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

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.

johnnyskeleton

BeerNut wrote: »

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?

Or some counter propaganda - any more increases and we shop up north and there's nothing they can do about that.

bobbysands81

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Or some counter propaganda - any more increases and we shop up north and there's nothing they can do about that.

Unless there's an All-Ireland alcohol policy in the offing...

There's HUGE changes coming to off-sales in Ireland folks. Tax on off-sales will go up, minimum pricing to be introduced, no savings for the consumer for making multiple purchases, higher tax for higher % alcohol etc... this and much more is going to happen sooner rather than later.

By the way... some of this could actuallt be good news for Craft/Premium beers as it might mean less of a price variation.

BeerNut

bobbysands81 wrote: »

some of this could actuallt be good news for Craft/Premium beers as it might mean less of a price variation.

Bad news for the consumer, though. Price variation = competition = good.

subway

so, letter writing campaign anyone?
any legal eagles willing to draft something that we can all post to our reps?

they are more likely to stand against it if they know there are a few people supporting it

bobbysands81

BeerNut wrote: »

Bad news for the consumer, though. Price variation = competition = good.

I don't think it's going to bring prices down for craft beers... rather it's going to decrease the price differential as the price of all other beers will rise.

The price of buying drink from Off-Licences is going to rocket whilst prces in pubs will remain untouched.

subway

as long as offers like this continue up north (which they will) there is really no point pushing up the price of low end beers
http://www.hotukdeals.com/deals/tesco-3-for-20-packs-beer-1037745

irish off licenses are just about competing on this
(bud example)
36 x 300 ml = 10.8lt for 20£ (~24eu) (5%) - 66c per bottle (& stronger abv)
24 x 300 ml = 7.2lt for 15eu-20eu (4.3%) - 75c-1eu per bottle

introduce a min charge and you are potentially looking at doubling the price per bottle, driving people north of the border - almost guaranteed. rent a van and split it between 10 people etc.

while its not explicitly targeting nice beers, multibuy offers could also be in their sights (so 4 for 10eu could be gone) which is a staple in my local offy

finally, the law of unintended consequences is always at play-
for example, people travel north to buy booze, but buy huge amounts. they drink more at home or never visit the pub due to having a small breweries worth int he garden. pb prices go up or pubs go bust
or
people switch to spirits and "home measures", increasing alcohol intake and costing more in the long run

bobbysands81

subway wrote: »

as long as offers like this continue up north (which they will) there is really no point pushing up the price of low end beers
http://www.hotukdeals.com/deals/tesco-3-for-20-packs-beer-1037745

irish off licenses are just about competing on this
(bud example)
36 x 300 ml = 10.8lt for 20£ (~24eu) (5%) - 66c per bottle (& stronger abv)
24 x 300 ml = 7.2lt for 15eu-20eu (4.3%) - 75c-1eu per bottle

introduce a min charge and you are potentially looking at doubling the price per bottle, driving people north of the border - almost guaranteed. rent a van and split it between 10 people etc.

while its not explicitly targeting nice beers, multibuy offers could also be in their sights (so 4 for 10eu could be gone) which is a staple in my local offy

finally, the law of unintended consequences is always at play-
for example, people travel north to buy booze, but buy huge amounts. they drink more at home or never visit the pub due to having a small breweries worth int he garden. pb prices go up or pubs go bust
or
people switch to spirits and "home measures", increasing alcohol intake and costing more in the long run

A few comments...

An All-Ireland alcohol policy is being discussed by Govt here and in the north(note the articles in today's paper surrounding alcohol abuse in the north). It is generally accepted that the cheap availability and the subsequent abuse of alcohol has a huge detrimental negative effect on people's lives on this island, regardless of their political jurisdiction.

Tax will not increase on just low end beers, it will increase on ALL alcohol sold from Off-Licences.

Also, there will be minimum pricing based on the amount of alcohol a product has, the higher the alcohol content the more expensive it will be.

Multi-buy offers will be a thing of the past. There will be no savings allowed for the consumer for multiple buys. So, for instance, if 1 bottle of beer costs €2:20, 4 bottles of beer CANNOT cost less than €8:80.

Pub prices won't be hit and they'll be the winners out of these changes, as will home brewing.

subway

you've a lot of points in there, first off, while perhaps some common ideal might be agreed, i doubt we will have a cross border taxation and minimum pricing agreement.

the thread is about minimum pricing, taxation is another kettle of fish

if minimum pricing will be brought in, (even cross border) the price of a bottle of cheap vodka in NI will still be far below the equivalent in beer bought in ROI (see scottish pricing here http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-15525950)

i dont see multi buys mentioned anywhere yet, min price could be implemented, but i can still sell 20 bottle for 20eu, whether its 2eu a bottle individually or not, as long as its over the min price per unit

pubs will only be unaffected if nothing else changes (everything from salaries to consumer expectations to technology etc). and its impossible for anyone to predict that i'm afraid.

bobbysands81

subway wrote: »

you've a lot of points in there, first off, while perhaps some common ideal might be agreed, i doubt we will have a cross border taxation and minimum pricing agreement.

You're right, it will be hard to ensure consistency across the island on prices/taxation etc... but there's huge problems regarding alcohol abuse in the north as well and there's a temperance element to the DUP that would be rabidly against alcohol.

subway wrote: »

if minimum pricing will be brought in, (even cross border) the price of a bottle of cheap vodka in NI will still be far below the equivalent in beer bought in ROI (see scottish pricing here http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-15525950)

As the level of minimum pricing has not yet been agreed in the north or the Republic then it's impossible to say whether or not alcohol would be more or less expensive in either jurisdiction. Experience tells us that alcohol will remain more expensive in the Republic but if the differential is quite close then it might not be economically viable to drive long distances to purchase your alcohol across the border.

subway wrote: »

i dont see multi buys mentioned anywhere yet, min price could be implemented, but i can still sell 20 bottle for 20eu, whether its 2eu a bottle individually or not, as long as its over the min price per unit

Multi-buys are one of the major changes coming here. They are in addition to minimum pricing. No savings will be possible for the consumer when purchasing more than one bottle/can.

subway wrote: »

pubs will only be unaffected if nothing else changes (everything from salaries to consumer expectations to technology etc). and its impossible for anyone to predict that i'm afraid.

Alocohol served in pubs in done so in (what's seen as) a regulated environment. People (generally) drink in social groups and there is a responsibility on the pub owner/workers to ensure that folk don't get too drunk (obviously this doesn't always happen though).

Changes are a coming for Off-Sales (higher taxes, minimum pricing, no savings for buying in bulk etc...), none of these will apply to pubs.

cojomo2

Is there a date set for drink prices to increase? Has anything actually been confirmed? I was chatting to a publican off grafton street recently and he told me to stock up from my local tesco as prices would be rising sharply in the next few weeks? He said it was 100% confirmed and going ahead. Is this true?

As others have said, if the same doesn't happen in N.I , floods of people will go there to buy booze, and while there, they will spend in many other areas (especially around the xmas period) which means our economy will be hit even worse with less off a tax take.