Minimum alcohol pricing is nigh

elperello · 03-09-2017 9:15pm

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

This bill has been on the go for years now, to the best of my knowledge it was Roisin Shorthall when she was still in Labour and a junior minister in the 2011-2016 government that started the ball rolling.

Simon Harris just happens to be the one that is tasked with it now.

Yes, this has been on the go for a long time. As far as I know all the parties are in favour which makes it very difficult to stop.

Bubbaclaus · 03-09-2017 9:15pm

Rick Shaw wrote: »

That's not entirely true though, because here you are in the thread posting about it.

There's a myriad of subjects in AH that I don't care about, and the subjects of the threads care so little to me that I literally don't even open them, yet alone post in them to declare I've no interest in them.

The posters foaming at the mouth intrigue me.

elperello · 03-09-2017 9:16pm

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

I quite literally could not care less about this.

Care to elaborate?

Bubbaclaus · 03-09-2017 9:17pm

Rick Shaw wrote: »

That's not entirely true though, because here you are in the thread posting about it.

There's a myriad of subjects in AH that I don't care about, and the subjects of the threads care so little to me that I literally don't even open them, yet alone post in them to declare I've no interest in them.

The posters foaming at the mouth intrigue me.

Bubbaclaus · 03-09-2017 9:21pm

Rick Shaw wrote: »

That's not entirely true though, because here you are in the thread posting about it.

There's a myriad of subjects in AH that I don't care about, and the subjects of the threads care so little to me that I literally don't even open them, yet alone post in them to declare I've no interest in them.

The posters foaming at the mouth intrigue me.

McMurphy · 03-09-2017 9:22pm

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

The posters foaming at the mouth intrigue me.

The posters are f'oaming at the mouth' in a sense that they're pissed off that a government is seen to be at the back and call of a group with a vested interest (many of which our TDs and Ministers belong to) and are wishing to meddle in the pricing structure of a private market industry, with the aim of protecting the same vested groups incomes, under the spurious and faux concerns that its to protect our health.

It's the brown nosed subservient lick spittles that intrigue me tbh.

Cookie_Monster · 03-09-2017 9:42pm

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

The posters foaming at the mouth intrigue me.

that's just overspill from the delicious beer being enjoyed

gctest50 · 03-09-2017 9:52pm

So, to complement this wonderful step forwards -

Who's voting for alcohol-free drinks only at the Dail bar ?

con___manx1 · 04-09-2017 1:48am

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

This bill has been on the go for years now, to the best of my knowledge it was Roisin Shorthall when she was still in Labour and a junior minister in the 2011-2016 government that started the ball rolling.

Simon Harris just happens to be the one that is tasked with it now.

well this bill will be very damaging to his career. I wonder why its taken 4 or 5 years.
its probably because the other politicians wouldn't touch it as they seen it as career suicide. it will surely piss a lot of voters off.

B.A._Baracus · 04-09-2017 2:12am

Hiking up the price of alcohol won't do anything but generate more tax revenue. An alcoholic is gonna buy booze no matter what the price.

Don't see any benefits to this for the average Joe.

the_syco · 04-09-2017 2:34am

gctest50 wrote: »

So, to complement this wonderful step forwards -

Who's voting for alcohol-free drinks only at the Dail bar ?

This would be a great idea! There's no reason that I can think of to have a bar that serves alcohol at the Dail.

Cookie_Monster · 04-09-2017 2:55am

the_syco wrote: »

This would be a great idea! There's no reason that I can think of to have a bar that serves alcohol at the Dail.

I think we should have the opposite, ensure every work place has at least a beer fridge on hand for staff.

Promote sensible drinking in the workplace, can't trust them VFI boys to do it :pac:

Leroy42 · 04-09-2017 8:53am

B.A._Baracus wrote: »

Hiking up the price of alcohol won't do anything but generate more tax revenue. An alcoholic is gonna buy booze no matter what the price.

Don't see any benefits to this for the average Joe.

It is not a tax so the tax increase will be negligible and more than offset by the costs of having to administer and police the scheme.

The benefits to the average Joe is that instead of buying 24 cans of Finkinbeer they will opt for the same cost but less of it (12 cans). So unless people actually spend more then there will no no tax benefit and it becomes solely a cost to the state.

Multiply that across the entire population, across a number of years and the health benefits would appear to be worth it. That and those intending on drinking will instead go to the pub, which has been shown throughout history to be the only place able to control the public access to alcohol.

Thats the theory it appears

Phil.x · 04-09-2017 9:12am

Leroy42 wrote: »

It is not a tax so the tax increase will be negligible and more than offset by the costs of having to administer and police the scheme.

The benefits to the average Joe is that instead of buying 24 cans of Finkinbeer they will opt for the same cost but less of it (12 cans). So unless people actually spend more then there will no no tax benefit and it becomes solely a cost to the state.

Multiply that across the entire population, across a number of years and the health benefits would appear to be worth it. That and those intending on drinking will instead go to the pub, which has been shown throughout history to be the only place able to control the public access to alcohol.

Thats the theory it appears

If you drink a six pack on a Saturday, realistically your still going to drink that amount, so all it is in reality is a increase in VAT.

Capt'n Midnight · 04-09-2017 9:35am

Phil.x wrote: »

If you drink a six pack on a Saturday, realistically your still going to drink that amount, so all it is in reality is a increase in VAT.

And what spending will you cut to make up the difference ?

And how much VAT was on that.

If you don't cut spending then you are dipping into your savings.

Fr Tod Umptious · 04-09-2017 11:06am

con___manx1 wrote: »

well this bill will be very damaging to his career. I wonder why its taken 4 or 5 years.
its probably because the other politicians wouldn't touch it as they seen it as career suicide. it will surely piss a lot of voters off.

The health portfolio is one of the toughest jobs in government.

This is insignificant compared to the other issues on Harris's plate right now.

Fr Tod Umptious · 04-09-2017 11:08am

Phil.x wrote: »

If you drink a six pack on a Saturday, realistically your still going to drink that amount, so all it is in reality is a increase in VAT.

No your not.

There was a time when I drank much more than I do now, but I have cut back because I have to spend money on other things.

Fr Tod Umptious · 04-09-2017 11:09am

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

I quite literally could not care less about this.

There is a certain demographic that are up in arms about this.

I'm a male in my mid forties, twenty years ago I'd have been up in arms about it, I'm not now.

Hector Bellend · 04-09-2017 11:28am

f*ckin love the gargle

Leroy42 · 04-09-2017 12:05pm

Hector Bellend wrote: »

f*ckin love the gargle

Do you love it enough to pay higher prices for it? That is the question that this legislation is asking you.

hatrickpatrick · 04-09-2017 1:09pm

Leroy42 wrote: »

Do you love it enough to pay higher prices for it? That is the question that this legislation is asking you.

That's what it's trying to ask you. In reality, at least for me, it's asking whether I love it enough to commit to brewing my own if this looks like it's going to get passed, and sure why not give it a go

Leroy42 · 04-09-2017 1:45pm

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

That's what it's trying to ask you. In reality, at least for me, it's asking whether I love it enough to commit to brewing my own if this looks like it's going to get passed, and sure why not give it a go

Well it's still the same. The answer is that you don't love the current offering enough to continue to pay higher prices and you will instead turn to other forms.

Other people will look to get drink from NI or France etc. Others will look to move to other recreation forms. But the decision is all based on the value they place on the current product they are buying.

The poster said he loved the gargle. The government is betting that this love, across society as a whole, will be enough that no matter what they do, and how much people moan, their love for the gargle will keep them coming back for more.

listermint · 04-09-2017 1:54pm

Leroy42 wrote: »

Well it's still the same. The answer is that you don't love the current offering enough to continue to pay higher prices and you will instead turn to other forms.

Other people will look to get drink from NI or France etc. Others will look to move to other recreation forms. But the decision is all based on the value they place on the current product they are buying.

The poster said he loved the gargle. The government is betting that this love, across society as a whole, will be enough that no matter what they do, and how much people moan, their love for the gargle will keep them coming back for more.

none of your posts to date on this have examined the fact that we have the most expensive alcohol in the Bloc.

Yet you continue to act as if the theory on expense will sole all ills.

Idiot government is plagued by idiot VFI association and yes i say idiots because they think a living should be handed to them.

Leroy42 · 04-09-2017 2:02pm

I'm not saying anything of the sort. I don't agree with this proposal, don't think it will achieve any aims (of which no clear aims have even been articulated, apart for Better Health).

The fact that we have expensive alcohol is irrelevant. We have always had high prices for alcohol, but continue to be amongst the highest consumers of it.
Secondly, pub prices have always been consistently more expensive that supermarkets. If price was the driving factor, then pubs would have either reduced prices are gone out of business. Pubs have declined, no doubt in that, and price has played its part, but I would put forward that drink driving legislation and enforcement, smoking ban have had a bigger impact.

And finally, it is precisely because I don't think that pricing is the major factor that I am raising the question of the poster about their love of the gargle. Over time society as a whole has shown a great willingness to accept price rises and profiteering from the pub trade in order to drink. Will this time be any different? Both the government and the Vintners are betting that is isn't.

BuilderPlumber · 06-09-2017 6:45am

Leroy42 wrote: »

I'm not saying anything of the sort. I don't agree with this proposal, don't think it will achieve any aims (of which no clear aims have even been articulated, apart for Better Health).

The fact that we have expensive alcohol is irrelevant. We have always had high prices for alcohol, but continue to be amongst the highest consumers of it.
Secondly, pub prices have always been consistently more expensive that supermarkets. If price was the driving factor, then pubs would have either reduced prices are gone out of business. Pubs have declined, no doubt in that, and price has played its part, but I would put forward that drink driving legislation and enforcement, smoking ban have had a bigger impact.

And finally, it is precisely because I don't think that pricing is the major factor that I am raising the question of the poster about their love of the gargle. Over time society as a whole has shown a great willingness to accept price rises and profiteering from the pub trade in order to drink. Will this time be any different? Both the government and the Vintners are betting that is isn't.

All these type of proposed laws are anti-business. Counterproductive measures that only worsen business and not have any other impact. The people who abuse alcohol and combine excessive drinking with snorting cocaine and taking other illegal drugs is going to continue.

There are certain politicians who are obsessed with things like minimum alcohol pricing, stopping alcohol sponsorship of sports, comedy and music events and hiding alcohol from the view of people in shops ... while drinking copious amounts of free alcohol in the Dail bar at the taxpayers' expense. This is the double standards of this 'anti alcohol' brigade.

Let's hope this poor legislation continues to get stalled. No one is asking for it. No one voted for it. If pubs want to get people in the door, then they should make more of an effort. Upping the price or curtailing the availability of alcohol elsewhere does not solve that. Furthermore, if the government was really interested in helping pubs then give them tax breaks and tackle their cost bases.

I am sick of being sold this idea that we have a drink problem as a nation. Why should we suffer because of the drunken minority's attitude to alcohol and attitude with alcohol in them? The people are paying through the roof already and they are entitled to relax with a drink at the weekend without having to pay more for it because some braindead bozo politician wants to implement some kind of a Taliban law.

McMurphy · 25-09-2017 6:50pm

I see Paschal has resorted to transferring some shares he has, into his wife's name to avoid a conflict of interest.

Shares in Diageo.

hatrickpatrick · 25-09-2017 6:51pm

Rick Shaw wrote: »

I see Paschal has resorted to transferring some shares he has, into his wife's name to avoid a conflict of interest.

Shares in Diageo.

Link?!