events? But now I am just dreaming since we live in a state with liquor laws designed by jesus freaks in the early 1900′s.

Your calculations though should also include the taxes on the extra revenue the private stores generate. Its not just the tax on the alcohol it self but also B&O and other taxes on corporate revenue.

@10 Nailed it.

@10 Nailed it.

@10 Nailed it.

Ah, I remember fondly the days of shopping in Los Angeles at Costco and getting 3 bottles of whiskey for the same price as I’d have paid for one at the store. I think privitization would be a good thing — for my own selfish reasons and because I’d be interested to see if being able to “impulse buy” would increase sales, since people will no longer have to find the seedly little liquor stores at their local strip mall…

I also don’t believe this is a conservative or progressive idea (neither do this bill’s bipartisan sponsors). In a budget crisis, the state needs to focus on core functions. Selling liquor certainly is not a critical service that the state should be providing. Why should we stand by while services for our most vulnerable citizens are cut, when we can save money and resources by allowing private stores to sell liquor?

I also agree that the private sale of liquor should lower existing costs, so taxes on liquor could be increased without a corresponding increase in existing costs to the consumer.

I also don’t believe this is a conservative or progressive idea (neither do this bill’s bipartisan sponsors). In a budget crisis, the state needs to focus on core functions. Selling liquor certainly is not a critical service that the state should be providing. Why should we stand by while services for our most vulnerable citizens are cut, when we can save money and resources by allowing private stores to sell liquor?

I also agree that the private sale of liquor should lower existing costs, so taxes on liquor could be increased without a corresponding increase in existing costs to the consumer.

Ah, I remember fondly the days of shopping in Los Angeles at Costco and getting 3 bottles of whiskey for the same price as I’d have paid for one at the store. I think privitization would be a good thing — for my own selfish reasons and because I’d be interested to see if being able to “impulse buy” would increase sales, since people will no longer have to find the seedly little liquor stores at their local strip mall…

I also don’t believe this is a conservative or progressive idea (neither do this bill’s bipartisan sponsors). In a budget crisis, the state needs to focus on core functions. Selling liquor certainly is not a critical service that the state should be providing. Why should we stand by while services for our most vulnerable citizens are cut, when we can save money and resources by allowing private stores to sell liquor?

I also agree that the private sale of liquor should lower existing costs, so taxes on liquor could be increased without a corresponding increase in existing costs to the consumer.

Sounds like a fine idea to me, but I do have some reservations around auctoning off licenses etc.

I spent much of my college years and beyond working in liquor stores in New Jersey. New Jersey is a bit unusual as one must buy virtually all alcohol through a liquor store- icluding beer and wine- so this may not be a perfect example (perhaps MA does something similar). Most liquor stores in NJ seemed to make thier nut in beer sales with liquor and wine being the cream. Having said that…

I have never seen a liquor store go out of business. I’m sure it happens, but it would seem that liquor stores are one of the the most failure proof retail businesses there is. And, at least in New Jersey, still one of the few businesses where mom and pops seem to be thriving.

It would appear to be all about the license. Getting a license for the retail sales of liquor is very nearly like getting a license to print money (a gross overstatement to be sure, but I’m often gross). These licenses are worth a lot of $ and without some sort of a plan to minimize the number of licenses that can be owned by any one corporate entity we are potentially making the situation worse.

Rather long winded way of saying it, but I would support this measure fully if it safeguarded the licensing structure through a protocol that made sure no single person or company could own more than some preset number of licenses, that those licenses are not transferable except through pre-determined criteria that protects competition and family owned businesses, and that each licensed establishment is demontrated to be profitable on it’s own merits and is not being supported by the profits from other businesses or other licensed liquor stores.

Sounds like a fine idea to me, but I do have some reservations around auctoning off licenses etc.

I spent much of my college years and beyond working in liquor stores in New Jersey. New Jersey is a bit unusual as one must buy virtually all alcohol through a liquor store- icluding beer and wine- so this may not be a perfect example (perhaps MA does something similar). Most liquor stores in NJ seemed to make thier nut in beer sales with liquor and wine being the cream. Having said that…

I have never seen a liquor store go out of business. I’m sure it happens, but it would seem that liquor stores are one of the the most failure proof retail businesses there is. And, at least in New Jersey, still one of the few businesses where mom and pops seem to be thriving.

It would appear to be all about the license. Getting a license for the retail sales of liquor is very nearly like getting a license to print money (a gross overstatement to be sure, but I’m often gross). These licenses are worth a lot of $ and without some sort of a plan to minimize the number of licenses that can be owned by any one corporate entity we are potentially making the situation worse.

Rather long winded way of saying it, but I would support this measure fully if it safeguarded the licensing structure through a protocol that made sure no single person or company could own more than some preset number of licenses, that those licenses are not transferable except through pre-determined criteria that protects competition and family owned businesses, and that each licensed establishment is demontrated to be profitable on it’s own merits and is not being supported by the profits from other businesses or other licensed liquor stores.

Sounds like a fine idea to me, but I do have some reservations around auctoning off licenses etc.

I spent much of my college years and beyond working in liquor stores in New Jersey. New Jersey is a bit unusual as one must buy virtually all alcohol through a liquor store- icluding beer and wine- so this may not be a perfect example (perhaps MA does something similar). Most liquor stores in NJ seemed to make thier nut in beer sales with liquor and wine being the cream. Having said that…

I have never seen a liquor store go out of business. I’m sure it happens, but it would seem that liquor stores are one of the the most failure proof retail businesses there is. And, at least in New Jersey, still one of the few businesses where mom and pops seem to be thriving.

It would appear to be all about the license. Getting a license for the retail sales of liquor is very nearly like getting a license to print money (a gross overstatement to be sure, but I’m often gross). These licenses are worth a lot of $ and without some sort of a plan to minimize the number of licenses that can be owned by any one corporate entity we are potentially making the situation worse.

Rather long winded way of saying it, but I would support this measure fully if it safeguarded the licensing structure through a protocol that made sure no single person or company could own more than some preset number of licenses, that those licenses are not transferable except through pre-determined criteria that protects competition and family owned businesses, and that each licensed establishment is demontrated to be profitable on it’s own merits and is not being supported by the profits from other businesses or other licensed liquor stores.

The Revenue over Costs is a recurring year after year profit. Selling off the properties, licenses and the warehouse would be a one time deal. It would take a pretty substantial tax to cover the loss of the profit. If a big tax is OK with the public and the legislature then go ahead and do it, but I doubt the public will go along with a big tax on booze.

The other argument against doing this is where else will we sell marijuana when we finally get that legalized?

The Revenue over Costs is a recurring year after year profit. Selling off the properties, licenses and the warehouse would be a one time deal. It would take a pretty substantial tax to cover the loss of the profit. If a big tax is OK with the public and the legislature then go ahead and do it, but I doubt the public will go along with a big tax on booze.

The other argument against doing this is where else will we sell marijuana when we finally get that legalized?

The Revenue over Costs is a recurring year after year profit. Selling off the properties, licenses and the warehouse would be a one time deal. It would take a pretty substantial tax to cover the loss of the profit. If a big tax is OK with the public and the legislature then go ahead and do it, but I doubt the public will go along with a big tax on booze.

The other argument against doing this is where else will we sell marijuana when we finally get that legalized?

Where will we sell the pot after we legalize it if we close the liquor stores?

And BTW–I always found it oddly disturbing to see Albertson’s brand vodka on the shelves when I lived in New Mexico.

Where will we sell the pot after we legalize it if we close the liquor stores?

And BTW–I always found it oddly disturbing to see Albertson’s brand vodka on the shelves when I lived in New Mexico.

Where will we sell the pot after we legalize it if we close the liquor stores?

And BTW–I always found it oddly disturbing to see Albertson’s brand vodka on the shelves when I lived in New Mexico.

you, too are ignoring the continual stream of:
1. higher real estate taxes from these properties
2. annual savings in state pension plan.
3. enhanced liquor taxes and sales taxes because when you end limits on distribution…people buy more booze.
and the nontax item is
4. eliminating this monopoly will lower prices of booze which puts dollars in people’s pockets, too.

Seriously I was ferrying over to Winslow, wanted to get a nice bottle of booze to give my hosts, and I had to wonder where the heck is the state liquor store? Go dricing around searching for it? supporting sprawl and more parking lots and more strip malls? I couldn’t just buy it when buying cheese and crackers at QFC, WTF ?
What, is Jack Daniels cocaine or something?
As to marijuana, let anyone sell it, like we do, Budweiser. We certainly don’t need the government doing it. You think they’re going to be open at midnight, dude? And will they have a full line of burgers, chips and cookies? I don’t think so.
Change. Pls. learn to love it. Things will be okay. It’s not really so scary. Thanx.

you, too are ignoring the continual stream of:
1. higher real estate taxes from these properties
2. annual savings in state pension plan.
3. enhanced liquor taxes and sales taxes because when you end limits on distribution…people buy more booze.
and the nontax item is
4. eliminating this monopoly will lower prices of booze which puts dollars in people’s pockets, too.

Seriously I was ferrying over to Winslow, wanted to get a nice bottle of booze to give my hosts, and I had to wonder where the heck is the state liquor store? Go dricing around searching for it? supporting sprawl and more parking lots and more strip malls? I couldn’t just buy it when buying cheese and crackers at QFC, WTF ?
What, is Jack Daniels cocaine or something?
As to marijuana, let anyone sell it, like we do, Budweiser. We certainly don’t need the government doing it. You think they’re going to be open at midnight, dude? And will they have a full line of burgers, chips and cookies? I don’t think so.
Change. Pls. learn to love it. Things will be okay. It’s not really so scary. Thanx.

you, too are ignoring the continual stream of:
1. higher real estate taxes from these properties
2. annual savings in state pension plan.
3. enhanced liquor taxes and sales taxes because when you end limits on distribution…people buy more booze.
and the nontax item is
4. eliminating this monopoly will lower prices of booze which puts dollars in people’s pockets, too.

Seriously I was ferrying over to Winslow, wanted to get a nice bottle of booze to give my hosts, and I had to wonder where the heck is the state liquor store? Go dricing around searching for it? supporting sprawl and more parking lots and more strip malls? I couldn’t just buy it when buying cheese and crackers at QFC, WTF ?
What, is Jack Daniels cocaine or something?
As to marijuana, let anyone sell it, like we do, Budweiser. We certainly don’t need the government doing it. You think they’re going to be open at midnight, dude? And will they have a full line of burgers, chips and cookies? I don’t think so.
Change. Pls. learn to love it. Things will be okay. It’s not really so scary. Thanx.

“we” will sell the pot via home delivery service, just like you have right now in NYC. this supports walkability of neighborhoods, esp. as we build more density. You won’t need a car to go driving around to buy pot, rest assured. They will cycle over and deliver it to you and take your debit card just like they deliver Chinese and Thai food. A wonderful small business that will create many jobs.

“we” will sell the pot via home delivery service, just like you have right now in NYC. this supports walkability of neighborhoods, esp. as we build more density. You won’t need a car to go driving around to buy pot, rest assured. They will cycle over and deliver it to you and take your debit card just like they deliver Chinese and Thai food. A wonderful small business that will create many jobs.

“we” will sell the pot via home delivery service, just like you have right now in NYC. this supports walkability of neighborhoods, esp. as we build more density. You won’t need a car to go driving around to buy pot, rest assured. They will cycle over and deliver it to you and take your debit card just like they deliver Chinese and Thai food. A wonderful small business that will create many jobs.

Sell the pot at DOL offices.

Sell the pot at DOL offices.

Sell the pot at DOL offices.

@4,

Re: Taxes. As the post noted:

Yes, they acknowledged, the equation of shutting down state run stores + losing booze revenue (we still get the taxes, though that’s not nearly enough to make up the difference) is a loser.

@4,

Re: Taxes. As the post noted:

Yes, they acknowledged, the equation of shutting down state run stores + losing booze revenue (we still get the taxes, though that’s not nearly enough to make up the difference) is a loser.

@4,

Re: Taxes. As the post noted:

Yes, they acknowledged, the equation of shutting down state run stores + losing booze revenue (we still get the taxes, though that’s not nearly enough to make up the difference) is a loser.

@4 – Right now, the state gets EVERYTHING from selling boooze. Not just taxes. The government has a monopoly.
If they privatize, they only get the taxes.

@4 – Right now, the state gets EVERYTHING from selling boooze. Not just taxes. The government has a monopoly.
If they privatize, they only get the taxes.

@4 – Right now, the state gets EVERYTHING from selling boooze. Not just taxes. The government has a monopoly.
If they privatize, they only get the taxes.

Yes! Please! Sell it in regular stores. The WSLB stores are a pain in the ass to deal with.

Yes! Please! Sell it in regular stores. The WSLB stores are a pain in the ass to deal with.

Yes! Please! Sell it in regular stores. The WSLB stores are a pain in the ass to deal with.

@ 23. Yeah, they would just get a 9.5% (or more) cut on all sales without doing a thing. Good business model if you can get it. Safeway, by contrast makes 3-4% gross margins.

@ 23. Yeah, they would just get a 9.5% (or more) cut on all sales without doing a thing. Good business model if you can get it. Safeway, by contrast makes 3-4% gross margins.

@ 23. Yeah, they would just get a 9.5% (or more) cut on all sales without doing a thing. Good business model if you can get it. Safeway, by contrast makes 3-4% gross margins.

Why not tax it so a bottle of booze that sells for $20 at a liquor store now sells for $20 at a grocery store? This way the state gets all the revenue they were making before without the overhead cost.

The store can still carve out a profit from the share of overhead the state incurred, assuming the store’s overhead is a lot lower, which I am sure it must be only having to stock a few shelves and not run an entire store.

Why not tax it so a bottle of booze that sells for $20 at a liquor store now sells for $20 at a grocery store? This way the state gets all the revenue they were making before without the overhead cost.

The store can still carve out a profit from the share of overhead the state incurred, assuming the store’s overhead is a lot lower, which I am sure it must be only having to stock a few shelves and not run an entire store.

Why not tax it so a bottle of booze that sells for $20 at a liquor store now sells for $20 at a grocery store? This way the state gets all the revenue they were making before without the overhead cost.

The store can still carve out a profit from the share of overhead the state incurred, assuming the store’s overhead is a lot lower, which I am sure it must be only having to stock a few shelves and not run an entire store.

FINALLY! Washington is putting the final wooden stake in the (why on earth is it still beating) heart of Prohibition. Let’s hear it for bi-partisan common sense.

This is not about the privatization of our government (sorry @1) This is about wanting to get what we pay for as tax payers. Right now we are paying for control over liquor distribution. Un fortunately, as a consequence, prices are higher and selection is poorer. By issuing licenses, the government can get that same control without directly selling the booze. Prices may come down and selection will definitely improve. If the state regulates the number of licenses, there will not be a flood in the market–something people are concerned will lead to easier access for minors. We don’t necessarily need to allow liquor in grocery stores.

Either way, @16′s point is very important: licenses need to be carefully thought out to avoid a private monopoly or the mistake that New York makes that let’s people only own one store. There are some great spirits stores in New York City that could easily have more than one location, due to demand, but are only allowed one (Bottlerocket on 19th comes to mind).

FINALLY! Washington is putting the final wooden stake in the (why on earth is it still beating) heart of Prohibition. Let’s hear it for bi-partisan common sense.

This is not about the privatization of our government (sorry @1) This is about wanting to get what we pay for as tax payers. Right now we are paying for control over liquor distribution. Un fortunately, as a consequence, prices are higher and selection is poorer. By issuing licenses, the government can get that same control without directly selling the booze. Prices may come down and selection will definitely improve. If the state regulates the number of licenses, there will not be a flood in the market–something people are concerned will lead to easier access for minors. We don’t necessarily need to allow liquor in grocery stores.

Either way, @16′s point is very important: licenses need to be carefully thought out to avoid a private monopoly or the mistake that New York makes that let’s people only own one store. There are some great spirits stores in New York City that could easily have more than one location, due to demand, but are only allowed one (Bottlerocket on 19th comes to mind).

FINALLY! Washington is putting the final wooden stake in the (why on earth is it still beating) heart of Prohibition. Let’s hear it for bi-partisan common sense.

This is not about the privatization of our government (sorry @1) This is about wanting to get what we pay for as tax payers. Right now we are paying for control over liquor distribution. Un fortunately, as a consequence, prices are higher and selection is poorer. By issuing licenses, the government can get that same control without directly selling the booze. Prices may come down and selection will definitely improve. If the state regulates the number of licenses, there will not be a flood in the market–something people are concerned will lead to easier access for minors. We don’t necessarily need to allow liquor in grocery stores.

Either way, @16′s point is very important: licenses need to be carefully thought out to avoid a private monopoly or the mistake that New York makes that let’s people only own one store. There are some great spirits stores in New York City that could easily have more than one location, due to demand, but are only allowed one (Bottlerocket on 19th comes to mind).

Right now, the state gets the taxes- and that wont change.
But they also get the markup- the difference between what they pay wholesale, and what they sell it for retail.

Losing the markup is the missing $210 Million a year.

And selling the licences? Besides being a one time return, does that mean that they will only sell the EXISTING licences? Which would mean continuing having a few liquor only stores in odd locations?

What I want, and I think most other people want, is to be able to buy liquor from any store that can get a licence to sell beer. Costco, QFC, Trader Joes, and so on.

Assuming that more volume will be sold, but at a lower price, the taxes may go up a bit, but my guess is that, monetarily, this will be a net income LOSS for the state, but a gain for the liquor consumer.

Right now, the state gets the taxes- and that wont change.
But they also get the markup- the difference between what they pay wholesale, and what they sell it for retail.

Losing the markup is the missing $210 Million a year.

And selling the licences? Besides being a one time return, does that mean that they will only sell the EXISTING licences? Which would mean continuing having a few liquor only stores in odd locations?

What I want, and I think most other people want, is to be able to buy liquor from any store that can get a licence to sell beer. Costco, QFC, Trader Joes, and so on.

Assuming that more volume will be sold, but at a lower price, the taxes may go up a bit, but my guess is that, monetarily, this will be a net income LOSS for the state, but a gain for the liquor consumer.

Right now, the state gets the taxes- and that wont change.
But they also get the markup- the difference between what they pay wholesale, and what they sell it for retail.

Losing the markup is the missing $210 Million a year.

And selling the licences? Besides being a one time return, does that mean that they will only sell the EXISTING licences? Which would mean continuing having a few liquor only stores in odd locations?

What I want, and I think most other people want, is to be able to buy liquor from any store that can get a licence to sell beer. Costco, QFC, Trader Joes, and so on.

Assuming that more volume will be sold, but at a lower price, the taxes may go up a bit, but my guess is that, monetarily, this will be a net income LOSS for the state, but a gain for the liquor consumer.

This is a great idea. I have long advocated inside government for this. A couple details to make it better:

1. bundle the licenses – this will get you more for the crappy stores and it won’t get you less for the good stores. Costco does this all the time with DVDs and it’s an accepted business practice. People will pay more for the bad one to get the good one plus something. It’s irrational but it’s a fact.

2. Put a limit on the # of licenses for a time period – the state currently has 160+ liquor stores. Sell that many licenses and commit to no new licenses for 5 years. That will maximize one-time revenue for the licenses…making it far more attractive to the politicians looking to balance next year’s (terrible!) budget. This also has the added political benefit of not ‘expanding’ the availability of alcohol. Then sit back and let the political process do your work for you…. guaranteed more licenses come future budget challenges. Don’t believe me? See what has happened the last few years – budget challenges come, liquor store hours increase, temporary Christmas stores open in Westlake and some stores open on Sundays. It’s a fact that politicians’ principles on this issue only last until they get in the way of their principles on other issues. Let’s use that to our advantage.

3. increase liquor taxes. this will make up some if not all of the lost revenue, which the consumer will not notice, since the price of booze will go way down under private competition. The politicians might have a moral objection to this, but how can they since they themselves engage in this behavior themselves (see #2 above – budget balancing through liquor consumption).

4. IF YOU HAVE TO: require that the private stores be unionized in your license sales. It’s a terrible idea, but I contend that private stores with union reps will still result in better consumer experience that gov’t stores with union reps. and it could buy you the political cover you need. It would suck but it would still be an improvement.

3.

This is a great idea. I have long advocated inside government for this. A couple details to make it better:

1. bundle the licenses – this will get you more for the crappy stores and it won’t get you less for the good stores. Costco does this all the time with DVDs and it’s an accepted business practice. People will pay more for the bad one to get the good one plus something. It’s irrational but it’s a fact.

2. Put a limit on the # of licenses for a time period – the state currently has 160+ liquor stores. Sell that many licenses and commit to no new licenses for 5 years. That will maximize one-time revenue for the licenses…making it far more attractive to the politicians looking to balance next year’s (terrible!) budget. This also has the added political benefit of not ‘expanding’ the availability of alcohol. Then sit back and let the political process do your work for you…. guaranteed more licenses come future budget challenges. Don’t believe me? See what has happened the last few years – budget challenges come, liquor store hours increase, temporary Christmas stores open in Westlake and some stores open on Sundays. It’s a fact that politicians’ principles on this issue only last until they get in the way of their principles on other issues. Let’s use that to our advantage.

3. increase liquor taxes. this will make up some if not all of the lost revenue, which the consumer will not notice, since the price of booze will go way down under private competition. The politicians might have a moral objection to this, but how can they since they themselves engage in this behavior themselves (see #2 above – budget balancing through liquor consumption).

4. IF YOU HAVE TO: require that the private stores be unionized in your license sales. It’s a terrible idea, but I contend that private stores with union reps will still result in better consumer experience that gov’t stores with union reps. and it could buy you the political cover you need. It would suck but it would still be an improvement.

3.

This is a great idea. I have long advocated inside government for this. A couple details to make it better:

1. bundle the licenses – this will get you more for the crappy stores and it won’t get you less for the good stores. Costco does this all the time with DVDs and it’s an accepted business practice. People will pay more for the bad one to get the good one plus something. It’s irrational but it’s a fact.

2. Put a limit on the # of licenses for a time period – the state currently has 160+ liquor stores. Sell that many licenses and commit to no new licenses for 5 years. That will maximize one-time revenue for the licenses…making it far more attractive to the politicians looking to balance next year’s (terrible!) budget. This also has the added political benefit of not ‘expanding’ the availability of alcohol. Then sit back and let the political process do your work for you…. guaranteed more licenses come future budget challenges. Don’t believe me? See what has happened the last few years – budget challenges come, liquor store hours increase, temporary Christmas stores open in Westlake and some stores open on Sundays. It’s a fact that politicians’ principles on this issue only last until they get in the way of their principles on other issues. Let’s use that to our advantage.

3. increase liquor taxes. this will make up some if not all of the lost revenue, which the consumer will not notice, since the price of booze will go way down under private competition. The politicians might have a moral objection to this, but how can they since they themselves engage in this behavior themselves (see #2 above – budget balancing through liquor consumption).

4. IF YOU HAVE TO: require that the private stores be unionized in your license sales. It’s a terrible idea, but I contend that private stores with union reps will still result in better consumer experience that gov’t stores with union reps. and it could buy you the political cover you need. It would suck but it would still be an improvement.

3.

I am really conflicted about this one. I hate the fact that the state is selling demon booze. I do not like it at all. However I do like that it is all in one place. I do not have to see it. I don’t want to see it in the regular stores either. It is bad enough that there is beer and wine. I have to be careful when I shop because I am not supposed to even look at this stuff. Let’s just bring back prohibiation.

I am really conflicted about this one. I hate the fact that the state is selling demon booze. I do not like it at all. However I do like that it is all in one place. I do not have to see it. I don’t want to see it in the regular stores either. It is bad enough that there is beer and wine. I have to be careful when I shop because I am not supposed to even look at this stuff. Let’s just bring back prohibiation.

I am really conflicted about this one. I hate the fact that the state is selling demon booze. I do not like it at all. However I do like that it is all in one place. I do not have to see it. I don’t want to see it in the regular stores either. It is bad enough that there is beer and wine. I have to be careful when I shop because I am not supposed to even look at this stuff. Let’s just bring back prohibiation.

so, we should sell an asset for an immediate influx of cash? But what about the long term?

Auction off the assets? who has money in this economy except the large purchasers? If somehow a monopoly is created – I doubt liquor prices will come down for consumers.
I would rather pay higher tax on alcohol to the state now than having to pay the price stipulated by a company trying to expand it’s profit margin AND a higher tax.

so, we should sell an asset for an immediate influx of cash? But what about the long term?

Auction off the assets? who has money in this economy except the large purchasers? If somehow a monopoly is created – I doubt liquor prices will come down for consumers.
I would rather pay higher tax on alcohol to the state now than having to pay the price stipulated by a company trying to expand it’s profit margin AND a higher tax.

More B & O taxes? HA! The Washington Retail Association has already vowed to oppose any increase in B & O.
That wont change just because a few retailers will suddenly be able to sell whiskey. Bet

More B & O taxes? HA! The Washington Retail Association has already vowed to oppose any increase in B & O.
That wont change just because a few retailers will suddenly be able to sell whiskey. Bet

More B & O taxes? HA! The Washington Retail Association has already vowed to oppose any increase in B & O.
That wont change just because a few retailers will suddenly be able to sell whiskey. Bet

Whether or not it's a GOP idea, I like the idea of privatization of booze a lot. And, I'm a progressive.

There's no reason for Washington State to be in this business. It's an outdated notion held over from the Prohibition era.