“government liquor revenues have not been adversely affected by privatization”

“full-time equivalent employment in liquor stores is estimated to have approximately tripled under privatization”

It also says that job offers were extended to 80% of the ABC staff from private store owners.

“This analysis has important policy implications, because it dispels the myth that privatization of liquor businesses has increased the rate of crime. It reveals that privatization has not altered the amount of crime at the locations over the past 2 years.”

It is not the government’s responsibility to create employment for the sake of employment. That makes as much sense as “the bridge to nowhere.” I think what is lost in these discussions is really what is government’s role? Defense, protection of personal rights, property and bodily harm, and liquor sales? Where is that in the Constitution? And the list of services that taxpayers pay for goes on and on (whether they use them or not). You want to help people help themselves, half the income tax and let people pay for the services/products they actually use and value.

On top of that, the bill would throw 2100 people out of their jobs? Sure, some of them might be picked up by the new owners, but a lot of them probably will not be picked up, and will have to go on unemployment until that runs out. Let’s be frank, a retailer picks up the cheapest labor it can, so why would they pick up any of the current folks, many of whom have been there for years? Ever hear of WalMart?

On top of that, retailers haven’t done such a great job keeping beer and wine out of the hands of underage drinkers. Privatizing liquor sales opens up another avenue for teens to score another bottle. When profit is the goal, liquor flows….

So, the question you really need to ask is this – who is really behind this bill? Who stands to benefit from the state giving up the money generated all these years? Who’s pockets have been lined to get this idea going anyways? That’s the question that should be answered. Follow the money….

Speaking of which, there is no way the numbers will add up on this – you’ll still get the tax revenue, but you simply can’t charge enough on license fees to make up for the lost profit. Think it through people – if you open it up to more competition, you can’t control pricing and profit levels. Sure it’s great for consumers to buy cheap liquor, but that drives down profit levels, making a license having to be cheaper as well… The numbers just don’t add up…

Oh… and that video – so one sided it’s not even worth looking at.

Too many people have been drinking the kool-aid on this trip…. follow the money….

I’ve seen that video. Its very one-sided and addresses ‘problems’ in state-run enterprise that I, for one, have not experienced in VA ABC stores, notably lack of supply or variety or poor service. There is no evidence that the examples shown in the video have any similarity to the situation in Virginia. The real savings for the state comes from taking 2100 employees off the payroll, despite the sponsor’s claim that “unemployment will not occur through this bill”. Really? Not sure that’s platform that will get you re-elected…

I do not disagree that a government, almost by definition, should not be involved in retail enterprise. Government’s role in the control of alcohol distribution however does represent a public concern and, as a corollary, the retail enterprise has developed into a cash cow. It is not only self-supporting, it also funds many other programs that would otherwise increase the tax burden on the citizens of the Commonwealth. Is now really a good time to throw that away a successful, job-providing, economic anomaly on the grounds of philosophical opposition to government roles?

You say I need to take a look at the numbers, but you didn’t show me anything new. Show me how each privatized store can contribute $1 million dollars to the tax base (thru licensing and tax monies) as well as employing 7 of the people displaced by the process and I’ll come around to your side.

The wholesale distribution of the spirits.

The monitoring of the retailers to insure that the 25% tax is remitted to the State.

Check out this video about the impending legislation: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZFevY0y4v8c

I agree w/ Les about regulations that are archaic and need updating. I disagree w/ Robert that there are a great deal of sales lost because people are crossing the state border in search of cheaper booze. But if you tax it in the way that you’ll have to in order to make up for the shortfall, you might create that very problem.

Saying “government doesn’t belong in the retail business” is nice for campaigns and bumper stickers and sound bites, but its a red herring. The fact of the matter is, in times like this, you should expect government to find a way to fund its own programs to alleviate the burden on the people and the revenue generated through alcohol control has long been a boon to the state coffers. Its removal will be a mistake.