This is one time I will say: who cares. The government should not be taxing my booze. The health/social issues that booze cause don't justify the taxation - this is just profit for government to misspend.

I've come to live with:
- BC wines are cheap
- hard liquor is only slightly more expensive than other provinces

I cannot live with:
- beer a LOT more

My favourite beer is Blue (I'm from Ontario, screw you haters) and it is $30 for a "case" (24) in ON. Here it is nearly impossible to find a "case" (24), so instead I have to buy a "flat" (2x12 or 4x6) which has no discount, it is just the price of 2 12s or 4 6s for ~$40.

That's 1/3 more expensive - for Blue which is a cheap beer! Buy any good beer and the difference is even more retarded.

I think they are just talking about getting rid of only the distribution part of alcohol. It can still be strongly taxed (like cigs) and regulated so the profits dont go from 900M to 0. There will still be profits coming to the gov, they just have to split that with the distributor who would have bought the rights to distributing from the gov. So in essence the gov will still get a net profit without spending anything on payroll and overhead costs for distribution and warehousing.

I could be completely wrong, just based on what I've seen and heard on the news recently.

u sir are correct, I work at the LDB liquor warehouse and getting mixed messages but overall we are going to be out of a job sometime really soon, so it is because Kristy Clark's dismantling of public sector jobs so sad

I noticed some talk about housing. The Bank of Canada released a pretty good report, if you're interested.

Bank of Canada Review - Winter 2011-2012 - Bank of Canada

Thats right what is in the news is not the full story.
Last time when they were going to do this 8-10 years ago the public went nuts and they changed there mind. Now not as many but thats because only part of the story is being told. I just wish people would be more considerate of the people that have a chance at losing there job. No matter who who are I always feel bad for the employees and there families.

FT RPT or AUX?

I feel bad for people losing their jobs, but I'm not afraid of the tough decisions that need to be made. If the warehouse distribution has been targeted, its either: losing money under its current system, not meeting the needs of the current system(ie, switch to decentralized distribution in regional centers) or has been targeted as phase 1 of the dismantling of the current system.

All I've heard about are ppl from california coming up and shocked to see restaurants charging 4x more for a bottle of wine than in cali.

I also forgot to mention how odd it is that Adrian Dix and Jim Sinclair are no where to be found. Usually Adrian is the first to criticize the opposition and and Sinclair when it involved a union. Hmmm where are they why no comment? I think there silence speaks volumes.

If the public sector didn't demand ridiculous salaries and benefits they would be competitive and keeping their jobs. It is not sad what is happening, it is sad tax payers have been milked for years to benefit the few.

^ with that being said all this could just be a scare tactic for the upcoming union/contract negotiations

i heard they were talking about privatizing for the last 11+ years.

So what is the other part of the story?

Sorry to hear you may be losing your job, but such is life. Jobs are lost, you look for similar work in the same field if it is there, or if its not you retrain and look for work in a different field. To me though, that does not count as the other part of the story.

IMO the gov has no business warehousing and distributing alcohol when they can still regulate, tax, and collect through a third party distributor. The gov has more pressing matters to attend to than this

"The budget forecasts a deficit of $968 million this year and a surplus of $154 million in 2013-2014.

The deficit for the budget that wraps up the current 2011-2012 fiscal year on March 31 is forecast to hit $2.5 billion, better than the $3.1 billion deficit Falcon projected last fall."

And the BC Teachers federation are asking for a friggin' raise.

Yeah, I think they are out to lunch this go round, BUT it seems to me that they are constantly being asked to make sacrifices in terms of their contract because of some reason or another. At what point do you stop and say, no more?

I'm no union guy, but I do support them in terms of public service. I think its really the only way when your employer is also the rule maker. In this case, it doesn't matter because the employer will change the rules to push it through.

$968 million shortfall..

Sell off a $900 million dollar source of revenue..

Nope.

Just warehousing. If anything, it should increase the $900 million revenue. Not that it should, as I think our booze is too much.

However, this is the government, so when the private sector makes a change, chances are, they will make more money. With the gov, it will cost more ;)

I scrolled through my Facebook news feed this morning and I saw a rant about how the Liberal government is taking away democratic rights from teachers.

I can't say that I support the teachers in what they're doing. Everyone in public service is being forced to sacrifice something - whether it's future earnings for current raises, clawbacks on benefit packages, etc. The union should definitely be more strategic because quite frankly, it's bargaining from a position of weakness.
Posted via RS Mobile

You think booze is to much now? Wait until this private deal goes through it will cost way more money. If you think it wont you are sadly mistaken.

I know, but you and Taylor would like to see the entire system dismantled and in that scenario we would only take tax revenue from the private systems profits. No way would tax revenue even compare to the revenue from owning the system.

Alcohol is a bit expensive, sure. Beer isn't a food staple though, it's a luxury and paying a bit more isn't really hurting anyone.

Here's my problem: I don't care. I'm done. Paying a little extra for booze for the good of the province. Hey! its a luxury. Paying a little more in HST for the good of the province. Hey! It's luxury items. Paying more for gas in carbon taxes and the increased tax for translink. Hey! Driving is a luxury.

I'm done.

Cut spending. People will scream, sure. But they will adapt. Stop trying to be everything to everybody and get out of the way.

If that means that warehousing for booze needs to end, go for it.

What services do you cut though?

I second Gars question.

Even if, let's say, transit were not expanded beyond the status quo. The existing infrastructure still requires funding beyond what basic tax revenue can support and therefore tolls and gas taxes are necessary. You could argue that we should cut routes where the ridership is not high enough to support the cost, but what happens to the population of that area, the people who rely on the bus.

The same goes for health care, where are you going to make cuts?
Don't say the alcohol maintenance program, because that saves money. More than likely, the tobacco programs also save money given the cost associated with treating a single cancer patient.

And I hope you don't support mandatory minimums if your concerned about wasted spending, because paying $500,000+ to punish someone for possessing five pot plants is the definition of waste.

Profit earning businesses run by the government keep taxes low and are an extremely efficient form of revenue collection, imo.

I'm kind of ranting.. rambling..

I think there was a thread on this before - but the budget simulator that the BC gov't has on their site gives a great insight to the decisions they face.

Budget Consultations 2012 - The Province of British Columbia

Every little decision made about the

Well, I found the actual budget, not the pamplets that people hand out that have little cartoon characters guiding you through.

http://www.bcbudget.gov.bc.ca/2012/b...iscal_Plan.pdf

Page 16 and 17 shows a break down of revenue and expenses.

What would I cut? Capital expenses for one. I would never have re-built BC Place as its never going to pay itself off.

They are finally doing it now, but growth in what they call SUCH(schools, universities, colleges and health) was at 6%ish per year which they finally trimmed back to 2% growth, but the budgets for these items take up a large percentage of the overall budget.

Finding areas to cut isn't difficult. 1.6 billion wasted in HST PLUS the provincial costs from it are one good area. Oops. Too late. We just need to get out of the rut that when something bad happens, its run to a government office time.

I'm not sure I 100% agreed with the taxpayer supported upgrade with BC place - but I don't think we should cut capital expenses. Half the schools in Vancouver are old and falling apart as it is... they're death traps that need to be torn down and rebuilt.

Same with Hospitals? I think it's sad when all the hospitals need charity to fund upgrades because we can't get enough funding for it.