Manitoba Politics

[Noeller]

Putting all partisan politics aside....... happy 153rd to the place I love the best! 

[Wanna-B-Fanboy]

4 hours ago, GCn20 said:

1. All profits from liquor sales do NOT go directly back into health care. They go to general revenues and then are budgeted back out. Just like any other government revenue source.

Fair- Most of the material I was reading was strongly pointing in that direction, but with weasel language- I see that now.  

 

4 hours ago, GCn20 said:

2. Your comment about alcohol care amounts is completely bogus. With increased sales come increased tax revenues, and that offsets increased spending on alcohol health care and adds back into revenues. Various provinces that went this route years ago, because this was a post prohibition solution to alcohol sales, ALL report better over all revenues through a mix of private/public alcohol sales.

How is that bogus? that was the cost of alcohol related health care. Increased sales of alcohol increase the related health care costs- if the profits were funneled into private hands, then the government would be short that amount. Sure, you may get better revenue, but most of that goes into the hands of private entities and not as a revenue stream for the provinces. 

 

4 hours ago, GCn20 said:

Therefore your figures are bogus...completely bogus. Manitoba is one of the only provinces left that has not abandoned government run liquor stores. Why? I'll tell you why. Increased access leads to increased sales. Increased sales = increased tax dollars. 90% of government revenues from liquor is generated through taxation and not retail distribution.  Also, it is fallacy that people would completely abandon retail government liquor stores, if they did then maybe that says something about the way they are operated. At any rate it is nothing but complete fiction that moving away from government run retail would lead to lost revenues. It would simply lead to a shift in how revenues are generated.

The profits are separate from the taxes. It's the stupid amount of mark up where the MLCC makes most of their money from. You are conflating MLCC profit with taxes- they are separate.  

 

 

4 hours ago, GCn20 said:

The "math" you are so fond of is flawed. It does not take into account that most revenues are generated through taxation on alcohol. Therefore, you cannot say that revenues are lost when they can be easily offset or even increased through ease of access ergo increase in sales.

See above in regards to conflating revenue with taxes.

 

 

 

4 hours ago, GCn20 said:

As someone in the liquor sales industry, there is another BIG red herring to address as well. Taxation on spirits and wine are being held back from regular increases in order to drive people into the liquor stores when compared to beer. I just went into my hard drive and in the year 2000 my cost per unit of alcohol was $.85 avg, on beer it was $1.09. In 2021, my last active year managing my business the cost of alcohol was $1.19 and beer $2.26. That's a crap load of lost revenue right there if the province weren't artificially holding down the taxation of spirits and wine in order to drive people towards their retailers. 

 

Well I reckon that is for another discussion. I can't speak to your own experience. 

[GCn20]

Like anything the devil is in the details. Private liquor sales will generate a crap load more tax dollar revenue than what the province will lose of retail revenues, That is a demonstrated fact across every province. Absolutely, this will create challenges for liquor related social problems. However, if the extra revenues are put back into social programming for these issues at the same % level as they are now it is still a huge win for revenues, we are in no worse position on social programming related to liquor sales, AND consumer convenience wins. The MLCC locations will have to compete on service levels and selection to maintain profits....simple as that. The way free enterprise is supposed to work. 

You are completely wrong that the province makes most of it's money on retail mark ups of alcohol. That only accounts for less than 10% of over all profits on alcohol sales. Problem is those tax revenues aren't included in the totals being released by the NDP and unions, but it is the fact. I don't care if the MLCC generates 100 million dollars to revenue if the lost sales of alcohol due to increased sales, and that is firmly established by history, loses us 500 million in synnovial taxes. Even if they are at par what's lost and what's gained are even, consumer convenience should be the determining factor then. The only way this takes millions of dollars out of health care is if the government does not use any of the tax dollars generated through the increased alcohol sales tax towards the needed increases in social servicing. There is zero evidence that would be the case. Therefore it's a straight up lie by the NDP to say that.

Edited May 12, 2023 by GCn20

[Wanna-B-Fanboy]

22 minutes ago, GCn20 said:

You are completely wrong that the province makes most of it's money on retail mark ups of alcohol. That only accounts for less than 10% of over all profits on alcohol sales. Problem is those tax revenues aren't included in the totals being released by the NDP and unions, but it is the fact. I don't care if the MLCC generates 100 million dollars to revenue if the lost sales of alcohol due to increased sales, and that is firmly established by history, loses us 500 million in synnovial taxes. Even if they are at par what's lost and what's gained are even, consumer convenience should be the determining factor then.

Ok, you might be right- I might be reading this all wrong:

https://www.mbllpartners.ca/sites/mbll_b2b/files/pdf_pamphlets/Pricing Information Manual 2022 (1).pdf

[Wideleft]

I don't understand how the unions could be withholding tax revenue numbers for Liquor & Lotteries.  They don't even have access to that information. 

If unions had access to financials, we wouldn't see a labour disruption last more than an hour, because the unions would know exactly how much the government could afford.

[GCn20]

15 minutes ago, Wanna-B-Fanboy said:

Ok, you might be right- I might be reading this all wrong:

https://www.mbllpartners.ca/sites/mbll_b2b/files/pdf_pamphlets/Pricing Information Manual 2022 (1).pdf

All of that is seperate from the taxes.

7 minutes ago, Wideleft said:

I don't understand how the unions could be withholding tax revenue numbers for Liquor & Lotteries.  They don't even have access to that information. 

If unions had access to financials, we wouldn't see a labour disruption last more than an hour, because the unions would know exactly how much the government could afford.

The unions have access to all revenue numbers and expenditure disclosure written write into the CBA. The MGEU has all the CBAs available to read...check it out. Financial disclosure is page one on every single one of them just about.

Edited May 12, 2023 by GCn20

[GCn20]

5 minutes ago, Wideleft said:

I don't understand how the unions could be withholding tax revenue numbers for Liquor & Lotteries.  They don't even have access to that information. 

If unions had access to financials, we wouldn't see a labour disruption last more than an hour, because the unions would know exactly how much the government could afford.

LMAO...you think unions negotiate based on what can be afforded? You think employers negotiate based on that? If that were the case you wouldn't see all collective agreements ending up virtually the same give or take a % or two.

4 hours ago, Noeller said:

Putting all partisan politics aside....... happy 153rd to the place I love the best! 

For sure. Best province imo.

[Noeller]

5 minutes ago, GCn20 said:

For sure. Best province imo.

I like Winnipeg, and I truly LOVE rural MB. I lived in EastMan, WestMan, Parkland and SouthMan over 27 years and there's just nothing better, for me. Especially The Shield, where my heart truly lies. I really took it for granted, and moving out to AB lit the fire and made me realize what I had. There's money out west here, to be sure, but for me, quality of life in MB..... just can't beat it. 

[Wideleft]

17 minutes ago, GCn20 said:

All of that is seperate from the taxes.

The unions have access to all revenue numbers and expenditure disclosure written write into the CBA. The MGEU has all the CBAs available to read...check it out. Financial disclosure is page one on every single one of them just about.

Because I don't trust a thing you say, I checked for myself.  Definitely not on page 1.  Can't find it in the other 105 pages either.  Not even in the index.

Maybe you can.

https://5021.cupe.ca/files/2016/09/CA_Local_5021_2015_10_01_2019_09_30_searchable.pdf

[Wanna-B-Fanboy]

19 minutes ago, GCn20 said:

All of that is seperate from the taxes.

Ok, so then a $31.54 mark up on a 1.7L bottle of liquor is far more than the taxes on the same bottle...

[Wideleft]

4 minutes ago, Wanna-B-Fanboy said:

Ok, so then a $31.54 mark up on a 1.7L bottle of liquor is far more than the taxes on the same bottle...

Pricing breakdown available here (specific examples on page 3):

https://www.mbllpartners.ca/sites/mbll_b2b/files/pdf_pamphlets/Pricing Information Manual 2020.pdf

[Wanna-B-Fanboy]

1 minute ago, Wideleft said:

Pricing breakdown available here (specific examples on page 3):

https://www.mbllpartners.ca/sites/mbll_b2b/files/pdf_pamphlets/Pricing Information Manual 2020.pdf

Yup, that's where I pulled the $31.54 mark up on a 1.7L bottle of liquor from.

[Mark H.]

45 minutes ago, GCn20 said:

LMAO...you think unions negotiate based on what can be afforded? You think employers negotiate based on that? If that were the case you wouldn't see all collective agreements ending up virtually the same give or take a % or two.

Unions open with an amount they know is not achievable, to discourage the employer from going to arbitration

Arbitration rulings are based on the opening package, not on what has already been agreed to

Every public sector does have a set maximum amount, sometimes that is publicized / shared with the union, some times it isn't

The purpose of starting with a 'big ask' is that it allows you to achieve improved working conditions - it's a bargaining chip

 

[WildPath]

On 2023-05-12 at 8:27 AM, Wideleft said:

Didn't the PC government campaign on transparency?

The least transparent government I can recall. The 19 "mystery bills" was a grossly undemocratic act and that alone, without everything else they've done, should be enough for them to lose the election by a landslide. Manitoba government's tabling of 19 'mystery' bills called 'unprecedented, undemocratic' | CBC News

[GCJenks]

One question I have on the liquor sales question. Does anyone know or is it reported what the percentage of profits from Liquor Mart operations is compared to the wholesale distribution portion? It it my understanding that any private sales model still comes through MLGCA wholesale distribution. This is the same path to market this government implemented for cannabis and one of the reason our prices (even in private stores) is higher than other jurisdictions. 

I would also be interested in the evidence that private liquor sales = higher liquor consumption. 

[Wanna-B-Fanboy]

3 hours ago, WildPath said:

The least transparent government I can recall. The 19 "mystery bills" was a grossly undemocratic act and that alone, without everything else they've done, should be enough for them to lose the election by a landslide. Manitoba government's tabling of 19 'mystery' bills called 'unprecedented, undemocratic' | CBC News

Did they ever show the bills?

[Sard]

2 hours ago, GCJenks said:

One question I have on the liquor sales question. Does anyone know or is it reported what the percentage of profits from Liquor Mart operations is compared to the wholesale distribution portion? It it my understanding that any private sales model still comes through MLGCA wholesale distribution. This is the same path to market this government implemented for cannabis and one of the reason our prices (even in private stores) is higher than other jurisdictions. 

I would also be interested in the evidence that private liquor sales = higher liquor consumption. 

I will quote you here:
" Private liquor sales will generate a crap load more tax dollar revenue than what the province will lose of retail revenues,"

The only way private liquor sales will generate a crap load more tax dollar revenue is if sales are a crap load more.  If sales are higher, that basically implies higher consumption.  So to answer your question, it looks like you are the one who is saying that that private liquor sales = higher liquor consumption.

[WildPath]

5 hours ago, Wanna-B-Fanboy said:

Did they ever show the bills?

They had to eventually and the NDP were allowed to hold back 5. Apparently some of the bills weren't ready - Manitoba government accused of treating new bills as 'blank sheet of paper' after 2 of 19 released | CBC News

One of the bills was bill 64 - The Education Modernization Act. It was one of the ones withheld by the NDP, then vigorously defended by the PCs, before being scrapped and eventually having many of the PC MLAs admitting it was bad legislation (likely because it was wildly unpopular). Manitoba government launches website to clear 'misconceptions' around Bill 64 | CTV News

[GCJenks]

7 hours ago, Sard said:

I will quote you here:
" Private liquor sales will generate a crap load more tax dollar revenue than what the province will lose of retail revenues,"

The only way private liquor sales will generate a crap load more tax dollar revenue is if sales are a crap load more.  If sales are higher, that basically implies higher consumption.  So to answer your question, it looks like you are the one who is saying that that private liquor sales = higher liquor consumption.

I believe you might have me confused with another poster whose name also starts with “G”. Pretty sure you are attributing someone else’s words to me. 
I currently buy my liquor from a private store, pricing is the same as a liquor mart but I can get gas, pick up my mail, mix and essential groceries all at the same time. Why does this model work outside Winnipeg and other large cities but shouldn’t be allowed in the city?

The heart of my question is what are the profits derived from liquor mart sales, assuming they are being charged the same value on the distribution side that the current private vendors are? 

[the watcher]

On 2023-05-11 at 10:29 AM, Wideleft said:

What is the definition Christian dominionism?

 

 

Dominionism is an umbrella term for certain groups of Protestants and some Catholics who interpret Genesis 1:28 in the Bible, which refers to people having dominion over life on earth, as meaning that Christians should exercise control over most aspects of modern life, Riccardi-Swartz says.

One of my winter reads was Chris Hedges " American Fascists,  the Christian Right and the War on America " Written in 2006 its a bit dated but still relevant. I wasn't that familiar with Domnionism and Dominionists but his 1st  chapter covers it extensively. A couple of quotes:

" Dominionism takes its name from Genesis 1:26 -31, in which God gives human beings " dominion" over all creation. This movement, small in number but influential,  departs from traditional evangelicalism.........Dominionism seeks to redefine traditional democratic and Christian terms and concepts to fit an ideology that calls on the radical church to take political power. It shares many prominent features with classical fascist  movements."

" Dominionism,  born out of a theology known as Christian reconstructionism,  seeks to politicize faith. It has like all fascist movements,  a belief in magic along with leadership adoration and a strident call for moral and physical supremecy of a master race, in this case American Christians. 

 

[Sard]

4 hours ago, GCJenks said:

I believe you might have me confused with another poster whose name also starts with “G”. Pretty sure you are attributing someone else’s words to me. 
I currently buy my liquor from a private store, pricing is the same as a liquor mart but I can get gas, pick up my mail, mix and essential groceries all at the same time. Why does this model work outside Winnipeg and other large cities but shouldn’t be allowed in the city?

The heart of my question is what are the profits derived from liquor mart sales, assuming they are being charged the same value on the distribution side that the current private vendors are? 

You are correct, I did confuse you with the other poster.  My apologies for that. 

[TrueBlue4ever]

4 hours ago, GCJenks said:

I believe you might have me confused with another poster whose name also starts with “G”. Pretty sure you are attributing someone else’s words to me. 

Unfortunately for you, having a name starting with “GC” and posting in the politics threads here is like having the actual name “Karen” and going shopping. 

[Mark H.]

5 hours ago, GCJenks said:

I believe you might have me confused with another poster whose name also starts with “G”. Pretty sure you are attributing someone else’s words to me. 
I currently buy my liquor from a private store, pricing is the same as a liquor mart but I can get gas, pick up my mail, mix and essential groceries all at the same time. Why does this model work outside Winnipeg and other large cities but shouldn’t be allowed in the city?

That's a first rate local store - hope it stays open for a long time.

6 pack of Fort Garry and an order of Chester Fried - for the win!

 

[GCJenks]

3 hours ago, Mark H. said:

That's a first rate local store - hope it stays open for a long time.

6 pack of Fort Garry and an order of Chester Fried - for the win!

 

Vikram is doing a great job since taking over, hoping they open the ice cream window for summer. 

[Tracker]

19 hours ago, Mark H. said:

That's a first rate local store - hope it stays open for a long time.

6 pack of Fort Garry and an order of Chester Fried - for the win!

 

Popeye's is better (IMO) and I am waiting for Churches' Texas Fried Chicken to show up. I like to eat dead birds.