Wash. liquor prices up 10 percent since privatization
EVERETT, Wash. (AP) - Privatizing liquor sales in Washington state hasn't brought prices down, as some hoped it would.
The Daily Herald reports the cost of liquor in Washington went up six months ago, right after the changeover, and has mostly stayed that way.
The State Department of Revenue reports the average statewide price per liter of hard liquor after taxes was $24.06 in October.
That's slightly less than the average price in June, right after privatization. But it's still over 10 percent higher than the average of $21.59 at state liquor stores in October 2011.
Backers of Initiave-1183 had steered clear of claiming the plan would lower prices. But they did mention that as a potential benefit because of increased competition.
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.... suckers! I did not vote for the privatization of liquor sales. Way to boost Oregon liquor sales Washington residents. Costco is laughing all the to the bank.
Now if they could only get the unreal state tax out of the deal it would be cool.
Government is only partly out of the booze business. Get them all they way out.
Man, after reading all these postings......I need a drink.
10% more is still worth it IMO.
Of course they are.
People didn't REALLY think that private vendors weren't going to try to make a bundle off this, did they?
LMAO!!
@Mikey  The private vendors are not making a bundle off this. WA state gets about 25% tax on liquor sales. The gov still has its hand in this game and is raking in the tax revenues.
And this came as a surprise? The only ones gaining in this are the Oregon liquor stores. Them, and the gas stations that are selling gas to those Washingtonians who drive down.
Suck it, teabaggers.
Only the alkies care about that extra 10% - I don't mind paying a little extra for the added convenience, heck that's why most of us voted for it. This is just phase one; eventually we'll get the state completely out of the liquor biz.
This makes no sense...every state selling booze in grocery stores, any stores for that matter, the booze is so much cheaper. To compare, Oregon prices say, to Arizona prices you'll find AZ cheaper by about half...hard to understand why doing away with "government" run stores would up the prices. Makes no sense...The overhead cut alone should ensure cheaper prices...gees...,
 @KHEB AZ booze really is cheaper. And, you can buy it in any grocery store.
@KHEB  WA only got rid of "government run" liquor stores. The gov still gets their cut via high liquor taxes in addition to the normal sales tax. Anyone who thought our liquor prices would go down is a fool who did not read the bill prior to passage. The high liquor tax was pretty clearly spelled out. No surprise there.
@wondering ... yeah, I know about all the taxes the gov insists on...what makes no sense are the prices going up in stores already ensconced, etc. So far I've not seen a logical reason except greed on someones part....
Looks like the "boozers" didn't make out so good in Washington. Â Apparently most were so under the influence they didn't read the contents of the bill, and it wasn't even in fine print. Â Some people just don't get it. Â Our greedy and corrupt government isn't going to give you anything. Â Â
I'll pay an extra 10% to be able to buy liquor at Safeway at midnight. Â It's not like I drink enough of the stuff anyways to notice a dent in my pocketbook.
So... Washington, why don't you people just lower the tax rate?
Â
You can't just go "Oh, hell, that didn't work. This is stupid."Â If the people of Washington feel like the way is right the course needs correction, why not just make it so?
This comment has been deleted
 @Fed up Fed  @Playanekes Ya, great how government can just dive into your wallet unfettered isn't it?
And just wait, you ain't seen nothing yet. Now that Barry has 'more freedom' to screw us all.
By the way, KATU that headline is really misleading. Yes, prices are up, but if you don't mention that taxes are up even more your readers might get the impression that the privatization is what caused the price increase.
 @thesixthmoonÂ
It was done by the AP who is notorious for leaving out facts that would criticize the government taxes as the reason for the increase in costs.
 @RalphCramden  @thesixthmoon The tax increase was right there in the wording of the bill, before it was pushed so heavily by the retailers, before it was voted on.  Attempting to portray this as some sort of hidden tax is dishonest.
 @Focus 503  @RalphCramden  @thesixthmoon It was hidden from the readers of the article. That is the point.
If Washington state had not raised taxes sharply on liquor at the same time as the privatization, prices would be down now.
Â
Deregulation always lowers prices -- if government stays out of the picture. Unfortunately this time government increased its participation, even though the business was privatized -- hence the price increase.
This comment has been deleted
 @Fed up Fed  @thesixthmoon Deregulation should shrink government. Problem is government always does everything it can to grow regardless of the peoples will.
Fed, it's how capitalism works. Free competition lowers prices. You want an example? Airlines.  But the absence of competition raises prices, such as cable TV.
@Fed up Fed Deregulation has worked in the airline industry and in examples of energy markets....You can also find examples where it didnt work so well...this will be a point of debate among many, but generally government regulation hampers business growth, ability of small businesses to join the market, and thus lack of competition keeps prices stagnant.
 @Fed up Fed  @thesixthmoon The source?  The WM approach.  Sell so low on the losses that are made up for by the comparable market prices and it won't affect your bottom line but it'll close the Mom & Pop shop right down the street that's been there for 50+ years (you know, the place where they knew your name and believed in quality customer service?).  Once Mom & Pop are gone, those "deregulated" prices seem to have a way of creeping back up, too.  And Mom & Pop and the community they supported are left with broken hearts and broken promises...
Â
Oh, wait. Â I'll bet that isn't the source you're looking for, lol.
When the government ran it was it subsidized?  Probably, that is why the merchants have to raise the price so they can make a profit.  All the more reason to privatize it.
 @B Smizzle It wasn't subsidized.  They were buying "bulk" and commanding a better deal, apparently, than the smaller individual and small-level distributors are able to get.
 @B Smizzle It wasn't subsidized. The state used to mark it up by 51%.
Washington has the highest liquor tax rates in the nation at $26.40 per gallon. Oregon is second highest at $23 per gallon.
 @RalphCramden Boy, too bad those taxes weren't included in the ballot measure - that way the people could have voted on them. Oh, wait...
 @Max Quinn  @RalphCramden Can't they vote on them in another ballot measure?
 @Playanekes  @RalphCramden Sure they could. Legislators could change it, too.
We'll definitely need a new bridge just to accommodate
the drunks and hypocrites coming over to Oregon for cheaper booze.
Â
I say add even more regulations in Washington.
More money in the tax coffers of Oregon.
Â
Thanks Washington state !
 @Mipsfer Yeah but by that logic they can say Oregonians need a train for the weed. We must be cautious.
 @Mipsfer Wait... what if they tax the weed to subsidize the train?
Â
OMFG...Â
 @Playanekes  @Mipsfer Lol!  I love that idea!  After all, I want the train and can't stand the other...
Privatization isn't the problem here, it's more likely the permit fees and requirements placed on the private retailers by the government. Â Now the state can have their cake (be in the liquor biz without actual overhead) and eat it too (reap the profits). Â When more businesses overcome the red tape placed on them by the state and enter the fray, the prices will normalize via competition.
Â
 @negativerep No, it's not "more likely" this or "possibly even" that.  The tax increase was written into the bill. Before you voted to privatize the liquor sales, you should have educated yourself on what you were voting for.
 @Focus 503 It's not a matter of the voters not knowing what they were voting for.  To imply such is just uninformed snark.  My personal issue with this AP article is that it fails to address this additional tax and also fails to address the costs placed on the private businesses to get permits to sell the liquor.  Instead, the article simply implies that privatization in general is what's causing the price increase.  This is trashy reporting IMHO.
 @negativerep  @Focus 503 I'll agree with "trashy" reporting but, rather than calling it trashy, I'd call it misguided. The whole story isn't represented. It also doesn't address that not all of the 27% tax increase (not to mention some type of $$ sliced off to offset the cost of the licensing fees) actually has been passed on to consumers. 17% must either be being absorbed out of the retail profit margin or somehow not being transferred to consumer. So where is it?
 @negativerepÂ
The liquor tax difference between Washington and Oregon is over $3 per gallon. Washington has the highest tax rates in the nation.
 @negativerep meanwhile, regional and national companies who sell the stuff (and, not coincidentally bankrolled the campaign to sell it) can undercut the local outlets, and increase profits through yet another addiction!Â
Â
James Sinegal and his buddies must be so proud of themselves.Â
Irrelevent of the story, this article does a really good job of illustrating what I commonly refer to as 'startling statistic' news coverage.Â
Â
Using their example ($21.59 in October 2011 vs $24.06 in October 2012), the difference is $2.49. Some reporter, hungry for am attention grabbing headline, realizes that saying "Wash. liquor prices up almost $2.50 since privatization" isn't likely to get anyones attention. Realizing;
Â
A) It's liquor that we're talking about here, and
B) a $2.50 increase in a luxury items price isn't going to cause any lamentations about cost.Â
Â
So, using the 'startling statistic' methodology, he/she decides that "10%" sounds like more, and seems more dramatic. Suddenly, the headline becomes "Wash. liquor prices up 10 percent since privatization".
Â
Think about that when reading headlines, folks. There is an emotional/psychological angle in play. Reporters, and news editors like headlines that grab attention, and even if there is no real story the headlines can be spun to create one.Â
Â
Personally, I could care less if hooch is a couple of bucks more. The idea that the state is the 'dealer', and primary recipiant in yet another addiction industry is enough for me to want them out of it. OR and WA are identical (well, they were until Cost co bankrolled the campaign to get them out of the liquor business) in that respect. From cigarettes to alcohol to lottery. They love their addicts for the guaranteed revenue it provides just as much as the addicts love the products they consume.Â
 @MarkKpic The best part about the statistics?  The mandated 27% price increase (off of wholesale) apparently hasn't made it's way to the consumer so, see, according to the statistics in the article, we've got a bargain, here, folks!  We've somehow managed to save a whole 17%!
Â
Come and get it Oregon folks! Â It's apparently worth the drive.
 @MarkKpic Some people will spend $15 in gasoline to 'save' $2.50
 @Mipsfer LOL... Aint that the truth. Reminds me of the people who celebrate when they 'win' $50 on scratch-its....and don't think about the fact that they've spent $200 on them in the last year.Â
Â
Or, drive all the way across town to buy $10 worth of gas thats $.02 cheaper per gallon.Â
Â
Math proficency has never been the hallmark of the public education system.Â
 @Mipsfer  @MarkKpic Or at the Flying J they idle in line for 20 minutes for slightly-cheaper gas. (Which is domestically-sourced, at least)
Â
These are the people who support the ban on self-serve gasoline and probably also complain about slow service. In my world (which now features taxing the weed to pay for the bridge) these people would be forced to sit down to pee, and the guy you pay a little extra to pump your gas when you're down here buying your booze won't be a convicted felon.Â
Pshaw.... REALLY? We all saw it a mile away.Â
 @washcomom Lol!  Then you must have READ the voter's guide unlike many who voted to pass the silly thing. ;)
@CTWU @washcomom Government rarely does anything cheaper or more efficiently than private sector. so it is not silly to get government out of the business. Ou have high priced state employees and cadillac pensions to boot...