[DarnDirtyApe]

It's unfortunate, but if the goal is to maximize government revenue then his suggestions are on the ball. Too bad that will be accomplished by gouging the consumer and forcing competitors out of business...

 

[Tewder]

Yes, I find this article and Ed Clark's rationale to be quite sinister. I mean sure, let's make our anti-constitutional government monopoly even bigger and more alluring! Heck, why stop there? There must be all kinds of other unethical things the government could do to maintain revenue flow...

Sure, but in a province already struggling to fund its obligations and running a pretty large fiscal deficit even with all the revenue it gets from liquor sales (the tax and the markup) it is hard to see how we get rid of one part of that revenue and not face some sort of fiscal challenge.

What's wrong with a fiscal challenge? I have them in my household from time to time, as most of us do. I don't respond by continued spending on things I can't afford or by resorting to unethical measures. It's this attitude of entitlement that created the debt to start with.

Look I get it, there are people opposed to the way alcohol is sold....there are things within the provincial revenue streams that I am not a fan of either.....but if we are going to propose changes we need to be cognizant of the fact that this province has financial needs and if any part of the move to change the way we do things is to lower the cost to consumer that inherently means that there is money being taken out of the system to be left with the consumer...and that is fine...but there has to a recognition that this leads to, either, the province going deeper into debt (and we pretty much are at the deep end of that pool) or finding services that we can cut.

Good points, and isn't this is a far better conversation than the one ol' shady Clark is proposing!? Who is this dude anyway and why is't he being pilloried as I type this?

As for revenues... One point I mentioned before is that if you open the sale of alcohol to the private sector you are going to encourage businesses to form which will end up paying corporate taxes on the profits they make selling alcohol. In other words, in addition to the tax already on booze there would be additional corporate taxes flowing back to the province, ultimately mitigating the loss of some of their ill-gotten gains.

As for the government cutting costs, however, why not start with the separate school board (another anti-constitutional program condemned by the United Nations as discriminatory, by the way). We can kill two egregious tax-payer rip-offs with one stone and save a whack of money!

 

[TOareaFan]

What's wrong with a fiscal challenge? I have them in my household from time to time, as most of us do. I don't respond by continued spending on things I can't afford or by resorting to unethical measures. It's this attitude of entitlement that created the debt to start with.

I think you are taking my comment a bit out of context....I was simply pointing out that people suggesting the privatization of liquor sales without acknowledging the challenge it creates in a very indebted jurisdiction were being naive. Sure it is ok to support and promote a different regime of alcohol sales....but you have to include in that new regime how it deals with the change it creates in the provincial revenue/debt/program picture.

Good points, and isn't this is a far better conversation than the one ol' shady Clark is proposing!? Who is this dude anyway and why is't he being pilloried as I type this?

Not sure if you are serious but in case you are....former head of TD Bank.

As for revenues... One point I mentioned before is that if you open the sale of alcohol to the private sector you are going to encourage businesses to form which will end up paying corporate taxes on the profits they make selling alcohol. In other words, in addition to the tax already on booze there would be additional corporate taxes flowing back to the province, ultimately mitigating the loss of some of their ill-gotten gains.

Would still be a shortfall. Right now the government gets the taxes included in liquor...presumably in a privatized world that would stay the same. Then they also get the retail markup/profits that a liquor retailer produces. If (for arguments sake) those profits remain the same but are now in private hands.....taxing those profits at the corporate tax rate would mean that this share of their current take on liquor would be dramatically reduced. So that loss is only partially mitigated (and the part is the smaller part of the whole....what is the provincial corporate tax rate anyway?).

Regardless of your, or mine, personal political philosophy the ability to shed the LCBO is somewhat tempered by the fiscal realities of the province (however they were produced). Sadly, our province is addicted to liquor and gambling.

 

[Palma]

As for the government cutting costs, however, why not start with the separate school board (another anti-constitutional program condemned by the United Nations as discriminatory, by the way). We can kill two egregious tax-payer rip-offs with one stone and save a whack of money!

This is crazy that the United Nations can dictate something in a country is discriminatory yet at the same time allow what goes on in certain countries (which shall remain nameless or another battle will start on this forum). I saw an episode on The Agenda and even if the 2 boards were merged it would hardly save a whole lot.

 

[Tewder]

Oh you don't like that the United Nations calls us out on something? I guess we are beyond reproach then, didn't know that. I do get it though, it stings when criticism targets something you personally benefit from, that protects your social privilege.

So your first biased comment sort of clouds your claim there wouldn't be 'a whole lot' of savings. It fails the stink test, quite frankly. Most reasonable and unbiased people can understand that two unnecessarily separate systems equals a lot of unnecessary double spending.

 

[Tewder]

Would still be a shortfall. Right now the government gets the taxes included in liquor...presumably in a privatized world that would stay the same. Then they also get the retail markup/profits that a liquor retailer produces. If (for arguments sake) those profits remain the same but are now in private hands.....taxing those profits at the corporate tax rate would mean that this share of their current take on liquor would be dramatically reduced. So that loss is only partially mitigated (and the part is the smaller part of the whole....what is the provincial corporate tax rate anyway?).

Regardless of your, or mine, personal political philosophy the ability to shed the LCBO is somewhat tempered by the fiscal realities of the province (however they were produced). Sadly, our province is addicted to liquor and gambling.

Sadly, indeed. The government is quite happy about it, I'm sure!

No, this is nonsense this fatalism that we are just stuck with an unethical system, it's exactly what the government and the bureaucrats at the LCBO want us to think. I realize that the private sector won't make up for all the gouging but it will fill in a big gap. This along with appropriate cuts to spending will bring the system into line with ethics and create a system that works for those it's intended to work for, the people of Ontario. Then, let's get started on those cell phone rates!!...

 

[TOareaFan]

Sadly, indeed. The government is quite happy about it, I'm sure!

No, this is nonsense this fatalism that we are just stuck with an unethical system, it's exactly what the government and the bureaucrats at the LCBO want us to think. I realize that the private sector won't make up for all the gouging but it will fill in a big gap. This along with appropriate cuts to spending will bring the system into line with ethics and create a system that works for those it's intended to work for, the people of Ontario. Then, let's get started on those cell phone rates!!...

Not trying to fuel your quite clear anger over this subject but that post raises a couple of questions:

1...you say the taxing of private corporations that now profit from liquor sales would fill a big gap created by the loss of the direct profits. How is this possible? Now they get 100% of the profits....if private companies now have those profits would the government of Ontario now only see 11.5% of that through corporate taxes? Even worse, if some of those profits are made by companies qualifying as small businesses...the take is only 4.5%.

2...you seem angry about a government monopoly gouging you...then raise the subject of cell phone rates. That is a business that is privatized...has competition...and yet the perception is the cost is two high.

 

[gabe]

Say I want to buy a particular craft beer or wine I read about in the newspaper... unfortunately, the LCBO has very onerous rules for producers to get their product into stores, and even then the LCBO decides which products end up in which stores. The LCBO actually does a fine job of supply "whatever" to the market, but they are a one size fits all approach that doesn't really work for many people.

I like to support Canadian made products. There is so many amazing craft beers from across Canada that aren't available at the LCBO, because they don't meet the LCBO's BS requirements. Yet Budweiser's latest piss in a bottle, has no problems getting on the LCBO's shelves.

In Amherst NY, there is a fancy gourmet beer store, that stocks nothing but craft brews and imports. No Bud or Coors in the store. I got some craft beers from Quebec on my last visit there, that aren't available at the LCBO or The Beer Store.

 

[Tewder]

Very true Gabe. The Beer Store and LCBO do little to support our small craft producers, and in some cases actually deliberately railroad them out of the market. Government-sanctioned monopolies afford enormous power. If the 'local' movement weren't as big as it is right now far more of these grass-roots initiatives wouldn't survive.

Not trying to fuel your quite clear anger over this subject but that post raises a couple of questions:

No please go ahead and fuel it!! It's all good.

1...you say the taxing of private corporations that now profit from liquor sales would fill a big gap created by the loss of the direct profits. How is this possible? Now they get 100% of the profits....if private companies now have those profits would the government of Ontario now only see 11.5% of that through corporate taxes? Even worse, if some of those profits are made by companies qualifying as small businesses...the take is only 4.5%.

I don't understand the math but it doesn't seem to work that way though: a government study commissioned in 2005 found that “government revenues per capita are relatively consistent regardless of the level of government operation.†See here http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/four-reasons-why-ontario-will-be-better-off-without-the-lcbo/article6553978/

The article points out some other benefits too.

2...you seem angry about a government monopoly gouging you...then raise the subject of cell phone rates. That is a business that is privatized...has competition...and yet the perception is the cost is two high.

Is it really a free open market though? It operates more like an oligopoly, one that enables just about the highest rates/worst service than in almost any comparable jurisdiction.