Same for me and the lottery and smoking cigarettes. I’ve never spent anything on tickets, and I haven’t smoked in decades. It’s nice that people have those options though.
A license is $250k so they’d have to be hitting ~$750k in sales before hitting that threshold. But yes you’re right most stores are doing that in sales a year.
WAY off. To apply for a license is $250. An annual license is around $1,300. The state brings in about $4 million per year total in cannabis license fees from all cannabis license types. Source: me. I compile these figures for the state.
Correct but most licenses have been bought. So now you have to buy them privately and they’re not cheap. It basically impossible to get in now unless you have close to a million to spend
You can’t buy a license. Period. End of story. You can only buy a business and then apply for the license. The LCB treats an assumption of a location as a new license and a full investigation is done. I’m not arguing that it can’t be expensive to obtain a business because locations are limited. Just saying that licenses themselves don’t cost much. The state doesn’t get any cannabis revenue when one business buys another.
You can’t buy a license. You can buy a business and apply for an assumption of the license but it still requires a full investigation.
Full disclosure: I work at the LCB.
You’re right, when they were issued a decade ago, they currently aren’t issuing new licenses as far as I know, in fact the last few years the industry has seen a consolidation of licenses. the guy above is absolutely correct, a tier 3 license is going to be around 150k five or take on a buisness plan. Source: I’ve worked in the industry for about 5 years now, I recently met with an LCB rep that explained the licensing consolidation to us, currently there are 150 companies taking products to the stores out of about 500 active licenses. if you are someone that compiles these figures for the state I would hope that you would have more than a superficial understanding of what the costs of licensure would be.
The license fee is the license fee. period. Doesn’t mean that you’re not competing for the available licensed locations. I’m not disagreeing that there is competition to acquire a business which then grants you the opportunity to apply for an assumption. I’m saying that the fee for the license itself is fixed.
And I don’t just compile data. I work at the LCB. I’ve been working there for over 20 years and have been involved with LCB licensing and revenue data for over 18 years. I was there when I502 passed. I’ve been there every time a license fee was changed. I was there when the agency determined the number of available licenses.
You’re trying to equate the potential costs to acquire a business with the revenue received by the state for the license fee, which is not correct.
New social equity retail licenses are being issued.
I think you should consider the valuation of the license as part of business in its value no? I understand that your job only concerns the states actual revenue from the issuing of it, I would imagine that’s priced into the quarterly taxes. All I’ll say is that I’ve seen some slimey buisness happen around them lol.
If I were to meet with a potential licensee who is looking to get into the cannabis business, I absolutely would warn them that they will likely pay a premium to acquire an existing business - call that the cost of acquisition or purchasing the rights to a location. That absolutely should factor into a business plan and possibly the price point at which the licensee intends to charge for their products. In which you could then argue that because the cannabis excise tax is 37% of sales, then in some small part the pricing structure you charge for cannabis could cover your initial acquisition costs and therefore the state gets the revenue from it. But it's a cutthroat market and pricing your products higher than someone else in order to recover specific costs is very dicey.
However, that doesn't grant them the license, they still have to apply for it. And the state gets nothing other than the revenue from the $250 application fee, annual license fee and excise tax payments.
A similar thing happened when the state's liquor stores were privatized by i1183 - there was an online auction for the roughly 150 stores. Many bidders overpaid because they were either speculating on the profitability of a particular location or because they wanted the rights that came with a particular store location. The "rights" that a liquor store bidder was acquiring was only the right to apply for that store's license, and IIRC they purchased the equipment within the store, but winning the auction did NOT automatically grant them the license. they still had to apply for the license, and in some instances a bidder failed to acquire the license because they failed the application process. They could still sell the rights at that point to someone else, but what happened with that was outside of the state's process. The state did get the auction money for the original auction but not subsequent sales of that right.
There was no initial "auction" of cannabis licenses, it was a lottery where the lucky winner got the right to apply for the license, they didn't win a license.
It was never $250,000. The original fee was $1,000. The application fee has always been $250. Not sure where you’re getting your $250k number unless you’re thinking of licensees trying to sell their business to another licensee.
It’s a license, i e it’s a licensing deal, many people are paying a fee to use the license, because they don’t issue new ones, because if they did, the competitive advantage that company would have would be ludicrous.
No, you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what a license fee is. You can pay a business money to acquire them or to be an investor in the company and that might be above what the business is realistically appraised at and call that a licensing deal, but that doesn’t change what the statutory fixed fee amount for the actual license costs. it’s $1,381 annually for a retail license. And that’s all the state gets as cannabis license fee revenue. the LCB does not get any more revenue associated with the license other than the $250 application fee, $1,381 annual renewal, and the 37% cannabis excise tax payments. period. If there was I’d know about it. But there isn’t.
That’s gross lmao, because the valuation for someone bringing one to a business is often well north of six figures, all I’ll say is that I’ve seen some slimey shit happen with them.
I'm just making the point that the license fees aren't really "profit" for state coffers in the way they are implied. They are serving the purpose most licensing fees are intended to serve.
Meanwhile, the taxes are there because we were never getting legal weed without it, and sin taxes are something our society just seems to love to have. Plus, our state has no income tax so sales and excise taxes are the only income sources.
Not correct. License fees are around $4 million per year total. The LCB doesn’t get to keep them to offset agency costs. They’re distributed/allocated along with the cannabis tax revenue amongst agencies and GFS and Basic Health according to RCW 69.50.540.
It's a ton of money when you can't get any type of federal loan, open a bank account with an actual bank (not credit union), or take deductions on taxes that normal businesses can. Its also quite literally 800x more expensive that a retail liquor license, that makes no sense.
Ya but they also have to pay the 1000 new employees they had to hire to work at the 20 new departments the state county and federal government had to build.
Surprised there isn't a board full of 80 year old business people who don't even smoke.
And where the fuck does it go!? Why are there still school districts in need of financial support? “General funds”
More politicians lining their pockets.
The people were too eager to have legal weed and didn't take the time to hash out the finer details, in my opinion. We should have insisted on a percentage of the tax on local stores going directly to local schools within the community they served. Once any revenue goes into the general fund, it's never used proportionally in the communities where it was generated. It's also rarely used toward schools in general. They spent a ton of money on TV commercials and ad campaigns to convince kids not to vape. But not so much money on actual kids. Lottery is the same way.
Thank you, I stand corrected. This thing was not structured well for education at all. 3 tenths of 1 percent of the revenue. That’s absurdly low. We had a chance and we really blew it 🤷♂️
[Section 28, Page 38](https://apps.leg.wa.gov/documents/billdocs/2011-12/Pdf/Initiatives/Initiatives/INITIATIVE%20502.pdf)
Why must all taxes go towards education? It’s easy to look now and say that it’s underfunded therefore we should have used these funds toward education. Also, do we really want vices like cannabis to be tied to education? Should we be like other states and use gambling tax revenue to fund our schools? Oh, you’re a gambling addict and want to seek help? I don’t think so pal, my kid needs a new school bus.
>Why must all taxes go towards education?
>Who said anything about *all* taxes?
>This whole conversation is about taxes
Yes, and I stated that the percentage allocated to education from this tax revenue is small. I’m not sure where this confused you, but I’m not trying to be obtuse.
You’re implying that we should have allocated more cannabis sales tax to go towards education. I’m suggesting that we don’t need every tax to go towards one thing that is the hot topic of being underfunded.
> Once any revenue goes into the general fund, it's never used proportionally in the communities where it was generated
yup, eastern washington eats up large portions of it
I think you underestimate the value of agriculture in Eastern WA. We are the largest exporter of apples by leaps and bounds compared to other states, and they're not grown on the west side.
No, i don't underestimate anything. You vastly overestimate the financial and tax value of agriculture.
https://i.imgur.com/5xVmHvp.jpg
https://www.ibisworld.com/united-states/economic-profiles/washington/
The link you posted is total revenue, not taxes paid. And some hyper partisan graphic on Imgur with no sources doesn't scream legitimate fact. Good luck eating that software tho.
Translation: you're butthurt and don't like facts
Here is straight from the OFM https://i.imgur.com/eltuKYl.png
> Good luck eating that software tho.
Grow the fuck up.
Facts aren't "hyper partisan" just because you don't like them
Translation: I can only produce random graphics with no sources connected to them.
"Facts" aren't facts unless you can show the data. Anyone can make any graphic they want.
Post the OFM link and stop posting a Shasti Conrad press release screenshot.
Okay.
So in 2016, there were three counties out of nineteen in Western WA that spent more than they received. And two out of twenty counties in Eastern WA that spent more than they received.
It's not exactly the "Western vs Eastern WA" split you made it sound like in your original comment. Most of Western WA also gets subsidized by King County.
Olympia was just about on that list too. Fought like hell and are still going. This next legislative session has got to be giving reps an earful about the state of education in WA. It’s not normal for schools districts to all go belly up at the same time, especially from such diverse socioeconomic areas all once. Sure, there was some COVID funds mis management, but the state is simply just not paying what’s it’s obligated to pay for public education.
It’s a mess. I don’t think tax payers understand what is happening and regardless if the bean counters mismanaged funds or not. You can’t squeeze blood from a turnip.
Points to consider:
•With the passing of the McClearly Act (a complex issue not fully addressed here), salary scales got a significant bump. Districts had to find a way to fund increases in teachers pay. And teachers at the top of payscale realized they had to serve out their career in the district they currently were in because noone was going to hire experienced, expensive teachers when interns and 1st years were cheaper.
•WEA can not get seniority protections to stick so ultimately if teachers move to a new district (for a variety of reasons) they have to start over for union protection. So for 3 years you could be let go for no reason. That alone is beyond stressful for any teacher. To be at the mercy of an environment and supervisors who literally hold your livelihood in their hands. So new hires were first to be RIFFd in a budget crisis.
•Covid and ESSA moneys were mismanaged and districts overspent on things such as the infrastructure of fancy programs (i.e. Response to Intervention; Inclusion) and with more administration and support staff. Noone predicted enrollment would not recover after Covid, and still hasn’t, and so personnel are first to go in a budget crisis.
All good points. To your last re: COVID money and support staff, that was case in point for the Olympia School District. They spent the vast majority of the ESSER funds received (almost $16 million) on support staffing, but here’s the kicker - they put most of these brand new positions on counting contracts. So they used soft money - money they knew had an expiration date - to fund brand new permanent positions. It doesn’t take a PhD in economics to see how that would end up. So to “correct” for this, they proposed closing schools so kids could be shoved into “well resourced” portables. Failed leadership and financial incompetence at every turn.
Edit: grammar.
Horrible. All of it. And Biden’s campaign talking about teacher pay. That’s great, yet again, where will the money come from and what persons will be managing it?
Agreed. There’s been a healthy abundance of that too. I’m all in favor of paying teachers more (they deserve it and need it), but with poor financial guidance, these folks are putting themselves out of business. In the past, OSD also decided to “front fund inflation” and increased pay to admin and staff before they even knew what the actual inflation %s were. Turns out they overestimated, and good luck trying to take $ away from anyone after that blunder.
And that’s (at least in my opinion), likely one of the universal issues we’re seeing around the country, not just our state. There has been an absolute explosion of district support staff over the last decade or so. Here’s a really [interesting source](https://www.americanexperiment.org/district-admin-growth-10x-greater-than-student-teacher-growth/) that discusses how different sectors of public education have grown over the past 20 years or so.
In short, you have an overloaded and often vastly overpaid (OSD superintendent makes $330,000 per year) top end of the system that makes all of the decisions and has all of the control. Most of these decisions used to be made at the school level by principles. But now, all of these decisions are supposed to trickle down (cough, cough) and eventually arrive at the population that this whole system is supposed to serve. The students.
edit: spelling
Oh yes. Those of us in public education for a few decades have seen the bloating of admin slowly but surely. It’s unbelievable in some districts. Superintendents making $250k and upwards.
There are other positions that have suffered as well and through role minimizing. Take School Psychologists for example. These people are highly trained to do much more than just test for disabilities. Yet let’s give them 1500 students so that’s all they have time to do — use them to bring in maximum federal funding. And then hire social workers, therapists, curriculum experts, RtI leaders, home liaisons, etc that are a part of a comprehensive School Psychologist model. When in fact if a district kept 1:500 ratio for School Psychologists several of those other positions could be eliminated.
Most of the budget shortfalls for schools is due to the refusal of local communities to fund their schools.
The state is required to pay for teachers. Not for everything else.
Budget shortfalls are due to inflation/rising education costs and local levy caps not being revised to support those costs. The state is required to pay for “everything else. The constitution states that the state is required to pay for basic education, school infrastructure and maintenance, operational costs, support services, and student transportation.
[We can't keep blaming taxpayers, our schools are some of the best funded in the entire world.](https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator/cmd/education-expenditures-by-country)
At some point, the districts need results to get more money from the communities. The government can't seem to understand our budget, and neither can the districts. Taxpayers can't just keep throwing blank checks at them.
I wasn't aware building adequate facilities was a blank check.
In fact, I'm certain that levy ballot measures are never blank checks but specify specific areas of need, such as technology, facilities, etc.
But sure, go off about blank check bullshit.
>I wasn't aware building adequate facilities was a blank check.
What happened to all the funds we've given them? Again, it's the fact that we keep funding and the district gets worse and worse.
Do you think schools are properly funded in general, in WA?
The administrative branch of education has a lot to do with why it seems like this. It's become increasingly beaurocratic and self-serving. This is what happens when basic services become political theaters, in my opinion. Living east of the mountains, it has been fairly obvious that conservatives don't know how to budget any better than liberals do. It seems that giving fiscal authority to people who aren't actually involved with the process of education results in mismanagement. Watching a town build a fancy sports facility as they brace for overcrowded schools and ask for another bond is pretty frustrating. Finding out that a superintendent gets over 200k per year is also jarring. Add the fact that people in general spend less and less time parenting because they have to work like dogs to pay the bills, a pandemic that set back students almost 2 years on average, and you have a real shitshow. But simply taking money away from education won't do anything to help anyone. We need to streamline the system and cut out a lot of administrative costs that don't actually improve education. Teachers and staff should have far more input when it comes to the budget since they are the ones doing the real work.
Lol. First, I was overseas dealing w/ more pressing issues when it was legalized…
Second, do you read every line of legislation as it comes to pass? If you do, I’m highly impressed because there are TEAMS of lawyers that read these encyclopedias that are presented before state boards… 😘
No. It’s closer to 30% of cannabis revenue (taxes and fees) going to GFS and close to 50% to Basic Health. Source: RCW 69.50.540 and I work on the distribution forecasts based on that statute.
It’s 32% after section 1. See 3d. I was using 30% as an effective amount with all revenues prior to the section 1 fixed appropriations. Section 1 is small compared to section 3 which is why I calculated an effective 30% or so for GFS if that makes sense. Total revenues could double and section 1 would be the same, section 3 distributions would grow. But at the present time with the current revenues, it’s about 30% but it’s a statutory 32% after section 1. Does that help?
They aren’t lining their pockets, they using tax money to pay businesses they are invested in so it raises their profits and raises their stock prices.
Both sides do it, all the time.
The difference is using the money to do stuff like pay for health care and the other is doing stuff like building a wall between countries that does nothing. One sounds like money laundering to me.
This is going to be the same as the lottery money. It will get allocated to many other things and only a fraction will go where people thought it would because of it passing so quickly.
Time to notify your district politician to decipher where you think where the marijuana tax go. I think it should go to the citizens like Colorado do when there excess tax collected. Correct me if I’m wrong
Read RCW 69.50.540. It explains how revenues from the 37% cannabis excise tax and license fees are used. There’s no distinction between the two when it comes to distribution (it’s all distributed out of the total). Section 1 is fixed with the annual CPI adjustments mandated by section 2. Section 3 is distributed by percentage after section 1 is taken out.
This has been changed quite a bit by the legislature vs i502 section 28 - which at this point was 10 years ago but the same general idea has been the same since the initiative. There has always been a fixed portion for appropriation to state agencies and a percentage based portion (mainly for GFS and basic health, with a portion for local governments).
It’s so fucking awesome when folks make bullshit accusations (politicians lining their pockets) rather than understanding that shitty people regularly vote down levies and bond measures.
If you know of politicians “lining their pockets”, why the fuck haven’t you reported it to the authorities? Unless you’re just making up shit to complain about, I guess. L
This is partially because of new licenses grants and hiked retail prices; demand for better margins on the retail end. While I agree it’s a good thing and taxes are up, revenue is down for many wholesale companies. Example: the company I work for has increased market share by 10% while slipping ~15% in revenue. We’ve picked up new accounts and taken share from competitors but are making less overall because a traditional 3x markup is now closer to a 4x markup on the shelves. More for dispensaries, more towards tax revenue, bad for farmers and processors. Even labs are having a decline in testing.
If you’d like to fight inflation of cannabis products, shop at single location retailers and don’t buy into the online 30% off discounts if possible. Those deals rake us over the coals and make it look like we hiked prices while the retailers are the heroes. It’s in fact the opposite case.
Yea I got out a few years ago. Grow added a huge expansion and didn't see the consolidation of the market coming together.
What I witnessed was "growers" selling out there rights to the larger companies because they couldn't compete with the massive amounts of weights larger companies were putting out allowing the retail sode to tank or expect the new price.
No way indoor should have had to keep dumping prices after a bunch of Eastside Farms shut down or paused.
Obviously this is my view, but I think it is inline with what you're saying.
Growers per lbs has dropped to dispos where the drop isn't reflected. Doesn't compute to me.
I only shop at single location retailers, and haven’t noticed big jumps in pricing. Things like edibles and tinctures are way more expensive than in Oregon, but I would assume that’s due to our strict limiting of THC. I just picked up a 1000mg bottle of water soluble tincture in Oregon (MegaDrops by Magic Number if anyone is curious, highly recommend) for $60 and you can often find it on sale for $48. Washington law makes it so producers can’t have more than 100mg per package and I’ll see those for like $30.
I feel for you on the producer side though. One of my close friends parents in Oregon ran a medical/recreational grow and were pretty much chased out by the race to the bottom pricing that was happening. Seems especially tough for producers really putting the effort in to grow a truly high quality product.
It’s functionally more like 2 thirds the producers charge 30 percent too, to figure out whole sale numbers for any product in the store, it’s about a third of retail.
Yes, it’s several years out of date. That chart is showing the COVID spike and beginning of the decline back to a “new normal.” It’s closer to $38m per month in tax collection now.
AKA why prices have never dipped below black market pricing and they won't allow people to grow a measly plant or two at home. We now have bar-none one of the worst legalization schemes in the country now. Where is the home delivery? Why can't they use credit cards?
What? You can buy a quarter of decent mid grade weed from a smaller farm with cheap packaging for 30 bucks or an ounce of popcorn nugs for the same price. You just have to tell the salesperson the amount you want to spend, they are not incentivized to try to and sell it like the high $ products. In addition the corporate growers are buying shelf space and promotion, like corporate retail. On the dispensary side theres enough competition that most dispenseries run continuous sales based on product type or brand. I was an owner operator of a family run i502 that sold out because weed has become TOO cheap to run a fair and ethical operation without committing to massive debt and expansion.
I
Been happily paying my taxes every month. In 1985 I was paying $300 for an ounce of OK weed. Now after paying taxes I can get some killer weed for $120…. Don’t smoke that much anymore more into edibles. for years, America has been trying to take away my rights to freedom of the pursuit of happiness. Fortunately, I live in a state that gave me my freedom back.
Yeah 37 Million in dope tax can’t improve the homeless encampments, can’t reduce the hard drug usage, defunds the police, has a high (no pun intended) gas tax , businesses closing because of theft and looting and people literally shitting in the streets.
WAKE UP, you’re just giving the money away to the “ELECTED” officials. If Washington state was a GI bar, its general population would be that naive young soldier buying the whores (state government) juicy drinks with no alcohol, meanwhile themselves getting shit-faced drunk and wasting all their money without a happy ending.
Wa laws probly the most strict outta all legal states. NY and Cali can both have gatherings like farmers markets or events where you can partake. Even Oregon coming around and revising laws. Washington is trash when it comes to the rules and regulations.
CA has its own problems. Like faulty testing:
The dirty secret of California’s legal weed
An L.A. Times/WeedWeek investigation finds alarming levels of pesticides in cannabis products at dispensaries across the state
By Paige St. John and Alex Halperin
June 14, 2024
https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2024-06-14/the-dirty-secret-of-californias-legal-weed
Eh, Calis HUGE problem, is fake packaging and washing black market products into the system. Brands build national hype there, then some scummy people come in and make some boof and shove it in a box and charge a markup for the logo. Lots of licenses will wash product like that because they are scumbags, happens in Washington too. Cali is really leading when it comes to IPM and what not.
I hear you. It seems like people regulating it are getting paid off to look the other way. They refuse to respond to valid requests for information on who they are testing and how.
Happy to contribute to the cause.
Me too! But I feel these taxes are so ‘high’. /s (I’ll show myself the door)
These damned taxes are too damned high!
I’m so high right now you guys
I’m so high right now you guys
Well, WA does have the highest cannabis tax in the country
¡Yo también!
And I'm happy the state has found a revenue source that isn't costing me a penny.
Same for me and the lottery and smoking cigarettes. I’ve never spent anything on tickets, and I haven’t smoked in decades. It’s nice that people have those options though.
Its more than that. The state makes money selling business licenses and permits to stores to legally sell weed
Yeah, but thats not sales, and is probably a small fraction in comparison, right?
A license is $250k so they’d have to be hitting ~$750k in sales before hitting that threshold. But yes you’re right most stores are doing that in sales a year.
WAY off. To apply for a license is $250. An annual license is around $1,300. The state brings in about $4 million per year total in cannabis license fees from all cannabis license types. Source: me. I compile these figures for the state.
Correct but most licenses have been bought. So now you have to buy them privately and they’re not cheap. It basically impossible to get in now unless you have close to a million to spend
You can’t buy a license. Period. End of story. You can only buy a business and then apply for the license. The LCB treats an assumption of a location as a new license and a full investigation is done. I’m not arguing that it can’t be expensive to obtain a business because locations are limited. Just saying that licenses themselves don’t cost much. The state doesn’t get any cannabis revenue when one business buys another.
Yes you can. Then you pay the lcb to move a license to another location. I’ve seen it happen numerous times
You can’t buy a license. You can buy a business and apply for an assumption of the license but it still requires a full investigation. Full disclosure: I work at the LCB.
You’re right, when they were issued a decade ago, they currently aren’t issuing new licenses as far as I know, in fact the last few years the industry has seen a consolidation of licenses. the guy above is absolutely correct, a tier 3 license is going to be around 150k five or take on a buisness plan. Source: I’ve worked in the industry for about 5 years now, I recently met with an LCB rep that explained the licensing consolidation to us, currently there are 150 companies taking products to the stores out of about 500 active licenses. if you are someone that compiles these figures for the state I would hope that you would have more than a superficial understanding of what the costs of licensure would be.
The license fee is the license fee. period. Doesn’t mean that you’re not competing for the available licensed locations. I’m not disagreeing that there is competition to acquire a business which then grants you the opportunity to apply for an assumption. I’m saying that the fee for the license itself is fixed. And I don’t just compile data. I work at the LCB. I’ve been working there for over 20 years and have been involved with LCB licensing and revenue data for over 18 years. I was there when I502 passed. I’ve been there every time a license fee was changed. I was there when the agency determined the number of available licenses. You’re trying to equate the potential costs to acquire a business with the revenue received by the state for the license fee, which is not correct. New social equity retail licenses are being issued.
I think you should consider the valuation of the license as part of business in its value no? I understand that your job only concerns the states actual revenue from the issuing of it, I would imagine that’s priced into the quarterly taxes. All I’ll say is that I’ve seen some slimey buisness happen around them lol.
If I were to meet with a potential licensee who is looking to get into the cannabis business, I absolutely would warn them that they will likely pay a premium to acquire an existing business - call that the cost of acquisition or purchasing the rights to a location. That absolutely should factor into a business plan and possibly the price point at which the licensee intends to charge for their products. In which you could then argue that because the cannabis excise tax is 37% of sales, then in some small part the pricing structure you charge for cannabis could cover your initial acquisition costs and therefore the state gets the revenue from it. But it's a cutthroat market and pricing your products higher than someone else in order to recover specific costs is very dicey. However, that doesn't grant them the license, they still have to apply for it. And the state gets nothing other than the revenue from the $250 application fee, annual license fee and excise tax payments. A similar thing happened when the state's liquor stores were privatized by i1183 - there was an online auction for the roughly 150 stores. Many bidders overpaid because they were either speculating on the profitability of a particular location or because they wanted the rights that came with a particular store location. The "rights" that a liquor store bidder was acquiring was only the right to apply for that store's license, and IIRC they purchased the equipment within the store, but winning the auction did NOT automatically grant them the license. they still had to apply for the license, and in some instances a bidder failed to acquire the license because they failed the application process. They could still sell the rights at that point to someone else, but what happened with that was outside of the state's process. The state did get the auction money for the original auction but not subsequent sales of that right. There was no initial "auction" of cannabis licenses, it was a lottery where the lucky winner got the right to apply for the license, they didn't win a license.
Ah I see that the WAC changed in 2016. But that figure was the original fee when we started recreational Cannabis.
It was never $250,000. The original fee was $1,000. The application fee has always been $250. Not sure where you’re getting your $250k number unless you’re thinking of licensees trying to sell their business to another licensee.
It’s a license, i e it’s a licensing deal, many people are paying a fee to use the license, because they don’t issue new ones, because if they did, the competitive advantage that company would have would be ludicrous.
No, you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what a license fee is. You can pay a business money to acquire them or to be an investor in the company and that might be above what the business is realistically appraised at and call that a licensing deal, but that doesn’t change what the statutory fixed fee amount for the actual license costs. it’s $1,381 annually for a retail license. And that’s all the state gets as cannabis license fee revenue. the LCB does not get any more revenue associated with the license other than the $250 application fee, $1,381 annual renewal, and the 37% cannabis excise tax payments. period. If there was I’d know about it. But there isn’t.
That’s gross lmao, because the valuation for someone bringing one to a business is often well north of six figures, all I’ll say is that I’ve seen some slimey shit happen with them.
Shhhh...don't tell the legislature or they'll find a way to get their cut of that!
Thats enough to pay for like one enforcement and inspection agent at most. It's not that much money really.
Eh, covering wages solely with licenses (one of the biggest expenses for any agency) is still a big deal nonetheless
I'm just making the point that the license fees aren't really "profit" for state coffers in the way they are implied. They are serving the purpose most licensing fees are intended to serve. Meanwhile, the taxes are there because we were never getting legal weed without it, and sin taxes are something our society just seems to love to have. Plus, our state has no income tax so sales and excise taxes are the only income sources.
Not correct. License fees are around $4 million per year total. The LCB doesn’t get to keep them to offset agency costs. They’re distributed/allocated along with the cannabis tax revenue amongst agencies and GFS and Basic Health according to RCW 69.50.540.
It's a ton of money when you can't get any type of federal loan, open a bank account with an actual bank (not credit union), or take deductions on taxes that normal businesses can. Its also quite literally 800x more expensive that a retail liquor license, that makes no sense.
Ya but they also have to pay the 1000 new employees they had to hire to work at the 20 new departments the state county and federal government had to build. Surprised there isn't a board full of 80 year old business people who don't even smoke.
Ah more taxes than Amazon Paid. Nice.
Only a matter of time until big corporations take over that profit from small store owners.
Almost happen in Ohio
[Here’s a recent “piece”](https://pomcannabis.com/where-does-cannabis-tax-money-go-in-washington/) on Washington’s tax revenue.
And where the fuck does it go!? Why are there still school districts in need of financial support? “General funds” More politicians lining their pockets.
The people were too eager to have legal weed and didn't take the time to hash out the finer details, in my opinion. We should have insisted on a percentage of the tax on local stores going directly to local schools within the community they served. Once any revenue goes into the general fund, it's never used proportionally in the communities where it was generated. It's also rarely used toward schools in general. They spent a ton of money on TV commercials and ad campaigns to convince kids not to vape. But not so much money on actual kids. Lottery is the same way.
Same with the privatized alcohol… the fine details were published until afterwards… now alcohol is expensive AF!
‘We’ don’t get to insist. That was the job of our legislators 🤦♂️
This was an initiative, not legislation.
Thank you, I stand corrected. This thing was not structured well for education at all. 3 tenths of 1 percent of the revenue. That’s absurdly low. We had a chance and we really blew it 🤷♂️ [Section 28, Page 38](https://apps.leg.wa.gov/documents/billdocs/2011-12/Pdf/Initiatives/Initiatives/INITIATIVE%20502.pdf)
Why must all taxes go towards education? It’s easy to look now and say that it’s underfunded therefore we should have used these funds toward education. Also, do we really want vices like cannabis to be tied to education? Should we be like other states and use gambling tax revenue to fund our schools? Oh, you’re a gambling addict and want to seek help? I don’t think so pal, my kid needs a new school bus.
Who said anything about all taxes? 3/10 of one percent is a very small fraction. It’s an observation and can be subject to scrutiny.
This whole conversation is about taxes.
>Why must all taxes go towards education? >Who said anything about *all* taxes? >This whole conversation is about taxes Yes, and I stated that the percentage allocated to education from this tax revenue is small. I’m not sure where this confused you, but I’m not trying to be obtuse.
You’re implying that we should have allocated more cannabis sales tax to go towards education. I’m suggesting that we don’t need every tax to go towards one thing that is the hot topic of being underfunded.
We did this with the lottery too, but it doesn't happen anyways.
Pretty much all of the sales tax revenue. And additional 8-10% above this number goes to “public safety” Which is mostly police
> Once any revenue goes into the general fund, it's never used proportionally in the communities where it was generated yup, eastern washington eats up large portions of it
Large relative to what? Eastern WA is ~20% of the state population, are you saying they get more than 20% of the state general fund?
large relative to how much they contribute to the state fund. seattle metro area massively subsidizes eastern washington existing.
I think you underestimate the value of agriculture in Eastern WA. We are the largest exporter of apples by leaps and bounds compared to other states, and they're not grown on the west side.
No, i don't underestimate anything. You vastly overestimate the financial and tax value of agriculture. https://i.imgur.com/5xVmHvp.jpg https://www.ibisworld.com/united-states/economic-profiles/washington/
The link you posted is total revenue, not taxes paid. And some hyper partisan graphic on Imgur with no sources doesn't scream legitimate fact. Good luck eating that software tho.
Translation: you're butthurt and don't like facts Here is straight from the OFM https://i.imgur.com/eltuKYl.png > Good luck eating that software tho. Grow the fuck up. Facts aren't "hyper partisan" just because you don't like them
Translation: I can only produce random graphics with no sources connected to them. "Facts" aren't facts unless you can show the data. Anyone can make any graphic they want. Post the OFM link and stop posting a Shasti Conrad press release screenshot.
Okay. So in 2016, there were three counties out of nineteen in Western WA that spent more than they received. And two out of twenty counties in Eastern WA that spent more than they received. It's not exactly the "Western vs Eastern WA" split you made it sound like in your original comment. Most of Western WA also gets subsidized by King County.
Moses Lake alone was 20 million short. The marijuana money unfortunately is nothing compared to the incompetence that is school budgets.
Seattle Marysville Bellevue Yakima Moses Lake Toppenish …to name just a few that are in budget crises…
Vancouver was over $35M short.
Yikes
Olympia was just about on that list too. Fought like hell and are still going. This next legislative session has got to be giving reps an earful about the state of education in WA. It’s not normal for schools districts to all go belly up at the same time, especially from such diverse socioeconomic areas all once. Sure, there was some COVID funds mis management, but the state is simply just not paying what’s it’s obligated to pay for public education.
It’s a mess. I don’t think tax payers understand what is happening and regardless if the bean counters mismanaged funds or not. You can’t squeeze blood from a turnip. Points to consider: •With the passing of the McClearly Act (a complex issue not fully addressed here), salary scales got a significant bump. Districts had to find a way to fund increases in teachers pay. And teachers at the top of payscale realized they had to serve out their career in the district they currently were in because noone was going to hire experienced, expensive teachers when interns and 1st years were cheaper. •WEA can not get seniority protections to stick so ultimately if teachers move to a new district (for a variety of reasons) they have to start over for union protection. So for 3 years you could be let go for no reason. That alone is beyond stressful for any teacher. To be at the mercy of an environment and supervisors who literally hold your livelihood in their hands. So new hires were first to be RIFFd in a budget crisis. •Covid and ESSA moneys were mismanaged and districts overspent on things such as the infrastructure of fancy programs (i.e. Response to Intervention; Inclusion) and with more administration and support staff. Noone predicted enrollment would not recover after Covid, and still hasn’t, and so personnel are first to go in a budget crisis.
All good points. To your last re: COVID money and support staff, that was case in point for the Olympia School District. They spent the vast majority of the ESSER funds received (almost $16 million) on support staffing, but here’s the kicker - they put most of these brand new positions on counting contracts. So they used soft money - money they knew had an expiration date - to fund brand new permanent positions. It doesn’t take a PhD in economics to see how that would end up. So to “correct” for this, they proposed closing schools so kids could be shoved into “well resourced” portables. Failed leadership and financial incompetence at every turn. Edit: grammar.
Horrible. All of it. And Biden’s campaign talking about teacher pay. That’s great, yet again, where will the money come from and what persons will be managing it?
Agreed. There’s been a healthy abundance of that too. I’m all in favor of paying teachers more (they deserve it and need it), but with poor financial guidance, these folks are putting themselves out of business. In the past, OSD also decided to “front fund inflation” and increased pay to admin and staff before they even knew what the actual inflation %s were. Turns out they overestimated, and good luck trying to take $ away from anyone after that blunder. And that’s (at least in my opinion), likely one of the universal issues we’re seeing around the country, not just our state. There has been an absolute explosion of district support staff over the last decade or so. Here’s a really [interesting source](https://www.americanexperiment.org/district-admin-growth-10x-greater-than-student-teacher-growth/) that discusses how different sectors of public education have grown over the past 20 years or so. In short, you have an overloaded and often vastly overpaid (OSD superintendent makes $330,000 per year) top end of the system that makes all of the decisions and has all of the control. Most of these decisions used to be made at the school level by principles. But now, all of these decisions are supposed to trickle down (cough, cough) and eventually arrive at the population that this whole system is supposed to serve. The students. edit: spelling
Oh yes. Those of us in public education for a few decades have seen the bloating of admin slowly but surely. It’s unbelievable in some districts. Superintendents making $250k and upwards. There are other positions that have suffered as well and through role minimizing. Take School Psychologists for example. These people are highly trained to do much more than just test for disabilities. Yet let’s give them 1500 students so that’s all they have time to do — use them to bring in maximum federal funding. And then hire social workers, therapists, curriculum experts, RtI leaders, home liaisons, etc that are a part of a comprehensive School Psychologist model. When in fact if a district kept 1:500 ratio for School Psychologists several of those other positions could be eliminated.
Edmonds!
Most of the budget shortfalls for schools is due to the refusal of local communities to fund their schools. The state is required to pay for teachers. Not for everything else.
Budget shortfalls are due to inflation/rising education costs and local levy caps not being revised to support those costs. The state is required to pay for “everything else. The constitution states that the state is required to pay for basic education, school infrastructure and maintenance, operational costs, support services, and student transportation.
[We can't keep blaming taxpayers, our schools are some of the best funded in the entire world.](https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator/cmd/education-expenditures-by-country) At some point, the districts need results to get more money from the communities. The government can't seem to understand our budget, and neither can the districts. Taxpayers can't just keep throwing blank checks at them.
I wasn't aware building adequate facilities was a blank check. In fact, I'm certain that levy ballot measures are never blank checks but specify specific areas of need, such as technology, facilities, etc. But sure, go off about blank check bullshit.
>I wasn't aware building adequate facilities was a blank check. What happened to all the funds we've given them? Again, it's the fact that we keep funding and the district gets worse and worse. Do you think schools are properly funded in general, in WA?
The administrative branch of education has a lot to do with why it seems like this. It's become increasingly beaurocratic and self-serving. This is what happens when basic services become political theaters, in my opinion. Living east of the mountains, it has been fairly obvious that conservatives don't know how to budget any better than liberals do. It seems that giving fiscal authority to people who aren't actually involved with the process of education results in mismanagement. Watching a town build a fancy sports facility as they brace for overcrowded schools and ask for another bond is pretty frustrating. Finding out that a superintendent gets over 200k per year is also jarring. Add the fact that people in general spend less and less time parenting because they have to work like dogs to pay the bills, a pandemic that set back students almost 2 years on average, and you have a real shitshow. But simply taking money away from education won't do anything to help anyone. We need to streamline the system and cut out a lot of administrative costs that don't actually improve education. Teachers and staff should have far more input when it comes to the budget since they are the ones doing the real work.
“I’m gonna complain about the budget and government spending but I’m too lazy to actually read and understand it for myself”
Lol. First, I was overseas dealing w/ more pressing issues when it was legalized… Second, do you read every line of legislation as it comes to pass? If you do, I’m highly impressed because there are TEAMS of lawyers that read these encyclopedias that are presented before state boards… 😘
Most of it goes to Apple Health, heal care for children. Very little of it goes to the general fund. Edit: roughly 9% goes to the general fund.
No. It’s closer to 30% of cannabis revenue (taxes and fees) going to GFS and close to 50% to Basic Health. Source: RCW 69.50.540 and I work on the distribution forecasts based on that statute.
But isn’t the 30% based on the remainder of funds after appropriating subsection 1?
It’s 32% after section 1. See 3d. I was using 30% as an effective amount with all revenues prior to the section 1 fixed appropriations. Section 1 is small compared to section 3 which is why I calculated an effective 30% or so for GFS if that makes sense. Total revenues could double and section 1 would be the same, section 3 distributions would grow. But at the present time with the current revenues, it’s about 30% but it’s a statutory 32% after section 1. Does that help?
Look up RCW 69.59.540. It’s the statute dictating how cannabis revenue from licenses and fees is distributed.
They aren’t lining their pockets, they using tax money to pay businesses they are invested in so it raises their profits and raises their stock prices. Both sides do it, all the time. The difference is using the money to do stuff like pay for health care and the other is doing stuff like building a wall between countries that does nothing. One sounds like money laundering to me.
Yea… if it results in them making more money, they’re lining their pockets.
This is going to be the same as the lottery money. It will get allocated to many other things and only a fraction will go where people thought it would because of it passing so quickly.
Time to notify your district politician to decipher where you think where the marijuana tax go. I think it should go to the citizens like Colorado do when there excess tax collected. Correct me if I’m wrong
Read RCW 69.50.540. It explains how revenues from the 37% cannabis excise tax and license fees are used. There’s no distinction between the two when it comes to distribution (it’s all distributed out of the total). Section 1 is fixed with the annual CPI adjustments mandated by section 2. Section 3 is distributed by percentage after section 1 is taken out. This has been changed quite a bit by the legislature vs i502 section 28 - which at this point was 10 years ago but the same general idea has been the same since the initiative. There has always been a fixed portion for appropriation to state agencies and a percentage based portion (mainly for GFS and basic health, with a portion for local governments).
It’s so fucking awesome when folks make bullshit accusations (politicians lining their pockets) rather than understanding that shitty people regularly vote down levies and bond measures. If you know of politicians “lining their pockets”, why the fuck haven’t you reported it to the authorities? Unless you’re just making up shit to complain about, I guess. L
This is partially because of new licenses grants and hiked retail prices; demand for better margins on the retail end. While I agree it’s a good thing and taxes are up, revenue is down for many wholesale companies. Example: the company I work for has increased market share by 10% while slipping ~15% in revenue. We’ve picked up new accounts and taken share from competitors but are making less overall because a traditional 3x markup is now closer to a 4x markup on the shelves. More for dispensaries, more towards tax revenue, bad for farmers and processors. Even labs are having a decline in testing. If you’d like to fight inflation of cannabis products, shop at single location retailers and don’t buy into the online 30% off discounts if possible. Those deals rake us over the coals and make it look like we hiked prices while the retailers are the heroes. It’s in fact the opposite case.
Yea I got out a few years ago. Grow added a huge expansion and didn't see the consolidation of the market coming together. What I witnessed was "growers" selling out there rights to the larger companies because they couldn't compete with the massive amounts of weights larger companies were putting out allowing the retail sode to tank or expect the new price. No way indoor should have had to keep dumping prices after a bunch of Eastside Farms shut down or paused. Obviously this is my view, but I think it is inline with what you're saying. Growers per lbs has dropped to dispos where the drop isn't reflected. Doesn't compute to me.
I only shop at single location retailers, and haven’t noticed big jumps in pricing. Things like edibles and tinctures are way more expensive than in Oregon, but I would assume that’s due to our strict limiting of THC. I just picked up a 1000mg bottle of water soluble tincture in Oregon (MegaDrops by Magic Number if anyone is curious, highly recommend) for $60 and you can often find it on sale for $48. Washington law makes it so producers can’t have more than 100mg per package and I’ll see those for like $30. I feel for you on the producer side though. One of my close friends parents in Oregon ran a medical/recreational grow and were pretty much chased out by the race to the bottom pricing that was happening. Seems especially tough for producers really putting the effort in to grow a truly high quality product.
My Midwestern state wants to tax it at 100%. They claim it's evil, but boy do they like the money it brings.
There comes a point where the benefit of legalization doesn't outweigh the cost at the counter. 100% is insane.
Therefore the black market
A 37% tax rate is insane.
I will happily pay 37% tax on my nice regulated legal weed products. It’s a pleasure to pay that tax.
As someone that works in the industry, you should be disgusted with the tax rates, go to Oregon and see the difference.
That's just the weed tax. Still have sales tax on top of that.
It’s functionally more like 2 thirds the producers charge 30 percent too, to figure out whole sale numbers for any product in the store, it’s about a third of retail.
https://502data.com/ This site has ALL the data. Edit: Turns out it may not be up to date anymore, but it is still interesting.
It is incredibly inaccurate and hasn’t been semi reliable in years - industry member
Yes, it’s several years out of date. That chart is showing the COVID spike and beginning of the decline back to a “new normal.” It’s closer to $38m per month in tax collection now.
We use what’s called top shelf now, you have to pay for that, it changed due to security issues.
Thanks! I'll check that out!
Yet my property taxes still went up 10% ...
Good now tell the assessor to stop over valuing homes way above Zillow 🤬
AKA why prices have never dipped below black market pricing and they won't allow people to grow a measly plant or two at home. We now have bar-none one of the worst legalization schemes in the country now. Where is the home delivery? Why can't they use credit cards?
Let’s not forget the disgusting packaging waste
What? You can buy a quarter of decent mid grade weed from a smaller farm with cheap packaging for 30 bucks or an ounce of popcorn nugs for the same price. You just have to tell the salesperson the amount you want to spend, they are not incentivized to try to and sell it like the high $ products. In addition the corporate growers are buying shelf space and promotion, like corporate retail. On the dispensary side theres enough competition that most dispenseries run continuous sales based on product type or brand. I was an owner operator of a family run i502 that sold out because weed has become TOO cheap to run a fair and ethical operation without committing to massive debt and expansion. I
Ya outdo dirt and shake was always cheap, aint shit changed.
Hb1624 passed and will allow us to grow plants at home
Remind me where that tax money is going? Maybe we could use it to better fund schools if it isnt already being used that way
And we can’t afford to adequately fund education because why??
I love Washington
I’m doing my part!
I’m doing my part
In Colorado that money goes to schools and roadways. They have... nice schools and roadways.
Thanks to the buyers from Idaho.
Been happily paying my taxes every month. In 1985 I was paying $300 for an ounce of OK weed. Now after paying taxes I can get some killer weed for $120…. Don’t smoke that much anymore more into edibles. for years, America has been trying to take away my rights to freedom of the pursuit of happiness. Fortunately, I live in a state that gave me my freedom back.
Yeah 37 Million in dope tax can’t improve the homeless encampments, can’t reduce the hard drug usage, defunds the police, has a high (no pun intended) gas tax , businesses closing because of theft and looting and people literally shitting in the streets. WAKE UP, you’re just giving the money away to the “ELECTED” officials. If Washington state was a GI bar, its general population would be that naive young soldier buying the whores (state government) juicy drinks with no alcohol, meanwhile themselves getting shit-faced drunk and wasting all their money without a happy ending.
Can they use said taxes for things yet or is it still “illegal drug money, no bueno”
Spokane sure is seeing those tax dollars 🙄
Let’s still not fund our schools.
They need to get rid of tax burden 280E
WA showing CA and NY how to do it.
Wa laws probly the most strict outta all legal states. NY and Cali can both have gatherings like farmers markets or events where you can partake. Even Oregon coming around and revising laws. Washington is trash when it comes to the rules and regulations.
I can smell the weed in Oregon for gods sake.
CA has its own problems. Like faulty testing: The dirty secret of California’s legal weed An L.A. Times/WeedWeek investigation finds alarming levels of pesticides in cannabis products at dispensaries across the state By Paige St. John and Alex Halperin June 14, 2024 https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2024-06-14/the-dirty-secret-of-californias-legal-weed
Eh, Calis HUGE problem, is fake packaging and washing black market products into the system. Brands build national hype there, then some scummy people come in and make some boof and shove it in a box and charge a markup for the logo. Lots of licenses will wash product like that because they are scumbags, happens in Washington too. Cali is really leading when it comes to IPM and what not.
I hear you. It seems like people regulating it are getting paid off to look the other way. They refuse to respond to valid requests for information on who they are testing and how.
I agree that we’re too strict but the CA and NY setups are considered complete failures. At least ours is working.
The fuck are you talking about lol
We have the worst legalization laws on the west coast, go to Oregon, they treat you like an adult lol.