Minimum alcohol pricing is nigh

elperello

Vintners Federation of Ireland (your friendly local) red in tooth and claw.

https://www.thejournal.ie/vintners-call-for-minimum-pricing-off-licence-5228993-Oct2020/

Don't forget.

ohnonotgmail

elperello wrote: »

Vintners Federation of Ireland (your friendly local) red in tooth and claw.

https://www.thejournal.ie/vintners-call-for-minimum-pricing-off-licence-5228993-Oct2020/

Don't forget.

gee, i wonder what they might mean by this

Cribben claimed that allowing people to consume alcohol in a controlled environment makes more sense than to for it to go unsupervised by those buying in bulk.

Yellow_Fern

The Vinters are calling for regulation of alcohol sales so it is consumed only in supervised environments, while the drugs crowd are calling for the deregulation of hard drugs so they can be consumed in a regulated environment.

Parabellum9

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

The Vinters are calling for regulation of alcohol sales so it is consumed only in supervised environments, while the drugs crowd are calling for the deregulation of hard drugs so they can be consumed in a regulated environment.

The VFI can go **** themselves now, any sympathy I had for them is gone after today’s statement. Sour bitter pricks trying to level things by bull**** means, there is a reason they can’t open in full at the moment. People buying slabs etc is none of their ****ing business and they would do well to get back in their box quickly, people are getting on just fine without pubs and stoking the fires is not a good idea at this point.

Parabellum9

Parabellum9 wrote: »

The VFI can go **** themselves now, any sympathy I had for them is gone after today’s statement. Sour bitter pricks trying to level things by bull**** means, there is a reason they can’t open in full at the moment. People buying slabs etc is none of their ****ing business and they would do well to get back in their box quickly, people are getting on just fine without pubs and stoking the fires is not a good idea at this point.

I posted this elsewhere but, about six weeks ago i was in blackrock and fancied a pint, one place had a sign up in the window. Cocktail sausages and chips 9 euro, so it fell within the guidelines, i went in and stood at the bar and got ignored by the barman for about five minutes until i grabbed his attention and ordered and he said "we're closing'. I said, it's only 9pm. He goes "yeah but the kitchen closes at 9".

This was after weeks of closure. I thought to myself, would you not maybe get the chef to give you a crash course in how to work the microwave and the deep fat fryer? That way you could stay open for a couple more hours.

I really think some publicans don't have a clue and have zero imagination. Anything beyond pulling pints befuddles them so they get onto the VFI to complain.

My uncle ran a small rural pub years ago. The price of the pint went up by 5 cent but he didn't raise his prices. I asked him why not, he said, yeah then at the end of the night I'll be counting out all these 1,2 and 5 cent coins. No my time is more precious.

If they didn't have one already I'd say there are alot of man caves around the country getting retro fitted with beer taps.

Thelonious Monk

After seeing the Vintners latest statement I never want to darken their doors again. I can't believe these people even have the voice they do, like they're an authority on our lives, only in Ireland...

Leroy42

And that is exactly the response we should be doing. I would have some sympathy for their position if they had ever shown any inkling to care about patrolling their patrons in the past. Too often they allow excessive drinking for profits. Continuing to serve customers clearly had enough or suffering from drinking problems.

So they are far the safe places them think themselves to be *

So people should boycott them. This MUP is clearly in their interests, and is being pushed by them and we should always push back against one sector trying to control us and other competitors like this.

* of course there are examples of individual publications that are focused on safe, but the vintners as a grouping they are not

L1011

A pub owner sent my aunt a get well soon card when she was dying of liver failure ably assisted by said pub... if you never went in to a pub and saw an old sot in a corner who's clearly had many beyond the one too many; never saw fights outside pubs etc you might be convinced that its somehow a safe regulated environment. But it isn't

The LVA/VFI (treat them interchangeably, they even merged for a time) have been trying to hamper off-sales since the 50s; even though they themselves joined in with the Next Door and Cheers chains.

Suckit

"Suuport, not sympathy" - Increase the price and reduce the VAT :rolleyes:

https://twitter.com/VFIpubs/status/1314898738083762176

irishproduce

Parabellum9 wrote: »

The VFI can go **** themselves now, any sympathy I had for them is gone after today’s statement. Sour bitter pricks trying to level things by bull**** means, there is a reason they can’t open in full at the moment. People buying slabs etc is none of their ****ing business and they would do well to get back in their box quickly, people are getting on just fine without pubs and stoking the fires is not a good idea at this point.

Agreed.
Their statement comes across as if they were the rightful distributors of alcohol and that people buying drinks to take home somehow undermines their remit.

I've news for them. Buying and selling of alcohol is an area they participate in, they don't control or own the process.
They should be told back off.

Hotblack Desiato

It's obvious what VFI/LVA are trying to do, but the politicians who pander to them are worse.

Geuze

Some research evidence on the Scottish MUP:

https://voxeu.org/article/alcohol-price-floors-and-their-effect-heavy-drinking

Prices

Overall, up 5% on average, per unit of alcohol

"This average price increase masks a great deal of variation in the price changes experienced by different products. Figure 2a shows that prior to the reform close to 50% of transactions in Scotland in the year before the reform were below the floor. Figure 2b shows the distribution of prices before and after the introduction of the reform, and the average price change conditional on the product’s price in the year prior to the reform. Some very cheap products experienced price increases in excess of 100%, while products that were previously priced above the floor exhibit very little change in price."

Quantities down 11%, "with larger falls for more heavily drinking households."


So far, this seems to support MUP.

"This makes it relatively well targeted at the alcohol purchases of heavy drinkers, because they disproportionally buy relatively cheap alcohol products."

L1011

Consumption figures alone don't support anything.

Harm outcomes and transfers to drug use need to be accounted for too

As do any increase in bulk off sales in Carlisle / Berwick!

"This makes it relatively well targeted at the alcohol purchases of heavy drinkers, because they disproportionally buy relatively cheap alcohol products."

That is a huge leap of logic.

Is there any source for this theory or just presumption?

Geuze

However, they continue:

How does a price floor compare to an ethanol tax?

"We use the model to compare the welfare impact of the price floor with that of an ethanol tax that achieves the same aggregate reduction in alcohol as the price floor. When the externality associated with each unit of alcohol consumed is constant, the ethanol tax out-performs the price floor, increasing welfare by more than the price floor. However, when the alcohol consumption of heavy drinkers creates even moderately larger externalities than that of lighter drinkers, the price floor leads to larger welfare gains than the ethanol tax. This is because the price floor is much better targeted at heavy drinkers, and thus leads to a larger reduction in external costs, which more than offsets the fact it leads to losses in tax revenue."

See my emphasis, the MUP is better so far, as it better targets the heavy drinkers, even though it doesn't bring in tax for State.

BUT...........

"However, reforms to the tax system that tax stronger drinks more heavily can achieve similar welfare gains to the price floor. This is because they increase the price of stronger alcohol products by more, which are also consumed disproportionately by heavy drinkers. In Griffith et al. (2020b), we show that a simple two-rate tax system that taxes drinks in proportion to their ethanol content, with a higher rate on strong spirits, is almost as well targeted at heavy drinkers as a price floor, but leads to an increase in tax revenue. Until now, EU regulations have constrained the UK's ability to reform alcohol taxes in this way, but this type of reform may now be possible."


So a 2-rate or 2-tier excise can achieve the same welfare gains as MUP, and collect taxes for the State.

Geuze

https://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/15183

https://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/15176

https://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/15184


Minimum unit pricing works better if implemented alongside reformed alcohol taxes
Rachel Griffith, Martin O'Connell and Kate Smith
Press release


The UK government has put out a call for evidence, seeking views on how well the alcohol duty system currently works and how it could be reformed. In new IFS research – funded by the European Research Council and the Economic and Social Research Council and published today - we show that minimum unit prices for alcohol are reasonably well targeted at heavy drinkers, but come at the cost of hindering competition and reducing tax revenues. A minimum unit price, combined with a more coherent set of taxes on alcohol, would be just as well targeted at heavy drinkers and would limit the fall in revenue for the exchequer.

Geuze

Geuze wrote: »

However, they continue:

How does a price floor compare to an ethanol tax?

"We use the model to compare the welfare impact of the price floor with that of an ethanol tax that achieves the same aggregate reduction in alcohol as the price floor. When the externality associated with each unit of alcohol consumed is constant, the ethanol tax out-performs the price floor, increasing welfare by more than the price floor. However, when the alcohol consumption of heavy drinkers creates even moderately larger externalities than that of lighter drinkers, the price floor leads to larger welfare gains than the ethanol tax. This is because the price floor is much better targeted at heavy drinkers, and thus leads to a larger reduction in external costs, which more than offsets the fact it leads to losses in tax revenue."

See my emphasis, the MUP is better so far, as it better targets the heavy drinkers, even though it doesn't bring in tax for State.

BUT...........

"However, reforms to the tax system that tax stronger drinks more heavily can achieve similar welfare gains to the price floor. This is because they increase the price of stronger alcohol products by more, which are also consumed disproportionately by heavy drinkers. In Griffith et al. (2020b), we show that a simple two-rate tax system that taxes drinks in proportion to their ethanol content, with a higher rate on strong spirits, is almost as well targeted at heavy drinkers as a price floor, but leads to an increase in tax revenue. Until now, EU regulations have constrained the UK's ability to reform alcohol taxes in this way, but this type of reform may now be possible."


So a 2-rate ot 2-tier excise can achieve the same welfare gains as MUP, and collect taxes for the State.

I got a headache reading that.

Sounds anti-EU to me. Surprise, surprise.

Geuze

Deleted User wrote: »

I got a headache reading that.

Sounds anti-EU to me. Surprise, surprise.

It is an academic article, yes.

It is not anti-EU.

It points out that being outside the EU allows for more variation in excise rates.

They are not supporting Brexit.

listermint

Geuze wrote: »

It is an academic article, yes.

It is not anti-EU.

It points out that being outside the EU allows for more variation in excise rates.

They are not supporting Brexit.

Does it ? if so how ?

Geuze

Geuze wrote: »

It points out that being outside the EU allows for more variation in excise rates.

But countries in the EU set their own tax rates, which is why corporation tax in Ireland is less than Germany. Excise varies significantly across all member states from 0 in some countries to the highest in surprise surprise, Ireland and the UK.

Geuze

Hold on, don't the UK already have two excise rates on beer?

Isn't there a higher rate on strong beer already?

Hmmm.,,,,,

L1011

Yes - they've four rates. We've three.

They also have two craft discount rates, we've one

They have discussed extra excise for imports post Brexit though, but they do not need it to add duty to higher ABV products because they already do!

Hotblack Desiato

L1011 wrote: »

Harm outcomes and transfers to drug use need to be accounted for too

Scotland’s drug-related death toll hits record high

Scotland’s drug-related death toll has risen to another grim record, as long-delayed [2019] figures published on Tuesday revealed a death rate more than 3½ times that of the UK as a whole and higher than those reported for all EU countries.

Whether this is linked to MUP or not, drug policy and alcohol policy can't be looked at in isolation from each other.

This should give MUP advocates some pause, but it won't...

MadYaker

Thread started in 2016 and still no sign of this being introduced. Have COVID and brexit put it on the back burner.

Geuze

MadYaker wrote: »

Thread started in 2016 and still no sign of this being introduced. Have COVID and brexit put it on the back burner.

The legislation has been passed, AFAIK.

Yes, I suppose Brexit and COVID have affected it.

I bought 4x Guinness cases of 24 cans 470ml this week, for 66 euro, just in case.

elperello

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Scotland’s drug-related death toll hits record high



Whether this is linked to MUP or not, drug policy and alcohol policy can't be looked at in isolation from each other.

This should give MUP advocates some pause, but it won't...

If society wants to help people who want to get off their heads it's first necessary to address why they want to get off their heads.

That requires a lot of time and a lot of money.

Ironically MUP puts no extra money in the state coffers.

Timistry

Was in Dunnes earlier and they have signs up saying that alcohol cannot be purchased after Monday using their vouchers or as part of any other offers/promotions.

thesandeman

Timistry wrote: »

Was in Dunnes earlier and they have signs up saying that alcohol cannot be purchased after Monday using their vouchers or as part of any other offers/promotions.

Got an email from SuperValu saying the same thing.

Timistry

O Briens loyalty points wont work either

punisher5112

Having a nice drink after a hard week working is just going to get more and more expensive.

They got the pubs shut, near a year now, jobs gone and many will never open again....

To be honest this is going to absolutely destroy people and socially too big time.....