That’s a great point of view if all you buy is big wineries from big retailers, but is far from the scope of what will happen if either pass.
Unfortunately this is being sold as cheaper liquor for residents, no talk of the credit terms that will come about, split case charges, qty discounts, or the fact that it abolishes the liquor tax in the state and allows a new one to be put in that will be higher to make up for the lost revenue (we do not adn will never have liquor taxes as cheap as California unless we have a state income tax, then perhaps) etc…unless you shop at Safeway or Costco the wine you get today will cost you more from people, yes people who own shops like Dan McCarthy, Jay Schiering, George at Pete’s, Arnie at Esquin, etc…
There is a good way to go about changing things in Wa., but complete deregulation which 1100 is, is not one of them. 1100 is good for Costco and big chains not for residents, independent retail, and restaurant patrons. Nor am I for 1105.
I hear the free market thing. But I get somewhat frustrated with just dealing with this in the abstract and discounting actual impacts on real people. For example, nothing in your reply really addressed why being able to buy liquor everywhere is a real benefit or the impact of doing this. People handwave about possibly lower prices… but there’s no guarantee of this (can’t be in a free market), so that’s not a definite benefit. The largest plus would be a possibly larger selection of high end liquors.
And note that you cannot decouple the effect on hard liquor from the effect on wineries, breweries,etc. It’s a bundled thing so you really need to weigh the effect of your abstract concern with the practical effects on them too.
This is for everyone who isn’t a big box retailer or possibly chain restaurant.
We currently operate at every day low price for everyone whether you buy a bottle, a case, or a pallet. The price has nowhere to go, maybe down 2-5%, but not much wiggle room, it is the benefit of being a bottle state.
A wine that costs $10 a bottle today, under 1100 or 1105, will cost $12 a bottle tomorrow, the only way you will get it for $10 after this passes is to bring in 3-5 cases to get the volume discount. Now that bottle that is $12 is only $12 with a full case purchase if you want to buy 6 bottles there will be a $24-36 split case charge. So that $12 bottle now costs $14-15, that today in this system costs $10.
How many wines do you think a wine shop can carry a full case of so that they can get the case price on it? Selection will dwindle as cash flow won’t be able to cover what a shop can now buy 3-4 bottles of for the shelves at the lowest price available. Granted 30 day credit terms will help a bit, if they pass a credit test and are granted credit terms.
Wine here will always cost more than Ca, or NY, because our taxes are higher, but atleast everyone is on a level playing field so there is no bias towards the size of your store or it’s buying power.
This doesn’t even include what the tax on alcohol will be in this state with what is proposed to the legislature, it won’t go down, it will go up incrementally to fill the deficit rom the states lack of liquor stores and profit/tax revenue generated there.
Perhaps, but then you’d have no selection except mass produced grocery wines that are brought in on pallets.
The biggest issue with price in Wa. is the State’s tax rate on alcohol, freight (wines have to be shipped here twice, once to CA or NJ/NY, and then again to Seattle), the supplier who represents them (that is the layer where we can’t control their upcharge to us.), and the Euro.
FWIW, we sell most domestic wines in Wa. cheaper than the state they originated in, in the case of Ca., and Ore. wines. Imports are taxed to hell so we lose in State there.
Oh, I forgot, Wa. State taxes wine in two ways, under 14% and over 14% alc., not sure if there is wine other than German Riesling that is labelled under 14% these days. Obviousluy > 14% is taxed higher.
The reality is wine will be cheaper here, like Ca., when there is a tax to replace the revenue, and the only way for that to happen is an income tax, and I am firmly against that.
1100 is a bill that benefits Costco. 1105 is a bill that still benefits Costco but without stripping all the regulation out of it. Both are being sold as cheaper liquor which can’t be proven by the backers of either bill. Especially since our alcohol tax will never be the same as Ca.
I have asked them to put a commercial together showing what alcohol would cost in Wa. with Ca. pricing to retailer but Wa. taxes assessed. It’s pretty close to what we all pay now.
In my opinion 1100 means less regulation and more efficiency. Consumers will be able to buy at Costco for much lower prices and have the convienence to purchase a other stores. You should see more selection from smaller niche stores as new businesses address demand that isn’t being full-filled. For Consumers its a win, win, and win. The losers - distributors, small wineries that depend on distributors to carry their brand.
1105 has nothing to offer. It is the distributors trying to maintain their monoply.
The Seattle Times article with Buty’s owner crying was a huge turn off to me. I’ve visited their winery, and been a buyer in the past. Going forward I think I’ll support other wineries.
I wish this were actually in the main forum and not in the politics forum, as it represents a potentially rather sweeping change with regard to the 3 tier system in a rather important state. Here is what I view as the very key element:
But I-1100 - backed by Costco Wholesale Corp. and other large retailers - goes further. It would eliminate price controls and other regulations, such as bans against volume discounts and paying on credit, that exist for beer and wine distribution and sales. Some of those have been in place since the 1930s.
Retailers with licenses to sell beer and wine would be eligible to add a liquor license, and they would gain the ability to buy beer, wine and spirits directly from manufacturers instead of going through distributors.
Those changes disrupt the current three-tier system - producers, distributors and retailers - in which retailers generally are required to use distributors.
BTW, 1100 does not disrupt the existing taxation. 1105 abolishes it and plays a weird shell game about replacing the revenue in other ways. I read it twice and had a hard time following the logic, but maybe I am just a dumbass.
I have been agonizing over these, and in the end I am going to vote YES for 1100 and NO for 1105, although I would not be disappointed if neither passed.
The recent article speaks to this pretty directly:
Ashley Bach, a spokesman for the Yes on I-1100 campaign, said retailers and wineries and breweries will likely still use distributors. But big stores like Costco that already have their own distribution system will no longer be required to pay for a service they don’t need.
“It’s going to transfer a little bit of the power away from the distributors,” he said, but “it’s not like distributors are going to go away.”
What’s even more confusing are all the prop issues, and other issues.
First year as a citizen/voting, and dear god there are a lot more things to vote for than just ‘who’s Senator’!!
BTW, I asked Todd to please consider bringing this back to Wine Talk which he did, as this is a potentially pretty important pair of initiatives for all wine lovers. Thanks Todd, and everyone let’s stick with the wine aspects of this and not stray down the politics path please…
I reread it and I was wrong, I guess I was looking into the future and seeing the streamlined tax collection where all liquor was being controlled the same way. Conspiracy theory in my head I guess.
Eric, thank you for continuing the subject.
Murphy, didn’t realize that was THE Scott Murphy, it’s about time you stopped lurking and joined the conversation.
![[smileyvault-ban.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/4/426cc97ad8dd530c8304b0918ca75ff841d4d950.gif "[smileyvault-ban.gif]")
