- This topic is empty.
September 27, 2010 at 4:37 pm #596504
Has anyone seen any data on the net state revenue projections if the combination passes? For instance, state would lose retail revenue (but not taxes) if they get out of the booze business and the top income-earners would be paying additional taxes. I think I prefer these revenue sources, but will it ultimately provide more to the state budget? Less? A wash?September 27, 2010 at 4:59 pm #704358
The state can still tax liquor sales, regardless of where those sales occur. Therefore, whether the state loses money from 1100 and/or 1105 in the long run is really up to the state itself.
Throwing 1098 into the equation makes it too complicated in my opinion. There are Web pages out there that can give you revenue impacts on any of these bills separately, but I don’t think there are any that compare the possible combinations among the three of them.September 27, 2010 at 5:16 pm #704359
Yeah, I guess I’m assuming the state will tax liquor sales…can’t see them NOT doing it, can you? lolSeptember 27, 2010 at 6:49 pm #704360
1100 retains the liquor taxes that are already in place.
But yeah GenHillOne, if the effects of the “lost revenue” from 1100 are really all that dramatic, the legislature will find a way to make up for it.September 27, 2010 at 8:52 pm #704361
The Wash. Secretary of State’s office (www.sos.wa.gov) is a great resource for this type of information. Go to the “elections and voting” section, then 2010 Election Voters Guide”. Click under “state measures”, then the particular initiative you’re interested in. One of the areas you can click on is “Fiscal Impact Statement”. This will tell you the estimated impacts and the organization that estimated those impacts. (Whew! Didn’t think this would take this long!). Sam Reed’s office does a terrific job with this type of stuff. Good luck!September 27, 2010 at 9:12 pm #704362
Aha, thank you! Okay, so there are a lot of details to go over, but in its most basic form, over 5 years:
1100 projection is decrease of $76 – $84 million (depending on mark-up)
1105 projection is decrease of $486 – $520 million (depending on mark-up)
1098 projection is increase of $11.16 billionSeptember 28, 2010 at 2:06 pm #704363
i know your question is genuine..
but linking 1098
with 1100 and 1105 in any way really bothers me.
I recall the fuss that was made here about a state liquor store that wanted to locate too close to a school.
imagine a world where there was no process for public input. How far is the nearest 7/11 from your local elementary school?
and do we really want the local drunks to leave the taverns and bars and head to the local convenience store to pick up more alcohol on their way home?
what does that kind of convenience really cost us?
I view the liquor sales measures as matters of public safety…
not ones of revenue loss or gain.September 28, 2010 at 3:40 pm #704364
OF COURSE there are lots of other factors to consider, but all three/six sides are using financial/budget/service impact to make their cases. I have to vote on all three so they are linked in my mind. This was simply a search for the financial piece because I hadn’t seen it in other discussions, which already do include the points you’re making.September 28, 2010 at 5:18 pm #704365
“and do we really want the local drunks to leave the taverns and bars and head to the local convenience store to pick up more alcohol on their way home?”
vs. what? Drinking more at the bar before they get into their car because they can’t get more anywhere else?September 28, 2010 at 6:12 pm #704366
LOL… do you really think that drunks put off that closing time drink when they can cross the street and buy more booze after the bar closes?
I have lived and partied where that was possible and closing time shots were followed by an after hour party fueled by the local liquor store…
that often put us on the road during rush hour:(September 28, 2010 at 7:07 pm #704367
JoB as long as people aren’t breaking the law, what do you care about when and where they buy liquor?September 28, 2010 at 7:11 pm #704368
Why can’t sensible laws be passed limiting liquor sales? Many many states don’t sell after a certain hour (8pm in CT, 11pm in MA). Why can’t they limit the number of places that sell hard alcohol like they currently do with restaurants? Everyone assumes if one of both of these passes that it will become the Wild Wild West. Stop buying the hype.September 28, 2010 at 7:17 pm #704369
Thank you, Carson. Washington already bars the sale of alcohol between the hours of 02:00 and 06:00 (those early-morning “after-party” hours JoB is referencing). You cannot buy beer or wine during that time *anywhere* in our state. I assume that law would be applicable to hard alcohol, as well.
The fear surrounding I-1100 is ridiculous. Our lawmakers are not complete idiots. There would be measures enacted to control liquor sales and to adequately tax them, just as in almost every other state.September 28, 2010 at 7:17 pm #704370
Exactly. Privatization doesn’t mean the state or local governments can’t regulate when and where liquor can be sold.September 28, 2010 at 7:37 pm #704371
Darn, I was hoping to be able to buy a bottle in the Lafayette Elementary lobby when I pick up my kids after school.September 28, 2010 at 8:47 pm #704372
Actually, that’s a brilliant idea. I remember when my kids were in school and they had to sell wrapping paper and other stuff no one wanted. Imagine if the schools could sell booze direct! No more middle man (state government) and you could directly support the school of your choice! You might be on to something….September 28, 2010 at 8:55 pm #704373
“Darn, I was hoping to be able to buy a bottle in the Lafayette Elementary lobby when I pick up my kids after school.”
If not there, you should be able to buy some from the truck when it comes through your neighborhood. Or just send your kids to get it for you. They’ll be passing out free candy and balloons, too.September 29, 2010 at 3:17 am #704374
have any of you ever lived where hard alcohol is available at your corner convenience store?
perhaps you should read some data before assuming a lot of exaggeration…
typing alcohol statistics availability confirmed my experience…
and that’s just the top three scholarly references…September 29, 2010 at 1:41 pm #704375
Why do you think you will be able to buy hard booze at the corner store? Again, you assume the worst case scenario as opposed to what logically will happen. If one or both pass it will take the legislature YEARS to change the system. They will add fee’s and taxes and regulate the available licenses. Whats to say they don’t give towns the ability to regulate the number of places that can sell hard booze? Whats to say they don’t requite license fee’s that would make it too expensive for smaller retailers to make a fair profit. There are dozens of ways to effectively regulate the sale, again, you assume the law passes and every gas station will sell bottles of Jack Daniels at the counter. Next time you leave the state, check out what other states do, you might be surprised how well it works there.September 29, 2010 at 2:37 pm #704376
the St Paul paper endorsed George W Bush because although he hadn’t fulfilled a single campaign promise.. it was possible that he might.
I think there is a parallel here.. passing a measure that might work out even though it hasn’t historically shown itself viable in any other state that passed it.
there is no question that taking liqour sales out of state regulated stores and making them available to any retailer will increase the availability of liquor.
Availability is why people are voting for these measures and availability is the problem.September 29, 2010 at 2:40 pm #704377
I agree with most of what you say, but sometimes, you make me scratch my head. Whats wrong with availability? I am going to make a wild guess here, but do you have an alcoholic son-in-law that cleans windows for a living? No, I am not attacking you, but I don’t understand your stands at times.September 29, 2010 at 2:51 pm #704378
Yes I do think that. I don’t think it happens all the time, but I think it will happen less with the availability of liquor elsewhere.
And yes, I have lived in states where liquor is sold in corner stores. And yes I have partied with these people as well. And yes, I know that if the supply runs out at a certain time, it it encourages binge drinking.
Liquor does cause problems with alcoholics. These problems can’t be solved by the state controlling the liquor industry. Plain and simple.September 29, 2010 at 3:20 pm #704379
read the evidence.
when liquor availability increases… violence increases… teen drinking increases… alcoholism increases… and i am pretty sure traffic fatality increases though i didn’t look far enough to source the stats on that.
google “alcohol statistics availability” yourself and spend a couple of minutes reading…
i didn’t make that stuff up.
my dad was a functional and lovable alcoholic but it turns out that my sister is the only one who can’t drink just one and she doesn’t get into much trouble with her occasional bottle of wine.
I got the alcohol tolerance gene and until i became alcohol sensitive. I regularly drank rugby players under the table .. tequila shot after tequila shot… i was a sure bet in any drinking contest… the team i drank with counted on it to fund their own parties… :)
these days i can’t even sniff bottle caps but i sure do miss a good drink now and then or a glass of wine with dinner :(
I am all for responsible drinkers having access to alcohol… it’s those that aren’t so responsible that i worry about.
We just had a beer fueled beating in one of our local parks this week. Amplify that rage with bottles of booze stolen from the local safeway instead of beer and that rage escalates into a rampage instead of a single beating.
I have seen that happen where hard liquor is available at the corner store.
i too would love to live by the reasonable man rule.. what would a reasonable man do?
but the truth is that even reasonable men aren’t so reasonable when they consume large quantities of alcohol… and that’s too easy to do when you can pick it up with your twinkies.September 29, 2010 at 3:38 pm #704380
(See how the Blog has lit up now that JoB is back in town?)
Anyway . . .
JoB, based on your arguments here, I assume that you are also against legalizing marijuana or doing anything to make it more available to people who might abuse it.
Or am I applying your anti-drug logic to the wrong drug?September 29, 2010 at 4:05 pm #704381
JoB Seattle is nothing like Camden, NJ. Just one example is the poverty rate: 38% in Camden vs. 13% in Seattle. You might as well use Sao Paulo as a parallel.
You second link is broken.
The third link basically says that if it’s available more, people will buy more. And again, why does that matter to you as long as people aren’t breaking the law?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.