Minimum alcohol pricing is nigh

Capt'n Midnight

Geuze wrote: »

Again, for clarity, MUP is not a tax, it's not an excise duty.

+1

This will not bring in a single cent of extra excise.
It's arguable that it won't bring in any VAT either as it most discretionary spend is already subject to VAT.

If the stated aim is to reduce alcohol consumption is achieved there will be a reduction in excised duty.



The price increase will be split between the retailer and the distributor.

mikeym

The minister of health is only 30 and do you think he would have an ounce of cop on.

McMurphy

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

+1

This will not bring in a single cent of extra excise.
It's arguable that it won't bring in any VAT either as it most discretionary spend is already subject to VAT.

If the stated aim is to reduce alcohol consumption is achieved there will be a reduction in excised duty.



The price increase will be split between the retailer and the distributor.

First they fcuked up the housing market by meddling in it, and pandering to the builders and developers via their stupid first time buyers grant which has widely been acknowledged as to being a failure.

Now they wish to meddle in the private alcohol industry, in an effort at pandering to the VFI.

They never learn do they.

McMurphy

Ipso wrote: »

Yeah, but a lot of these adults think they can do what they want to their body and expect the tax payers to step in when it impacts on their health.

The health thing is a red herring. This is pandering to a vested and influential interest group plain and simple.

Ipso

Has there been any development in the bill that would allow craft brewers to sell alcohol directly to the consumer? I wonder how this would apply, or maybe they think people should only drink in safe places provided by the VFI.

bananabread12

Rick Shaw wrote: »

First they fcuked up the housing market by meddling in it, and pandering to the builders and developers via their stupid first time buyers grant which has widely been acknowledged as to being a failure.

Now they wish to meddle in the private alcohol industry, in an effort at pandering to the VFI.

They never learn do they.

Your post assumes there is something to learn....

At the end of the day these decisions are calculated efforts to enrich oneself through the benefit of special interest groups. It's been like this since the dawn of mankind. The only mistake is that we have allowed a central institution to wield such far reaching power over our society. What kind of characters do you believe such a position of authority attracts? Narcissistic megalomaniacs.

Ipso

Rick Shaw wrote: »

The health thing is a red herring. This is pandering to a vested and influential interest group plain and simple.

It may be but I still think it is a valid point regarding peoples alcohol consumption and expectations of a "free" health service. Probably for a different thread though.

Spanish Eyes

So who gets the extra money on the drink if it ain't the Government via excise?

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

Ipso wrote: »

See how many politicians will propose something like that.

Why does it have to go to government? Couldn't it be dealt with by the hospitals themselves?

McMurphy

Ipso wrote: »

It may be but I still think it is a valid point regarding peoples alcohol consumption and expectations of a "free" health service. Probably for a different thread though.

No maybe about it.

This was from FGs 2011 election manifesto.

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

.

Do you see anything about the impacts on anyone's health?

No, neither do I.

Do you see anything about the importance of protecting Irish pubs, and the intention of meddling with alcohol pricing in an attempt to get punters back into them?


Yeah I do too.

end of the road

Ipso wrote: »

Yeah, but a lot of these adults think they can do what they want to their body and expect the tax payers to step in when it impacts on their health.

well in reality, they actually can do what they want to their bodies. apart from take certain drugs, but they do it anyway. a public health service means we the tax payer are obligated to treat people whether we like them, or their choices or not. that's fine, at least we know where things stand and it's vital that that ideal remains.
minimum alcohol pricing isn't going to make a difference to the health issues surrounding the over consumption of alcohol. been tried, and has failed elsewhere.

Ipso wrote: »

See how many politicians will propose something like that.

if they have any sense (sorry, scrap that) then none will propose it as it's a slippery slope to dismantling our public health service.

Ipso wrote: »

It may be but I still think it is a valid point regarding peoples alcohol consumption and expectations of a "free" health service. Probably for a different thread though.

it's not valid at all. health is the "will someone think of the children" argument of this debate. it's being used to try get support for this nonsense, but most see it for what it is . protection of the VFI'S members. i don't blame the VFI, you don't ask you definitely don't get. they always ask and they always get, so they will continue.

Are Am Eye

So called evil alcohol is actually used in hospitals for sterile purposes. Many nurses like to go out on their nights off and get blind drunk.

Capt'n Midnight

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

So who gets the extra money on the drink if it ain't the Government via excise?

The Offies probably think they are entitled to it, but expect them to be bitterly disappointed when the wholesale price goes up because of "Brexit or sunspots or whatever"

Meanwhile the supermarkets who can bypass the Irish distributors can get yellow pack beer for the old price and pocket 100% of the increase.

KungPao

I think I mentioned this before...

Lets say X supermarket had noticed a notable drop in sales of beer/wine/spirits, could they legally give you a voucher to cover the price increase?

So if you buy an 8pk of Heino for say €20, they give you a coupon for say €7.

Or throw in a free pizza or something. Surely there'd be some loophole. Would be trickier for off licences though in that regard.

WinnyThePoo

I remember hearing some lad on the pat Kenny show months ago for diageo talking about this legislation.

More or less saying things like 'it's safer to drink at a pub then at home'

The arrogance of it all.

Capt'n Midnight

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

I remember hearing some lad on the pat Kenny show months ago for diageo talking about this legislation.

More or less saying things like 'it's safer to drink at a pub then at home'

The arrogance of it all.

I haven't checked the stats on the numbers of deaths and injuries caused by people drink driving after consuming alcohol at home vs at the pub.

Autochange

This is just another cash grab. Other countries have drive thru off licenses and others have 5am closing time. Our alcohol is also one of the most expensive per unit in Europe. I read a report last week that has said our consumption has actually dropped by up to 25% since 2011.

BillyBobBS

OldNotWIse wrote: »

I'd be interested in getting some information from you about this!

It's not rocket science tbh. Book anytime outside of the summer season (i go usually in October and April) Costs about 250 return that time of year with the reserved seat or about 400 if you want a cabin. I just booked last week for this October 230 return. I don't pay the crossing costs as the family and friends cover that for my time.

I bring up a camping mattress/sleeping bag and just sleep on the floor but that time of year you'll find a couch etc.. to sleep on (the boats half empty).

Personally i go to the same place in Cherbourg each time as i find it slightly cheaper again from Roscoff but it's much of a muchness. My wife and i drink the same Merlot and Rose and it costs 3.20 and 3.60 a bottle when all said and done. The exact same one is 12.49 and 13.99 in a main stay supermarket here in Dublin.

It's pathetic anyone is calling for the prices to be increased, laughable nonsense and absolutely nothing to do with public health and everything to do with special interest groups.

redarmyblues

The only winners from this piece of ill thought out neo prohibitionist social engineering will be, the home brew/home distilling suppliers, European Liquor retailers, criminal dealers in alcohol and the importers and dealers of illegal drugs of a sedating nature. Higher prices in the supermarket means less money for the pub, higher prices in the supermarket means seek a cheaper alternative source, can't find or afford alternative source but need a drink badly, use an alternative drug (Opioid crisis anybody?). Lower sales in the shops and pubs means less for the exchequer to pay for health consequences.

bananabread12

end of the road wrote: »

none will propose it as it's a slippery slope to dismantling our public health service.

It's a pathetic indictment of the kind of society we live in that there are characters such as yourself that believe individuals that simply refuse to take any personal responsibility for their own lives are somehow the responsibility of the taxpayers.

You assume in your post that the taxpayer is happy to pay for this, well guess what....I'm certainly not happy to pay for Joe Soaps hospital bills after getting himself into such a state of intoxication that he has ended up in a brawl on the streets, attacked someone who is now in need of stitches or needs his stomach pumped. Why should the taxpayer foot the bill for these personally inflicted issues that countless so-called-"adults" end up in A&E with on a daily basis? The same thing with smoking - why should John Gym have to pay for some individual that smokes 50 cigarettes a day? "Slippery slope", as you'd say to tell this person to cop on...

No, of course people involved in this shouldn't have to take any responsibility for themselves or their actions. Far easier to let the taxpayers deal with it and punish responsible, law-abiding adults by increasing the price of alcohol. Pathetic.

Ipso

end of the road wrote: »

well in reality, they actually can do what they want to their bodies. apart from take certain drugs, but they do it anyway. a public health service means we the tax payer are obligated to treat people whether we like them, or their choices or not. that's fine, at least we know where things stand and it's vital that that ideal remains.
minimum alcohol pricing isn't going to make a difference to the health issues surrounding the over consumption of alcohol. been tried, and has failed elsewhere.



if they have any sense (sorry, scrap that) then none will propose it as it's a slippery slope to dismantling our public health service.



it's not valid at all. health is the "will someone think of the children" argument of this debate. it's being used to try get support for this nonsense, but most see it for what it is . protection of the VFI'S members. i don't blame the VFI, you don't ask you definitely don't get. they always ask and they always get, so they will continue.

My original comment was in the context of responsible adults and not what is in this bill.
In my opinion there is an unhealthy attitude toward alcohol in this country (although I think it's improving a bit), I think there is an expectation that people can do what they want and there is a "free" service available to them (then you have the public disorder cases where the defence is basically "the drink made me do it").

Fr Tod Umptious

I've said before, possibly on this thread,if you really want to change alcohol consumption you start with the advertising and visibility.

Stop TV advertising before the watershed, stop print advertising, stop advertising outside retail outlets, stop sports sponsorship.

Do like they did with cigarettes, take away the visibility, step by step.

Make it harder for people growing up to identify with beer brands.

Just like they have done with cigarettes over the past 30 years or so.

Would be a real effort to solve the problem, not some fudge to help pubs.

elperello

redarmyblues wrote: »

The only winners from this piece of ill thought out neo prohibitionist social engineering will be, the home brew/home distilling suppliers, European Liquor retailers, criminal dealers in alcohol and the importers and dealers of illegal drugs of a sedating nature. Higher prices in the supermarket means less money for the pub, higher prices in the supermarket means seek a cheaper alternative source, can't find or afford alternative source but need a drink badly, use an alternative drug (Opioid crisis anybody?). Lower sales in the shops and pubs means less for the exchequer to pay for health consequences.

To get a broad view of neo-prohibtion just Google it . Here's a link to get started

http://brookstonbeerbulletin.com/the-dishonesty-of-the-prohibitionist-fundamentalists/

elperello

Ipso wrote: »

My original comment was in the context of responsible adults and not what is in this bill.
In my opinion there is an unhealthy attitude toward alcohol in this country (although I think it's improving a bit), I think there is an expectation that people can do what they want and there is a "free" service available to them (then you have the public disorder cases where the defence is basically "the drink made me do it").

In more enlightened countries "the drink" rather than being a viable defence is considered an aggravating factor.

Capt'n Midnight

Autochange wrote: »

This is just another cash grab.

It's not a cash grab.

the guberment will get NOTHING from the price increase.

redarmyblues

elperello wrote: »

To get a broad view of neo-prohibtion just Google it . Here's a link to get started

http://brookstonbeerbulletin.com/the-dishonesty-of-the-prohibitionist-fundamk aentalists/

The Vintner's are feeding the crocodile surely and if the Nanny Staters get their way, the crocodile will be back to eat them, and no harm to them either, how many of the bloodsuckers were happy to watch regular customers lose everything, house, money, family, job, business to drink and then laugh at them and bar them when they nothing more to spend, The old fashioned publican had or has control over his customers, whereas the off sales trade is dispassionate itself.

elperello

redarmyblues wrote: »

The Vintner's are feeding the crocodile surely and if the Nanny Staters get their way, the crocodile will be back to eat them, and no harm to them either, how many of the bloodsuckers were happy to watch regular customers lose everything, house, money, family, job, business to drink and then laugh at them and bar them when they nothing more to spend, The old fashioned publican had or has control over his customers, whereas the off sales trade is dispassionate itself.

Drink only causes problems when consumed not when purchased. Attempts to regulate it at point of purchase are doomed to failure.

Cookie_Monster

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

I've said before, possibly on this thread,if you really want to change alcohol consumption you start with the advertising and visibility.

Stop TV advertising before the watershed, stop print advertising, stop advertising outside retail outlets, stop sports sponsorship.

yeah, hide it away and make it mysterious, that'll work for sure.
All that will achieve is cut sponsorship funding to sports teams and the like.

The solution is to make it invisible through normalisation, not restriction. Look at the continent and their general attitudes; available in vending machines, McDonalds, corner stores, cafe-bars, far cheaper, 16 is the drinking age in many countries and so on. Doesn't stand out as is as common as a chocolate bar. Yet their societies haven't broken down in drunken stupor.

gctest50

It's just politicians doing what they do, make a few vague grabs at the low-hanging-fruit to make it look like they're working-for-the-country-joe .....


and then retire with the pension in a few years


http://www.irishmirror.ie/news/irish-news/politics/general-election-2016-63000-payouts-7466628




cake kills more people than cocaine - try fix that ? nope

actually try to fix the health service ? nope -might lose out

Fr Tod Umptious

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

yeah, hide it away and make it mysterious, that'll work for sure.
All that will achieve is cut sponsorship funding to sports teams and the like.

The solution is to make it invisible through normalisation, not restriction. Look at the continent and their general attitudes; available in vending machines, McDonalds, corner stores, cafe-bars, far cheaper, 16 is the drinking age in many countries and so on. Doesn't stand out as is as common as a chocolate bar. Yet their societies haven't broken down in drunken stupor.

Cigarettes are far more prevalent on the continent than here in Ireland.

Should we follow their lead when in comes to smoking also ?

And let sports bodies find other sponsors.
The GAA has not had a alcohol sponsor for any national level competition for a number of years and it's doing fine getting sponsorship from retail outlets, telecoms companies, air lines, banks, energy companies etc.