You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
The banners on the left side and below do not show for registered users!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.
Vancouver Off-Topic / Current EventsThe off-topic forum for Vancouver, funnies, non-auto centered discussions, WORK SAFE. While the rules are more relaxed here, there are still rules. Please refer to sticky thread in this forum.
Yeah, because all these "facts" aren't biased AT ALL. If the LDB is privatized, guess whose members' jobs are at risk? The BCGEU has a vested interest in scaring people about privatization.
How about this: if you're REALLY concerned about the high price of liquor, go after the government to knock down the FUCKLOAD of taxes they pile on everything. A bottle of Yellow Tail that costs $18 here can be had at Fred Meyer - right, in the grocery store! - in Bellingham for $5. What's the difference? Duties and taxes. A lot of which no doubt goes to exorbitant BCGEU salaries.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Godzira
Does anyone know how many to a signature?
..
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brianrietta
Not a sebberry post goes by where I don't frown and think to myself "so..?"
That's a very poorly written petition and some of the information seems incorrect.
Prices are cheaper in Alberta, even taking tax into account. If you go to http://www.liquorstoresna.ca/ and compare the BC and Alberta flyers; cheaper across the board from beer to hard booze.
Smaller liquor stores have to compete with the big ones like liquor depot so prices are often below the ones in these flyers, making for options for consumers.
Looks like some disgruntled employee has started a campaign.
EDIT- link fixed.
__________________
"A chicken crossing the street is poultry in motion"
Yeah, because all these "facts" aren't biased AT ALL. If the LDB is privatized, guess whose members' jobs are at risk? The BCGEU has a vested interest in scaring people about privatization.
How about this: if you're REALLY concerned about the high price of liquor, go after the government to knock down the FUCKLOAD of taxes they pile on everything. A bottle of Yellow Tail that costs $18 here can be had at Fred Meyer - right, in the grocery store! - in Bellingham for $5. What's the difference? Duties and taxes. A lot of which no doubt goes to exorbitant BCGEU salaries.
Yellow Tail is $18 in BC? The chardonnay is like 12 bucks here.
Seems kind of wrong to connect profits from booze to funding for services and putting words like schools, hospital, kids on the beer bottle.
Yeah, because all these "facts" aren't biased AT ALL. If the LDB is privatized, guess whose members' jobs are at risk? The BCGEU has a vested interest in scaring people about privatization.
How about this: if you're REALLY concerned about the high price of liquor, go after the government to knock down the FUCKLOAD of taxes they pile on everything. A bottle of Yellow Tail that costs $18 here can be had at Fred Meyer - right, in the grocery store! - in Bellingham for $5. What's the difference? Duties and taxes. A lot of which no doubt goes to exorbitant BCGEU salaries.
Taxes and fees pile on a fuckton; but to be fair if the gov't wanted to really benefit by saving everyone money, they should keep the existing distribution and simply offer a privatized takeover.
As it stands, BC gets some of the best selection in terms of liquors and (relatively speaking) fair prices. I do think that some of the stuff is completely out of whack though. Like the fact that beer is so ridiculously expensive, and yet my dad's friend (who is a wine collector) will easily spend $10-25000 a year on wines here...because the LDB refuses to put a market price on it and will instead simply put on their standard markup.
Prices for alcohol in Canada will always be more than in the US, even with a fully privatized distribution and retail system.
Sure - your mass-market swine like Molson Canadian, Yellowtail Shiraz, and Smirnoff Vodka is cheaper in Alberta, but the niche stuff is just as expensive as it is here, if not more. If you live in a small community say in the interior or up north, having a government distributor and retailer does ensure that you get a decent selection of product that you wouldn't necessarily get in a fully private system.
Sure, it's a bit of an ethical stretch, but these days, how do we fund social programs? No one wants to pay more sales tax, more property tax, or user fees. And why shouldn't the public profit from alcoholism? After all, we still have government health insurance.
Someone please give a 411 on how our liquor system works...
Public or private owned...it doesn't matter cause the government has the final say with the taxes they apply on it.
It's an election year! I'm loving all the empty, impractical promises the government is making in a desperate attempt to maintain a grip on power!
Quote:
Originally Posted by MR_BIGGS
Seems kind of wrong to connect profits from booze to funding for services and putting words like schools, hospital, kids on the beer bottle.
It's a well recognized fallacy to evoke funding to schools, hospitals, kids or some other morally stimulating appeal as part of an argument; the fact remains however, cut $890 million of revenue and either services will need to be reduced or it will need to be collected through some other means - neither of which the large majority of British Columbians are willing to accept. If British Columbians were really, really adamant that liquor prices need to be decreased, the better solution, I suggest, would be slashing the governments markups by 50% or more, thereby reducing costs but maintaining the revenue stream.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ludepower
Someone please give a 411 on how our liquor system works...
Public or private owned...it doesn't matter cause the government has the final say with the taxes they apply on it.
The government maintains a monopoly on the distribution of liquor in the province, much like ICBC. Although restaurants, bars, private stores sell liquor, they buy it from the government.
Last edited by MindBomber; 06-28-2012 at 05:59 PM.
Looks like some disgruntled employee has started a campaign.
Not an employee - the BC Government Employees Union... the union that represents the liquor store employees. Privatization could potentially mean the loss of some of their members' jobs... so of course they're against it and will say anything they can come up with to scare people about it.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Godzira
Does anyone know how many to a signature?
..
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brianrietta
Not a sebberry post goes by where I don't frown and think to myself "so..?"
Someone please give a 411 on how our liquor system works...
Public or private owned...it doesn't matter cause the government has the final say with the taxes they apply on it.
The BC LDB controls the distribution and also acts as a retailer. Restaurants, bars, and private stores either have to buy their liquor from BC LDB, or if they choose to import specialty products that BC Liquor does not carry, they have to give a cut to the BC LDB.
Almost every private store in BC gets a licensee discount of about 17%. There are a few licensees who have a 30% discount, but there are literally only a handful of them in the province and they have been grandfathered as a result of Expo '86. So the next time you walk into a private store and complain about the prices compared to BC Liquor, remember that most stores literally operate on a margin of 20-30% which isn't a lot.
Yes, of course its biased. Those who follow my rants know me to lean conservative(which means liberal in prov. politics) and even I have to say this is starting to stink.
I do NOT like that they are equating privatization to ripping food off the homeless people's cardboard tables, as that is effectively OUR money and I really wish those in government would use that term, recognize it and own it. It's basically like saying "but we NEED to take your money so we can give it back to you!"
I'm really left with the fundamental idea that the liberals know they are sunk, are going to be out for awhile, so they are trying to pay back any outstanding favors now, because they won't have a chance for the next 8ish years.
I would like to hear that Clark's intentions are to stay as the leader of the opposition in the event of an election loss. That would at least show commitment.
Not an employee - the BC Government Employees Union... the union that represents the liquor store employees. Privatization could potentially mean the loss of some of their members' jobs... so of course they're against it and will say anything they can come up with to scare people about it.
I hate those evil unions... they're all commies I tell ya!
It's an intelligent persons' responsibility to evaluate the facts presented in any argument presented to them, because in truth, almost every argument is presented with a degree of bias. Some of what the BCGEU says will hold water, some of it will not, but it would be tough to find an institution on either side of the debate presenting a completely unbiased position.
By attacking the Union, when you should be attacking the facts it presents, you're no better than they are for creating the silly beer bottle thing.
Last edited by MindBomber; 09-29-2012 at 12:46 AM.
I do NOT like that they are equating privatization to ripping food off the homeless people's cardboard tables, as that is effectively OUR money and I really wish those in government would use that term, recognize it and own it. It's basically like saying "but we NEED to take your money so we can give it back to you!"
I don't necessarily agree with the system that it's place right now, but you're saying that you'd be willing to throw away economies of scale just so that you have control over your money and pay more for a good or service?
There's an entire economy built around the current system of distribution and retailing. So you'd be willing to rip it apart and probably end up paying more for a bottle of say Central City Imperial IPA? But, hey, I'll save a toonie on my 26 of Absolut Vodka!
Someone please give a 411 on how our liquor system works...
Public or private owned...it doesn't matter cause the government has the final say with the taxes they apply on it.
Oh...here's a general overview
Right now, everything is done 'in-house' meaning the gov't sets pricing, hires workers, assumes risk and owns/operates warehousing and stores.
Of course, being gov't, everyone is unioned up the asshole.
Now, to privatize, you simply start removing pieces from that(very general) equation. So you can sell off stores. Or you can sell off warehousing and distribution. Or both. In that case, a private company takes on the risk, hires their workers and in turn buys/leases the facilities.
Now...if you buy from the same places, and have the same size facilities and have the same number of customers then you pay the same whether you are a private company or gov't or just little old me. Even more, if the gov't says that in the privatization deal, they will get the same money out regardless...then we have a problem. As a guy that has studied and worked in supply chain, there are only so many 'inefficiencies" you can squeeze out of a warehouse.
So ALL of this comes down to:
"being gov't, everyone is unioned up the asshole."
That's the piece of the equation that this whole thing is about. Replace $30/hr with $10/hr...there's your profit. The government kicks out some of the unionized workforce and replaces with no pension/minimal benefits people that don't get themselves on the news come contract negotiation and election time.
Now-I'm evil. I don't really give a fuck. One less union to worry about. Hell, I say throw the fucking stores in there too and be done with it.
But I just want someone to be honest about the whole thing instead of sugar coating it.
BUT...this whole thing has back room written all over it and that is where prices end up going up, and not down-because we shook hands on it long before it was ever public.
This will probably line up nicely in the BC Rail/HST chapter of the liberal handbook, "Lies:Past, Present and Future"
"being gov't, everyone is unioned up the asshole."
That's the piece of the equation that this whole thing is about. Replace $30/hr with $10/hr...there's your profit. The government kicks out some of the unionized workforce and replaces with no pension/minimal benefits people that don't get themselves on the news come contract negotiation and election time.
As has been stated in previous posts, unionized government liquor store employees now earn a very reasonable starting wage instead of the exorbitant one they once did. Unionized labour is not evil, it's just a different approach to business and has the capability of being an exceptionally efficient one. Costco is the quintessential example of a very efficient, profitable business with well compensated unionized employees.
Prices for alcohol in Canada will always be more than in the US, even with a fully privatized distribution and retail system.
Go across the broader and check the prices of hard liquor. It's not cheap Washington after they privatized the system. People are now going to Oregon to buy liquor.
A 1.75-liter bottle of vodka $46.35 in Washington.
__________________ Until the lions have their own historians, the history of the hunt will always glorify the hunter.
I just believe it's retarded to sell-off a revenue generating entity. It's like selling off an egg-laying chicken to pay for a few dozen pieces of chicken nuggets. What's the potential revenue lost by doing this? It's not a risky business. Alcohol will always be in constant demand. Speaking of which, Grolsh tallboys, at BCL, are on clearance for $2.10!
I only answer to my username, my real name is Irrelevant!
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: CELICAland
Posts: 25,677
Thanked 10,395 Times in 3,918 Posts
Failed 1,390 Times in 625 Posts
they privatize to appease their corporate buddies who slip them some change and then offer them a nice paying job when/if they're done their political stint
its how its always been that's why the conservatives want to get rid of health care
Two recent articles on the issues that have arisen post-abandoning the public system in Washington state.
I believe the demise of the public liquor distribution system in Washington State is a result of short sighted voters not carefully considering the consequences of privatization, instead blindly hoping for some moderate benefit and voting as such. I'm concerned that British Columbian voters will do the same and support this move, both because of some of the comments in this thread and precedence. Don't form your opinion on public liquor based on preexisting political allegiances, do your own due diligence. Regardless of the Union involved, the current system has nice and plentiful stores, great selection, decent prices on most things, and is a huge tax benefit to all of us.
Spoiler!
Quote:
Buyer's remorse over end of state stores as liquor prices rise
In an informal, unscientific survey conducted online over the past several days, The Seattle Times found that liquor prices on the whole increased for 13 of the 20 most-popular brands in the state. Nearly 90 of 170 prices reported by Times readers were higher than they were at state liquor stores before privatization. Slightly fewer prices — 82 — were lower.
By Amy Martinez
Seattle Times business reporter
Washington state's new liquor-privatization law is challenging the basic idea that competition leads to lower prices.
Less than a week after a historic change to liquor sales in Washington, many customers are complaining about bigger-than-expected prices, while retailers say the change has been popular among others.
In an informal, unscientific survey conducted online over the past several days, The Seattle Times found that liquor prices on the whole increased for 13 of the 20 most-popular brands in the state.
Nearly 90 of 170 prices reported by Times readers were higher than they were at state liquor stores before privatization. Slightly fewer prices — 82 — were lower.
Although privatization has been in effect only since Friday, some consumers say they already miss the old system of state-run liquor stores.
Voters last fall approved Initiative 1183, leading the state to give up its control of liquor sales after 78 years. More than 1,600 supermarkets, pharmacies and other private retailers have applied for liquor licenses, nearly four times the number of state-owned and state-contracted liquor stores.
Lynnwood retiree Bill Jessberger, who voted for I-1183, says he now wishes he hadn't.
"I was hoping to get cheaper prices, and they're not cheaper. They're more expensive," Jessberger said Tuesday. "Unfortunately, the initiative didn't do what I thought it would."
The state charges a spirits sales tax of 20.5 percent — more than double the rate for regular merchandise — plus a $3.77 liter tax. That equals $2.83 for a 750-milliliter bottle or $6.60 for 1.75 liters.
While those taxes are the same as before I-1183, many shoppers were unaware of them until now, because the state's stores included them in their list prices.
Supermarkets, by contrast, display pretax prices for virtually everything they sell, including liquor, causing confusion among customers accustomed to paying the advertised amount.
"The prices are lower, but they're going to hit you with taxes at the register," said David Elliott, 52, of Des Moines, browsing the new liquor section at Costco's Seattle store Friday.
Pointing to a 1.75-liter bottle of vodka advertised for $32.99, Elliott did some quick math in his head to estimate an after-tax price of $44, close to the actual price of $46.35.
In any case, he passed on the vodka, noting, "I'm mainly here to see what the prices are."
Confusion occasionally has given way to anger, some of it even directed at Washington's Liquor Control Board.
"I've had some pretty nasty emails forwarded to me," board spokesman Brian Smith said. "I think people just assumed that it was our fault that the costs went up when the private sector took over."
One explanation for why liquor prices may be higher under I-1183 is that the law imposes a 17 percent fee on retailers and a 10 percent fee on distributors. (The distributor fee will drop to 5 percent after two years, but the retailer fee will stay as is.)
The law also requires distributors to make up the difference if their fees do not total $150 million by early 2013.
"Theoretically, any retailer could absorb the costs of those fees, but they typically pass them on to the consumer," Smith said.
Costco, a main backer of I-1183, acknowledged the change has not led to the price declines many people expected from an industry no longer monopolized.
"In real terms, most retailers are charging more for the same items, and Costco is not," said Joel Benoliel, Costco senior vice president and chief legal counsel.
"We're being very careful to charge less, including taxes, than what people were paying in liquor stores. But we're sacrificing margin to do that."
Some retailers dispute the notion that the changeover has been unpopular with customers.
"We have signage that details the taxes applied so that they know what's on the shelf tag isn't the final price," said Melinda Merrill, a Fred Meyer spokeswoman. "It's been really good — positive comments and strong sales."
For those upset about price increases, Merrill urged patience.
"It's not just a black-and-white switch from the old system to the new system," she said. "There still are pieces of the old system that cause prices to be higher, and they'll shake out over time."
Another complaint is that private retailers don't offer as much variety as the state's liquor stores, which sold more than 1,000 spirits products.
Bill Stankus, 67, of Woodinville, said he has visited a half-dozen supermarkets in the past few days and was disappointed in the selection.
"I can get through the rest of my life and never have another drink, but I enjoy making cocktails. I enjoy people going, 'Oh, this is tasty, and it's purple!' " Stankus said. "If those ingredients are hard to find, we'll probably go back to gin and tonics."
Costco's Benoliel predicted retailers will adjust their liquor strategies to better appeal to customers.
"We had a monopoly before. Now we're going to have wide-open competition," he said. "People who are sitting on too high of a price are going to have to adjust. ... The marketplace will correct itself."
Washington State Liquor Privatization: Prices Could Rise 10 To 30 Percent Per Bottle
By Laura L. Myers
KIRKLAND, Wash., June 2 (Reuters) - Washington state has extricated itself from decades in the liquor business, a move that is likely to give drinkers a headache when they reach for bottled spirits on local store shelves.
Under a measure approved by voters in November, Washington on Friday became the first state since the repeal of Prohibition in 1933 to privatize a government-run liquor retail and distribution system dating to the 1930s.
The measure also changed the state's wine distribution laws, established new regulations for alcohol advertising, created new franchise protections for liquor distributors and allowed grocery stores, already permitted to sell beer and wine, to sell spirits.
The bad news for customers is that on average, per-bottle prices on liquor could rise between 10 percent and 30 percent, retailers say.
The initiative imposed a new fee structure that raises those costs by 27 percent, which will likely be passed on to consumers, said Brian Smith, spokesman for the Washington State Liquor Control Board.
On Saturday there were indications prices were on the upswing. A bottle of Glenlivet 12-year single malt Scotch whisky sold for $54.63 at a Safeway in the Seattle suburb of Kirkland. That compares to $39.95 under state-mandated prices before the change went into effect, according to a database posted on the website of the Seattle Times newspaper.
The state's markup on wholesale liquor had been nearly 52 percent. The new private-sector markup could be as high as 72 percent, including newly imposed state fees, Smith said.
"Prices have gone up because of the fees," Smith said.
The liquor board on Saturday could not provide information on exactly how much prices have risen across the state.
The new law imposes two additional taxes, referred to as license fees, that businesses pay to the state for the privilege of selling liquor - 10 percent paid by wholesale distributors and 17 percent paid by retailers.
RESTAURANTS SEE PRICE GOUGING
A state analysis of the new law predicted that those costs would be largely passed on to consumers in the form of markups.
Already, liquor industry insiders are blaming wholesale distributors - two of which control about 80 percent of the state's liquor products - for the bulk of the price hikes.
"What restaurants and retailers suspect ... is that distributors are padding their wholesale margin in order to recoup" the license fees they pay, said Joel Benoliel, a spokesman for retail giant Costco.
"There's price-gouging going on," said Bruce Beckett, a Washington Restaurant Association spokesman.
Smith said retailers and wholesalers alike were passing on their license fees.
"So what you have is distributors marking up the product (for profit) and adding 10 percent, then retailers marking up the product (for profit) and adding a 17-percent fee," he said.
In anticipation of the price rises, consumers stocked up in the days leading up to the June 1 switch.
At state Store 192, Michael Jackson's song "Thriller" set a background mood for a slew of Thursday night customers who shopped hours before the changeover and bought cases of 1.75-liter bottles.
This week's purchases averaged $70 to $80 per customer, compared to a previous average of about $25, store manager Richard Stringfellow said.
"People definitely are stocking up. They know that prices are going up significantly."
Costco, an Issaquah, Washington-based warehouse store chain, donated most of the $23 million in financial support to the ballot measure. It says it plans to keep its liquor prices 5 percent below state levels, as it heavily promotes alcohol products from its own discount brand, Kirkland.
"We're in a steep learning curve, putting something in the private stream of commerce when it's been controlled by the state for 78 years," said Costco spokesman John McKay. "People will be learning on the fly."
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
The banners on the left side and below do not show for registered users!
