Minimum alcohol pricing is nigh

squawker

JohnnyFlash wrote: »

This legislation won’t impact me as I don’t drink cheap polish lager or red wine you could strip paint off a trawler with. Tramp juice.

so let us know the fine beverages you consume

CinemaGuy45

squawker wrote: »

so let us know the fine beverages you consume

Look leave the man alone he enjoys the finer things in life we would not understand.
It would be no harm for us plebs to have a few less Dutch Gold.:D

McMurphy

squawker wrote: »

so let us know the fine beverages you consume

It doesn't matter what it is he or she drinks, the fact is that they are deluded if they believe it won't have a knock on effect to the more expensive stuff.

Using their own analogy ref the Heineken cans, if they're on sale at 11€ and some of the cheaper stuff is to come to say 1.50 or 2E a can ~ it's prob fair to call them delusional or just plain daft to believe that Heineken are going to allow their product to sit in the same price bracket as the cheaper stuff, there's a range of different names that would query intelligence too, but I'll stick with delusional for now.

Let's look at it this way. If a Dacia Duster suddenly became subjected to some hypothetical import levy that put it within the price range as say something like a Ford Kuga or Kia Sportage, would Kia or Ford raise their prices to distinguish their own models as being "premium"?

Then the lads that jump in the thrads saying people that have a problem with the govt ensuring Diageo et al get their bottom line increased by legislation under spurious health reasons are Misers/Alcos/Students.

It would be unfair for any one else to assume people in favour of it was only doing so because they may be a Govt lickspittle/WUM/Ex drinker/recovering alcoholic or just a plain old captain no craic do - gooder.

JohnnyFlash

Passed through the final stages in the Seanad this evening and will now be signed into law by the president. A seismic moment for public health in Ireland. Cross party support as well.

The pioneering work of Alcohol Action Ireland helped in a huge way, especially against the alcohol lobby. They are made up of the following groups and individuals who are in favour of this legislation.


Royal College of Physicians of Ireland

Health Service Executive

Irish Heart Foundation

National Youth Council of Ireland

Irish Cancer Society

Irish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children

Children’s Rights Alliance

The National Rehabilitation Hospital

Irish Road Victims’ Association

No Name Club

Marie Keating Foundation

Purple House Cancer Support

Irish College of General Practitioners

Aware

Samaritans

Institute of Public Health

Rape Crisis Network Ireland

The Rise Foundation

Alcohol Forum

Cork Local Drug and Alcohol Task Force

Family Support Network

The Irish College of Ophthalmologists

Union of Students of Ireland

National Suicide Research Foundation

National Women’s Council of Ireland

Alzheimer Society of Ireland

Mental Health Reform

Irish Medical Organisation

Social Justice Ireland

Men’s Health Forum

Irish Student Health Association

Irish Dental Association

AMEN Support Services

Dual Diagnosis Ireland

A Lust For Life

REACT (Responding to Excessive Alcohol Consumption in Third-level)

Pavee Point

Barnardos

Environmental Health Association of Ireland

South Western Regional Drug and Alcohol Task Force

Galway Healthy Cities

Community Awareness of Drugs

Ballymun Local Drugs & Alcohol Task Force

Finglas/Cabra Drug and Alcohol Task Force

Tallaght Drug and Alcohol Task Force

Drugs.ie

Dental Health Foundation

One Step Clinic

Lifewise

Dr Siobhan Jennings

Dr Suzanne Cotter

Dr Hugh Gallagher

Professor Joe Barry

Dr Bobby Smyth

Jillian Van Turnhout

Professor John Crown

Kathleen Moore Walsh, Law Lecturer, Waterford Institute of Technology

odyssey06

JohnnyFlash wrote: »

The pioneering work of Alcohol Action Ireland helped in a huge way, especially against the alcohol lobby. They are made up of the following groups and individuals who are in favour of this legislation.

Who is this "alcohol lobby"? There's no such thing. You forgot to list the Licensed Vintners Association and Independent Off Licence Association who are in favour of this...

realitykeeper

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

If you think alcohol is so bad, why are you supporting a measure that gives those producing it more profit. Surely you'd prefer something that reduces their profits?

It will not increase their profits if they sell significantly less. Obviously if people ignore the MUP and continue buying the same amount of drink, then the MUP is nowhere near high enough.

realitykeeper

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Once again......

It's not a tax, they didn't even raise excise on it yesterday, even though health overspend was 3/4 of a billion euro

I was responding to a question that pertained to tax. Do try to pay attention Johnny.

Checkmate19

Basically fine gael coming good on one of their election manifesto to protect pubs. Pubs lobbied hard on this. We have one of the highest price of alcohol in europe. This legislation has nothing to do with health. Don't see advertisment bans. Don't see drink being not associated with sporting events in the legislation. No because they want people back in pubs. Are they going to put health warnings on pint glasses in pubs. No. This piece of legislation is a farce.

realitykeeper

VinLieger wrote: »

This makes zero sense in relation to the post you were replying to unless you still are under the mistaken belief that this is somehow a tax increase which it is very much not.

You are mistaken. It makes eminent sense in relation to the post to which I was replying. The poster to which I was replying asserted that taxing alcohol to fund healthcare for alcohol related illnesses was a good idea and I replied by saying prevention (not drinking) was better than cure. A high MUP will limit the amount of alcohol consumed. Taxing alcohol to fund healthcare has merit but again I say prevention is better than cure. After all, you would not deliberately cut your finger and then stick a plaster on it and think that was a good outcome. It is better not to cut your finger in the first place.

jbt123

Quick question to anyone who might shed some light on this...

I've just bought 4 cans of Kerpachie Polish lager 5% Vol for €5.50
and
4 cans of Linden Village cider 6% Vol for €6 in my local Centra.

If current prices were applied to the bill as it stands, how much would I have to pay for this?

Thank you in advance to replies to this....

odyssey06

jbt123 wrote: »

Quick question to anyone who might shed some light on this...

I've just bought 4 cans of Kerpachie Polish lager 5% Vol for €5.50
and
4 cans of Linden Village cider 6% Vol for €6 in my local Centra.

If current prices were applied to the bill as it stands, how much would I have to pay for this?

Thank you in advance to replies to this....

At least €2 a can, probably higher maybe 2.50 for the 6%.

RobbingBandit

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

The more it costs the more tax that will be collected on it so yes it is a tax, a stealth tax really, might not seem much but it's still gonna add to the coffers.

RobbingBandit

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

Gonna be a roaring trade for cross boarder beer barons Rex Banner is gonna have his hands full

joe40

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

squawker wrote: »

so let us know the fine beverages you consume

It doesn't matter what it is he or she drinks, the fact is that they are deluded if they believe it won't have a knock on effect to the more expensive stuff.

Using their own analogy ref the Heineken cans, if they're on sale at 11€ and some of the cheaper stuff is to come to say 1.50 or 2E a can ~ it's prob fair to call them delusional or just plain daft to believe that Heineken are going to allow their product to sit in the same price bracket as the cheaper stuff, there's a range of different names that would query intelligence too, but I'll stick with delusional for now.

Let's look at it this way. If a Dacia Duster suddenly became subjected to some hypothetical import levy that put it within the price range as say something like a Ford Kuga or Kia Sportage, would Kia or Ford raise their prices to distinguish their own models as being "premium"?

Then the lads that jump in the thrads saying people that have a problem with the govt ensuring Diageo et al get their bottom line increased by legislation under spurious health reasons are Misers/Alcos/Students.

It would be unfair for any one else to assume people in favour of it was only doing so because they may be a Govt lickspittle/WUM/Ex drinker/recovering alcoholic or just a plain old captain no craic do - gooder.

I don't agree with your reasoning there. A can of Heineken or a craft beer is currently on sale for a price that will maximise profit for the retailer. Thats what they do. If they could sell their product at a higher price they would do so now. The cost of other beers would make no difference.
In your dacia analogy, if the price became the same as a kuga, there would just be less dacias sold, no effect on kugas.
You have no evidence to back up your assertion but then call people stupid or delusional if they don't agree. That is a bit arrogant and condescending for me.

joe40

By the way I do think some of the people (not all) supporting mup on this thread are just trying to wind people.

I do support the measure even though it will affect me in terms of cost. I feel it will have some impact on problem drinking, admittedly it won't totally solve anything, no single measure will

Capt'n Midnight

RobbingBandit wrote: »

The more it costs the more tax that will be collected on it so yes it is a tax, a stealth tax really, might not seem much but it's still gonna add to the coffers.

FFS

There will be no increase in excise duty. Not a red cent.

The only increase will be in VAT. And if people reduce spending on other things then that will be offset by less VAT from those things.

The only ways this leads to an increase in VAT is if people dip into their savings or spend less on lower VAT rated items like food or tourism.

If alcohol consumption goes down then there will be a reduction in excise so the tax take drops.


Besides the bulk of the increase in price is PURE PROFIT for the supermarkets.

Doctor Jimbob

realitykeeper wrote: »

You are mistaken. It makes eminent sense in relation to the post to which I was replying. The poster to which I was replying asserted that taxing alcohol to fund healthcare for alcohol related illnesses was a good idea and I replied by saying prevention (not drinking) was better than cure. A high MUP will limit the amount of alcohol consumed. Taxing alcohol to fund healthcare has merit but again I say prevention is better than cure. After all, you would not deliberately cut your finger and then stick a plaster on it and think that was a good outcome. It is better not to cut your finger in the first place.

FFS. You have to be at the wind up. The point was that if you're going to increase prices at all, do so via a tax. That way the extra money raised can go towards the healthcare this legislation is allegedly all about instead of giving money to people producing the substance you're trying to demonise. You're still getting the "prevention" from increased price.

odyssey06

RobbingBandit wrote: »

Gonna be a roaring trade for cross boarder beer barons Rex Banner is gonna have his hands full

Uncertain. Minister is only activating it if North does too. Planned rate up north is less than here but still prices will go up there too. At least that was last I heard.

elperello

odyssey06 wrote: »

Uncertain. Minister is only activating it if North does too. Planned rate up north is less than here but still prices will go up there too. At least that was last I heard.

No Assembly in NI will delay things.

But once they get going it is only a matter of time.

SF support MUP and there is a strong streak of puritanism in the DUP so it will give them something to agree on.

McMurphy

joe40 wrote: »

I don't agree with your reasoning there.

And your quite entitled to do so.

A can of Heineken or a craft beer is currently on sale for a price that will maximise profit for the retailer. Thats what they do.

Now they will have to exert less effort into doing it thanks to the actions of a govt kowtowing to a lobbyist group with a vested interest.

If they could sell their product at a higher price they would do so now. The cost of other beers would make no difference.
In your dacia analogy, if the price became the same as a kuga, there would just be less dacias sold, no effect on kugas.

With respect, and without coming across as condescending or arrogant, I think you may have missed the sentiments expressed in my analogy, and my earlier marketing posts, so let me explain.

With MUP, you have a legally binding flat rate among alcohol, Heineken (or any other beer, I'm picking them as an example) might already be selling at that current minimum price, and so overnight become the "cheapest beer you can buy" - bargain bin stuff. So they, wanting to maintain their "premium appearance" ramp up their base price to make them appear superior to the stuff that is the cheapest beer in that category by law. So they increase by a few euro to go above being considered a cheap product.

Dutchgold etc duly take their place in the market as the "cheap stuff" again.

It's all about looks and conceptions. Anyone that isn't grasping this at this point, really and truly doesn't get marketing and pricing structures.

You have no evidence to back up your assertion but then call people stupid or delusional if they don't agree. That is a bit arrogant and condescending for me.

I think you might have to reread what I posted, I went to great lengths to point out that just because one side labelled another with various names, for speaking out about a blatant sop to a group of lobbyists, it would be equally wrong for the other side to do so.

elperello

I bought Perlenbacher during the Summer at €7.29 for 6 x 50ml ie. €1.21 each.

I also bought a case of Heineken at €24 for 24 x 50ml ie. €1 each.

Despite Heineken protecting their brand I could still buy it for less than the Lidl discount brand because Tesco wanted to sell it to me at that price.

Post MUP retailers will still be competing for customers no matter what notions the brewers may have about their brand image.

TallGlass

So this is short now of been signed into law. When can we all expect the prices to sky rocket? I'd say the supermarkets and publicans would love it before Christmas so can we expect it that soon.

I notice on RTE, they say there will be health warnings on products, should we expect to see warnings etched into pint glasses etc..? Or is that stuff safer in pubs?

I personally want the government of to put there money where there mouths are and lead by example and close the Dail bar.

McMurphy

elperello wrote: »

I bought Perlenbacher during the Summer at €7.29 for 6 x 50ml ie. €1.21 each.

I also bought a case of Heineken at €24 for 24 x 50ml ie. €1 each.

Despite Heineken protecting their brand I could still buy it for less than the Lidl discount brand because Tesco wanted to sell it to me at that price.

Post MUP retailers will still be competing for customers no matter what notions the brewers may have about their brand image.

You're missing the point, Tesco sold to you cheaper than lidl (who also regularly do their own specials XXL packs etc) because they could. Hell, they could have gave you them for free if they wanted.

Not so when they are restrained by govt introduced pricing, aka free marketinterference.

elperello

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

You're missing the point, Tesco sold to you cheaper than lidl (who also regularly do their own specials XXL packs etc) because they could. Hell, they could have gave you them for free if they wanted.

Not so when they are restrained by govt introduced pricing, aka free marketinterference.

I think we are at cross purposes.

I'm responding to the idea that brewers are able to place their products where they like in the market. My example shows that they can't do it now and I expect they won't be after MUP comes in.

McMurphy

elperello wrote: »

I think we are at cross purposes.

I'm responding to the idea that brewers are able to place their products where they like in the market. My example shows that they can't do it now and I expect they won't be after MUP comes in.

No what your example showed was that Tesco sold you a product at a price set by them, this may or may not have been at a loss (I have never seen any evidence either way on these theories that alcohol is a loss leader in supermarkets)

If/when MUP actually comes to fruition, Tesco won't be able to sell you your Heineken at a cheaper price than the govt have dictated per unit.

That will be on par with all the other beers out there, dutch gold included.

So again, anyone who thinks any of the big names in beer (Bud/Coors/Heineken/Carlsberg etc etc) will want their product to be viewed as being a bargain product doesn't understand marketing.

The "cheap stuff" will still be the cheap stuff post MUP, and the "premium stuff" will still be the premium stuff, often differing with little other than price.

TallGlass

Also. The point about market interference is very true. Why is it that a few cans of beers for people has to be regulated massively, seemingly in the name of health.

Yet, by the same token we are told that they cannot interfere in the insurance industry. Yet insurance prices are to me out of control(Apart from when they need to lob on a levy or two).

Do these guys know, that the amount of stress they cause people is also bad for your health. I'll point out again, that the beer bellys on about half the ****ers in the Dail, it shouldnt be a subbed Dail bar that they need its a free gym membership. The neck of them telling us we drink to much and the Mafia cartel bellys on them.

I can't wait till a FG TD knocks on me door, I'll be having a ****ing word with them that's for sure.

RobbingBandit

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

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

FFS

There will be no increase in excise duty. Not a red cent.

The only increase will be in VAT. And if people reduce spending on other things then that will be offset by less VAT from those things.

The only ways this leads to an increase in VAT is if people dip into their savings or spend less on lower VAT rated items like food or tourism.

If alcohol consumption goes down then there will be a reduction in excise so the tax take drops.


Besides the bulk of the increase in price is PURE PROFIT for the supermarkets.

VAT you say VAT is it VALUE ADDED TAX, say it with me VALUE ADDED TAX,

TAX TAX TAX TAX TAX TAX

A tax by any other name is still a tax

The Rape of Lucretia

TallGlass wrote: »

Also. The point about market interference is very true. Why is it that a few cans of beers for people has to be regulated massively, seemingly in the name of health.

Not seemingly. Undoubtedly. Proven scientifically beyond dispute.

elperello

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

No what your example showed was that Tesco sold you a product at a price set by them, this may or may not have been at a loss (I have never seen any evidence either way on these theories that alcohol is a loss leader in supermarkets)

If/when MUP actually comes to fruition, Tesco won't be able to sell you your Heineken at a cheaper price than the govt have dictated per unit.

That will be on par with all the other beers out there, dutch gold included.

So again, anyone who thinks any of the big names in beer (Bud/Coors/Heineken/Carlsberg etc etc) will want their product to be viewed as being a bargain product doesn't understand marketing.

The "cheap stuff" will still be the cheap stuff post MUP, and the "premium stuff" will still be the premium stuff, often differing with little other than price.

I believe that competition in the retail trade will trump any attempt by the brewers to artificially increase their prices above the MUP.

Don't get me wrong I still think MUP is a crock.

TallGlass

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

Not seemingly. Undoubtedly. Proven scientifically beyond dispute.

If it's undoubtly proven in the name of health. Why is the Dail bar still open? Why is it subbed?

Chap, this isn't about health. I wouldn't be as annoyed if it was, I'm just sick to death of the lies after lies out of this **** show that is the FG/FF alliance. And the rubbish coming out is an insult to anyone living with someone with a drinking problem. Not one cent is ringfenced out of this for services to help them or to educate people.