Idiots calls for minimum price for alcohol - Mod Warning Post #1

the_syco

MOD WARNING - This thread is for the discussion of proposed price increases & the impacts on us drink-lovers, whether that be closure of oubs & off-licences, how it will hit our pockets, etc. It is not for a debate on the perceived social ills affecting this country.

tHB

The Vintners’ Federation of Ireland (VFI) today backed calls by Alcohol Action Ireland for a minimum price for alcohol, saying such a move would to help prevent alcohol abuse.

"We welcome this debate on alcohol pricing but driving up the price of drink across the board is not the answer," VFI president Gerry Mellet said.

"The focus must be on those who deliberately push down the price of drink such as the supermarkets that offer volume led promotions and sell alcohol like bananas or cornflakes on special offers which only encourages irresponsible consumption."

The VFI represents almost 4,500 pubs outside of Dublin.

How many politicians in power own pubs these days? Used to be quite a few, but I'm unsure now.

If they don't decrease the price, more of it's members will go under. I remember someone on here comment that if any of it's members drastically cut their prices, the cartel wouldn't be happy.

pa990

it wont happen.

the duty on alcohol was reduced a year or two ago in response to the mass exodus of shoppers across the border.

Traditionally all of my spirits were either bought up north, on the continent or duty free, it's only recently that i've been buying here.

I would suggest that the increase in alcohol sales/consumption may be due to the fact that less people are buying across the border, and buying it in their local tesco instead thus giving a more true figure of alcohol consumption in ireland

Berty

There is a lot of smoke and mirrors out there regarding pricing.

You visit your local Supermarket(not independent) and see the range of prices and options.

20 x 300ml €XXX
20 X 275ml €XXX
20 X 330ml €XXX
20 X 400ml €XXX
20 X 440ml €XXX
20 X 500ml €XXX

There are soo many different pack sizes throwing up soo many different prices it's very hard to differentiate what the true price per drink is. The only true way to know is by looking at the, EU required, price per litre.

So anybody saying "You shouldn't be able to sell a can at 50c" should go check what the actual price for a "NORMAL" 500ml can would be.

Should there be a minimum price? I don't think there should be any government or "body" who should be allowed to set prices. That to be sounds like a cartel and open to abuse by lobby groups.

Should they reverse the groceries order to stop the abuse of supermarkets with drink pricing? Yes because the independent is struggling.

Should they punish drinkers with increasing alcohol prices in the budget because (1) People have long term health issues, (2) mean more Gardai because of drunks, (3) cause numerous other costs to the government?

No

However, that hasn't stopped the Government in the past when it comes to the effects of Smoking or punish people because the engine in their car is too big.

johnnyskeleton

They should also change the licencing laws so that anyone who:

1) wants to set up a pub;
2) complies with tax and excise;
3) complies with firesafety and planning;
4) the area they are proposing will not be seriously negatively impacted by a new pub;
5) complies with all other laws e.g. smoking ban, drinking hours, unruly customers etc.

Anyone who meets the above should be entitled to get a new licence without having to take over or extinguish an existing licence. Same applies for offlicences, anyone who wants to sell alcohol should be entitled to do so.

Of course, the competition on price is just one of the many factors adversely affecting the pub trade.

But the restrictive licencing laws mean that very few pubs can change. The old, well established pubs don't really need to or want to change, while the new celtic tiger pubs are so mortgaged up that they have to aim for the pack em in, sell em overpriced slops model.

The smoking ban is also a serious problem, and I think there is quite a market, even in a recession, for a pub where you can smoke a cigar, drink a whiskey (from a proper glass, why do pubs always use tumblers?) and sit and have a slow chat without television or music annoying you. But such a place could only exist if there weren't massive barriers to entry into the market, namely the licencing laws and, to a lesser extent, opening hours, smoking bans etc.

Technocentral

If there was a reduction in the price of heroin would there be an increase in the amount of junkies?, I doubt it, if your an alcoholic you'll buy it regardless of a minimum price. Personally I don't drink the cheap stuff as its rubbish so a minimum price wouldn't affect me.

subway

Beer Baron wrote: »

Should there be a minimum price? I don't think there should be any government or "body" who should be allowed to set prices.

Should they reverse the groceries order to stop the abuse of supermarkets with drink pricing? Yes because the independent is struggling.

the govt setting a minimum price is bad when it doenst suit you and good when it does?
interesting logic there.

Technocentral

subway wrote: »

the govt setting a minimum price is bad when it doenst suit you and good when it does?
interesting logic there.

I would have thought that its human nature to like the things that suit you and dislike things that don't!

Zebra3

So long as the minimum price is €0.01, I'll have no problems with it.

stevenmu

I love the way the VFI want to increase the price too. But only for people who are out-competing their members.

subway

Technocentral wrote: »

I would have thought that its human nature to like the things that suit you and dislike things that don't!

Hah! I can't disagree with that sentiment

Kid Charlemagne

it's very hard to differentiate what the true price per drink is. The only true way to know is by looking at the, EU required, price per litre.


Ah come on now, you hardly need to be a rocket scientist to read the ppl.

MadYaker

This is ridiculous. Its true that we have a problem with drinking in Ireland but the roots of this problem are in our culture and attitude towards drink, its not that drink is too cheap as all the politicians are saying. Drink is more expensive in Ireland than it is anywhere else in europe. I spent the summer in Italy and we were buying litres of wine for less than a euro! Its the same in France and Spain, drink is dirt cheap but they don't have a problem like we do. Why? Because their culture is different and they have a different attitude towards drinking.

This problem needs to be tackled by educating young children in schools and rasing awareness about the dangers of excessive consumption of alcohol from an early age, not by making drink more expensive. The majority of Irish are responsible drinkers but they will have to pay because a few over indulge.

This is another perfect example of our government trying to come up with a simple solution to a complex problem and it won't work.

Thankfully, there are certain parts of EU competition law which should stop this. As far as I know the Spanish government tried to bring in minimum pricing on cigarettes last year but the EU over ruled them.

Now I may be biased considering I am a student and I like my cheap drink.

BeerNut

MadYaker wrote: »

Thankfully, there are certain parts of EU competition law which should stop this.

Still only a maybe. The government will be watching how things pan out in Scotland.

rubadub

I had thought the way they would do this is to ban below cost selling and increasing the duty, in effect this would set a minimum charge per unit, even if the supplier gave the drink free they would have to charge duty.

But I see in Scotland it was a minimum price, no change in duty. So the sellers seemingly get this extra money as profit -which is a bit crazy, you would think the government would want a cut. The government should see a drop in sales so will have less income from it even though people might be spending more on alcohol.

It would be interesting to see what would happen in outlets. e.g. lets say you go to €2.50 per 500ml @5%. This could encourage decent beer being sold at the same price. So a supermarket might be paying 2.00 for a decent beer and can still sell it at a profit. If more people started getting quality beers since they were the same price it might lead to better economies of scale on these beers. -of course they will still profit more from the cheap beers so would likely promote them more, but it would be interesting to see what happens.

Many beers will already be at the proposed minimum price, I wonder will they increase the price -there would be many upset customers, but would they just accept the now relatively lower margin on these beers, if so they might have a big drop off in sales of the muck. Or will they just not stock these beers at all as they can rake it in with the now very highly profitable muck.

BeerNut

rubadub wrote: »

I had thought the way they would do this is to ban below cost selling

The 2008 government advisory report said this is more-or-less impossible.

Gordon Holmes wrote:

With all of this information available to us, we realised we could do nothing to fix below-cost selling because we did not know what the cost price per unit was. This is a major difficulty for us because we would very much like to do so. It reflects what we were asked to do in many of the submissions made. It seems to be an extremely difficult problem, on which we did a significant amount of work. We met a large number of people and will meet many more. The position may change but it is difficult.

I do not believe people really want to see price controls introduced because they would not control the same item. This very day, I saw a Czech or Slovakian lorry delivering beer to Redmond’s in Ranelagh and a place close to our office. I do not know at what price the beer was bought. Below cost selling is a difficult issue on which to give coherent advice

Link

rubadub wrote: »

This could encourage decent beer being sold at the same price.

The cost of this is yet another unproven restriction on alcohol, without any evidence of the previous ones having an effect; yet another move towards the denormalisation of alcohol; yet another indication that the government doesn't understand that alcohol isn't the problem: stupid people are the problem. It's too high a price to pay for the vague outside possibility that the overall quality and variety of beer will improve. Enough is enough.

pa990

i for one will be stocking up on beers that have a best before date that means nothing, ie. High % Belgian beers etc

mikom

rubadub wrote: »

But I see in Scotland it was a minimum price, no change in duty. So the sellers seemingly get this extra money as profit -which is a bit crazy, you would think the government would want a cut.

You make more profit, you pay more tax.
The government will get their cut.

pa990

another thought..

any significant increase in alcohol prices will lead to more and more heading north for their supplies, and even more people will do this if the €/£ exchange rate changes

mlumley

If they increase the brice of beers in pubs, then the government want to DE-crease the price of non-alcaholic beers and soft crinks. Why pay more for no alcahol than for with alcahol. Might encorage people to drink non-alcoholic beers and help with drink driving. €2.50 €3 for lemonade, rediculas.

BeerNut

mlumley wrote: »

then the government want to DE-crease the price of non-alcaholic beers and soft crinks.

The government have no control over that. Soft drinks only cost that much because people are willing to pay it.

rubadub

mikom wrote: »

You make more profit, you pay more tax.
The government will get their cut.

the government get a fraction of it, when they could be getting 100% of the extra if they did it right.

Reading more in england it seems it was going to be a ban on below cost selling and a possible increase in duty. Not sure what the plan is here.

mikom

rubadub wrote: »

the government get a fraction of it, when they could be getting 100% of the extra if they did it right.

They will also get a bounce in the pub trade to keep the vintners quiet for a while.

mikofo

the nanny state is protecting u from u

The Hill Billy

The problem isn't with people drinking in general, it is with how certain people behave when they drink. The government appear to want to penalise all drinkers because of the on-going inability of the criminal justice system to adequately deal with assholes who don't know how to behave (generally with or without drink) or when to stop.

* Tells self "Take it to Humanities." *

The Hill Billy

Unfortunately I've had to remove quite a number of posts from this thread in order to bring it back on-topic. Please note the warning in Post #1 & keep the discussion relevant to the forum & it's charter.

Please remember to use the Report Post function instead of engaging in off-topic on-thread arguments.

Thanks,

tHB

the beer revolu

I'm in two minds on this one although I do find it hilarious that the call is coming from The Vintners Federation - this fact gives it no credibility at all.

However, the fact is that cheap alcohol is an awful lot cheaper to buy now than it was twenty years ago. Back then a cheap can of Lager cost £0.99 (€1.26) while now it is easy enough to find cheap beer for €1.

Taking inflation into account, the £.99 can should now cost about €2.30.


Also look at wine.
Twenty years ago a bottle of cheap plonk was around £5 (€6.35) whereas today you can easily buy cheap wine for €5 or less.

Taking inflation into account, the £5 bottle should now cost about €11.30

Now I'm sure that somebody is going to poke holes in my figures (they are approximate) but the fact remains that cheap alcohol is a hell of a lot cheaper now than it was twenty years ago and I'm not so sure that that's a good thing.

I would hope that any action to impose a minimum price on alcohol would not have any bearing on the price of any products but the very cheapest and might give the independent off licence a chance against the supermarkets.

guildofevil

If the pubs think this will help them one jot they are living in cloud cuckoo land. They will never compete with the supermarkets on price. Even if the supermarkets are forced to raise their prices slightly by this legislation, they will still be a lot cheaper than the pubs.

If the minimum price was high enough to make supermarket beer the same price as pub beer, there would be a field day for alcohol smugglers and the tax take on alcohol would go down. No way that is ever going to happen.

Minimum pricing is actually a very old concept and has been used here since before the formation of the state. Duty on alcohol, coupled with the fact that anyone selling alcohol wants to make a profit from it, made for a de-facto minimum price. The supermarket business model, where they are willing to forgo profit on alcohol in exchange for footfall, broke this system and resulted in less VAT being paid on cheaper alcohol. This is bad for the government.

When times were good and alcohol consumption was at it's peak, no one cared too much about what the supermarkets were doing. Now that the government is trying to get every cent it can lay it's hands on and alcohol consumption has been in decline for a decade, cheap supermarket alcohol is destroying the country?

This is just a patch on existing regulation and will help no one.
It will only affect people who buy bargain alcohol.
It will not affect pub drinkers, as they are already paying more than the minimum price.
It will not affect people shopping at the quality or premium end of the market as they are already paying more than the minimum price.
It will not change the habits of problem drinkers as many fall into the previous two categories and those who are buying cheap supermarket alcohol will simply pay the higher price and carry on regardless, or seek out cheaper alternatives, possibly from extra legal sources.

Do they really think it is the poor who are the problem drinkers or are they really just trying to maximise their revenue from VAT? Problem drinking is just the usual justification and it doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

"It's for your own good. Sure if it was too cheap you'd be drunk all the time and we'd never get a lick of work out of you."


Apologies to members of Beoir.org for the copy and paste post, but my position is the same no matter what website I am on.

guildofevil

Something to consider:

Would minimum pricing make free pints and even free samples illegal?

On the face of it, I would think yes.

Lugh Ildanach

If it comes in (and I believe it will come in at some stage) it certainly increases the attraction of home brewing!!

subway

If it's per unit,it could destroy the price of a bittle of spirits.
Given that they are already vastly cheaper up the north it's going to a big boost for the black economy.

I hope it doesn't come in, it's so great to have a big cheap box of bottles on hand if people drop by. Taste wise it's obviously not número UNO but a big box of frosty heneken for 15eu is a very handy social tool. Much like getting a cheap case of wine in for Christmas. If it was double the price I'd just not bother.

saa

Home brewing for sure, alcohol doesn't need to taste nice. Chalk it down.

BeerNut

saa wrote: »

Home brewing for sure, alcohol doesn't need to taste nice.

You're doing it wrong. We can help.

Hotblack Desiato

I'm not a fan of minimum pricing, for many of the reasons already mentioned and others not mentioned, basicaly it is a pernicious form of social(ist) control telling the less well off in society where they may be allowed to spend their money. Ironic that the left are to the forefront for this sort of thing.

There might be some sort of argument for this in the UK where you have very high strength lagers / super strength white ciders, albeit muck, on sale dirt cheap. This stuff is the lowest form possible of sellable alcohol but the laws there allow it to be sold with minimal duty, here the duty is linked more closely to the alcohol content so there is a limit to how cheap these sort of 6%+ drinks can be.

johnnyskeleton

If the government are doing this for the public good, then presumably they are taking responsibilty to ensure we all drink sensibly in all areas.

Technocentral

saa wrote: »

Home brewing for sure, alcohol doesn't need to taste nice. Chalk it down.

What an absurd statement, like saying "food doesn't need to taste nice"! Unless one is an alcoholic taste is a huge part of enjoying good alcoholic beverages.

Blisterman

Technocentral wrote: »

Personally I don't drink the cheap stuff as its rubbish so a minimum price wouldn't affect me.

If only it were that easy.

If the price of Tesco value scotch, had to rise to the same price as a bottle of Glenfiddich, do you think Tesco would sell them both at the same price?

Technocentral

Blisterman wrote: »

If only it were that easy.

If the price of Tesco value scotch, had to rise to the same price as a bottle of Glenfiddich, do you think Tesco would sell them both at the same price?

I rarely if ever drink spirits and never neat, (maybe one or two cocktails at Christmas, last scotch I tasted was about 15 yrs ago) and I rarely drink wine (a bottle or 2 a year), the only stuff I drink on a regular basis is good craft beers which are all way above the minimum price, so my statement stands. In fact if the minimum price was raised to 1.50 - 2 euro a can or bottle it would benefit makers of real beer so I would welcome it. I think the main people to be affected will be those who tend to not give a fu*k about quality such as teenagers and alcoholics.

johnnyskeleton

Technocentral wrote: »

I rarely if ever drink spirits and never neat, (maybe one or two cocktails at Christmas, last scotch I tasted was about 15 yrs ago) and I rarely drink wine (a bottle or 2 a year), the only stuff I drink on a regular basis is good craft beers which are all way above the minimum price, so my statement stands. In fact if the minimum price was raised to 1.50 - 2 euro a can or bottle it would benefit makers of real beer so I would welcome it. I think the main people to be affected will be those who tend to not give a fu*k about quality such as teenagers and alcoholics.

I think the point is not what the consumer would do but what the suppliers would do. The big supermarkets will stock whatever beer that they can buy cheaply and thereby sell for a higher margin. If it costs them 50c for a can of heiniken and €1.25 for a bottle of o haras, both of which sell for €2.50, then tesco have a greater incentive to sell heiniken at a 500% mark up than the o haras at a 100% mark up.

Technocentral

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

I think the point is not what the consumer would do but what the suppliers would do. The big supermarkets will stock whatever beer that they can buy cheaply and thereby sell for a higher margin. If it costs them 50c for a can of heiniken and €1.25 for a bottle of o haras, both of which sell for €2.50, then tesco have a greater incentive to sell heiniken at a 500% mark up than the o haras at a 100% mark up.

Surely the price from the makers of said drinks to supermarkets etc would go up too so it would be all relative and the price difference would go to Gov. in tax and not to retailer and brewer etc otherwise the whole thing would be a joke?

Blisterman

Well a lot of it is perception as well. People tend to use relative price as a barometer of quality, so supermarkets will price products accordingly.

So once, you push the price of the lowest priced items up, then all the prices shift up.

Technocentral

ninja900 wrote: »

I'm not a fan of minimum pricing, for many of the reasons already mentioned and others not mentioned, basicaly it is a pernicious form of social(ist) control telling the less well off in society where they may be allowed to spend their money. Ironic that the left are to the forefront for this sort of thing.

There might be some sort of argument for this in the UK where you have very high strength lagers / super strength white ciders, albeit muck, on sale dirt cheap. This stuff is the lowest form possible of sellable alcohol but the laws there allow it to be sold with minimal duty, here the duty is linked more closely to the alcohol content so there is a limit to how cheap these sort of 6%+ drinks can be.

I disagree, the right tend to be the most moralistic about this sort of thing in my experience eg; religious groups, Daily Mail, Peter Hitchens etc

Technocentral

Blisterman wrote: »

Well a lot of it is perception as well. People tend to use relative price as a barometer of quality, so supermarkets will price products accordingly.

So once, you push the price of the lowest priced items up, then all the prices shift up.

Your probably right, it was just fantasy thinking on my behalf that if it was 2 euro for a can of pish like Bud or Heino and the same price for O' Hara's IPA people would no longer buy the pish.

BeerNut

Technocentral wrote: »

I think the main people to be affected will be those who tend to not give a fu*k about quality such as teenagers and alcoholics.

First they came for the teenagers and alcoholics and I did not speak up because I was not a teenager or an alcoholic.

2003: Happy hours banned.
2008: Off licences forced to close at 10pm
2012?: Minimum pricing

If you think this doesn't affect you as a drinker, I think you need to ask where in the ongoing denormalisation of alcohol should the line be drawn.

Personally, I think we've gone too far already and any proposed further restriction on alcohol should have sound evidence of the benefits behind it.

Hotblack Desiato

Technocentral wrote: »

I disagree, the right tend to be the most moralistic about this sort of thing in my experience eg; religious groups, Daily Mail, Peter Hitchens etc

Peter Hitchens isn't a minister in our government so who gives a flip what he thinks?

Shortall is Labour.

It would be more accurate to say that it's statist/authoritarian types who are fond of this sort of thing, not all of them are on the left, just most of them - there are very few left-wing libertarians out there.

Technocentral

BeerNut wrote: »

First they came for the teenagers and alcoholics and I did not speak up because I was not a teenager or an alcoholic.

2003: Happy hours banned.
2008: Off licences forced to close at 10pm
2012?: Minimum pricing

If you think this doesn't effect you as a drinker, I think you need to ask where in the ongoing denormalisation of alcohol should the line be drawn.

Personally, I think we've gone too far already and any proposed further restriction on alcohol should have sound evidence of the benefits behind it.

I didn't welcome it I just made the point as wishful thinking that it would wipe out the attractiveness of cheap, crap quality beer because lets be honest the vast majority of beer drinkers in this Country and probably on this forum mainly drink to get pissed and don't give a damn about quality and taste when it comes to beer, if they did muck like Heineken, Tuborg and Budweiser etc wouldn't have any takers. The Off licence thing is evidently nonsense as anyone can buy enough booze before 10pm too drink themselves to death of course. Each of the measures you point out has to be taking on its own merits or otherwise, the Mod removed posts and said posters should concentrate on "how it will hit our pockets, etc" I honestly answered that I don't drink below or around the minimum priced beers thats all.

Hotblack Desiato

BeerNut wrote: »

Personally, I think we've gone too far already and any proposed further restriction on alcohol should have sound evidence of the benefits behind it.

Problem is you're up against the brainless 'if it saves one life, it's worth it' crowd, which is a quick route to the removal of all individual liberty if it were ever implemented with vigour.

Drinkers now are where motorcyclists were 20 years ago, the future isn't pretty, we are almost at the stage of 'be thankful you are still allowed to ride a bike at all' in 20 years it will be 'be thankful you are still allowed to have a drink at all', I am fully certain that alcohol rationing on 'health' grounds will occur in my lifetime.

Berty

BeerNut wrote: »

Personally, I think we've gone too far already and any proposed further restriction on alcohol should have sound evidence of the benefits behind it.

Surely the default argument is "imagine how much the health service will save by stopping more people drinking".

Technocentral

ninja900 wrote: »

Peter Hitchens isn't a minister in our government so who gives a flip what he thinks?

Shortall is Labour.

It would be more accurate to say that it's statist/authoritarian types who are fond of this sort of thing, not all of them are on the left, just most of them - there are very few left-wing libertarians out there.

As this is off topic I'm not going to get into an argument about this with you but the countries with the most restrictions on alcohol around the world tend to be those with right wing/religious regimes eg America, Middle East, African States etc

Hotblack Desiato

Technocentral wrote: »

the vast majority of beer drinkers in this Country and probably on this forum mainly drink to get pissed and don't give a damn about quality and taste when it comes to beer, if they did muck like Heineken, Tuborg and Budweiser etc wouldn't have any takers.

Tuborg is sold on price. The other two are 'premium' products would you believe, that is the way they are marketed and most people are willing to 'swallow' what the marketeers tell them. If Budvar was popping up at every ad break on football matches on TV then that's what people would be asking for.

The taste or quality of a mass-market beer brand is totally irrelevant, all that matters is the marketing, the distribution (getting it into lots of outlets) and the advertising budget behind it.

Most people just CBA finding a nicer beer when picking up a six-pack of the usual semi-tasteless muck (that the ads tell them is just great) is so much easier.

The Off licence thing is evidently nonsense as anyone can buy enough booze before 10pm too drink themselves to death of course.

That was FF trying to look after their publican pals. No more 'sure why don't we pick up a few cans and go back to mine' so you have to stay in the pub and drink the overpriced alcohol there.

BeerNut

Beer Baron wrote: »

Surely the default argument is "imagine how much the health service will save by stopping more people drinking".

To which the response ought to be: imaginings are no fit basis for public policy. Can we have some facts instead, please?

johnnyskeleton

Blisterman wrote: »

Well a lot of it is perception as well. People tend to use relative price as a barometer of quality, so supermarkets will price products accordingly.

So once, you push the price of the lowest priced items up, then all the prices shift up.

there are a few permutations on this:
1. You set the minimum so low it makes no difference;
2. You set it high enough to increase the cost of the cheapest without affecting the cost of the most expensive.
3. You set it high enough that they are so close in price the more expensive product increases it's price to minimum plus x% irrespective of other factors to get the excusivity premium.
4. You set it so high that it discourages buying alcohol and any attempt to exceed te minimum would result in pricing onesself out of the Market.

Some craft beers are already getting very highly priced, perhaps exhorbitantly high, so I'm not sure that all prices increasing in proportion would work.

In fact, I suspect that craft beer is a more elastic product than other beers. The beers that people drink to get drunk have an addiction aspect to their demand, but there comes a point where the cost of beer is just not worth it and people would stop drinking and take up nuclear physics to fill their spare time.