Why are mainstream beers weaker in Ireland than elsewhere?

hatrickpatrick

Not the most fascinating question but I was in Superquinn yesterday buying a couple of crates (for anyone who isn't aware, they have a pretty epic deal at the moment where it's 24 cans for 25 quid, Guinness, Carlsberg, Heineken, Bulmers, Canadian, Budwiser or Amstel, any three packs of 8 for €25) and noticed something a bit odd: Budwiser, which is 5% pretty much anywhere else I've had it, is 4.3% here. Same for Heino - I'm 100% certain I've seen Heineken at 5% elsewhere, 'twas 4.3 in this case, and I've seen it I think at 4.7 in one or two other places.

Seeing as Ireland doesn't (yet) have any taxes or minimum prices based on the actual alcohol content of drinks, why do some of these major mainstream brands appear to be making weaker products for the Irish market? I mean I doubt .7% makes a huge difference to either the taste or the strength, but it seems odd that they would change it specifically for Ireland, where both Bud and Heino are sold at 5% in literally every other country I've bought one in.

Anyone have any insight into this?

BeerNut

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Ireland doesn't (yet) have any taxes or minimum prices based on the actual alcohol content of drinks

It does: excise duty is calculated on the ABV.

hatrickpatrick

BeerNut wrote: »

It does: excise duty is calculated on the ABV.

Is it? I've always thought t was calculated on type and overall quantity of drink, so in other words "10 cent increase on the excise of a pint of beer" applies uniformly regardless of the strength of the beer in question - is this incorrect?

Geuze

Yes, the Minister is simply (implicitly) referring to standard 4.3% beer.

Rates here:

http://www.revenue.ie/en/tax/excise/duties/excise-duty-rates.html

BeerNut

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

"10 cent increase on the excise of a pint of beer" applies uniformly regardless of the strength of the beer in question - is this incorrect?

It is. It's utterly misleading and really annoys people in the industry.

Excise duty is €22.55 per 100L per percent ABV.

Geuze

Excise is:

22.55 per hectolitre per % of alcohol

Turpentine

4.3% vs 5%:
1) Less excise
2) can/will charge the consumer the same price
3) people can drink more of them in one sitting

onemorechance

BeerNut wrote: »

It does: excise duty is calculated on the ABV.

It must help the Diageo monopoly and be a huge hindrance to the craft brewers. If beers made with creativity and taste were more widely available maybe more people would not see beer as just something to get as pissed on as soon and as cheaply as possible.

It might be another example of Government bowing to lobby groups under the guise of the public good.

Vintners fed want more people in the pub, the Gov give them minimum prices under the guise of tackling the excess drinking problem. Punish everyone rather than try to deal with the guilty.

Motor lobby want more sales, Gov helps them create an artificial market with B regs further fueling misconception in many consumers that a number on a plate is the best indication of a vehicles value, or the owners financial clout! :pac:

the beer revolu

OP talking about .7% difference is misleading.
The difference in % between a 4.3% alc volume beer and a 5% alc volume is actually 14%.
ie the 5% beer is 14% stronger in alcohol volume than the 4.3%.
Same as a 10% beer is obviously not 5% stronger than 5% beer - it's twice as strong.

BeerNut

onemorechance wrote: »

It must help the Diageo monopoly and be a huge hindrance to the craft brewers. If beers made with creativity and taste were more widely available maybe more people would not see beer as just something to get as pissed on as soon and as cheaply as possible.

I see it the other way round: if more people went out and drank the beers made with creativity and taste, the less-creative breweries would have less power. And might even start making creative tasty beer.

Bear in mind also that while excise duty is precisely based on ABV (to two decimal places, I believe), declared ABV on labels is allowed to be 0.5% out. If I had the kind of technology that the big breweries have to precisely specify the beer they produce, everything I labelled as 4.3% ABV would actually be 3.8%. Lower tax, and the consumer is none the wiser. Common business sense, IMO.

onemorechance wrote: »

It might be another example of Government bowing to lobby groups under the guise of the public good.

Taxing drinks based on their alcoholic strength pre-dates every lobby group. It's a centuries-old practice and not very likely to change.

onemorechance wrote: »

Vintners fed want more people in the pub, the Gov give them minimum prices under the guise of tackling the excess drinking problem. Punish everyone rather than try to deal with the guilty.

This isn't news. Forcing off licences to close at 10pm was an even more heinous example, IMO

the beer revolu

BeerNut wrote: »

Bear in mind also that while excise duty is precisely based on ABV (to two decimal places, I believe), declared ABV on labels is allowed to be 0.5% out. If I had the kind of technology that the big breweries have to precisely specify the beer they produce, everything I labelled as 4.3% ABV would actually be 3.8%. Lower tax, and the consumer is none the wiser. Common business sense, IMO.

Really?
You're saying that, in theory, a 2%abv beer could be labelled as 2.5% of visa versa without and legal problems even though one has 25% more alcohol in it ?

BeerNut

the beer revolu wrote: »

Really?

Really. Directive 87/250/EEC, Article 3 1(b). Transposed into Irish law by SI 483 of 2002, section 13(3).

the beer revolu wrote: »

You're saying that, in theory, a 2%abv beer could be labelled as 2.5% of visa versa without and legal problems even though one has 25% more alcohol in it ?

Yup. Though once you get to 5.5% the allowed tolerance goes up to 1% ABV. All cider has a blanket margin of 1% ABV.

the beer revolu

BeerNut wrote: »

Really. Directive 87/250/EEC, Article 3 1(b). Transposed into Irish law by SI 483 of 2002, section 13(3).


Yup. Though once you get to 5.5% the allowed tolerance goes up to 1% ABV. All cider has a blanket margin of 1% ABV.

That's a massive margin of error!!

hatrickpatrick

My head is exploding, and I'm suddenly starting to question all the great "deals" I've got on strong (labelled) cider over the last couple of years

rubadub

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I'm 100% certain I've seen Heineken at 5% elsewhere, 'twas 4.3 in this case,

Heinekens site has/had a page saying it is 5% except for 2 places, here and some other country/region I cannot remember, all I can remember is that it is some small place you would rarely hear about.

I figure they are all just copying each other, this happens quite a lot in the pub trade and other trades. Like how most pubs do not have cans for drinking in the pub, its like they look at all other pubs and blindly think "well that's obviously what the public wants"

Turpentine wrote: »

4.3% vs 5%:
1) Less excise
2) can/will charge the consumer the same price
3) people can drink more of them in one sitting

Less ingredients too. This does not mean it will end up cheaper, economies of scale might make the oddball % dearer. THe eurospar near me regularly has 4.3% alongside a cheaper can of 5% Heineken intended for the scottish market. They probably have different wholesale prices so can end up cheaper to import, just like the aviva stadium threatened to import (james gate brewed) guinness from the UK to hear, as guinness charge less over there.

Geuze wrote: »

Yes, the Minister is simply (implicitly) referring to standard 4.3% beer.

I don't know why they can't just say the actual change and then something like "this will result in an approximate increase of 10cent on a typical pint". They messed up the tax on cigarettes this year and I think last year. This year he was corrected, it was the same mistake saying something like they will increase 25 percent, instead of 25cent.

It is interesting how beer goes up as the % goes up but with cider & others it doesn't appear to be the same, it has ranges.

Cider and Perry
Still and sparkling, exceeding 2.8% volume but not exceeding 6% volume 94.46 per hectolitre
Still and sparkling, exceeding 6.0% volume but not exceeding 8.5% volume 218.44 per hectolitre

So it seems a 500ml can of 6% cider would have 47cent duty, while a 6.1% can would be €1.09 duty. (I might be wrong)

the beer revolu

rubadub wrote: »

It is interesting how beer goes up as the % goes up but with cider & others it doesn't appear to be the same, it has ranges.


So it seems a 500ml can of 6% cider would have 47cent duty, while a 6.1% can would be €1.09 duty. (I might be wrong)

I wish they would standardise and simplify the duty system. Just use the same duty on all alcoholic beverages per ml alcohol.

Why should wine, cider, beer and spirits all be taxed differently ?
They are all alcoholic drinks. Just tax the alcohol.

It also pishses me off no end that and fool can sell wine for a small fee but to sell beer you need a full licence. Last time I checked, wine is stronger than beer and I don't know any vineyards locally producing wine.

Someone here might be able to calculate which would attract more duty: a 13% vol beer or a 13% vol wine. I know which is easier to sell but it would be interesting to know if they are hitting the potentially locally produced product harder with duty as well as selling restrictions.