Comments on: Liquor prices didn’t drop? That shouldn’t be a surprise

By: Kerwin

Kerwin — Sun, 10 Jun 2012 00:27:32 +0000

Lol, I think its funny all these juice heads thought they’d be getting cheaper booze if they took it away from the evil govt and gave it to Costco.

You learned something did you. You learned that private industry can be just as corrupt and the government.

Next time read before you vote. You got snookered, or do I mean schnokered, on this one.

By: JonDix

JonDix — Tue, 05 Jun 2012 14:06:44 +0000

LOL. Do you really think mommy Gregoire and the party in power in Olympia (Democrats) would allow the voters to remove a tax from their feed troughs? If the voters tried to remove the liquor tax or any other tax they would be labeled “uninformed” and the initiative would be overturned.

By: stumpy567

stumpy567 — Tue, 05 Jun 2012 04:30:40 +0000

It’s the “Preserving Revenue to enforce Liquor Laws” portion of this bill that bloats the cost of spirits. As usual, The state knuckleheads cannot accept the fact that private enterprise is always more cost efficient and have “preserved” themselves a little “revenue” to fund the LCB.
States where spirits are much less expensive because of lower taxes have no more liquor related issues than Washington State.

By: Tummler

Tummler — Tue, 05 Jun 2012 04:17:32 +0000

So if cheap booze is bad then I-1183 was a good thing and we should keep it? Seriously though, isn’t possible that people voted for I-1183 knowing full well that it might be a little bit more expensive but the convenience of doing one-stop shopping balanced it out for them. Maybe people voted I-1183 in on principle and figured that since now that the state stores are out of the way they can tweak the law and taxes later on. No matter, I for one am just glad to see trade freeing up, even if it is for something TNT finds detestable.