Minimum alcohol pricing is nigh

VinLieger

MeatTwoVeg wrote: »

Oh the irony.

Please post up the evidence for your claims above.

And no, making up a narrative to suit your argument doesn't count.

Heineken prices in tesco https://www.tesco.ie/groceries/Product/Search/?notepad=Heineken

Smirnoff prices in tesco https://www.tesco.ie/groceries/product/search/default.aspx?searchBox=smirnoff

Price estimates of what things will cost under MUP http://www.thejournal.ie/alcohol-pricing-advertising-announced-2491642-Dec2015/

MeatTwoVeg

VinLieger wrote: »

Heineken prices in tesco https://www.tesco.ie/groceries/Product/Search/?notepad=Heineken

Smirnoff prices in tesco https://www.tesco.ie/groceries/product/search/default.aspx?searchBox=smirnoff

Price estimates of what things will cost under MUP http://www.thejournal.ie/alcohol-pricing-advertising-announced-2491642-Dec2015/

I think you've actually outdone your last non sequitur.

The Journal.

Arf

Might as well quote an AH poll.

machiavellianme

TallGlass wrote: »

So... If I am reading this right. It's now going to be cheaper to get drunk or pissed drinking spirits rather than beer. If this is about alcoholism, my word, that is throwing petrol on the fire. What utter plonkers. Anyone who has witnessed proper alcoholism knows spirits are quite literally the most addictive and devistating ones out of the alcohol range.

I really wish this government would just keep out of this area, they haven't got a ****ing breeze about any of it.

Yeah and it looks like tesco branded vodka or similar will command the same price in the off licence as Absolut or Smirnoff (unless of course those scurrilous rogues increase to more than themminimum price point).

midnight city

I disagree, the "drinking problems" are myths from the government.

I don't drink so id be happy enough if min pricing meant more tax take for the state coffers

VinLieger

MeatTwoVeg wrote: »

I think you've actually outdone your last non sequitur.

The Journal.

Arf

Okay so your problem is their calculations of what things will cost are wrong?

I dont rate their journalism either but maths are maths and hard to put a weighted opinion on.

If you don't think their estimates are correct please provide another source with differring ones and ill gladly adjust my opinion if im incorrect

VinLieger

MeatTwoVeg wrote: »

I think you've actually outdone your last non sequitur.

The Journal.

Arf

Might as well quote an AH poll.

2 More sources quoting virtually the same numbers if you prefer?

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/price-hikes-for-wine-spirits-beer-are-calling-time-on-binge-drinking-370685.html

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/news/bottle-of-wine-to-cost-minimum-of-863-under-new-alcohol-law-34273680.html

I look forward to your problems with both of these

MeatTwoVeg

VinLieger wrote: »

I dont rate their journalism either but maths are maths

Assumptions are assumptions.

dr.fuzzenstein

MeatTwoVeg wrote: »

I think you've actually outdone your last non sequitur.

The Journal.

Arf

Might as well quote an AH poll.

Well, according to a very recent one, yours is very much a minority view.

MeatTwoVeg

MeatTwoVeg wrote: »

Most moderate drinkers who enjoy the taste of beer or wine won't even notice this measure. They're not going to be buying the slabs of cheap muck anyway or horrible plonk.


It's the people drinking lots of cheap alcohol that'll be hit.

My favourite beer (aside from Guinness which I only drink in pubs) is often around 1 euro a can, its a big bonus that its cheaper than the premium brands but I don't drink it because its cheaper I drink it because I like it.

Why should I have to pay more for it, why? It will make absolutely no difference to consumption, the government will make minimal gains if any as most of the benefit will go to the off-licence and drinks company and it will force more people to shop up north thus reducing sales here and possibly leading to job losses etc.

If I want to drink 15 cans of a Saturday that's my business and I should not have to pay twice as much for the pleasure of doing so as I do now.

MeatTwoVeg

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

Well, according to a very recent one, yours is very much a minority view.

I'm very comfortable with that.

The Government appears to agree with my position though, which seems more useful to me.

VinLieger

MeatTwoVeg wrote: »

Assumptions are assumptions.

Deflections are deflections.

Especially when all 3 articles are taking their figures from a department of health analysis, which you'd know if you read any of them.......

MeatTwoVeg

Philip Clean Ruler wrote: »

My favourite beer (aside from Guinness which I only drink in pubs) is often around 1 euro a can, its a big bonus that its cheaper than the premium brands but I don't drink it because its cheaper I drink it because I like it.

Why should I have to pay more for it, why? I

Difficult as it may be to accept, the laws are not going to be arranged to revolve around your particular drinking habits.
They'll be put in place to benifit society as a whole.

STB.

VinLieger wrote: »

I look forward to your problems with both of these

His problem quite clearly is with people who drink alcohol, regardless of whether its socially or not. Either that or he is a publican.

He likes being led by the nose and has no problem with the nanny state politicians who would rather meddle with small issues rather than fix the big ones.

Time for prohibition I say.

Help!!!!

MeatTwoVeg wrote: »

Difficult as it may be to accept, the laws are not going to be arranged to revolve around your particular drinking habits.
They'll be put in place to benifit society as a whole.

Hows it benefitting society as a whole if the minority are causing the problems?

VinLieger

MeatTwoVeg wrote: »

Difficult as it may be to accept, the laws are not going to be arranged to revolve around your particular drinking habits.
They'll be put in place to benifit society as a whole.

Even though there's no evidence they will benefit society at all?

MeatTwoVeg

VinLieger wrote: »

Even though there's no evidence they will benefit society at all?

When Journal clickbait articles are produced as evidence, I would have thought the whole concept loses it's appeal, no?

pilly

STB. wrote: »

Well you need to educate yourself more.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_smoking

It was you who tried to make an analogy comparing both cigarettes and alcohol and minimum pricing. You picked the wrong analogy.

So now its the heavy drinkers that are kicking off now is it ? Oh and social drinkers do not drink cheap alcohol/beer.

Go back to bed. I am not even going to explain how embarrassing your preconceived notions are about social drinkers and what they do and dont drink and your classing of society and what they should be able to afford or not afford.

What the hell has essential goods or non essential goods have to do with constitutional rights? I can only assume I am debating this with someone who is not above the age to drink in the first instance ?

Any moves here with alcohol pricing will be quickly headed off by competition law.

So why are you so het up that you have to call names and throw insults? I've already said I don't have a view either way. Couldn't care less to tell the truth.

VinLieger

MeatTwoVeg wrote: »

When Journal clickbait articles are produced as evidence, I would have thought the whole concept loses it's appeal, no?

Awww keep up your deflection and evidenceless rhetoric im sure it will get you somwhere one day.

Did you notice the information and prices in any of the articles was provided by the department of health?

I await your next deflection with gusto

dr.fuzzenstein

VinLieger wrote: »

Deflections are deflections.

Especially when all 3 articles are taking their figures from a department of health analysis, which you'd know if you read any of them.......

Mr Knob and Garnish has a view and the facts dont bother him much.
A lot of people will love this measure, because it is exactly the kind of banging the table politics that the easily dazzled are taken in by, like dogs and colorful balls and cats and laserbeams. They simply don't have the mental capacity to think further than "yeah, its dem shops selling de chape booze what's dun it!"
As I said before, its lazy politics, because the thinking in Ireland is "if I roll out a big, comprehensive program it will be a lot of hard work and if it goes wrong I look bad, so let's just tax it, that way it's the people who are to blame because they're not doing as their told".
Irish Ferries, beer cruise.

STB.

pilly wrote: »

So why are you so het up that you have to call names and throw insults? I've already said I don't have a view either way. Couldn't care less to tell the truth.

Het up ?

You don't have a view ? So all of those crazy analogies and ignorant preconceived notions were just a dream then.

Get off the stage.

Leroy42

I think EU law will have something to say about this. It is essentially price fixing.

If they said that all goods would be hit with a tax then thats a different story. But I can't see how the EU will allow the government to force anybody to sell a product at a price irregardless of the cost.

The reason that cigs cost so much is that a massive amount of it is tax and duty. Now if that is the way they want to go then I can see a case for that (societal cost etc) but how can you stop competition?

It would have to impact all competitors equally (based on the same same product group) but this option clearly adversely effects the lower priced products with little or no effect on the premium brands

Is there another example of a good with a minimum price set by the government?

pilly

STB. wrote: »

Het up ?

You don't have a view ? So all of those crazy analogies and ignorant preconceived notions were just a dream then.

Get off the stage.

Yep, het up.

het up
hɛtˈʌp/
adjectiveinformal

adjective: het up

1. angry and agitated.
   
   
   
   

GLaDOS

Leroy42 wrote: »

I think EU law will have something to say about this. It is essentially price fixing.

If they said that all goods would be hit with a tax then thats a different story. But I can't see how the EU will allow the government to force anybody to sell a product at a price irregardless of the cost.

The reason that cigs cost so much is that a massive amount of it is tax and duty. Now if that is the way they want to go then I can see a case for that (societal cost etc) but how can you stop competition?

It would have to impact all competitors equally (based on the same same product group) but this option clearly adversely effects the lower priced products with little or no effect on the premium brands

Is there another example of a good with a minimum price set by the government?

I'm pretty sure the EU are letting Scotland go ahead with it

STB.

pilly wrote: »

Yep, het up.

het up
hɛtˈʌp/
adjectiveinformal

adjective: het up

1. angry and agitated.
   

ignorant
ˈɪɡn(ə)r(ə)nt/
adjective

1.lacking knowledge or awareness in general; uneducated or unsophisticated

You don't have a view, but you spent a good deal of this thread spouting your ignorance on the topic.

Geuze

MeatTwoVeg wrote: »

Most moderate drinkers who enjoy the taste of beer or wine won't even notice this measure. They're not going to be buying the slabs of cheap muck anyway or horrible plonk.


It's the people drinking lots of cheap alcohol that'll be hit.

I disagree.

Lots of moderate drinkers buy cases of beer, e.g. at Xmas, priced at maybe 24-30 for 24 cans 500ml.

These responsible consumers will now have to pay more.

Geuze

jiltloop wrote: »

Tax and VAT are charged at a % of the retail price so if they are increased then of course it will increase revenue for the government also.

Excise is fixed. It is not a % of the cost.

Yes, VAT at 23% will rise due to MUP.

nice_guy80

We should nationalise all off licences like in Sweden and more strictly control the sale of alcohol.

Or something

Geuze

zerks wrote: »

Only a blind fool can't see that minimum pricing is just a revenue raising exercise as politicians know we'll moan a bit and end up paying higher prices they set and it's win win for them as they can claim a victory against rampant alcoholism and get even more revenue in taxes and duty as a nice little bonus.

Excise duty revenue will likely fall, not rise, due to less purchases in RoI.

VAT revenue might rise, or fall, depending on how quantity responds to the price rise.

entropi

9or10 wrote: »

The last part is probably true, so how does that benefit vintners?

Because people who are dependent on alcohol, both functioning and non-functioning alcoholics, will still somehow find the cash to buy this already overpriced alcohol, thus a win for the brewer and seller. Profits win here, not health.

DEFTLEFTHAND

nice_guy80 wrote: »

We should nationalise all off licences like in Sweden and more strictly control the sale of alcohol.

Or something

The State have no business getting into the liquor trade.

Less state involvement is what we want, not more.