I want to quick disagree with Rich Wilkins’s point here about licensing:
You hate licensing? Bad news for you, regardless of who owns the stores, licensing is part of the deal, to stay. For revenue, health, and management reasons, the state has to license a lot of stuff, and most people accept that. Leave the libertarianism at the door.
Nobody is advocating “libertarianism” as in “no alcohol regulations.” I am arguing for regulating alcohol a different way.
The thing that everybody is trying to do is stave off a collapse in prices. We don’t want a collapse in prices because everybody knows that when prices decline, consumption goes up.
The current regulations try to do this by limiting competition – limiting the number of places that can sell alcohol, to prevent competition from driving the prices down. This is basically a handout to the owners of the stores.
My point is that, instead of creating a licensing cartel, you can just directly regulate the prices.
You can do this with a relatively high gallonage tax (capturing the regulatory surplus for the taxpayers) or by setting a minimum price for booze (letting store owners capture the regulatory surplus.)
Either way we’re regulating. The question is who is capturing the surplus from the artificially high booze prices? I say the taxpayers should get it, not the cartels.
We already have artificially high prices. LTMF, 30% markup, 18% Johnstown, round up and then 6% sales tax.
Right, the point is that all the different reform proposals are trying to figure out a way to sustain the current prices, or even raise the price of low end swill that alcoholics buy. And I agree with that goal. But you don’t have to create a cartel to do that, you can just regulate the prices directly.
You still believe in the stereotype street wino. Posted studies before showing the average problem drinker is a late middle age male making over 75K. and drinking the “Good stuff “. Well, at least the booze posts get some comments.
I gottta ask John, who comes in every day to buy their pint. Guys buying Nikolai or guys buying Grey Goose? Your $75K middle aged guy is doing it at home while the other guy is doing it on the road and at work.
I guess I don’t really know what you’re proposing to do about the upper middle class problem drinker, who’s not going to be dissuaded by pecuniary deterrence approaches. My plan is to make all booze retailers scan IDs, and check against a statewide Do Not Serve list for people who have been convicted of multiple alcohol-related offenses. That seems about the best that can be done to deter folks who aren’t so constrained by money. The 24/7 Sobriety program in South Dakota looks promising too. For folks who are constrained by money, higher gallonage taxes or minimum pricing seem like the most effective options.
I also realize Lew and Albert are probably disagreeing with me about this stuff, but I will keep trying to persuade them that the public health concerns are real, and that dealing with the issue on the demand side is going to be less annoying than the cartels.
I’m all for a gallonage tax myself and I know for a fact that John isn’t. Your Scan Plan will really only work if the DMV handles the data, they already have everything and are supposed to be notified when someone’s license is suspended or revoked but that would make them have to have something online that the scanners could access or require a daily DL to the scanner system hard drive. Doesn’t bother me since I buy almost everything out of state or even out of the country now. If the system in PA improves then maybe they’ll get some of my money and they can scan away.