« CDO's Explained | Main | Unbuying Condos » I'll Drink to That05 Dec 2007 06:11 pm
Happy Repeal Day, folks. Meanwhile, I have to say that the state liquor monopolies phenomenon seems baffling. Straightforward taxes on booze seem like an infinitely better way to raise revenue. And don't get me started on the evils of the state lottery. Photo by Flickr user Joe Shlabotnik used under a Creative Commons license Comments (46)
"As a native Pennsylvanian, I fully support the state liquor monopoly" But native Pennsylvanians have a rather low average IQ. How else can you explain Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, and all the places in between? 
In Sweden, the state monopoly isn't defended with arguments about raising revenue, but about reducing social, medical and economic costs by not trying to maximize sales but rather trying to limit them.
"While you can't buy a bottle of tequila at 1AM, the combination of fewer robberies, living wages for workers in retail, and a steady, non-tax, revenue stream seems like a winner to me!" Wow. We have really, really different priorities.
In Sweden, the state monopoly isn't defended with arguments about raising revenue, but about reducing social, medical and economic costs by not trying to maximize sales but rather trying to limit them. Yes. It's not called the Division of Alcoholic Beverage Control for nothing.
Whatever control might be exerted, I found no difficulty getting myself hammered when I was in Sweden
Having lived in PA previously, I can tell you state liquor stores plain suck. Why do they suck? They close early so you're stuck buying 6-packs at bar as soon as your party starts running low, that cost adds up fast!
Whoa! Which states have state liquor monopolies?? As a Canadian, I always look forward to crossing into Washington state where, shock of shocks, one can buy booze in a multitude of different stores, inlcuding massive crates of it in Costco or, good heavens, in simple convenience stores and gas stations! I had no idea some parts of the US had govt liquor stores too, I thought they were some sort of Canadian/pinko/communist eccentricity, like universal healthcare.
And don't get me started on the evils of the state lottery. What objection could you possibly have to the Poor Tax?
I think New Hampshire takes more of the "maximize consumption" approach, because it has the cheapest liquor in New England even though it's a state monopoly.
While you can't buy a bottle of tequila at 1AM, the combination of fewer robberies, living wages for workers in retail, and a steady, non-tax, revenue stream seems like a winner to me! I'm not sure I buy any of these supposed benefits. Fewer robberies: why would this be the case? And even so, I've lived in three states and never remember a plague of liquor store robberies being a big social concern. Living wages for workers in retail: the state could pass a law doing the same thing. a steady, non-tax, revenue stream: not knowing anything about the particular financials of the operation, my guess is they could generate a better cash stream by privatizing via auction or IPO and investing the money. Given government's track record at running businesses, it's safe to assume they're nowhere near maximizing shareholder value and thus should sell.
I had no idea some parts of the US had govt liquor stores too, I thought they were some sort of Canadian/pinko/communist eccentricity, like universal healthcare. They are.
The only reason you might have fewer robberies is because you have fewer stores. Fewer stores = fewer jobs. Seriously, how do immigrants live the American Dream if they can't own a liquor store? Anyway, this isn't that important. Everyone knows normal Americans buy their liquor at the supermarket or Costco. If you can't buy your liquor there, it's because you've chosen to live in a bass-ackwards state.
As a native Pennsylvanian, I fully support the state liquor monopoly. It is rare to have a liquor store robbed, and since the employees are state employees, they are paid living wages and benefits. In addition, profits generated from the sale of liquor go to the state operating budget. While you can't buy a bottle of tequila at 1AM, the combination of fewer robberies, living wages for workers in retail, and a steady, non-tax, revenue stream seems like a winner to me! Where in PA did you live? Any where near Philly? PA sucks so bad that people who can, go to Delaware or New Jersey to buy beer or liquor. You can only buy cases of beer in the state stores. Up until a few years ago, the selection of wine and booze sucked(and the guy behind the better selection was later fired so Rendell could install a buddy of his). Robberies? Does that really have anything to do with whether the state runs it or not? Right is right. The state doesn't maximize value at all(at least not in PA).
Back when I was 18 and living in Iowa (and the drinking age was 18, neener, neener) the state had a monopoly on liquor sales and for the most part it was great. Great selection (there was a state wine board that knew its stuff), great prices (because the state bought by the container load) and decent staff too. The biggest drawback was convenience, especially if you lived out in the boonies, but if you're too hammered to plan a bit ahead you didn't need a drink that bad anyway.
Gregh, You can buy Beer and wine at Costco and so on, but Washington State only allows hard alcohol at state run liquor stores.
State lotteries are great--they're basically a tax on the stupid. The government is essentially saying: "All those too dense to understand the concept of odds and opportunity costs will have to pay an extra few dollars a month." Lotteries are a great way to take money from people too dumb to know what to do with it anyway. Instead of letting private casinos get the lion's share of this idiot money, the government should monopolize the whole gambling industry. They might even be able to lower taxes on people who are smart enough not to hand the government an extra chunk of their salary each week.
Since I'm actually pretty puritanical about recreational intoxicants like drugs, tobacco, and alcohol I don't have any problem at all with states monopolizing how it's dispensed. And actually I'd go a step further and say that *if* I really wanted to do something about drug-related crime I'd direct state "package" stores to sell the illegal stuff *at cost!* As far as I know pharmacy-grade cocaine is *still* just a few dollars an ounce and cost-of-production-wise even killer cannabis would be even lower. Even if it all remained as bureaucratically encumbered as alcohol sales there's just no way I see a lot of people shooting up street corners to defend turf, and why bother jacking cars when you could support a habit collecting aluminum cans? And finally, how many neighborhood kids would grow up dreaming of growing up to be just like the egg-shaped state ABS Store employees in their polyester vests? In other words I like package stores because of the way they kill the romance out of drinking what amounts to refined yeast poop, and as far as I'm concerned a similar demise of the romance of peddling dried plant leaves and juice couldn't come a moment too soon. (I'm not saying I don't think people shouldn't be *able* to do that stuff, I just don't see why we should support romanticizing it by turning dealers of common agricultural products into "underworld warriors.") figleaf
In Minnesota, you find liquor stores everywhere. I pass 3 liquor stores on my 4-mile commute to work. If I drove another few miles, I'd pass two more stores. There's one well-known store called Blue Max that's about the size of small post office and stocks 1,100 brands of beer -- Czech, Italian, Belgian, Middle Eastern, local, northwest, Colorado, etc etc. We still have blue laws restricting alcohol sales -- no alcohol sales on Sunday, no sales after 10pm (I'm not sure if that's statewide or just local), and only liquor stores can sell beer, wine, & other spirits. Grocery stores are limited to 3.2 beer and other low-alcohol drinks like Mike's (not even sure if it's as strong as the Mike's in the liquor stores). Some municipalities have city-owned stores, others allow commercial stores. The city-owned stores are great. The ones I've been in are cheap, clean, well-stocked, with helpful staff. Commercial stores are hit-and-miss. It seems to work. The blue laws make it untenable for chains & grocery stores to sell alcohol, so we have an abundance of local, well-stocked stores, each with its own unique selection of imports & microbrews (and, of course, the standbys). I lived in Washington State where grocery stores can sell beer, but I think letting the big boxes sell alcohol drives out the little guy & limits what you can find. Sure, you can buy Redhook anywhere in King County, but...
The advantage of a state liquor store system over simply raising taxes is that the tax revenue isn't sustainable because there will be inevitable pressure from a very wealthy, well-organized liquor-retail lobby. A state-store system wipes out any interest groups with the money, time, and organization to lobby to change the state-store laws. By contrast, the push towards "privatization" is done for the opposite reasons-- because while state employees can't act as political fundraisers, industry interest-groups who would benefit from providing services contracted out by the government can.
And Washington state liquor stores suck. I don't even mind so much that they close at 7 p.m. The selection of booze is crap. You'd better like the big names and the big names only or you're SOL.
The liquor store in the picture looks like the one on I95 in Portsmouth New Hampshire -- the "Live Free or Die" state - a libertarian paradise with no sales tax. Selling booze to tourists is how they stay solvent.
i'm pretty sure woowoo is right about that liquor store, and i myself have also been there. nh's state liquor policy isn't perfect by any means (personally speaking, the fact that they don't have a liquor store in hanover, despite the dense, wealthy and highly educated population, smacks of conspiracy to prohibit against the dartmouth student body ^_^), but the liquor is cheap, plentiful, and pretty easily available in terms of both outlet location and inventory. ben's point about state lotteries and gambling being a "stupid tax," though, pretty much requires him to pay one.
Yup, thats the NH liquor store. As long as we are celebrating anniversaries of important amendments, don't forget Bill of Rights Day coming up on December 15.
ben's point about state lotteries and gambling being a "stupid tax," though, pretty much requires him to pay one. Perhaps. I can't make any claims to superior intelligence, though to my credit, I don't feel the need to pay the government for a scratch-off game ticket each week. I still say taxing the stupid is an eminently defensible and admirable goal, though. With all the extra costs they impose on society, why shouldn't they throw a little something back our way?
Petey (way back up there): But native Pennsylvanians have a rather low average IQ. Genetic.
Ontario's provincially run liquor stores is the world's largest single purchaser of wine. That makes for some powerful bulk discounts. As a result, we get liquor stores with great prices and great selection: since profit maximization isn't the guiding principle, they offer far more brands for selection than a private seller might.
Bad as PA's state stores are, the only stupider idea I ever saw was to auction off local monopolies (as in the only liquor store in the county), as they do in WV. On the other hand, I've never liked beer and wine in the supermarkets -- it's too available, and certain to lead to only the big national brands for sale.
Rather than a "tax on the stupid," I've always preferred to view the lottery as a regressive hope tax. This view was strongly reinforced by a year living in a small town in Appalachia, where it was a common sight when I was buying my lunch at 7-11 to see welfare recipients buying cigarettes and $20 worth of scratchers, playing the Pick 6, etc. It's regressive in two ways: 1) the poor can least afford to blow cash on the lotto; and 2) the poor have the fewest viable alternative investments in a Rich-N-Famous future... I'm guessing that if Ben, born with the same IQ, found himself nonetheless undereducated, malnourished (i.e. morbidly obese), psychologically damaged from childhood sexual abuse, teetering on the edge of drug addiction, and not legally employable for more than the minimum wage, he'd see a lot more value in that (admittedly infinitesimal) chance of striking it rich for the cost of a $5 ticket. Shit yeah: he'd be right there in line on a Thursday at 11 AM, buying 6 cans of Busch and a pack of Reds, and throwing $20 on Powerball b/c the pot just passed $100 million...
Being obese, poor, abused, drug-addled, and all the rest must be very tough (I am none of those things). I suppose I might see the Win for Life! ticket a little differently through that lens However, I do not see the connection between those unfortunate traits and spending what little money you have on a lottery ticket. What does it cost to open a savings account? Even better, a 5 or 6% CD? The people who do those things with their disposable income, no matter how poor or fat they are, have a commendable level of intelligence. The people who, because of a lack of foresight and knowledge of finances, think it's better to spend $20 on a lottery ticket rather than getting a few interest points on it per year, are stupid. They might be rich and fat or thin and poor. They might be minorities, or they might not be. No one sticks a gun to their head and tells them to waste their money on a "stupid tax." They get there themselves.
I don't like state stores either. But from an employee's point of view they provide union protection and benefits, which is a good thing. And I believe in PA distributors love them. It saves a lot of money at their end, or so I'm told. Both these groups have clout in the legislatures. Dan Tompkins
Amen. Now here's to a powerful independent marijuana industry!
What does it cost to open a savings account? Even better, a 5 or 6% CD The CD probably has a minimum investment of 1k. If you know this and were being serious you don't understand what broke means. That's also a hell of a return right now for a CD. Savings accounts are a joke, hell, bonds are a joke right now.
You know liquor stores lobby to keep Sunday blue laws? I found this out recently. It seemed totally counterintuitive, but they like the arangement. They get a day off, and if the other guy opened on Sunday, they would have to do the same to keep from losing customers. Chain stores are fairly ambivalent.
Ben Of course no one forces anyone to buy a lottery ticket. But, really, you kind of answered your own question when you said you'd have a different "lens." I don't think you properly appreciate just how different that lens could be. On top of the general odds-are-against-me malaise (taking specific shape in the disadvantages I named, or perhaps others), imagine specifically: not understanding compound interest; never having observed any parental figure or other role model saving money; having, indeed, learned instead from those figures a vague distrust of banks (they are, after all, the ones who foreclose. And I am not kidding when I say that a spectre of bank-fear has survived this long since the Depression; my parents never financed a single purchase in their lives; I know people who keep their money in cash, buried or otherwise secreted); in other words, having no exposure at all to a culture of prudent capital investment -- and imagine at the same time having the lottery marketed to you on TV, walking into the same convenience store every day and seeing Polaroids of past winners, etc. $20 in a bank for a year might turn into $21. $20 on the lottery might make me and my family set for life; and if it doesn't, hell, I get paid again next week.
As a native Pennsylvanian, I fully support the state liquor monopoly. Yes, you've got to love a system that makes it harder for small California wine-makers to get their wares to Philly than to get it to London. If you're in London. Seriously, when people consider trips to Camden to get booze, it says something about Pennsyvania's blue laws. Now, I appreciate the argument against grocery store liquor sales, in that it means shelf space that already privileges hydrogenated corn product over produce gets devoted to booze. But the supplier-wholesaler-retailer system is basically bullshit. Now, Canada's provincial stores seemed to be better stocked than North Carolina's atrocious ABC stores. In fact, you can travel a few miles south of Charlotte over the state line to a big ol' booze warehouse. (Sweden and Finland are having to deal with EU expansion, and ferry-riding booze cruisers heading to the Baltic states to load up on crates of cheap vodka.)
State liquor laws are baffling. Why do we have such a crazy patchwork of rules and taxes? We should have one uniform policy across the United States. I mean, if this doesn't fall under interstate commerce, what does? Even microbrews nowadays have regional distribution networks. And the only constitutional limit is we can't put a store in a place that doesn't want it. But we sure can prevent one in a place that does. And we already have the agency to run it; Alcohol is its middle name! Imagine a network of small shops, staffed by AFGE workers (all those bums of the AFSCME will get thrown out on their asses; good riddance!) where with one stop you can get a Boddington, a Romeo y Julieta, and a Smith & Wesson. My God, it'll be beautiful!
Large New Hampshire state liquor store like the one on the picture is probably the best friggin liquor store I've seen anywhere in the world and one of the cheapest too. What are you unhappy about?
You can talk shit about the lottery all you want, but every single week dozens of people around the world hit the jackpot. Every week. Not to mention the many, many more who come close, and get a nice big consoloation prize. If they listened to you, they'd still be poor. The odds are daunting, but someone has to win it. It might as well be you. I play almost every single week. It's only £1, and it's good fun. Merely entertaining the fantasy that I could get rich overnight is worth the money to me.
The odds are daunting, but someone has to win it. not strictly - there are many weeks where nobody wins the big prize. and theoretically, a random lottery (as opposed to a raffle) could go on forever without a win. but, i'm with you on the rest. it is fun. it doesn't cost much. and people do win.
Re the lottery, the state sets a rotten example by going out of its way to appeal to people's greed, impatience, and stupidity. If lotteries were promoted like raffles (emphasize the cause, treat the prize as an afterthought) they would be less objectionable.
Why do we have such a crazy patchwork of rules and taxes? We should have one uniform policy across the United States. I mean, if this doesn't fall under interstate commerce, what does? The 21st Amendment specifically provides for states to make their own rules with regard to alcohol, and that overrides the interstate commerce clause. I don't think I'd be happy if there was one single policy across the United States and I couldn't buy on Sundays because some Alabama senators thought it was a best that way.
This is an odd post from a liberal. Liberals love to regulate and prohibit foods (trans fat, anyone) and tobacco. So why not alcohol too? When it comes to these types of things, liberals are anti-liberty, not pro-liberty.
PA's liquor laws are the worst. You can only buy hard liquor and wine in a State Store (government owned). You can buy 1 or 2 six packs in a bar, but no more than that. And you can only buy a case (or more) at a beer distributor; you can't get just a six pack. The prices at the State Store aren't that good, and the employees, being unionized state employees, don't have much of an incentive to help you. Also, the hours are terrible, although some stores are now open on Sunday. So people go to Delaware or New Jersey instead. The reason all of this is still in place? Monopoly rents and lobbying. Beer distributors like their monopoly, so they fight hard against allowing grocery stores to sell booze. Unionized state employees like their jobs, so they fight hard to keep State Stores. So even though the population as a whole would benefit from relaxed laws, we're out of luck.
New Hamshire liquor stores are interesting. I can buy my scotch cheaper there then in the duty free shop in London -- even at the exchange rates of a few years ago. But it would make for an interesting blog discussion
Spike- [ / sarcasm ] that should fix it. But seriously, I thought the intent of sect 2 of amd 21 was a political comprimise to the temperance folks; that they would still be able to outright ban it in their own neighborhoods, and not worry about jazz muscians bringing in their gin and their devil music and their dancing. They would have no need to regulate it. Although I conceed that the language does seem to give them this out.
Comments closed December 19, 2007. |
Search
Subscribe to this blog by Email Books by Matthew Yglesias
Recent Comments
Recent Posts
Weekly Archives
Categories
|
Copyright © 2008 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
| 
Heads in the Sand
As a native Pennsylvanian, I fully support the state liquor monopoly. It is rare to have a liquor store robbed, and since the employees are state employees, they are paid living wages and benefits. In addition, profits generated from the sale of liquor go to the state operating budget.
While you can't buy a bottle of tequila at 1AM, the combination of fewer robberies, living wages for workers in retail, and a steady, non-tax, revenue stream seems like a winner to me!
Posted by Chuckdps | December 5, 2007 6:17 PM