Minimum alcohol pricing is nigh

KrustyUCC

The Indo have a premium article today outlining changes in beers

One example is 75c going to €1.60 more than doubling thanks to MUP

bnt

It's not too hard to do your own calculations, rather than rely on the media: ml x ABV/100 x 0.79 x 0.1

So for a 500ml can of Stella Artois (4.6%), it comes to: 500 x 4.6/100 x 0.79 x 0.1 = €1.82

Or a bottle of standard 37.5% gin: 700 x 37.5/100 x 0.79 x 0.1 = €20.74. IIRC a bottle of gin from Lidl or Aldi is about €14 today, so that's quite the increase.

I like "cask strength" whisk(e)y, but MUP won't have any effect there: with a high ABV of 56%, you get about €31, well below what those actually sell for.

KrustyUCC

True but some people might want to read the article

37.5% Spirits will be €20.71 under MUP which is some increase alright

Suckit

bnt wrote: »

It's not too hard to do your own calculations, rather than rely on the media: ml x ABV/100 x 0.79 x 0.1

So for a 500ml can of Stella Artois (4.6%), it comes to: 500 x 4.6/100 x 0.79 x 0.1 = €1.82

Or a bottle of standard 37.5% gin: 700 x 37.5/100 x 0.79 x 0.1 = €20.74. IIRC a bottle of gin from Lidl or Aldi is about €14 today, so that's quite the increase.

I like "cask strength" whisk(e)y, but MUP won't have any effect there: with a high ABV of 56%, you get about €31, well below what those actually sell for.

It very likely will.
When the lower priced items start matching to or close to the more expensive or premium brands, they will up the price so that they will not be considered a cheap brand with the others.
There are other reasons too (bottlenecks, greed etc.).
This will just become another price increase, without it having been a tax.
The tax will likely come in the budget.

The reason for the MUP being introduced (apart from the main reason - to benefit the pubs) is to help the 0.03% of alcohol drinkers in the Country.
So I guess that should set some sort of bar for anything else that finds 0.03% or higher are affected... :rolleyes:

senordingdong

bnt wrote: »

It's not too hard to do your own calculations, rather than rely on the media: ml x ABV/100 x 0.79 x 0.1

So for a 500ml can of Stella Artois (4.6%), it comes to: 500 x 4.6/100 x 0.79 x 0.1 = €1.82

Or a bottle of standard 37.5% gin: 700 x 37.5/100 x 0.79 x 0.1 = €20.74. IIRC a bottle of gin from Lidl or Aldi is about €14 today, so that's quite the increase.

I like "cask strength" whisk(e)y, but MUP won't have any effect there: with a high ABV of 56%, you get about €31, well below what those actually sell for.

But if it's a per unit price increase won't the price go up regardless.

Suckit

senordingdong wrote: »

But if it's a per unit price increase won't the price go up regardless.

Only if it is below a certain threshold ("Pocket money prices" :mad:)



https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-40281527.html

The minimum price of a pint of lager will be around €1.98 while the cheapest you will get a can will be €1.70.

A bottle of wine will be sold for no less than €7.40.

Whiskey and gin are among the priciest with a 700ml bottle costing at least €22.09.

FileNotFound

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

FileNotFound wrote: »

It seems the issues people have with this have gone right over your head.

It's not just a price thing, it's the lack of true justification for the decision, the fact it's been heavily driven by vintners under the guise of health.

[...]

Plus its valid to argue that the current daft prices prove price increasing doesn't really work.

Riddle me this:

Why do you suppose the vintners are pushing for it. Could it be that the price will change behaviour? The Vintners' Federation represents pubs, not off licences. If the price hike won't have the positive effect of reducing alcohol consumption at home, then why should they advocate it?

Obviously it will reduce off-licence trade. That's the answer, but people are bending over backwards to convince themselves that prices have no effect on consumption.

elperello

A Lamb Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Riddle me this:

Why do you suppose the vintners are pushing for it. Could it be that the price will change behaviour? The Vintners' Federation represents pubs, not off licences. If the price hike won't have the positive effect of reducing alcohol consumption at home, then why should they advocate it?

Obviously it will reduce off-licence trade. That's the answer, but people are bending over backwards to convince themselves that prices have no effect on consumption.

It's an interesting question.

I have posted before that maybe the publicans may not be as clever as they think on this issue.

If we take it that their obvious target market is people who like a drink and that most people have only so much to spend on drink.

Why should their home drinking being more expensive make them more likely to consume more drink at pub prices where they will still get a lot less for their buck?

I think it's possible that people who are used to a certain level of consumption for their limited budget will be more concerned to get the amount they want and skip the pub altogether or reduce visits.

Another aspect of the whole anti drink push of which MUP is only one component is where will the campaign go next? When they have taken care of the home drinking will AAI & Co move on to the pubs?

The publicans may well find that their current allies may turn on them with the same gusto they have shown in attacking home drinkers.

FileNotFound

A Lamb Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Riddle me this:

Why do you suppose the vintners are pushing for it. Could it be that the price will change behaviour? The Vintners' Federation represents pubs, not off licences. If the price hike won't have the positive effect of reducing alcohol consumption at home, then why should they advocate it?

Obviously it will reduce off-licence trade. That's the answer, but people are bending over backwards to convince themselves that prices have no effect on consumption.

The vintners have lobbied for higher prices, lower hrs etc for off licences for years.

They seem convinced it will help improve the number of people that will pay 6 quid a pint.
The disparity in a bottle of beer in the pub v offy is always a big thing. This helps reduce the gap.

FG manifesto actually stated this was to increase and protect the pub trade I believe.

Will this change behaviour - maybe for some of the poorest in our society. Scotland had a big jump in drug use I suppose.

kerryjack

I don't think we care about how much it costs we just cut back on other things, reading this read I think this won't affect the majority of the people a lot of were paying 2 euro a can anyway for quality brands like Guinness, bulmers and Heineken and 10 quid for a bottle of wine, not a snob but that cheap drink is pure piss to drink.

Yellow_Fern

kerryjack wrote: »

I don't think we care about how much it costs we just cut back on other things, reading this read I think this won't affect the majority of the people a lot of were paying 2 euro a can anyway for quality brands like Guinness, bulmers and Heineken and 10 quid for a bottle of wine, not a snob but that cheap drink is pure piss to drink.

Its impact is on spirits too. In Germany you can buy real Baileys or Kilbeggan whiskey for 14 Euro or own brand imitation Bailey (identical taste) for 4 euro. These goods are already massively overpriced.

odyssey06

kerryjack wrote: »

I don't think we care about how much it costs we just cut back on other things, reading this read I think this won't affect the majority of the people a lot of were paying 2 euro a can anyway for quality brands like Guinness, bulmers and Heineken and 10 quid for a bottle of wine, not a snob but that cheap drink is pure piss to drink.

Lot of people were buying branded cans in crates for far less than that. Or beers of equal quality such as lidl perlenbacher.

Lot of people buying wine in lidl aldi well under a tenner that is as good as a branded 10 euro bottle.
Or buying a discounted bottle in Tesco or Supervalu for 7 euros or 6 for 40 case.

Lot of people buying bottles of jameson when on offer at 20 euros.

Not a snob? Well you see a bit clueless then about the discounts prices and values of whats available currently for purchase are lower than MUP prices.

There are some dodgy bottles of wine under 5 euros but thats because so much of the price of wine is already tax. You used to be able to get drinkable wine for 4 euros until that blatant tax hike which targeted wine cos we dont produce it.

elperello

kerryjack wrote: »

I don't think we care about how much it costs we just cut back on other things, reading this read I think this won't affect the majority of the people a lot of were paying 2 euro a can anyway for quality brands like Guinness, bulmers and Heineken and 10 quid for a bottle of wine, not a snob but that cheap drink is pure piss to drink.

A lot of us have been buying Guinness and Heineken on special offer for €1 a can.

I even bought a 24 can case of Budweiser for €15 in Lidl before Christmas.

So we will have to pay a fair bit more with MUP.

Those of us lucky enough to be able to afford it will most likely continue as we are having a drink when we feel like it.

While I would never advise anyone to drink something they don't like I can say that I have bought some very drinkable bottles of wine on offer for €5-6.

FileNotFound

elperello wrote: »

A lot of us have been buying Guinness and Heineken on special offer for €1 a can.

I even bought a 24 can case of Budweiser for €15 in Lidl before Christmas.

So we will have to pay a fair bit more with MUP.

Those of us lucky enough to be able to afford it will most likely continue as we are having a drink when we feel like it.

While I would never advise anyone to drink something they don't like I can say that I have bought some very drinkable bottles of wine on offer for €5-6.

It's the removal of the odd deal i dislike.

Newry will keep me happy from Jan 1st. Hope loads of people do the same. Few trips a year.

Will probably increase my drinking as it will always be there. The irony.

elperello

FileNotFound wrote: »

It's the removal of the odd deal i dislike.

Newry will keep me happy from Jan 1st. Hope loads of people do the same. Few trips a year.

Will probably increase my drinking as it will always be there. The irony.

Yes, I too will miss the deals.

Perhaps the multiples will get creative in their efforts to get us in the door.

If not cross border "hunting trips" will be on the cards.

senordingdong

Suckit wrote: »

Only if it is below a certain threshold ("Pocket money prices" :mad:)



https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-40281527.html

OK, I thought the since the pricing was per unit, every drink would go up. Or else all brewers would drop their abv. I remember in Stockholm the only beer you could get was about eight euro a can and only 4%.

kerryjack

Will this be the end of the 24 can slabs than like who wants to be lugging around those, when it's all going to be same price.

ShamNNspace

senordingdong wrote: »

OK, I thought the since the pricing was per unit, every drink would go up. Or else all brewers would drop their abv. I remember in Stockholm the only beer you could get was about eight euro a can and only 4%.

And thats where we're heading if AAI and their likes get their way because "our relationship with alcohol needs to change" and "alcohol is far too cheap over the shop counter" according to them, mup is only the start

kerryjack

Every one should be breathaized that ends up in A&E and if you have drink or drugs in your system they should be a substantial fine say 1000 euro, you might think twice about making an ass of yourself which we have all done at some stage of our life, and a good life lesson would have been learned.

senordingdong

ShamNNspace wrote: »

And thats where we're heading if AAI and their likes get their way because "our relationship with alcohol needs to change" and "alcohol is far too cheap over the shop counter" according to them, mup is only the start

That lot would drive you to drink.

KrustyUCC

kerryjack wrote: »

Every one should be breathaized that ends up in A&E and if you have drink or drugs in your system they should be a substantial fine say 1000 euro, you might think twice about making an ass of yourself which we have all done at some stage of our life, and a good life lesson would have been learned.

Great suggestion

Kerryjack goes out for a drink or two, somebody punches you and you have to go to A&E

substantial fine say 1000 euro, you might think twice about making an ass of yourself

Atlantic Dawn

kerryjack wrote: »

Will this be the end of the 24 can slabs than like who wants to be lugging around those, when it's all going to be same price.

Hopefully not, far greener to stock up with 3 crates in one go than to go back on multiple trips buying 6 packs.

VinLieger

A Lamb Named Miltiades! wrote: »

That's the answer, but people are bending over backwards to convince themselves that prices have no effect on consumption.

Price has no effect on consumption, we know this because our overall consumption has dropped by 33% in the past 15 years yet as we are constantly being told alcohol has only gotten cheaper? Explain why people then are not drinking more instead of less if price has an effect on consumption?

senordingdong

kerryjack wrote: »

Every one should be breathaized that ends up in A&E and if you have drink or drugs in your system they should be a substantial fine say 1000 euro, you might think twice about making an ass of yourself which we have all done at some stage of our life, and a good life lesson would have been learned.

Would rather see a fine for asinine posts.

FileNotFound

kerryjack wrote: »

Every one should be breathaized that ends up in A&E and if you have drink or drugs in your system they should be a substantial fine say 1000 euro, you might think twice about making an ass of yourself which we have all done at some stage of our life, and a good life lesson would have been learned.

Sounds like you hate the drink?

Sadly its people with ideas like this ruining things for the majority.

AAI are a bunch of hard luck stories looking to blame something for the hard luck.

My big question is how can a lobby group, claim to be a charity and steal taxpayer money?

kerryjack

FileNotFound wrote: »

Sounds like you hate the drink?

Sadly its people with ideas like this ruining things for the majority.

AAI are a bunch of hard luck stories looking to blame something for the hard luck.

My big question is how can a lobby group, claim to be a charity and steal taxpayer money?

Not in AA
Not in favour of MUP
It's the doctors and paramedics that's lobbying for this as the see the cahos on a nightly basis, people should be left to Drink themselves to death if they wish but please do it quietly and stay out of hospital and leave hospitals for sick people, That's all I am saying.

VinLieger

kerryjack wrote: »

Not in AA
Not in favour of MUP
It's the doctors and paramedics that's lobbying for this as the see the cahos on a nightly basis, people should be left to Drink themselves to death if they wish but please do it quietly and stay out of hospital and leave hospitals for sick people, That's all I am saying.

The people that are lobbying for this from the health sector are consultants and professors that don't enter a hospital past 5 pm on a weekday.

This was all commenced by FGs pretty brazen 2011 manifesto clearly stating MUP was to try to push those who drink at home back into the pubs.

Its right there in section 5.3 if you want to look https://www.drugsandalcohol.ie/14719/1/Fine_Gael_Manifesto.pdf

Supporting Irish Pubs: Fine Gael recognises the importance of the Irish pub for tourism, rural jobs and as a social outlet in communities across the country. We will support the local pub by banning the practice of below cost selling on alcohol, particularly by large supermarkets and the impact this has had on alcohol consumption and the viability of pubs.

Not a mention of health anywhere.

ohnonotgmail

A Lamb Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Riddle me this:

Why do you suppose the vintners are pushing for it. Could it be that the price will change behaviour? The Vintners' Federation represents pubs, not off licences. If the price hike won't have the positive effect of reducing alcohol consumption at home, then why should they advocate it?

Obviously it will reduce off-licence trade. That's the answer, but people are bending over backwards to convince themselves that prices have no effect on consumption.

to increase the price for drinking at home sufficiently for some people to say "feck it, may as well spend a few quid more and go to the pub".

MrMusician18

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

to increase the price for drinking at home sufficiently for some people to say "feck it, may as well spend a few quid more and go to the pub".

Exactly. The idea here is to make home drinking less attractive vs drinking in the pub. This is a market measure dressed up as a public health one. If it was a true public health one, the MUP would be set through taxation

I hope the policy backfires spectacularly and leads to the M1 turning into the North-South River of alcohol. I hope the politicians in the North see the benefit for them of this and refuse to follow the lead.

VinLieger

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

VinLieger wrote: »

Price has no effect on consumption, we know this because our overall consumption has dropped by 33% in the past 15 years yet as we are constantly being told alcohol has only gotten cheaper?

Firstly, that is a complete non-sequitur.

Secondly, you are failing to consider a counterfactual scenario where consumption levels (which may have fallen anyway, because an increased societal emphasis on healthy living) may have fallen to a greater extent if the price of alcohol had increased, using MUP.

Thirdly, economists have in fact studied this. In the UK, it has been discovered that while beer and wine are price inelastic (essentially, price doesn't have much impact on consumption), spirits are price elastic — when the price rises, more people will stop consuming them, or switch to an alternative.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/387513/HMRC_WorkingPaper_16_Alcohol_elasticities_final.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjz8om247rwAhUxrXEKHfXJAigQFjAAegQIAxAC&usg=AOvVaw2dq2pMAIoxnKOmjMCJpRfs&cshid=1620501114898

Therefore, it would appear to make sense — since spirits are more harmful when consumed in equivalent volumes — for a MUP to focus especially on spirits, and less on wines and beers.