Friday, March 2, 2012
Monday, January 9, 2012
Washington Whiskey Watch has been created!
Hey there,
In response to the passage of I-1183, I have created a group called "Washington Whiskey Watch"
The goal is to ensure that the reasons why people voted for the bill actaully happen. Those are:
Please search Facebook for the term "Washington Whiskey Watch" and like it for the most recent updates.
The facebook address is:
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Washington-Whiskey-Watch/143353732438984
I'll also get this up on Google+ as soon as they enable the "Alcohol Related" option for page creation.
I also have a Blogger blag about this. It's address is http://wawhiskeywatch.blogspot.com/
Right now it just directs people to the Facebook page.
Anyone know how I can update Blogger, Facebook & Google+ at the same time?
In response to the passage of I-1183, I have created a group called "Washington Whiskey Watch"
The goal is to ensure that the reasons why people voted for the bill actaully happen. Those are:
- More Convenience (better hours and more locations)
- Lower Prices
- More Variety
- Especially that of local micro-distillers
- Finally and most importantly, don't forget that WA State had the highest no-sale-to-minors record in the union, at 94% compliance. We need to continue to meet or beat that record.
Please search Facebook for the term "Washington Whiskey Watch" and like it for the most recent updates.
The facebook address is:
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Washington-Whiskey-Watch/143353732438984
I'll also get this up on Google+ as soon as they enable the "Alcohol Related" option for page creation.
I also have a Blogger blag about this. It's address is http://wawhiskeywatch.blogspot.com/
Right now it just directs people to the Facebook page.
Anyone know how I can update Blogger, Facebook & Google+ at the same time?
Saturday, October 29, 2011
Washington State Initiative 1183, My Thoughts
After initially signing this initiative, which was written & sponsored by Costco, I began to have second doubts when I began hearing that micro-distilleries in Washington are generally against it.
Check out Dry Fly's thoughts here
It seems that if this bill passes, it may harm the micro-distillery industry here. And, that is the opposite of why I signed this in the first place. So, I'm voting against it.
So, if anyone who works for the WA state liquor stores is listening, here is what I as a consumer am looking for in your service:
1) Better Selection
I'm a Scotch collector. The Scotch selection in Washington is limited compared to other states and provinces, such as BC, Oregon & California. I should not be required to order an entire case if I wish to place a special order. I can barely afford one bottle, let alone a whole case of collector level Scotch. Perhaps you can create an online order for people who want to place special orders & show how much of the case is already claimed by other people. Once all the bottles are claimed, then order is fulfilled.
2) Better Hours
I see you are already beginning to work on this.
Right now your hours are:
Monday – Thursday: 10:00 a.m. – 9:00 p.m.
Friday – Saturday: 10:00 a.m. – 10:00 p.m.
Sunday: 12:00 p.m. – 5:00 p.m. (58 state stores open on Sunday)
Please increase the number of stores open on Sunday & keep the stores open until 11 on Fri & Sat.
That's pretty much it for me. However, other people feel pretty strongly about these
3) Lower prices
I'm fine with your prices, but when I'm out of state, I'm tempted to get liquor that I can't find at all here for cheaper than most of what is available.
4) The ability to legally order spirits on-line from out of state or country sources
You have a monopoly. I wouldn't mind if you had good selection. Either break your monopoly & enable us to order from other sources, or increase your selection.
Your West Seattle store & the private charter stores such as Clearview Spirits & Wines are a great start.
Let's keep with these improvements, and then maybe the voters won't get fed up and go for the next corporate sponsored ballot measure.
Sláinte,
Troy McFarland
Check out Dry Fly's thoughts here
It seems that if this bill passes, it may harm the micro-distillery industry here. And, that is the opposite of why I signed this in the first place. So, I'm voting against it.
So, if anyone who works for the WA state liquor stores is listening, here is what I as a consumer am looking for in your service:
1) Better Selection
I'm a Scotch collector. The Scotch selection in Washington is limited compared to other states and provinces, such as BC, Oregon & California. I should not be required to order an entire case if I wish to place a special order. I can barely afford one bottle, let alone a whole case of collector level Scotch. Perhaps you can create an online order for people who want to place special orders & show how much of the case is already claimed by other people. Once all the bottles are claimed, then order is fulfilled.
2) Better Hours
I see you are already beginning to work on this.
Right now your hours are:
Monday – Thursday: 10:00 a.m. – 9:00 p.m.
Friday – Saturday: 10:00 a.m. – 10:00 p.m.
Sunday: 12:00 p.m. – 5:00 p.m. (58 state stores open on Sunday)
Please increase the number of stores open on Sunday & keep the stores open until 11 on Fri & Sat.
That's pretty much it for me. However, other people feel pretty strongly about these
3) Lower prices
I'm fine with your prices, but when I'm out of state, I'm tempted to get liquor that I can't find at all here for cheaper than most of what is available.
4) The ability to legally order spirits on-line from out of state or country sources
You have a monopoly. I wouldn't mind if you had good selection. Either break your monopoly & enable us to order from other sources, or increase your selection.
Your West Seattle store & the private charter stores such as Clearview Spirits & Wines are a great start.
Let's keep with these improvements, and then maybe the voters won't get fed up and go for the next corporate sponsored ballot measure.
Sláinte,
Troy McFarland
Sunday, September 18, 2011
Fair Tax: My first impressions
I have a friend who really enjoys political discussion on his Facebook page. Unfortunately, he also posts about 15 things a day, so it's hard to keep tabs on some of the conversations. Anyway, he is a fan of the 'fair tax' idea (a progressive flat tax system that does not tax business investment)
I visited their website Fair Tax, and as I read about it, I wrote down my thoughts on his page. So, they may not be as wonderfully well written or thought out as most political analysis on the web*, but here it is in raw form.
Other posters have had their names reduced to initials for privacy.
In a nutshell;
1) It still is not nearly as fair as I had hoped (prebate value will vary depending widely on where you live)
2) It might be somewhat simpler than our current system
3) It would likely encourage business growth for companies already in business, but I wonder if it would help new businesses spring up or stifle new businesses
4a) I'd be more likely to support the no tax on business part if there was a way to make this only apply to businesses that keep most of their jobs in the states (to encourage more US growth)
4b) Alternatively, they *could* tax businesses, and make the overall tax rate a bit lower.
FB entries:
Troy,
Please explain your idea of "a flat tax and progressive fair tax." Because the flat tax has been shown to affect the poor the most, I'm interested in how the progressive part of your tax plan would balance that out.
JC,
Go look at fairtax.org.....it's the best way to address your questions for flat/fair tax..... Troy: Thanks, will do
Troy,
@ JC & @JB, I skimmed fairtax.org, and will look into it more soon. One thing that concerns me is that the sales tax rate at the store is different for different people. How will the store owner know which level to charge someone? (I need to look into the 'prebate' part more) Because, it would really suck if a poor person had to let every cashier know their income level when they are in the checkout line. Going to look into that part more.
Troy,
Ah, found it here: Fair Tax Prebate FAQ It's money paid in advance to lower income people, and then they pay the same tax rate at the stores as everyone else. People could game that a bit, and if the table becomes out of date lower income people would get taxed more than when the system is put in place. Also, the table does not appear to take in consideration local variances to things such as housing & gas, which can be huge. Nor does it take into consideration massive price fluctuations on gas, which tends to be seasonal (anyone here buy gas right before labor day?) If it *did* take in consideration local variances, then people could really game the system, particularly those with long commutes to work, or those who have an address in San Francisco, but spend 5 months a year working in Portland as part of their job. I think this is one of the reasons they didn't include it. It would get too complicated. Either way, it doesn't seem as fair as I had hoped when I first heard about it. But, it may be more fair than our current system (which isn't saying much). Now off to research actual annual tax that someone making $250+ k would pay with this system compared to what they pay now. Fun site!
JC,
Please do troy, I haven't seen anything that would have them give their income level, the tax charged would be the same to everyone, and everyone would get the prebate.....
Troy,
"the tax charged would be the same to everyone, and everyone would get the prebate...." Got it, I just want to do a little bit of work on whether people that make more money would continue to spend more money under this new system. One potentially funny side effect would be for the super wealthy to slowly replace their worn out spendy cars with Hyundai's as a form of tax evasion ;) Or, maybe they'd just do what I do, and drive one vehicle for 14+ years before buying a new one.
Troy,
One contradiction on their page regarding running a business: They estimate that this type of tax system will simplify paperwork, and encourage more international businesses to open up shop or move here & domestic businesses would have an easier time with paperwork and TAX FREE BUSINESS purchases, thus encouraging more business growth. And therefore, less paperwork means no need for the IRS However, because this could be an easy way for people to evade taxes (make a fake company, and buy goods for their own home with them), there would be an institution created to ensure this does not happen, with a much higher chance of being audited than with our current system. So, sounds to me like both forces cancel each other out, and I doubt more domestic businesses would spring up under this plans for those reasons stated alone. Maybe other benefits of this tax system would encourage it.
Troy,
Finally, I'm confused about their own graph that represents where revenue would be gathered.They say the same amount of tax would be gathered, but in every category listed in this graph, the amount is less: Fair Tax revenue Graph Although they *do* say more people in each category would pay taxes, such as illegal aliens & visiting tourists (just like I do when I go to Canada if I forget to fill out the exemption paperwork) Not sure I buy that counter argument.
Final thoughts on fair tax for now:
1) they imply that it would stick to 30%/23% but from what I have read, the number can automatically shift to keep it revenue neutral to today's amount of tax. I did not see anything to deal with inflation.
2) They claim it's a bipartisan bill, but I only saw one Dem senator & and 1 Dem rep out of 70 co-sponsors. Not saying it's not a good bill, just saying that their own site is deceitful on this point.
3) I could get behind the 'no tax for items bought for business use' if there was some provision that it be used for a business who keeps their most of their jobs in America. This would be potentially hard to implement, but if it could be implemented, it would help more US citizens get hired, rather than be outsourced
*yes, that is a joke.
In a nutshell;
1) It still is not nearly as fair as I had hoped (prebate value will vary depending widely on where you live)
2) It might be somewhat simpler than our current system
3) It would likely encourage business growth for companies already in business, but I wonder if it would help new businesses spring up or stifle new businesses
4a) I'd be more likely to support the no tax on business part if there was a way to make this only apply to businesses that keep most of their jobs in the states (to encourage more US growth)
4b) Alternatively, they *could* tax businesses, and make the overall tax rate a bit lower.
FB entries:
Troy,
Please explain your idea of "a flat tax and progressive fair tax." Because the flat tax has been shown to affect the poor the most, I'm interested in how the progressive part of your tax plan would balance that out.
JC,
Go look at fairtax.org.....it's the best way to address your questions for flat/fair tax..... Troy: Thanks, will do
Troy,
@ JC & @JB, I skimmed fairtax.org, and will look into it more soon. One thing that concerns me is that the sales tax rate at the store is different for different people. How will the store owner know which level to charge someone? (I need to look into the 'prebate' part more) Because, it would really suck if a poor person had to let every cashier know their income level when they are in the checkout line. Going to look into that part more.
Troy,
Ah, found it here: Fair Tax Prebate FAQ It's money paid in advance to lower income people, and then they pay the same tax rate at the stores as everyone else. People could game that a bit, and if the table becomes out of date lower income people would get taxed more than when the system is put in place. Also, the table does not appear to take in consideration local variances to things such as housing & gas, which can be huge. Nor does it take into consideration massive price fluctuations on gas, which tends to be seasonal (anyone here buy gas right before labor day?) If it *did* take in consideration local variances, then people could really game the system, particularly those with long commutes to work, or those who have an address in San Francisco, but spend 5 months a year working in Portland as part of their job. I think this is one of the reasons they didn't include it. It would get too complicated. Either way, it doesn't seem as fair as I had hoped when I first heard about it. But, it may be more fair than our current system (which isn't saying much). Now off to research actual annual tax that someone making $250+ k would pay with this system compared to what they pay now. Fun site!
JC,
Please do troy, I haven't seen anything that would have them give their income level, the tax charged would be the same to everyone, and everyone would get the prebate.....
Troy,
"the tax charged would be the same to everyone, and everyone would get the prebate...." Got it, I just want to do a little bit of work on whether people that make more money would continue to spend more money under this new system. One potentially funny side effect would be for the super wealthy to slowly replace their worn out spendy cars with Hyundai's as a form of tax evasion ;) Or, maybe they'd just do what I do, and drive one vehicle for 14+ years before buying a new one.
Troy,
One contradiction on their page regarding running a business: They estimate that this type of tax system will simplify paperwork, and encourage more international businesses to open up shop or move here & domestic businesses would have an easier time with paperwork and TAX FREE BUSINESS purchases, thus encouraging more business growth. And therefore, less paperwork means no need for the IRS However, because this could be an easy way for people to evade taxes (make a fake company, and buy goods for their own home with them), there would be an institution created to ensure this does not happen, with a much higher chance of being audited than with our current system. So, sounds to me like both forces cancel each other out, and I doubt more domestic businesses would spring up under this plans for those reasons stated alone. Maybe other benefits of this tax system would encourage it.
Troy,
Finally, I'm confused about their own graph that represents where revenue would be gathered.They say the same amount of tax would be gathered, but in every category listed in this graph, the amount is less: Fair Tax revenue Graph Although they *do* say more people in each category would pay taxes, such as illegal aliens & visiting tourists (just like I do when I go to Canada if I forget to fill out the exemption paperwork) Not sure I buy that counter argument.
Final thoughts on fair tax for now:
1) they imply that it would stick to 30%/23% but from what I have read, the number can automatically shift to keep it revenue neutral to today's amount of tax. I did not see anything to deal with inflation.
2) They claim it's a bipartisan bill, but I only saw one Dem senator & and 1 Dem rep out of 70 co-sponsors. Not saying it's not a good bill, just saying that their own site is deceitful on this point.
3) I could get behind the 'no tax for items bought for business use' if there was some provision that it be used for a business who keeps their most of their jobs in America. This would be potentially hard to implement, but if it could be implemented, it would help more US citizens get hired, rather than be outsourced
*yes, that is a joke.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)