We get it. Lots of workers are going to lose their jobs if the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board (PLCB) is abolished and there are lots of arguments for the state control of liquor.
But what about wine?
Only 3 other states (New Hampshire, Utah, and Wyoming) control the sale of wine (as opposed to the 18 states that control liquor). In New Hampshire, you can buy wine at grocery stores, but the state is wholesaler of wine. If the state were to sell wine licenses, they would still make a windfall profit as many entrepreneurs entered this new market. The state liquor stores could continue to sell wine and not waste the time and effort that they've spent on forging relationships with wineries.
In terms of annual profits, liquor sales account for more than 60% of the annual retail sales income which would maintain a steady supply of dough to the state coffers. The 6% State and Local sales tax would still bring $112 Million dollars to the state's coffers. And the 18% State Liquor tax would still bring $271 Million to the state's coffers.
So how about we exercise some bi-partisanship and compromise on this issue? Let's keep union jobs, expand options for entrepreneurs, make a windfall of profit, and maintain a fat revenue stream while still excessively monitoring the sale of liquor.
And maybe while we're at it, we can get a refund on the pathetic, malfunctioning waste of millions of dollars that are the wine kiosks? For those keeping track at home, the wine kiosks are back in action after over a month of being out of service.
Misc News Roundup
5 hours ago