Proposed Minimum Price for Bottle of Wine €10

howamidifferent

As the title says, some group have decided that the minimum price for a bottle of wine should be set at €10 to discourage alcohol abuse. Heard it discussed on the radio earlier. Some doctor was in agreement... Recommendations have been passed to government. More nanny stateism! :mad:

oblivious

howamidifferent wrote: »

As the title says, some group have decided that the minimum price for a bottle of wine should be set at €10 to discourage alcohol abuse. Heard it discussed on the radio earlier. Some doctor was in agreement... Recommendations have been passed to government. More nanny stateism! :mad:

Awful stuff. Unfortunately it hits at two thing governments like to do raise taxes and look like they a dealing with an issue!

rubadub

oblivious wrote: »

Awful stuff. Unfortunately it hits at two thing governments like to do raise taxes

Its worse than that, as it is not a excise tax raise, the retailer is creaming in the bulk of the increase, the government only gains on the VAT. Many do not seem to realise this and presume the government will be gettting this money, as it would be crazy idea otherwise -which it is.

Say a €1 can goes to €2 with minimum pricing. excise duty is the same, which is based on the alcohol in the can, nothing to do with price. So now it still has 23% vat, so the government get 18.7cent more on the sale at €2 than €1, and the retailer gets 81.3cent more, which the government could/should have gotten.

EDIT: corrected my vat calc.

ThisRegard

Is it specific to wine, have they rolled back on minimum unit pricing across the board ? If it's wine it's ironic when you see people leaving an off licence on a weekend with trays of cheap beer.

BeerNut

rubadub wrote: »

Its worse than that, as it is not a excise tax raise, the retailer is creaming in the bulk of the increase, the government only gains on the VAT. Many do not seem to realise this and presume the government will be gettting this money, as it would be crazy idea otherwise -which it is

The Oireachtas Health Committee has suggested a "social responsibility levy" (mouthsick) to take the extra profit away from the retailers and use it for more nannying. It's on the books in Scotland though they've never implemented it.

oblivious

ThisRegard wrote: »

Is it specific to wine, have they rolled back on minimum unit pricing across the board ? If it's wine it's ironic when you see people leaving an off licence on a weekend with trays of cheap beer.

Its a min price per unite of alcohol, just wine as been sited as a standard price of 10 euro per bottle. As far as i am aware

stargazer 68

oblivious wrote: »

Its a min price per unite of alcohol, just wine as been sited as a standard price of 10 euro per bottle. As far as i am aware

Yeah think its 1.10 per unit. :mad:

The Hill Billy

The upshot - keep the alcohol abuse to the wealthier in society.

When this was first mooted some time ago I heard an interview on Newstalk or Today FM where current alcohol abuse research was discussed. Apparently, recent research shows that sustained alcohol abuse is more prevalent amongst middle income families. The research on which the increase to a minimum of €10 a bottle was based was older research from the '90s when the problem was with lower income families, iirc.

ThisRegard

oblivious wrote: »

Its a min price per unite of alcohol, just wine as been sited as a standard price of 10 euro per bottle. As far as i am aware

Ok, so with the likes of some of the higher ABV beers you're looking at a 5, 6, units for 500mls ?

People who drink them are hardly knocking them back and surely will have an adverse affect on the craft brewers in Ireland ?

oblivious

ThisRegard wrote: »

Ok, so with the likes of some of the higher ABV beers you're looking at a 5, 6, units for 500mls ?

People who drink them are hardly knocking them back and surely will have an adverse affect on the craft brewers in Ireland ?

Also its punishing the many who are responsible, buy for the actions of a few.

Tax's/additions like this really ever go in one direction and its not as if they money raised is currently destined to-go into the national coffers.

rubadub

Dovies wrote: »

Yeah think its 1.10 per unit. :mad:

that is correct,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_drink

a unit here is 10g of alcohol or 12.7ml of alcohol

so a 4.3% 500ml can is 21.5ml, so 1.69 units so €1.86

700ml 37.5% is 262.5ml, 20.67 units so €22.74

rubadub

BeerNut wrote: »

The Oireachtas Health Committee has suggested a "social responsibility levy"

So does this mean we would see an increase in prices on alcohol above the min price (presuming wholesale prices were the same).

There is talk of calorie & health warning labelling which will also bring an increase.

BeerNut

rubadub wrote: »

So does this mean we would see an increase in prices on alcohol above the min price (presuming wholesale prices were the same).

No. But I suspect prices will go up on foot of this anyway: producers whose product is currently above the bottom rung won't appreciate the field being levelled so are likely to lift their prices above the new floor.

jimmycrackcorm

I think the introduction of this minimum pricing will see the introduction of more discount vouchers. Spend €50 including minimum priced alcohol and get a discount off your next spend.

ThisRegard

I can't see how that will work as you'll be selling below the minimum price, I'm sure it'll be prohibited.

rubadub

BeerNut wrote: »

producers whose product is currently above the bottom rung won't appreciate the field being levelled so are likely to lift their prices above the new floor.

Lots are predicting this, but shops can still import from other EU markets. My eurospar often has glasgow market 5% heineken cheaper than the 4.3% irish one, both brewed & canned in holland.

ThisRegard wrote: »

I can't see how that will work as you'll be selling below the minimum price, I'm sure it'll be prohibited.

I was thinking if the min price was an average of €1.86 per can they could sell 5 bavaria and 5 budvar for €18.60, about the same as it would be now. They could possibly have twin packs of wine like that too. There will be loads of unintended consequences and loopholes.

L1011

Don't expect this to pass the EU courts, exactly like the last attempt to minimum price a product here (smokes). It was illegal then, it'll still be illegal now.

ThisRegard

L1011 wrote: »

Don't expect this to pass the EU courts, exactly like the last attempt to minimum price a product here (smokes). It was illegal then, it'll still be illegal now.

They can just go the route of increasing existing, or creating new, taxes then.

L1011

ThisRegard wrote: »

They can just go the route of increasing existing, or creating new, taxes then.

Won't prevent below-cost or other loss leading offer sales; which is what they're targetting.

Supermarkets are going to cling on to selling a slab of "premium" macro for near to €24 and a branded 700ml spirit for €20 as their deep cut offers for as long as they can; we saw even heavier cuts that were close to the actual duty cost in some cases last Christmas.

The Government need to realise that making drink dearer, cutting opening hours, cutting availability etc just creates more appeal to it and also ticks boxes with the Irish anti-authoritarian streak.

rubadub

L1011 wrote: »

Won't prevent below-cost or other loss leading offer sales; which is what they're targetting.

If they were targetting that then why not make it illegal again. In the UK a few years back they investigated the idea of banning below cost selling and found only a handful of obscure low volume drinks were sold below cost.

I have seen no evidence of below cost selling of mainstream beers here to the extent the publicans & spokesmen make out. I have no doubt a publican buying heineken through the preferred distributors is paying more per bottle than the centra near me selling them 20 for €15. Note I say centra, a convenience store who would be insane to try and follow the below cost selling model.

These publicans are either fools or take the public for fools to believe all retailers pay the same wholesale price. Smart publicans buy in supermarkets.

The only drinks I reckon are below cost are some own brand bog standard supermarket spirits which are sold very close to the excise rate.

They could increase excise rates but it will hit their mates, the publicans who will have to pass it on and so lose trade, and the wealthier dipsos who are currently laughing at this min pricing farce.

odyssey06

The entire theory behind this is flawed. We already have the highest alcohol prices in the EU. Ergo, we should have the lowest alcohol consumption. We don't.

Newry here I come.

LionelNashe

I can see two things happening as a result of this.

Very cheap brands will disappear off the market. Nobody would buy them when their price is increased closer to the main brands.

There may now be a market for drinks with a lower alcohol content; say 3% or 3.5%, because retailers will be allowed to sell them for 25% less than a 4.5% beer.

Zaph

Jerry Buttimer, the chairman of the Oireachtas Health Committee, was on Matt Cooper's show this evening. He said that whatever research they had suggested a price per unit between 60c and €1.10, and they felt the higher end of the scale was more appropriate. Of course they did, because once there's a chance to gouge people the government will always take it. Matt Cooper made the point that if it ends up that the cheapest bottle of wine is a tenner, then the €15 bottle of wine he decided to buy as a treat would inevitably be a lot more expensive as well, even though it already costs more than the minimum price. Consequently responsible drinkers would be unfairly penalised by this sort of thing. The absolute nonsense that Buttimer came out with defending this was ridiculous. He tried to claim that even though the price would be higher, the buyer wouldn't be penalised as much as someone who bought a lot more alcohol. In pure monetary terms, well obviously someone who buys more alcohol will shell out a lot more than someone who buys the occasional bottle of decent wine. But Buttimer couldn't grasp the point that Cooper was making that in relative terms the responsible drinker could end up being hit harder by the effects of the new pricing as all prices will be driven up, not just the price of currently cheap alcohol. It never ceases to be embarrassing having buffoons like that as our elected representatives.

pa990

If this proposal comes to fruition, it'll lead to a number of things.

1) a switch from diesel washing to alcohol smuggling.
2) plenty of regular people taking trips up north.
3) a massive increase in day trips to france.
4) home brew beer
5) experimentation with home stills.

I'd be tempted to try a few of those options

LionelNashe

Zaph wrote: »

Jerry Buttimer, the chairman of the Oireachtas Health Committee, was on Matt Cooper's show this evening. He said that whatever research they had suggested a price per unit between 60c and €1.10, and they felt the higher end of the scale was more appropriate. Of course they did, because once there's a chance to gouge people the government will always take it. Matt Cooper made the point that if it ends up that the cheapest bottle of wine is a tenner, then the €15 bottle of wine he decided to buy as a treat would inevitably be a lot more expensive as well, even though it already costs more than the minimum price. Consequently responsible drinkers would be unfairly penalised by this sort of thing. The absolute nonsense that Buttimer came out with defending this was ridiculous. He tried to claim that even though the price would be higher, the buyer wouldn't be penalised as much as someone who bought a lot more alcohol. In pure monetary terms, well obviously someone who buys more alcohol will shell out a lot more than someone who buys the occasional bottle of decent wine. But Buttimer couldn't grasp the point that Cooper was making that in relative terms the responsible drinker could end up being hit harder by the effects of the new pricing as all prices will be driven up, not just the price of currently cheap alcohol. It never ceases to be embarrassing having buffoons like that as our elected representatives.

What argument did Cooper use to justify his point? Surely the cheaper bottles would disappear, and the existing €10 bottles would then be the cheapest on the market. Competitive pressures would prevent them from shoving the €7 up to €10 and the €10 up to €13.

ThisRegard

Buttimer was some clown.

The argument used was that the cheap stuff won't disappear, just move up to occupy the current €10 slot for example, everything else will also move up a range.

Eugene Norman

Is there even any evidence of wine fueled alcoholism? We are by and large beer drinkers

Zaph

LionelNashe wrote: »

Surely the cheaper bottles would disappear, and the existing €10 bottles would then be the cheapest on the market. Competitive pressures would prevent them from shoving the €7 up to €10 and the €10 up to €13.

Maybe so, but all the discussion was about cheaper bottles being pushed up to €10 minimum, and everything else rising with it. Buttimer said that there was an option for the government to take a levy from the increased price to use for alcohol education, etc. Basically nobody denied that retailers are going to profit massively from this measure if it's brought in. In properly functioning market maybe the cheap bottles will disappear and the €10 ones would become the bottom end of the market. But unfortunately years of consumers being screwed in this country would rightly make anyone sceptical that that would happen.

Flex

Zaph wrote: »

Maybe so, but all the discussion was about cheaper bottles being pushed up to €10 minimum, and everything else rising with it. Buttimer said that there was an option for the government to take a levy from the increased price to use for alcohol education, etc. Basically nobody denied that retailers are going to profit massively from this measure if it's brought in. In properly functioning market maybe the cheap bottles will disappear and the €10 ones would become the bottom end of the market. But unfortunately years of consumers being screwed in this country would rightly make anyone sceptical that that would happen.

A levy from the increased price will just push the increased price up yet again to account for the levy though. I would be against it as it just becomes another tax on top of excise for the government to use, and worryingly it would be a tax they could direct solely at the off-trade. Publicans have successfully lobbied to get minimum pricing in because excise increases impact them. I can only imagine how disastrous such an off-trade only tax/levy would end up being on prices for people who don't enjoy paying €5-6 for a pint of beer or measure of whiskey in the on-trade

quadrifoglio verde

We as a nation have a problem with drink (I was a poster boy for it on Saturday night and that was on lots of founders centennial, not galahad).
Making it more expensive isn't going to stop it, just like closing the off licences at 10 or clubs at half 2 doesn't stop people getting drunk either.
It'll take years to change, but part of me thinks Irish people enjoy getting completely pissed.

J_E

Eugene Norman wrote: »

Is there even any evidence of wine fueled alcoholism? We are by and large beer drinkers

Alcoholism doesn't discriminate by type...

I think it's just silly, really. All it is doing is punishing people who don't have as much money and people who drink casually. It isn't solving alcoholism at all. Is it not ridiculously priced as it is? When I was in Italy a good bottle of wine could cost you no more than €4-5.

KomradeBishop

This is treating the symptoms of a societal problem, as if it is a problem with individuals - the conventional view of addiction (including alcoholism) is wrong:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/johann-hari/the-real-cause-of-addicti_b_6506936.html?ncid=fcbklnkushpmg00000013
http://readersupportednews.org/news-section2/318-66/28672-everything-you-think-you-know-about-addiction-and-the-war-on-drugs-is-wrong

This isn't going to leave alcoholics with less of an alcohol problem, just probably with less money - the real motive behind it is likely just as another increase in taxes, for boosting revenue, rather than having anything to do with societal health.

Ravelleman

BeerNut wrote: »

No. But I suspect prices will go up on foot of this anyway: producers whose product is currently above the bottom rung won't appreciate the field being levelled so are likely to lift their prices above the new floor.

This is precisely what will happen. 'Premium' brands will re-establish the price gap and all will suffer.

J_E wrote: »

Alcoholism doesn't discriminate by type...

This is true. However, if they just put the new levy on mouldy cans of 6% cider they'd probably do half of the work they've set themselves.

L1011

Eugene Norman wrote: »

Is there even any evidence of wine fueled alcoholism? We are by and large beer drinkers

Definite signs of damaging drinking behaviour from wine drinkers - just look at any mid 20s to early 40s women you have as friends on Facebook for starters. Wine is being glorified as a destresser, etc, and mentions of knocking a bottle a night aren't uncommon

But with media attention on "binge drinking" its pretty much solely male beer drinkers that get targeted.

Ravelleman wrote: »

This is true. However, if they just put the new levy on mouldy cans of 6% cider they'd probably do half of the work they've set themselves.

The duty on cider was hugely whacked up a few years ago to try target this - I suspect it had some impact going on people I'd know abandoning the 3L bottles, but possibly just moved the problem.

kunst nugget

Initially I thought there might be some merit in this proposal but the more I've thought about it and people have pointed out flaws in it they more I've come to realise it's a nonsense in terms of dealing with problem drinkers. As someone said we already have some of the most expensive prices for alcohol already and it has done zip in dealing with the issue. The main victims of this as far as I can see will be the families of alcoholics who will lose more of the money to their parent's addiction that could have been used to help support them.

BoatMad

I dont believe the Government will take in any additional revenue other then VAT. minimum pricing just imposes costs on buyers while handing profits to retailers.

A lot of this is pressure coming from the publicans, who are being decimated by the off trade.

its all nonsense and of course will not be implemented by this Gov in advance of an election and is likely to die a death in a new Gov

oblivious

Ravelleman wrote: »

This is true. However, if they just put the new levy on mouldy cans of 6% cider they'd probably do half of the work they've set themselves.

small craft cider product all already have to a much higher duty rate and with out the benefit of the rebate that is afford to microbreweries.

rubadub

Zaph wrote: »

Of course they did, because once there's a chance to gouge people the government will always take it.

But the government is gouging on behalf of the offies, which makes no sense.

If an offie has stock of wine they sell at €5, then the next day when its €10 the government will only see a 93cent increase in revenue, the offie gets the remaining €4.07.

If there is a major drop off in sales they will lose revenue overall.

Ravelleman wrote: »

This is precisely what will happen. 'Premium' brands will re-establish the price gap and all will suffer.

Offies could still import it, the premium brands would have to increase prices in all areas where its feasible to import from.

QuinDixie

how does increasing price reduce alcoholism, it doesnt. they will just spend less on something else or if they cannot afford it, they will steal it.
People need to realise there is a big difference between a heavy drinker and an alcoholic, i wonder do all these stats and figures and surveys differentiate. I doubt it.

Cigarettes are all bad and so taxing smoking out of existence is good, the same cannot be said for wine. Wine in the right volume is good for mental and physical well being.

BoatMad

Typical Irish solution, swing from one extreme to the other .

BeerNut

BoatMad wrote: »

its all nonsense and of course will not be implemented by this Gov in advance of an election and is likely to die a death in a new Gov

The other lot were exactly the same. Stuff like this is pure political catnip: it has no effect on you or your mates, but it looks like you're taking Decisive Action on a Pressing Issue Of The Day. That it's continuing a sequence of policies which have failed to address the problem is neither here nor there. Something must be done, this is something, therefore we must do this.

Ravelleman

L1011 wrote: »

The duty on cider was hugely whacked up a few years ago to try target this - I suspect it had some impact going on people I'd know abandoning the 3L bottles, but possibly just moved the problem.

That is interesting.

oblivious wrote: »

small craft cider product all already have to a much higher duty rate and with out the benefit of the rebate that is afford to microbreweries.

Yep, my suggestion was deliberately flippant. I occasionally drink tramp cider anyway.

Flex

rubadub wrote: »

But the government is gouging on behalf of the offies, which makes no sense.

If an offie has stock of wine they sell at €5, then the next day when its €10 the government will only see a 93cent increase in revenue, the offie gets the remaining €4.07.

If there is a major drop off in sales they will lose revenue overall.


Offies could still import it, the premium brands would have to increase prices in all areas where its feasible to import from.

If such a tax were implemented though, how would it work? The tax only applies to increases in prices? For example, Tesco own label whisky would go from €16 to ~€24, whereas Bushmills/Jameson/etc. would be at €29+. Would the burden of the new tax fall on manufacturers of product already above the new minimum or just capture margin from increased prices? If its just on the products seeing price hikes, how would it be managed on an ongoing basis?

As mentioned, I would dislike it as we already have ridiculously high excise taxes on drink and it creates a new tax the government could aim solely at the off-trade meaning they could hike prices up even further without having to worry about upsetting publicans.

rubadub

Flex wrote: »

If such a tax were implemented though, how would it work? The tax only applies to increases in prices?

I am not sure what you are asking exactly, or if you understood what I was saying.

I meant a shop is currently selling wine at €5, if the min price is €10 tomorrow then they are getting €5 from the customer, and at 23% VAT it means the government gets a mere 93cent more on that sale if min pricing came in, when I would like to see them get that full €5 if possible. Excise is fixed so no extra revenue there.

Flex wrote: »

a new tax the government could aim solely at the off-trade

There was talk of a levy on off sales. I would prefer to see this applied across the board rather than this min price idea, which I think is bad for 2 reasons -the government not getting the bulk of the extra revenue, and being unfair on poorer people, the wealthier ones uneffected.

Rather than apply a min price of €1.10 per unit, figure out what the cheapest is, say a €1 can, and have a levy per unit based on that, which is applied to all drinks. Which currently seems to be about 86cent per can. So your premium €3 can/bottle would go up 86cent, and not a large percentage increase like a VAT change would be.

But I also would like to see publicans hit. Pubs like diceys and wetherspoons are already selling at or below off licence prices.

BoatMad

just to be clear here folks, minimum selling price orders are not tax based, they are instructions to sell at a specific minimum pricing, the retailer makes the additional margin and the Gov gets a small increase in the VAT take

They would hand massive additional margins to retailers, but I suspect the severe fall in margin from the average punter would damage them overall.

anyways , it will not see the light of day this side of an election

Flex

rubadub wrote: »

I am not sure what you are asking exactly, or if you understood what I was saying.

I meant a shop is currently selling wine at €5, if the min price is €10 tomorrow then they are getting €5 from the customer, and at 23% VAT it means the government gets a mere 93cent more on that sale if min pricing came in, when I would like to see them get that full €5 if possible. Excise is fixed so no extra revenue there.


There was talk of a levy on off sales. I would prefer to see this applied across the board rather than this min price idea, which I think is bad for 2 reasons -the government not getting the bulk of the extra revenue, and being unfair on poorer people, the wealthier ones uneffected.

Rather than apply a min price of €1.10 per unit, figure out what the cheapest is, say a €1 can, and have a levy per unit based on that, which is applied to all drinks. Which currently seems to be about 86cent per can. So your premium €3 can/bottle would go up 86cent, and not a large percentage increase like a VAT change would be.

But I also would like to see publicans hit. Pubs like diceys and wetherspoons are already selling at or below off licence prices.

What I mean is, for example, there are two wine products. Product A is €5, product B is €12. The new minimum price for them is €9. Product A adds €4 on, but product B's price remains unchanged. Will the levy only target the new extra €4 that product A is having added to its price, or will it also have an effect on product B's price?

In my view thats not fair on product B there. Also, its not a given fact the retailer will take the profits, in my experience dealing with retailers (although not in alcohol, but Im sure its the same as other categories) they typically take a margin based on a % of the price the supplier is selling the stock to them, so the supplier can take most of the additional margin, which in product A's case could end up meaning that they make more profit per case, but their profit levels remain stable rather than increasing overall (assuming that their sales fall because theyve lost their price discounting strategy). I wouldnt have an issue with that really (in this scenario I mean).

I agree with your last sentiment on wanting publicans be affected somehow, I dont enjoy going to pubs so really dislike that Im going to be charged more because theyve lobbied the government into hitting their competitors..

BeerNut

Flex wrote: »

What I mean is, for example, there are two wine products. Product A is €5, product B is €12. The new minimum price for them is €9. Product A adds €4 on, but product B's price remains unchanged. Will the levy only target the new extra €4 that product A is having added to its price, or will it also have an effect on product B's price?

They have no idea. All this is is the Oireachtas's suggestion. It's not government policy, it's not in the draft bill and nobody has considered the practicalities of it. Anytime you see a suggestion of funds being ringfenced for anything you know you're listening to a politican's fantasy rather than practical policy.

I went and looked at the Scottish social responsibility levy and it's not the same thing at all. That's an extra tax on licence-holders, including pubs, and my gombeen sense is tingling to tell me that such a tax is a wee bit unlikely to be introduced in Ireland.

L1011

rubadub wrote: »

But I also would like to see publicans hit. Pubs like diceys and wetherspoons are already selling at or below off licence prices.

Whereas if this comes in, publicans will no doubt ratchet their prices and blame it on it - despite it having no impact whatsoever.

Flex

BeerNut wrote: »

They have no idea. All this is is the Oireachtas's suggestion. It's not government policy, it's not in the draft bill and nobody has considered the practicalities of it. Anytime you see a suggestion of funds being ringfenced for anything you know you're listening to a politican's fantasy rather than practical policy.

I went and looked at the Scottish social responsibility levy and it's not the same thing at all. That's an extra tax on licence-holders, including pubs, and my gombeen sense is tingling to tell me that such a tax is a wee bit unlikely to be introduced in Ireland.

I actually like the sound of the Scottish levy. The off-trade is going to be hit by minimum pricing, put the levy on pubs, so the on-trade gets hit similarly.

Not a hope its going to pass though. In all of the speeches Ive heard and read about the badness of alcohol, politicians strangely always stress to point out they dont mean pubs. Even in the steering group report on alcohol which is the catalyst for the present strong anti-alcohol policy at play, they refer to pubs as being and integral an important part of our culture, woven seamlessly into the local communities and at the heart of every town up and down the country, yada yada yada... Could hear that Hovis music playing as I was reading it :rolleyes:

Somebody needs to look at why there is in Ireland a problem with alcohol. At home last week I can buy nice Veneto white for €2.99, and Italy is not all alcoholics.

Government wants to look like is addressing a problems and still can make some money.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.