Minimum alcohol pricing

Cressers

There I was thinking that the Coalition were against the Nanny State dictating how you should live, well it seems they couldn't resist the allure of an alcohol tax grab...

rick_chasey

I read the story as the current coalition is restricting the ban on cheap booze (put in by the previous gov't), rather than putting it in.

Think you've got the wrong end of the stick.

Cressers

Not from what I've heard. It's a minimum unit price, no doubt a low floor that will be swiftly raised as yet another stealth tax on alcohol. Where does the govt get the idea that its' any of their business as to what we drink, how much we drink, and how much we pay for it? I'm no fan of scottish devolution but at least there this idea was dumped.

Lancslad

But It isnt really going to do anything other than collect more tax. At what price is it not considered cheap? Its like petrol no matter how much it goes up people will still buy it. The binge drinkers will still binge and the rest of us have to pay more for one of lifes little pleasures.

PresumingEd

I heard it debated on the radio this morning and it actually transpires that that government are intending to ban a problem that doesn't exist: selling below the cost of duty and VAT (the Beer and Wine Association stated that no members actually sell at that below that level anyway).

Many shops (esp. supermarkets) sell below actual cost price and will be allowed to continue to do so under the new rules, so I don't think Cressers need get too concerned

Cressers

Once the principle of a unit price tax is in place there is only one direction in which that tax will go, up. As it is with petrol where a tax is levied on a tax.

rick_chasey

What's wrong with tax cressers?

Cressers

We're paying quite enough as it is is my dear stalker!

agent_buchwald

I think you'll find that the drinks lobby is too strong for anything meaningful to be put into place by this or any other government - this particular government will do nothing to divert themselves from the path of re-distributing wealth to the top 10% and privatising services and channelling taxpayers money from the many to the few.

Cressers

And MAP is part of that agenda.

rick_chasey

Cressers wrote:

We're paying quite enough as it is is my dear stalker!

As a proportion of GDP, the UK is one of the lower tax payers in Europe.

As far as I am concerned, the only legitimate complaint is the standard - this tax is a regressive tax.

Alcohol is a big issue in the UK, and current & recent gov'ts seem to feel that, rightly or not, it requires an economic market correction.

Cressers

Alcohol has been made up to be a big issue by the media and the growing band of health nannies. I remember walking through the crowded centre of my market town at closing time, when closing time was 23.00, some thirty years ago, and seeing exactly the same shock-horror scenes that weill doubtless be shown on the 'prop-ed' news today.

rick_chasey

Cressers wrote:

Alcohol has been made up to be a big issue by the media and the growing band of health nannies. I remember walking through the crowded centre of my market town at closing time, when closing time was 23.00, some thirty years ago, and seeing exactly the same shock-horror scenes that weill doubtless be shown on the 'prop-ed' news today.

That doesn't mean it's not a problem?

When doctors and police complain they can't do their jobs properly because they spend too much time dealing with alcohol related issues, it's usually wise to listen to them!

Cressers

Did yo ever hear of the medical profession or the police ever claim that they didn't lead stressful lives? It's all just part of the propaganda...

Pross

I hate the term nanny state. Sometimes people need nannying because they are too stupid to look after themselves and cause others misery and financial cost. In my experience the term is used by people who know that they are doing something wrong / stupid but want to carry on doing it no matter what the effect on others. Putting up alcohol prices may not stop hardened drinkers splashing out but it could help prevent a new generation of young drinkers following the same path. On the other hand maybe we should let people smoke / drink / eat unhealthy food / take part in dangerous activities but not treat them for the consequences. That way we would save tax (so wouldn't need to tax their habits so highly) and by a Darwinian effect we wouldn't have the long term problems of increasing population and pension shortfalls, everyone's a winner!

rick_chasey

Cressers wrote:

Did yo ever hear of the medical profession or the police ever claim that they didn't lead stressful lives? It's all just part of the propaganda...

I never said it made their life stressful. I said they feel they can't deal with other issues because they spend too much time dealing with alcohol related issues, which, presumably, could have been avoided had excessive alcohol not been consumed, rather than more pressing issues.


The tax only noticably affects you if you a lot of very cheap booze anyway.

Cressers

Yes the Poor Hard-Pressed Middle Classes can keep guzzling the vino, it's the lower class White Lightning drinkers who'll get stung...

rick_chasey

Cressers wrote:

Yes the Poor Hard-Pressed Middle Classes can keep guzzling the vino, it's the lower class White Lightning drinkers who'll get stung...

So you're issue is now that the tax is regressive?

Cressers

That and the fact that some self-appointed people seem to think that they have the right to decide how others should live their lives, goading them with financial penaties if they can't be persuaded to change their 'wrong ' behaviour. If some people's drink related behaviour causes problems that can already be dealt with under long standing legislation without imposing a mass fine on the innocent for the actions of the guilty.

daviesee

I will repeat what I said to smug non-smokers circa 1995/1996.

Once the Government is finished hitting smokers they will move onto alcohol. This began many years ago with the units strategy through binge drinking being 4 pints :shock: to where we are now. And it will increase with taxes rising and access getting restricted.

None of that will stop determined drinkers as it has not stopped determined smokers.

Short trem gain in taxes followed by savings to the NHS but that will be offset by increased pension payments. Guess what is next step? :evil:

Alcohol abuse is a problem but it is cultural and prices will have little or no effect.

After alcohol, unhealthy food will be the next target.

IMO of course.

Cressers

Geuss what's next? Meat, and other fatty foods of which They disapprove...

garryc

But the govenment won't be raising any more money, it's not a new tax or an increase of an existing tax.

They are just trying to stop the big superstores from reducing the price of alcohol so low that a load of idiots won't go out and get drunk every night, causing problems for everyone else.

Big supermarkets can afford to take a loss on some alcohol sales because whilst you're in the shop stocking up on cheap booze you'll buy other stuff as well. They are in an awkward situation, if one supermarket stops then people will go to a rival store for the cheap booze.

By creating a minimum price the supermarkets can't undercut each other all the time, fueling the problem.

Personnally I think the limit they've set is too low. Is 38p for a can of larger too expensive?

daviesee

The Government will raise more money as higher prices mean more VAT.

Also IMO taxes will increase and if it is 38p, once implemented it will certainly rise.

PS:- Next step I was referring to was cutting the pension payments as it will not be sustainable (in the current format at or above the breadline) - higher retirement age, less payments, none at all :?

re-cycles

daviesee wrote:

After alcohol, unhealthy food will be the next target.

IMO of course.

You're probably right. Personally I support the increase in price of alcohol, and would love to see a return to the off licence and pub being the only outlet for alcohol, rather than grant every shop a licence to sell. Why so hard on alcohol? Because some (and I fully accept its a minority) of the users are intent on making other peoples life a misery for their own enjoyment. I have nothing against those that have a glass of wine or a beer with their meals etc, but when the "public" are throwing up in the streets, fighting and being generally abusive something needs to be done.

As for the unhealthy food, I agree that thats the most likely target, but I'd be less inclined to support this as someone with an unhealthy diet is unlikely to have a direct effect on my life (although I would insist McDs & Greggs should have litter collection teams in every town to pick up their wrappers!)

rick_chasey

re-cycles wrote:

daviesee wrote:

After alcohol, unhealthy food will be the next target.

IMO of course.

You're probably right. Personally I support the increase in price of alcohol, and would love to see a return to the off licence and pub being the only outlet for alcohol, rather than grant every shop a licence to sell. Why so hard on alcohol? Because some (and I fully accept its a minority) of the users are intent on making other peoples life a misery for their own enjoyment. I have nothing against those that have a glass of wine or a beer with their meals etc, but when the "public" are throwing up in the streets, fighting and being generally abusive something needs to be done.

I'm not so sure it is a minority... If it is, it's a very large and significant minority.

When I think of people from my cohort at secondary school (i'm 22), about 300, I would bet a very large amount that the majority 'regularly' go out and get totally sh!tfaced in the middle of town - just like you see on those street wars programmes.

rick_chasey

I also don't buy the slippery slope argument.

Excessive drinking is far too popular. Even in Westminster it's a problem.

It's the standard middle england pander - they feel uncomfortable being in town late on a Friday or Saturday night, and they're the vote swingers, and this is supposed to tackle that, even though we all know it will do absolutely nothing.

Anything more and it affects voters nation wide and it won't happen. The MPs wouldn't want a ban on booze, let alone the rest of the public.

And Cressers - they're not self appointed - they're voted in!

Cressers

So please tell me who voted for the House of Lords, and the appointed behind-the-scenes 'health professionals'?

daviesee

Rick Chasey wrote:

I also don't buy the slippery slope argument.

Excessive drinking is far too popular. Even in Westminster it's a problem.

Anything more and it affects voters nation wide and it won't happen. The MPs wouldn't want a ban on booze, let alone the rest of the public.

In Westminster, it is subsidised. Target that first! :twisted: Nearly £1 millions worth in the cellars. http://www.decanter.com/news/wine-news/ ... early-800k

MPs smoke too you know. Look how that worked out

dilemna

If idiots want to drink themselves to death let them. By setting a minimum price for alcohol the Government is guaranteeing a steady income for the Exchequer. Surely the more people that drink (and smoke) and the larger the quantity the better for the Government's tax receipts? I guess with many pubs closing and supermarkets offering cheaper and cheaper alcohol offers to entice people to buy the Government is trying to regain lost revenue. One would have to be a mug to drink and smoke.

Alcohol is the Devil's liquor. It is the road to rack and ruin pi$$ing one's money up the wall, along with gambling and cigarettes.

rhext

I thought it was a minimum price, not a tax. All they seem to be saying at the moment is that if you want to have a loss-leader for anything, don't use alcohol. They've already got a perfectly good mechanism for raising the price of alcohol: it's called tax and they've been using it for years. If this were just about revenue generation, why wouldn't they just put the tax up a bit more?

Can't see the problem with this myself. At the end of the day, even if it is a tax, it's an optional one!

And as far as the 'unhealthy food' is concerned, why not? Everywhere I go, I see fast food wrappers thrown away. I also occasionally see council workers picking them up - workers that I have to pay for through my general taxes. Even ignoring the damage/cost to society of excessive consumption of that sort of stuff, I can't see why some sort of tax simply to pay for the clearup of litter wouldn't be appropriate.

dgstewart

Pross wrote:

I hate the term nanny state. Sometimes people need nannying because they are too stupid to look after themselves and cause others misery and financial cost. In my experience the term is used by people who know that they are doing something wrong / stupid but want to carry on doing it no matter what the effect on others. Putting up alcohol prices may not stop hardened drinkers splashing out but it could help prevent a new generation of young drinkers following the same path. On the other hand maybe we should let people smoke / drink / eat unhealthy food / take part in dangerous activities but not treat them for the consequences. That way we would save tax (so wouldn't need to tax their habits so highly) and by a Darwinian effect we wouldn't have the long term problems of increasing population and pension shortfalls, everyone's a winner!

+1 or +2 or even more! Totally agree, although there also has to be a real step change in education and awareness at the same time.

As for the suggestions that junk food could be next - why not? The cost of obesity will be enormous (pardon the pun) in the coming yeras if not addressed. People complain it's expensive to eat healthly food, but I really can't see that it is. Since having kids, our diet has improved significantly (was never too bad though) and I would say we spend no more on food. People need to remember how to cook real healthy, tasty food themselves.

I say tax the crap out of junk food and reduce the cost of healthy alternatives. Not quite sure the mechanism but surely the principle is worth a go.