ATrain wrote:Under the current privitization plan, it will be more expensive:
http://www2.timesdispatch.com/news/2010 ... ar-518123/
I am all for privatizing what can be privatized, provided the benefit is greater than it remaining public.
That's a pretty unprincipled stance you're taking there.
The key, for me, is who the plan is more expensive for. Just saying "it will be more expensive" doesn't really make a difference to me. Will it be more expensive for taxpayers or for those who purchase the product in question? If it's the former, then I'd say the plan needs to be revised. If it's the latter, well then I'm a-okay with that.
And, as it turns out, it
is the latter. I would much rather liquor to become more expensive than for its price to be subsidized by taxpayer money.
As for your other three points...
ATrain wrote:1. Reduced revenues to the state. The initial plan called for a $500 million windfall through the sale of liquor license, and to preserve revenues through a complex series of taxes. Since the new taxes were unpalletable to Republicans in the House of Delegates, some were dropped. Also the new estimates for the sale of the liquor stores is down to $450 million after another complex proposal for former ABC employees to be re-hired by liquor retailers.
Then the state needs to cut spending. The fact that they're making a profit on it in no way justifies state control of an entire segment of business.
ATrain wrote:2. Private liquor stores tend to be eyesores (both inside and out).
That's a matter of taste and opinion, neither of which justify government involvement. Some people feel the same way about certain types of signs, homes, landscaping, etc. That doesn't justify the government controlling it. Aesthetics are not a government function.
ATrain wrote:3. Enforcement of underage drinking laws will become more difficult than it already is for local and state police.
Why? I'd need to see evidence for this before I could offer opinion on it.
- By olldflame
- By jmclaughlin
- By LUOrange