February 11, 2016

Legislation could expand liquor sales to retail stores

Danedri Thompson
When Dennis Elliott, Gardner, purchased K&D Liquor Store five years ago, he knew there were whispers that Kansas laws might be changed to allow grocery and other retail stores to sell liquor.
The whispers are growing louder and legislation to do just that appears to be finding traction in the Kansas Legislature.
Last year, the Senate examined a bill that would allow stores like Price Chopper and Walmart to sell liquor. This year, a House committee held two hearings on similar legislation.
The proposed law would create new classes of liquor licenses – one that would allow retailers to sell just beer, another to allow them to sell beer and wine and a third that would allow beer, wine and liquor to be sold in retail stores after 2016.
That, Elliott says, might put him out of business.
“It would put something like 700-and-some odd small, mom and pop liquor stores out of business,” Elliott said.
Proponents of the legislation say in addition to allowing retail stores like Walmart to sell liquor would also allow existing liquor stores to expand their offerings. Instead of selling just liquor, the stores could also stock mixers, snacks and just about anything else.
“That wouldn’t help us at all,” Elliott said.
Most liquor stores don’t have space available to stock additional items.
“In most of these small stores, their space is at a premium. We use every little nook and cranny for what we have,” Elliot said.
Dick Stoffer, a lobbyist for Hy-Vee grocery stores and advocate of the legislation, believes the bill would also add jobs.
“Our study last year said there would be about 15,000 new jobs that would come in the form of more businesses being attracted to come to Kansas,” Stoffer said.
Elliot estimates the proposal would cost as many as 4,900 jobs.
“If just 700 small (liquor) stores went out of business, and each place employs between seven and nine people, take that times 700, and that’s how many jobs are going to be lost,” Elliot said.
HyVee operates stores in eight states. Its Kansas stores are the only ones that don’t offer liquor sales. The retail grocery chain is growing in other states, but not in Kansas.
“I don’t know any specifics,” Stoffer said. “I have been told we’re not putting any new (Kansas) stores until this bill passes.”
Large chains would be the biggest benefactors of the proposed legislation, Elliot said, and their profits don’t stay in state.
“It won’t help the state,” he See said.
Competition is good for consumers, Stoffer said, but the liquor store owners don’t want to compete.
“That’s what it comes down to,” he said. “We compete with everyone everyday. To be protected really isn’t a good thing for consumers or Kansas.”


  1. Judith Rogers says:

    That bill could very well pass this year………they have been trying for several years to do this. The big boys usually always get what they want and will continue the full court press until it becomes a done deal. Just wait until the lovely legislators vote to do away with the state income tax to take care of the big boys who don’t like paying taxes………….they are just like Leona Helmsley, a big hotel gal, who said years ago: “Only the little people pay taxes”. Nothing much has changed, it just gets more in your face and your pocket as to what the Sam Hill is placed on the backs of the ordinary person and taxpayer. I watched part of the Ed Show last night and they were talking about “What’s the Matter with Kansas” and how our state is just crushing the poor with this tax bill and handing even more dollars to the rich…………good ole Brownback and many of those Kansas corn/wheat (think farm subsidies) fed Republican legislators are going to be doing their job ON you and not for you. And top of that they will tell the women of the state they can’t take the birth control pill or have the right to choose and most of those old coots who are members of the good ole boy’s club cannot even say the word vagina. But they don’t mind having gambling in the state and make every citizen be a part owner in a casino nor do they mind bringing you huge liquor marts. I am waiting on the day when the new age are buying pot at Walmart and the pot coming here via KC Southern from south of the wide open border.

  2. Only Judith could view selling alcohol in Walmart (a store that sells everything else in the world) as a sign of the moral degradation of society. For your information if you drive half an hour over to Missouri you can buy all forms of alcohol in Walmart and the Hy-Vees and Walmarts in Kansas already sell beer.

    Watch out though, pretty soon though they will be stocking pot and crystal meth over on on aisle 10 and then everyone will be having premarital sex with no birth control and getting abortions left and right and then no one will be able to say vagina. So sayth Judith!

  3. Judith Rogers says:

    Isn’t freedom of speech great, Charlie K…………………..?????? Always do what everybody else is doing………..regardles of whether it is a good or bad thing…………..just like your kids when they pull that ole “everybody else gets to do it” and Charlie K. is still buying into that…….much easier being a follower rather than a leader………………and people like you, Charlie K., enable and support the lowlifes very day, even people in your government who thumb their noses at the law……..

  4. Judith Rogers says:

    Critcal thinkers are bashed in our society. So many want you to go along to get along. That is why that City Hall Bunch hate Fotovich so much and why you have the big problems you have. They are so used to that Council not thinking, not protecting the people, not doing much of anything except have that rubber stamp on their foreheads so they can dip their heads and approve anything and everything placed before them by the entities working for the big boys rather than for the people. Have you ever noticed how the City Staff has given each of those Council members the wording they can read to put forth a motion to get passed what they want passed – I have often wondered if they provide wording to deny a request – I highly doubt it – I just see those followers sitting there and reading the motions that have been provided to them. Then when it passes, the Dictator’s voice get a pitch higher and he leans back in his chair, smiles and says Motion Carried which we all know will happen with his appointed and brain washed Council or those who are just as bad as he is. This past deal of paying another thief $14,000 to tell you how much something is going to cost you and which is another manipulative deal tells you that the citizens are merely entities to keep feeding the money machine.

    Critical, decent thinkers are what is needed by the people but they won’t get it because they aren’t doing their jobs or they think followers are just as great as apple pie.

  5. Judith Rogers says:

    Another important issue in today’s world is in placing priorities where they should be. I feel the priorties are totally screwed by I what I see day in and day out now especially when we are spending dollars for a “sports education” rather than an education that will equip our kids to be a part of the world economy.

    Here is an article out of Lawrence and I know what one set of parents have suffered and where their priorities are – safeguarding our fellow man and especially our youth.


    Parents, county press for safer railroad crossing

    A steep hill and trees make trains hard to spot at this railroad crossing along East 950 Road northwest of Lawrence. At the urging of parents whose son died at this spot a year ago, the Douglas County Commission is asking for the state to help make it safer.

    February 25, 2012

    At the urging of grieving parents, the Douglas County Commission is asking the state for help in upgrading a dangerous railroad crossing.

    A year ago, Kyle Snyder, 22, slid down a snow-packed hill on a gravel road northwest of Lawrence and onto a railroad crossing. His truck was crushed by a BNSF train traveling more than 50 mph.

    In the wake of their son’s death, Tom and Laury Snyder have been campaigning to make the crossing along East 950 Road safer.

    Today flowers and crosses sit nearby as a reminder of Kyle Snyder’s death. Now, Tom Snyder said he wants to see flashing lights at the crossing as well.

    “There’s a train crossing at the foot of a huge hill. It’s a dangerous situation, and all I’m asking for is a light,” he said.

    The crossing isn’t heavily traveled. Counts from the Kansas Department of Transportation estimate it has less than 40 vehicles a day and trains pass through fives times daily. But among the traffic is a 65-passenger bus for the Perry-Lecompton school district.

    School district and county officials acknowledge the crossing’s dangers.

    From the north, the railroad tracks and crossing are clearly seen. However, coming from the south, the crossing is at the bottom of a steep hill. Warning signs are a couple hundred yards away on a flat stretch of the downward slope. From that point, the railroad tracks are obscured by trees. It’s not until a driver is nearly at the crossing that there is a long distance view of the tracks.

    “It’s hard to see an oncoming train until you are almost to the tracks,” Perry-Lecompton Superintendent Dennis Yoder said.

    In the winter, the road is prone to freezing because it is north-facing and covered by vegetation. Ice can make it hard for vehicles to stop before the crossing, county engineering division manager Terese Gorman told county commissioners at a meeting this week.

    If a signal were installed, drivers could tell whether a train was coming at the flat part of the hill and wait for it to pass before descending down to the crossing.

    “I think a warning would allow you to put on your brakes sooner than you would (now),” Gorman told commissioners.

    Already on icy days, the school bus driver will have parents drop off their children at other bus stops to avoid venturing down the hill, Yoder said.

    At the request of the Snyders, Yoder sent a letter to KDOT asking for help to make the crossing safer.

    The amount of train and vehicle traffic the crossing has won’t qualify it for federal funds, KDOT coordinating engineer Mitch Sothers said. Crossings with more traffic receive higher priority.

    The county also has the option of closing one crossing and receiving money to help put up signals at another one or to apply for state money, which is limited and is granted on a first-come, first-served basis.

    On Wednesday, the County Commission signed a resolution asking for state money to install a signalized crossing, which could cost between $150,000 to $250,000. Each year the state sets aside enough money to cover about one-and-a-half crossings, Sothers said.

    If the state were to approve the county’s request, the county wouldn’t have to pay anything. The state would cover 80 percent and the railroad the other 20 percent.

    If the hill really is so steep that cars have difficulty stopping when there are icy conditions, the county might want to consider more drastic measures such as closing the crossing or lessening the grade of the road, Sothers said.

    Closing the crossing would add time and distance to the Perry-Lecompton bus routes, Yoder said. And, Douglas County Public Works director Keith Browning said the county hasn’t discussed closing the crossing. Just three roads cross the railroad tracks between Lake View Lake and Lecompton. The closest one from East 950 Road is about a mile west.

    “In that part of the county, there are not all that many roads,” Browning said.

    Whether it’s lights or closing the crossing, for Snyder any safety upgrade could help prevent another tragedy.

    “I lost my one and only child and that has devastated me and my wife,” he said. “I would hate to see anyone else go through what (we) have gone through in the last year.”

  6. Judith Rogers says:

    Here is an issue you might want to contemplate. Some will have a hard time with FACTS rather than “I think so’s” or who can’t get their priorities in line. Think about how your dropout rate at USD 231 jumped from around 5 students a year up to 38 a year.


    Number of Kansas children in high-poverty areas triples since 2000
    By KHI News Service on February 24, 2012

    State’s rate of growth is fourth highest in the nation.

    More than three times as many Kansas children live in high-poverty areas as did 10 years ago, according to a new report that also puts Kansas’ growth rate for high-poverty areas fourth fastest in the country.

    High-poverty areas are defined in the report by the Annie E. Casey Foundation as U.S. Census tracts where 30 percent or more of the population lives in poverty.

    About 46,000 Kansas children were living in the areas in 2010, up from about 14,000 in 2000, according to the study.

    The 2010 federal poverty level was $22,314 per year for a family of four.

    “This report really highlights that the reach of poverty is greater than we realized,” said Christie Appelhanz of Kansas Action for Children, a Topeka-based advocacy group. “Even families with income above the poverty level suffer as a result of living in these areas of concentrated poverty. Children in these areas are more likely to experience harmful levels of stress, they’re more likely to have lower test scores, they’re more likely to drop out of school, regardless of the (household) income level.”

    According to the report:

    “Growing up in a high-poverty neighborhood undermines a child’s chances of adult economic success. Studies have shown that for children in middle- and upper-income families, living in a high-poverty neighborhood raises the chances of falling down the income ladder as an adult by 52 percent, on average.”

    Area poverty rates of 30 percent or more were identified because that is a threshold between the starting and leveling off points for negative neighborhood effects commonly used by researchers.

    In Kansas, there were 66 high-poverty census tracts in 2010, up from 25 in 2000. There are now five in Douglas County, up from two in 2000.

    → Download the full state map showing high-poverty areas, the full report and continue reading at khi.org.

  7. Judith Rogers says:

    “Political Incest” – this article sure caught my eye – I need to remember this term. I certainly know how our local “poliitical incest family” has come into existance and there are several generations involved in it……………….and I sure don’t care to see the last appointed member of this family being forced down my throut………….


  8. Freedom of speech is great. It’s just a shame there are so many idiots like you who mis-use and abuse it in such an awful manner.

    Not sure what my post has to do with being a follower, enabler, or any of that other garbage you posted but it doesn’t matter. The fact is that the only leading you are doing is leading your fellow lemmings like ‘State of Affairs’ over the edge of a cliff.

    I actually don’t have a problem with Fotovich though. I think he is doing a good job, even if his tactics need some work. So I wish you wouldn’t compare yourself to Larry Fotovich. For all his faults I think he cares about Gardner and wants to make it better. You are a hateful, bitter, worthless, old woman who contibutes nothing.

  9. SWOTI, don’t let Charlie get to you. The reason freedom of speech is so great is BECAUSE it allows so many idiots like you to mis-use and abuse it in an awful manner.

    The freedom of speech is definately one of the most fundamental rights, because no matter how ‘educated’ you are, everyone has at least one idea that the majority and I would never want to be the judge of what is, or is not appropriate speech.

    As far as the liquor thing goes, I just moved from Nebraska and they did not have the same rules and I can attest to the fact that it isn’t the end of civilization or even the end of liquor stores. If it passes, the liquor stores will find a niche or go out of business and it won’t be a big deal.

  10. State of Affairs says:

    To Charlie K.–I have a mind of my own. No one leading me. But, I do appreciate Judith’s posts.

    (I am concerned that a Vascular Surgeon reported that 1/3 of her female patients with blood clots are related to birth control pills.)

  11. Freedom of speech is one thing. Name calling is quite another. It’s rude. And it dilutes your point.

  12. Judith Rogers says:

    The truth hurts as no-namers bring out so well………….I will continue to use my free speech even though there are some who would absolutely loooooove to take that privilege away from me in order to continue the wrongdoing that is feathering their nests or taking care of the big boys….time and time again people come on here to attack me rather than giving their viewpoints, opinions, suggestions for improvement, etc. and that is because 1. They are unable to think, reason, communicate, etc. 2. They just want to criticize those who do speak out 3. They are enablers and supporters of the lousy government entities and the lowlife people involved in them that are killing the people 4. They have small minds and are followers and for numerous other reasons.

  13. @Senior – Actually, since SWOTI’s point is to call people names and make herself feel superior she is accomplishing her goals although it is obvious that she is not persuasive.

  14. Judith Rogers says:

    I am sure those small liquor stores who are forced out of business will think it is a big deal……….so much for empathy for the little guy…………the big boys and their paid politicians are the winners and the ones who control your destiny………….money and greed are the name of the game and supported by many……………your presidency is sure up for buying this year as in any other year as well as your small home town political incest families in your own back yards and on up to your state level…………

  15. Judith Rogers says:

    Have you lost faith in our “democracy”?????


    Chalk up another win for the law of unintended consequences. When federal courts ruled in 2010 against restricting donations to political action committees, Republican strategists rejoiced. Here, they thought, was a way for the GOP’s deep-pocketed donors to gain an advantage over President Obama’s fundraising machine.

    But look what happened. “Super PACs,” as the newly empowered political action committees are known, have mutated like election-year Godzillas, wreaking havoc in an increasingly bloody Republican primary campaign.

    Last month, the super PACs that support Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich and Ron Paul raised more money than the candidates’ official campaign organizations did. The super PACs, which are legally independent from the campaigns, spent a combined $28 million and ended the month with $19 million in cash on hand.

    Under the old system, which limited individuals to $2,500 in contributions, candidates had to scour the country for as many donors as they could find. Now, one or two deep-pocketed backers can keep a campaign alive.

    Under the old system, Romney — who started out with a big advantage in traditional fundraising — might have been close to wrapping up the nomination by now. But as long as Santorum and Gingrich have super PACs to fund television advertising for them, the struggle will continue.

    The lesson for future candidates is clear: Don’t make the mistake that early dropouts Tim Pawlenty and Michele Bachmann made. Before you run, make sure you have a billionaire in your corner.

    Of course, the new system has its critics, including even Gingrich’s sugar daddy, Adelson. “I’m against very wealthy people … influencing elections,” the eighth-wealthiest man in America told Forbes. “But as long as it’s doable, I’m going to do it.”

    That’s a widely shared sentiment. Wealthy Americans are popping up all over to fund the new super PACs, including liberals who might have been expected to oppose the idea on principle. Film producer Jeffrey Katzenberg and television comedian Bill Maher are the top Obama super PAC donors so far, and the money is likely to flow ever faster in the run-up to November.

    What will that mean? In all likelihood, a particularly nasty campaign.

    The super PACs, with their elaborate charade of independence from the campaigns, make it easier to run negative advertising — because candidates can claim that they had nothing to do with it.

    In Michigan last week, Romney’s super PAC, inspiringly named Restore Our Future, was running a television commercial slashing Santorum for his Senate votes in favor of appropriations bills. A female narrator intones disapprovingly, “Santorum even voted to raise his own pay!”

    At the end of the commercial, instead of “I’m Mitt Romney, and I approve this message,” there’s a disclaimer: “Not authorized by any candidate.”

    But is that really true? When he was asked last year whether he had any responsibility for the super PAC’s operations, Romney did his best to appear shocked, even though his super PAC is staffed by his former aides and he appeared at one of its events.

    “My goodness,” he replied. “If we cooperate in any way, shape or form, we go to the big house.”

    Not really. The Federal Election Commission doesn’t put anyone in jail. It only levies modest fines — normally long after an election is over. Moreover, the FEC allows “cooperation” between a candidate and his super PAC as long as the candidate doesn’t “coordinate” his campaign with the independent effort. Candidates can even help raise money for their super PACs as long as they don’t direct how that money is spent. It even may be legal for a candidate to appear in an ad paid for by his “independent” super PAC; when the FEC was asked to rule on one such ad (starring Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.), it deadlocked, leaving the issue unresolved.

    In the Supreme Court decision known as Citizens United, which helped pave the way for these innovations, JusticeAnthony M. Kennedywrote that he was confident that unlimited campaign funding would not harm the democratic process.

    “Independent expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption,” he wrote. “The appearance of influence or access, furthermore, will not cause the electorate to lose faith in our democracy.”

    We’re about to learn whether Kennedy’s pronouncement — which took the risky form of a forecast, not a legal judgment — was right.

  16. SWOTI – There is no rational reason that liquor can’t be sold in chain stores. If the other Liquor stores can’t put up with competition then they deserve to go out of business. As I stated before, in Nebraska there is no prohibition to selling Liquor in stores and yet there are many liquor stores around the state. A small liquor store may not be able to compete on price on a number of items, but they usually can stock a larger supply and their associates are usually more experienced so they provide a better quality product. Those who can’t compete will lose their shops. That is the way capitalism works, there are winners and losers. If you are a shop owner and the only reason you can stay in business is an antiquated law that serves no purpose in modern society, other than to keep your business open, then perhaps you should brush up your resume.

  17. Aside from what Nate said, SWOTI, aren’t you one who wants to see Gardner businesses collapse, rather than see them propped up by the government? Isn’t that what you’re supporting by complaining about liquor stores that are able to stay in business because of odd-ball government rules?

    And I noticed that you also posted a critical post against “no-namers”. Why are you still lying to us about your own no-name posting history? You always duck out on responsibility for your own actions as a no-name poster, so why are you trying to hang blame on others for things you’ve done ten times worse in the past?

  18. State of Affairs says:

    To Charlie K.–You thought you were being cute when you said pretty soon we will being buying drugs at Walmart. There are medical drug shortages turning up about everyday. Just ask a pharmacist. For example, just recently, there is a Methotrexate (a cancer drug) shortage. (Not just oldsters, but children with leukemia count on this drug.) There is always a new ad, if you have taken this or that medication and had side effects or death of a family member, call the 1-800 number . . . So, maybe recreational drugs will be the only drugs available.

    Further, it is a shame to see the Mom & Pop shops with their pride in service fade away. We progress further to everything the same, everything equal; no creativity, no individuality. Just be subserviant to the flow, no “shooting for the stars”.

  19. Judith Rogers says:

    Money talks to the lowlifes and their paid politicians and the reason you will be living with a horrible project in your area that will create illness, forcing the citizens to pay astronomical infrastructure costs from now until kingdom come, decrease your physical safety and your quality of life will be going down the gutter. Don’t worry about the big corporations and others who don’t want to pay any taxes and transfers their tax burden to the little guy,- that is just “an antiquated law that serves no purpose in modern society”. You can certainly tell why the no-namers take no ownership of their comments – I wouldn’t either and they certainly show what they stand for – they would be walking around you if you were dying on the sidewalk.

  20. "No-namers", she says! says:

    Every time SWOTI mentions no-namers, she’s talking about herself, but because she refuses to acknowledge her own no-naming past, she’s actually LYING about herself.

    So keep lying, SWOTI. It becomes you perfectly.

  21. SWOTI – I noticed you had a longwinded rant in response to my comment, but you did not actually give a reason as to why the law that is currently on the books makes any sense. These large corporations that you speak of pay more taxes in a year than the smaller liquor stores (even you can agree that a smaller percentage of a much larger number is still MORE money). As I’ve stated before, all of my comments have been under Nate L (except for one spot when I was mocking SWOTI’s occasional use of multiple handles when she feels she is losing her argument).

    I have been very forthcoming with who I am. My name is Nate (well Nathaniel if you want to get government on me) with the first letter of my last name as L. I am married with two kids, two dogs, and I just moved to Gardner in August. I am gainfully employed (contrary to SWOTI’s childish rants otherwise). I am also a lowlife because I disagree with SWOTI, but I wear it as a badge of honor.

    Incidentally enough, since I ran for Legislature back in Nebraska I told people things they didn’t want to hear, in person all the time (I did get crushed in the election, so maybe that wasn’t the smartest thing I ever did). So I take ownership of my words.

    1) There is no reason for a law to be on the books that prevent Liquor Sales in a Grocery Store.
    2) The sale of Liquor in the grocery stores does not necessarily mean that all liquor stores will go out of business. If they stubbornly refuse to review and change their business model, then they deserve to go out of business; however, if they make changes then they will most likely survive.
    3) If SWOTI or people like her were in charge the city would be in trouble. She doesn’t understand the concept of economic development and it is completely obvious that she is mathematically challenged.

  22. State of Affairs says:

    To Nate L.–Well, then, educate us on the new wave. Just recently, I met a couple in their 80’s who were voted into public office. (They certainly worked for the people in their day.). Said they ran a successful business without any help, but now here come the fellows with their hands out. Perhaps this oldster couple should be consultants. I was taught to work for a living. And, all you have to do is pay taxes and die. But, recently I have found out that you don’t have to pay taxes. #1 example is our Federal Secretary of Finance, Timothy Guietner.

  23. State of Affairs says:

    P.S. Nate L. Are you running for public office in Gardner? or at the State, Federal level?

  24. Judith Rogers says:

    Real winner to move here and land in Gardner, Ks. which will be a highly commercial, industrial area where NO ONE WANTS TO LIVE and the area has the highest taxes – the winners will be those who live in rentals and can pick up and move when their lease expires. Real winner to get crushed at the polls and I am sure for good reason as exemplified by his comments. Thinks he takes ownership of his comments by using his first name only. Real winner to move here for about 6 months and thinks he knows it all and what is best for people who have lived here their whole lives – time and time again he shows how he has no respect for anyone or anything that doesn’t start with him. What changes are those small liquor stores supposed to make to compete with King Kong and you honestly think those big boy corporations are going to be paying taxes??? Give us specifics since you know it all and you come from Nebraska. Be sure to tell us about all those taxes that the big boys like General Electric or Garmin pay. Be sure to tell us why all the big boys are spending millions and millions to buy the presidency this year like they have every year but this year it is even more blatant. Be sure to tell me exactly how big biz is taking care of me and many other citizens – did they take care of me and citizens like me when this last financial disaster occurred due to how they operate. I can hardly wait until the big boys or the corrupt politicians throw you under the bus one of these days and they will, it is just a matter of time.

  25. @state – I am not running for office now, I ran a few years ago.

    @SWOTI – I chose to live in Gardner for my own purposes. Apparently you are the one who is so pathetic that she can’t move out if she wants to.

    I mentioned that I ran for public office because I, unlike you, don’t just sit around and whine about things when I don’t like them. I attempted to accomplish things, unfortunately, I lost. I don’t sit around and complain that my opponent was a cheater, or a liar, or a lowlife, which is all you can accomplish.

    I never said that I knew everything, I merely have said (time and again) that you are wrong. I don’t really need to post since most people obviously know that you are wrong once you type since you always say the same things and can’t make it through a single post without an intellectual fallacy in your arguments, but I figured I’d have some fun.

    GE: http://www.forbes.com/2011/04/13/ge-exxon-walmart-apple-business-washington-corporate-taxes.html – Money Quote – If you don’t make money, you don’t pay taxes. When GE has profits, they pay taxes, when they have losses they are allowed (just like every other business) to carry losses forward. Unfortunately for you, you think the world should work how you ‘feel’ it should and anyone who disagrees with you are just wrong.

    I will state my question again, is there any purpose for the liquor laws being as they are other than to keep small liquor stores in business? If not, then they deserve to go. There are a number of ways that you can continue to compete against ‘king kong,’ and I’ve mentioned them before. They will most likely need to re-organize their business model and specialize, increase their advertising, and market themselves as a ‘quality’ place rather than a cheap place. It is obvious that you don’t understand business or how to run them.

    ANYONE who disagrees with me is a LOWLIFE. So THERE!!!!!

    I can see that you are feeling the burn……

  26. Well you’re right about one thing Judith. If I saw you dying on the sidewalk I would just walk around you. Anyone else I’d help though.

  27. Judith Rogers says:

    I already knew that Charlie K……………….give me some current news from you and Nate L……

  28. Don’t worry Charlie, SWOTI’s already accused me of being 3 or 4 other people on here. She can’t seem to process the fact that multiple people may oppose her. She even went as far as to post with my name to try and discredit me. That is why I gave her the title of SWOTI (Supreme Winner of the Internet). I urge all of the no-namers to refer to her as SWOTI and bow before her title.

    Current news: SWOTI is poor and thinks all government is evil. EVIL. Oh, and she is a lowlife.

  29. Judith Rogers says:

    I am sure these small liquor store owners will be drowning in cash to spend on advertising and marketing as they are losing most of their business…………just admit you are more than willing to throw them under the bus and be done with it, lowlife, but honesty is not one of your virtues either………this article from Forbes tells it like it is for companies like GE, Garmin and whole lot more of them. As I have stated before, the big boys don’t like paying taxes of any kind whether it be property, business personal property taxes, sales, income, etc., etc. and politicians like Brownback make sure they don’t…….


    HOUSTON — As you work on your taxes this month, here’s something to raise your hackles: Some of the world’s biggest, most profitable corporations enjoy a far lower tax rate than you do–that is, if they pay taxes at all.

    The most egregious example is General Electric ( GE – news – people ). Last year the conglomerate generated $10.3 billion in pretax income, but ended up owing nothing to Uncle Sam. In fact, it recorded a tax benefit of $1.1 billion.

    How did this happen? It’s complicated. GE’s tax return is the largest the IRS deals with each year–some 24,000 pages if printed out. Its annual report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission weighs in at more than 700 pages.

    Inside you’ll find that GE in effect consists of two divisions: General Electric Capital and everything else. The everything else–maker of engines, power plants, TV shows and the like–would have paid a 22% tax rate if it was a standalone company.

    It’s GE Capital that keeps the overall tax bill so low. Over the last two years, GE Capital has displayed an uncanny ability to lose lots of money in the U.S. (posting a $6.5 billion loss in 2009), and make lots of money overseas (a $4.3 billion gain). Not only do the U.S. losses balance out the overseas gains, but GE can defer taxes on that overseas income indefinitely. The timing of big deductions for depreciation in GE Capital’s equipment leasing business also provides a tax benefit, as will loan losses left over from the credit crunch.

    But it’s the tax benefit of overseas operations that is the biggest reason why multinationals end up with lower tax rates than the rest of us. It only makes sense that multinationals “put costs in high-tax countries and profits in low-tax countries,” says Scott Hodge, president of the Tax Foundation. Those low-tax countries are almost anywhere but the U.S. “When you add in state taxes, the U.S. has the highest tax burden among industrialized countries,” says Hodge. In contrast, China’s rate is just 25%; Ireland’s is 12.5%.

    Corporations are getting smarter, not just about doing more business in low-tax countries, but in moving their more valuable assets there as well. That means setting up overseas subsidiaries, then transferring to them ownership of long-lived, often intangible but highly profitable assets, like patents and software.

    As a result, figures tax economist Martin Sullivan, companies are keeping some $28 billion a year out of the clutches of the U.S. Treasury by engaging in so-called transfer pricing arrangements, where, say, Microsoft’s ( MSFT – news – people ) overseas subsidiaries license software to its U.S. parent company in return for handsome royalties (that get taxed at those lower overseas rates).

  30. 1) You still haven’t given me a reason why the law should be on the books, which means you can’t think of one other than calling me names.
    2) I have said multiple times that if they aren’t able to adapt to removing a rule that shouldn’t be on the books then they don’t belong in the business. And if you really want me to say it “I DON’T GIVE A FLYING FIG IF THEY GO OUT OF BUSINESS’ – We live in a capitalistic society and there are winners and losers. If they can’t find a way to compete then they will be losers.
    3) Liquor stores exist in other states that allow major chains to sell liquor and they don’t require a law that gives them a monopoly. I suggest they start contacting them and finding out ways to adapt.
    4) Your article says nothing other than GE followed the rules of the country and paid all taxes they are required to do so. Your insistence that companies and people pay taxes that they don’t owe is stupid. Why don’t you write a big-ol-fat check to the US Treasury that you don’t have to? I didn’t think so, of course the $12.50 you have left in your checking account probably wouldn’t put a dent in it anyway.
    5) Your article shows that GE posted losses that were carried forward to offset taxes. This is normal in ANY corporation not just large ones. The reason these tax write-offs exist allow corporations to stay in business through multiple business cycles. Why don’t you go to the library and check out a few Business 101 books and you’d know that.
    6) I am a LOWLIFE since you seem to define lowlife as anyone who disagrees with you. As I’ve stated, I wear it with a badge of honor.

    As was pointed out before, you are against giving tax breaks to local businesses but are FOR creating laws that prop up other businesses.

    This is how the ‘deep thoughts’ machine for SWOTI works:

    1) Did the government DO something? Yes – IT IS EVIL
    2) Did the government DO something I previously said was ok? Yes – IT IS EVIL!!!!!
    3) Did the government THINK about doing something? Yes – IT IS EVIL!!!
    4) Did the government THINK about doing something that I agreed with? Yes -…a tough one. We’ll wait for them to do it and then I’ll call it EVIL!!!!
    5) Is it a big company? Yes – EVIL!
    6) Is is a small company that gets tax breaks? Yes – EVIL!

    Complicated stuff from a cheap lowlife scum.

  31. Judith Rogers says:

    Funny, Nate, funny…………….

Comments do not necessarily reflect those of The Gardner News, or staff. By posting, commentators assume all liability. Please contact webmaster to report comments that infringe on copyrights, or are of a profane or libelous nature. Webmaster reserves the right to edit or remove content deemed offensive.


Speak Your Mind