It’s Unclear What Will Happen If Both Liquor Privatization Measures Pass

Be sure to note as well that I-1105 intends to maintain revenues to state and local governments. I-1100 has no such intention.

I don't like the price controls, but think large retailers should pay more. I also don't really think that alcohol should be taxed more than any other good. I am fine with it not enjoying the same exemption as food, but it shouldn't be taxed more than candy or books, or any other good. Hopefully we'll pass the income tax and we can start moving beyond nickel and dime taxes.

Hopefully our state will stop spending more than it takes in and learn to run things more like a business than a slush fund…..and yes, you can still accomplish entitlement spending with common sense management; that'll also make a big difference. It would also be nice if they didn't budget with “hope this thing passes” when it comes to funding sources too…..

A.S., if we're interested in trying to balance the state budget, the betting should be “hope these things fail.”

Yes, the state budget is burdened with entitlements — things like public education, public assistance, and pensions for retired public employees — things few of us would want to do without.

My first thought is, to minimize damage to the state budget, is Vote NO on Both.

What “business” do you want the state to be run like? Goldman Sachs? Enron? Worldcomm? The Seattle Times?

yes, those damn schools cost more than they take in! we ought to eliminate all the poor kids, charge tuition and turn a profit. we should also make courts and police able to charge revenue (a/k/a “mordidas”) for services just like a business!

so if either of them pass, is there anything in them to stop the legislature from immediately added a tax to them? I mean, would it be changing the initiative to add a tax, which would require the two-year waiting period. Obviously, we'd have to wait for the legislature to come back into session in January.

My bets are that one or both will pass but be stopped by a lawsuit.

Regarding the license fees — the only “license fee” clearly defined in 1105 is 6% of gross sales, which is really just a sales tax by another name that will be passed on to the consumer. So large stores will only pay more in the sense that they pay more sales tax. But since large stores tend to have lower prices on most products, this tax, like any (regressive) sales tax hits the people who shop at small stores harder. In addition, 1105 directs the liquor board to craft an additional license fee. There's no way to know now what the board will come up with or how fair it will be to smaller retailers. The 1100 license fee is a clearly defined and reasonable flat fee.

A more significant difference (sorry, Roger Mortimer, you're mistaken) is that 1100 maintains the existing tax. 1105 repeals all liquor taxes. It does replace some of that revenue with the 6% de facto sales tax. But most of the repealed tax would only be replaced with a recommendation to the legislature to increase the tax. The legislature doesn't have to enact the recommendation. It can do whatever it wants. It's anybody's guess what will actually happen to the liquor tax and state revenue if 1105 passes.

Actually, there is a long list of rules to follow when 2 pieces of alw are passed at the same time.

Basically, the court asks, which initiative got a majority first, conducting a vote by vote review of the exact time each one passed during the vote counting process. Then, the one that passed second is deemed to have overriden the one that passed earlier.

(gotcha!)

Actually, this isn't a new issue and a teensy bit of reporting (a/k/a “googling”) would have turned this up — the bottom line is the court figures it out….and you ahve to start examing them item by item to get more clarity on what will happen…

http://atg.wa.gov/AGOOpinions/Opinion.aspx?sect…

Article 2, Section 9, Paragraph 5 of the State Constituion clearly answers the question in my humble, non-legal opinion:

“If two or more measures approved by the electors at the same election conflict, that receiving the highest affirmative vote shall prevail.”

“The possibilities we have discussed are not intended to be exclusive. If this question reaches the courts, it will be a matter of first impression and the court might apply an innovative solution we have not considered. Nevertheless, these rules represent possible solutions to the problem and also serve to highlight the difficulty of the question.”

Where are you seeing the statement that who ever gets to fifty first is the one that is overridden?

You would be right, except that is in Michigan's Constitution, which shockingly enough, doesn't govern us here in Washington

Sadly our esteemed forefathers did not consider such a possibility…

Well I will be voting against both. Booze is evil.

What lawsuit? No one would have grounds to sue except maybe state liquor store employees?

Multiple subjects on the initiatives.

Such as in I-1105, “his measure would direct the liquor control board to close all state liquor stores and to license qualified private parties as spirits retailers” sure seems like they are trying to cover two separate subjects: closing state liquor stores and creating a licensing system for private companies.

And the same goes for I-1100, “stop selling liquor and end its Prohibition-era monopoly on selling distilled spirits. The state will license the sale of distilled spirits to strictly regulated vendors”

The two subjects could have easily been one ballot measure: create the licensing system and that in affect would have made state stores lose so many customers that they probably would have ended up closing on their own.

It will be too bad if both qualify; the measures will split the votes of those of us for free enterprise replacing the government monopoly.

No, I don't believe I am mistaken. I said that I-1105 “intends to maintain revenues to state and local governments.” I didn't say anything about what the initiatives do to the liquor excise tax. I-1105 explicitly instructs the liquor control board to devise a tax rate that will “…generate at least the same annual revenue for the state and local jurisdictions as under … state control…” This is to compensate for the loss of liquor board profits that accrue to the state's general fund and are shared with local cities.

I-1100 maintains no such provision and the loss from liquor board profits would not be mitigated. It would be doubtful that privatized sales would increase sales to the point that increased B&O and excise tax receipts would be enough to offset those losses.

That's the best you can do ivan? There are plenty of other choices out there for you to choose from of which a good example can be gleaned. Same for stupid down below, if you actually read the post rather than retort with your flashcard you would note that I stated entitlements can still be accomplished with better management principles (not word for word but same). Counting on funds that have yet to be allocated is STUPID, children can understand that basic fact.

Excuse me here people, but cigarettes have been sold by everybody just about everywhere and they are now up to $10 a pack, does that give anyone a clue about what the price of alcohol might be? Not to mention that the states that have already privitized alcohol in the past are the ones in the greatest financial difficulty….mmmmm….seems like there might be a connection here? Also, since when does Costco think it can rule the country by trying to get laws passed that will only benefit them?

You are correct Joe, the liquor store employees should file a lawsuit against Costoc. They will be losing their jobs thru no fault of their own if Initiative 1100 should pass. How ironic that it is 1100 state employees, the same number as the intiative, is this a sign from God?

After thought – If Initiative 1100 should pass will Costco be sending its employees out to maintain state roads & highways?

How do you figure? When 1100 deregulates alcohol totally and 1105 lets the state decide how much to tax it. Either way, neither initative is efficient, because one doesn't allow for any taxation, so goodbye to any state funded programs and the other would just drive the cost up for the consumer.

Good answer ivan, may I add BP to your list.

Thank you, that is the most sensible answer I have read on here.