- cross-posted to:
- ontario@lemmy.ca
- cross-posted to:
- ontario@lemmy.ca
Premier Doug Ford’s push to get beer and wine into convenience stores ahead of schedule will cost Ontario taxpayers at least $225 million, but there’s evidence the full price tag actually adds up to hundreds of millions more.
When the Ford government announced that it will pay the multinational owners of The Beer Store to allow what it calls “early implementation” of the expanded alcohol sales, it did not disclose the cost of other key components of its plan. Those components include:
- Giving private-sector retailers (including grocery and convenience stores) a wholesale discount of 10 per cent off the LCBO’s basic retail price.
- Giving brewers a full rebate of what the LCBO calls its “cost-of-service fees” on wholesale beer sales.
- Giving more than 8,000 grocery and convenience stores the right to sell beer, wine, cider and ready-to-drink beverages at prices lower than the LCBO’s.
Official figures from the Ministry of Finance and the LCBO obtained by CBC News on Monday show the province is facing a net revenue loss of $150 to $200 million per year as a result of the changes, in addition to the Beer Store payment.
The Ontario Liberal Party claims the costs will add up to $1 billion in direct payouts to the Beer Store, grocery chains and convenience store owners, as well as foregone revenue for the LCBO.
The amount of money Ontario already makes on liquor is insane. The provincial markup on wholesale product is 140%.
As much as I hate that this is just unabashed kleptocracy dumping public funds into corporate coffers, I don’t think it’s good that the state is addicted to ruining people’s lives for revenue and I’m kind of glad to see a shift here. But, not like this…
The state tried the other thing — for years and years — and it didn’t work. So they created the Liquor Control Board of Ontario.
I’ll wager that what’s happening now will exasperate the broader alcohol problem in the province.
I don’t know what you mean. What is “the other thing?” I didn’t reference any such. The existence of government management over alcohol and its taxation does not necessarily mean that money has to become “addictive” by going into general revenue. If the exploitation of vulnerable people is to be avoided, this money must go to strictly to dealing with the societal and personal effects of alcohol.
The same goes for government involvement with gambling.