Oregon getting out of Liquor Business

walkersteelhead · 02-06-2003, 07:03 AM

I was just wondering what people thought about Oregon leaving the buying of Liquor to the the private sector supposedly this will save Oregon 70 some Million a year. If this is the case why not?

Cool Texan · 02-06-2003, 07:49 AM

I thought the liquor was a money maker for Oregon....pretty sure it is actually.

http://bluebook.state.or.us/state/ex...rol_budget.htm

Then again...I could agree with you. Get them out of the liquor business and downsize the size of the government. Tax the booze and find other ways to cover the profit margins you are realizing today.

lost_sailor · 02-06-2003, 07:52 AM

I don't have a problem with the state getting out of the booze business.

I wonder about the saving 70 million figure.

One hopes there would be some compensation to the people who own the franchises, and that would take a wad of cash.

fish assassin · 02-06-2003, 07:53 AM

Question is ... will the state "sin" tax go down? Will the Hootch be
any cheaper if we take the State out of the equation, or will the state
just add MORE taxes (charged at the store) to make up the difference in
the price?

I'm all for getting the state out of the booze biz if it drops the price
on my favorite brands of Single Malt Scotch!

-assAssin-

1pump · 02-06-2003, 09:27 AM

Maybe we can buy booze on Sunday now? Is this law or just OLCC policy? I could never understand this Bible Belt mentality in a state with liberal leanings. :whazzup:
The OLCC has long since outlived its usefulness (if it even had any). Good riddance.

walkersteelhead · 02-06-2003, 09:49 AM

I can't remember when but I think last year they passed a law that Liquor stores can be open on Sunday. But alot of Liquor stores say that because of the added labor they aren't going to be open. In my area there is only one and that's in Oakridge.

walkersteelhead · 02-06-2003, 10:05 AM

I dont know how reliable this page is but its around the same figures I have read before. It's the only one I could find.
http://www.cascadepolicy.org/..%5Cpdf%5Cmisc%5Colcc.htm

Cool Texan · 02-06-2003, 10:14 AM

I think that at a gross level, Oregon liquor is a money making venture for the state. However, what you will never find out is whether or not it is profitable as a fully burdened business unit within the overall State of Oregon. My senses would almost tell me that it is not. I say pull the plug....let the free markets work their magic.

And while we're at it, if someone could get blow up the store that is near my house, that would be great. My property value would appreciate it. :grin:

lost_sailor · 02-06-2003, 12:53 PM

I think I get it. The profit made by the division is cancelled out by the administrative costs required to operate it?

So do you like the California "Tequila on aisle 8" method, or the Alaska "go to a liquor store even to buy BEER" method.

?

GutZ · 02-06-2003, 01:00 PM

I get it Texan ...
Make $100 in sales
Cost $75.00
Lights labor etc $15.00
Make $10
Then factor in the overwhelming cost of Government say 115% of the cost of the sales, you actually end up losing $105.
Is that about right?

CAGEY · 02-06-2003, 01:00 PM

If te state gets out of the liquor business we should see a drop in the prices. Those who now sell liquor could continue to do so and the grocery stores could also get into the business. It is done in other states and seems to work well. I may be wrong but i beleave the money made by the state is offset by the cost of running the program. There for it would save the taxpayer money.

1pump · 02-06-2003, 02:26 PM

We ain't gonna see a drop in prices. This isn't Nevada. Just because the state's going to privatize liquor control doesn't mean they're going to stop taxing it.

Quote:

So do you like the California "Tequila on aisle 8" method, or the Alaska "go to a liquor store even to buy BEER" method.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helv">The AK method was a little weird at first, but I got used to it.
Every grocery or convenience store had liquor/beer in a seperate section that was walled off and had its own register. The con was that you would have to wait in line twice if your shopping list included booze/beer. The pro was that you didn't have to make another trip to another store to get hard liquor, and you could get it later than 9 pm (unlike OR). :smile:

[ 02-06-2003, 03:28 PM: Message edited by: 1pump ]

OceanBlue · 02-06-2003, 02:54 PM

Cut the administrative overhead! Privatize liquor sales.

The state still gets to tax the heck out of it and won't have the overhead.

But instead, they cut vital services. (The story on the crime lab last night made me mad - let's not spread the cuts out, let's just cut whole depts... Ballistics?

)

Sheesh.

Cool Texan · 02-06-2003, 03:48 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by 1pump:
[QB] We ain't gonna see a drop in prices. This isn't Nevada. Just because the state's going to privatize liquor control doesn't mean they're going to stop taxing it.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helv">Wow....you said that? Out loud?!?!? Ever hear of Free Enterprise? Free Markets? Price Pressures?? [img]graemlins/dork.gif[/img]

I will bet you my life savings that if Oregon dropped out, you'd see the median price of liquor decline over time....you absolutely would. Its called Capitalism.

I'm going to write that one down....that one amuses me. And yes, I am laying the sarcasm on pretty thick. But yes, prices WOULD go down. :grin:

1pump · 02-06-2003, 05:37 PM

Cool Texan,

We oughta make a wager on that one! [img]graemlins/berry.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/berry.gif[/img]

Empire · 02-06-2003, 05:46 PM

I can tell you what will happen to the price of your favorite booze. Just post a name of it, and I will tell you what it sells for in CA (I will look during my next trip to Safeway).

The cost of living is higher here, but you can get the idea.

lost_sailor · 02-06-2003, 11:11 PM

Can you explain the bean-counter jargon in bonehead terms, for those of us who are boneheads? [img]graemlins/dork.gif[/img]

Money making but not profitable ...

Cool Texan · 02-06-2003, 11:20 PM

Not profitable on a fully burdened basis...and that is just an assumption.

Ok...quick walk through of what I am talking about:

Sell booze....make $100
Booze cost...$75
Employees, light bills, etc...$15

Net Profit...$10, thus a profitable business. Still with me?

Ok...here is where I earn my money. While this is profitable standing alone, is it right to assume that there are no other hidden costs in state goverment which are there due to the liquor sales.

The overhead people...people like me, spend parts of their time on the accounting and analysis of this business. That is a cost. The Governor's office probably spends some time dealing with this in one regard or another...that is a cost. Paperwork processing, filing, etc...those are costs. Another simple way of looking at it is that some portion of overall state government should have their costs allocated to Liquor...to account for the efforts that happen due to this.

Once you add those in, or fully burden the business, you could then be a money losing operation.

Does that help?

Editing starts here...

Another example. You work for MegaCo, and you run their Widget division. You sell X number of widgets, and after your costs, you have a bottom line profit of $100. However, there is some Corporate Marketing that is done which is for the good of the company...and your division should pay its share. There is the Geneneral and Administrative areas that are there for the overall company (accountants, corp. finance dorks like me, executives, etc), and some portion of their costs should also be attributed (allocated) to you. Legal is another area. Once you look at a fully burdened P&L, you could easily be less than profitable.

[ 02-06-2003, 12:24 PM: Message edited by: Cool Texan ]

The Fishing Geek · 02-06-2003, 11:33 PM

I hope that they also get out of the strip club business as well. That 12" distance rule between dancer and patron really sucks.

Wait a minute. Did I just say that out loud?

fish assassin · 02-06-2003, 11:46 PM

-assAssin-

[ 02-06-2003, 12:47 PM: Message edited by: fish assassin ]

Cool Texan · 02-07-2003, 08:17 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by 1pump:
Cool Texan,

We oughta make a wager on that one! [img]graemlins/berry.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/berry.gif[/img]

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helv">I'm up for that wager. You get Oregon to get out of the business, and we'll bet a bottle of Jack Daniels (at the lower price). :grin:

sinker · 02-07-2003, 05:13 PM

Empire,
How much is a 750mL bottle of Jack Daniels down there?

Tilla · 02-07-2003, 05:29 PM

The current law just shows how much we have in common with the Clampetts. I'll just brush my tooth and go get a bottle of Bailey's, before 7pm of course. [img]graemlins/dork.gif[/img]

bigfishon · 02-08-2003, 09:28 PM

Alcohol: #1 reason for domestic violence, atomobile accidents, wife beatings, child abuse, child neglect, child molestation, devorce, murder, ****, crime in general, etc, etc, etc. The best uses for alcohol are "rubbing alcohol & denatured alcohol & fuel that is not that great" most all other uses for the substance have a negative impact on our society.

Marijuana: #1 reason twinkys and dorritos sell so well, and probly why TV is our nations #1 pastime, users do not commit voilent crimes, beat their wives & kids, commit murder or ****, and are very aware of their imparments when under it's influance (unlike alcohol) it has more than 50,000 know positive uses (fiber for clothing, fiber for paper, medication for hundreds of illnesses, fuel that can replace gas, deisle, kerosen, jet fuel, oil products of all types, plastics that are fully biodegradeble, fiber-board) and they all have a positive impact on our enviroment. Not to mention "most" people who use it tend to be very peacfull thinking individuals, unlike alcohol who's users tend to be "very agressive & violent" which leads to crime of all types.

Oregon could do without alcohol all together. Drop prohibition on marijuana and put it on alcohol for ten years and put marijuana to use for ALL it's possible uses and see what it is capable of and the country would have a massive opprotunity to provide jobs, help fix the problems with the enviroment, globel warming, support our own fuel needs without forign oils, etc, etc, etc.

[ 02-08-2003, 10:32 PM: Message edited by: bigfishon ]

GutshotApe · 02-09-2003, 03:45 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by 1pump:
QUOTE]The AK method was a little weird at first, but I got used to it.
Every grocery or convenience store had liquor/beer in a seperate section that was walled off and had its own register. The con was that you would have to wait in line twice if your shopping list included booze/beer. The pro was that you didn't have to make another trip to another store to get hard liquor, and you could get it later than 9 pm (unlike OR). :smile:

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helv">You mean Alaska did away with the drive-in liquor sales? I remember seeing people buying pints & 5ths at the drive-up window of a store at Cooper Ldg. on the Kenai river back in 1979........don't tell me Alaska is becoming civilized!!! :shocked:

1pump · 02-10-2003, 02:02 PM

I never saw one, but they might have been around. Anchorage went through some huge changes since the 70's. The locals made a big effort to clean the place up and go mainstream, i.e. actually enacting zoning lawsand local ordinances :shocked: :shocked: .