Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Minimum alcohol pricing is nigh

Options
1…110111113115116…307

Comments

  • Options
    #3362
    Pauliedragon
    Registered Users Posts: 2,471 ✭✭✭Pauliedragon


    I disagree with MUP but not too fussed. One thing that stood out for me though when I heard about this was it's apparantly designed to lower consumption and therefore lower the cost to heath system? My problem with that is we have the most financially mismanaged health system probably on the planet. Is it not hypocritical of the government to say to me "hey we're gonna prevent you being a burden down the track on our health system by charging you more for booze so you can't afford it" yet the biggest burden on the health system is in fact the financial mismanagement by the same government?


  • Options
    #3363
    Capt'n Midnight
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 90,760 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    RobbingBandit wrote: »
    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
    I'll try again

    The plan is to reduce alcohol consumption, so there will be less excise duty.

    The only way total tax take goes up is if the increase in VAT offsets the reduction in Excise.

    But we know that the plan is to reduce the amount of alcohol consumed, and it's very likely that that people buying cheap alcohol may reduce spending on other products that attract VAT.


  • Options
    #3364
    Geuze
    Registered Users Posts: 13,092 ✭✭✭✭Geuze


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

    For the millionth time, the Dail bar IS NOT SUBSIDISED.

    It does not have the same overheads as other pubs, ok.

    It maybe does not make the same net margin as other pubs, ok.

    But the taxpayer does not pay it a subsidy.


  • Options
    #3365
    Geuze
    Registered Users Posts: 13,092 ✭✭✭✭Geuze


    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.

    Over 3,000 posts, and people are still claiming that MUP is a tax?

    MUP is not an excise duty.

    OK, as the retail price jumps, and the gross margin earned by the supermarkets and suppliers soars, yes VAT will rise.

    So, okay, yes, VAT receipts will rise, assuming no big drop in consumption.

    NB: that is a debateable assumption.


  • Options
    #3366
    hatrickpatrick
    Registered Users Posts: 17,797 ✭✭✭✭hatrickpatrick


    Get thee to home brewing and don't look back, folks. Honestly. The only thing I'm worried about with this bill is that it'll now put a dent in session culture itself, but given how easy home brewing is I can totally see that becoming a huge staple from now on. Home brew companies need only give out some free promotional equipment during college freshers' weeks and make a killing, and thus the sesh will continue :cool: :D


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #3367
    realitykeeper
    Registered Users Posts: 4,138 ✭✭✭realitykeeper


    Doctor Jimbob wrote: »
    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.

    MUP is about reducing the need for healthcare by deterring people from drinking so much. I would also make the point that not taxing a trader`s wares extra does not equate to giving them something, it only equates to not taking more than you already are. Even without the MUP legislation they are not being given anything because they can up their prices without the MUP just as easily as when they are ordered to up their prices.


  • Options
    #3368
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users Posts: 33,965 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    Geuze wrote: »
    It does not have the same overheads as other pubs, ok.

    If the State rented me a bar at zero cost and let me run it, would you call that a subsidy?

    Life ain't always empty.



  • Options
    #3369
    ThunbergsAreGo
    Registered Users Posts: 10,399 ✭✭✭✭ThunbergsAreGo


    The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »
    Not seemingly. Undoubtedly. Proven scientifically beyond dispute.

    Where is it proven that higher alcohol prices lowers consumption ?

    A view of the countries that consume the most alcohol would suggest otherwise


  • Options
    #3370
    The Rape of Lucretia
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,440 ✭✭✭The Rape of Lucretia


    The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »
    There are very many reputable studies that confirm the effect. Variances between countries, income bands, types of alcohol etc, but the overall picture is very consistent.

    http://www.ias.org.uk/Alcohol-knowledge-centre/Price/Factsheets/How-does-the-price-of-alcohol-affect-consumption.aspx

    https://blog.euromonitor.com/2014/08/price-elasticities-in-alcoholic-drinks.html

    https://www.statista.com/statistics/566785/demand-price-elasticity-for-selected-alcoholic-drinks-worldwide/

    Well proven. Raising the price, reduces the consumption.

    In the light of this clear new information for you, are you now in favour of mup?


  • Options
    #3371
    listermint
    Registered Users Posts: 33,646 ✭✭✭✭listermint


    Geuze wrote: »
    For the millionth time, the Dail bar IS NOT SUBSIDISED.

    It does not have the same overheads as other pubs, ok.

    It maybe does not make the same net margin as other pubs, ok.

    But the taxpayer does not pay it a subsidy.

    No they just cover the losses for unpaid tabs....


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #3372
    ThunbergsAreGo
    Registered Users Posts: 10,399 ✭✭✭✭ThunbergsAreGo


    The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »
    Well proven. Raising the price, reduces the consumption.

    In the light of this clear new information for you, are you now in favour of mup?

    Average price elasticity in alcoholic drinks (ie, the weighted average of price elasticities of all product categories) as a whole is -0.4, meaning that the industry is largely inelastic in terms of price changes.

    And no I think mup is wrong, I could understand it more of it was a tax increase . MUP benefits pubs and alcohol companies more than anyone else


  • Options
    #3373
    The Rape of Lucretia
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,440 ✭✭✭The Rape of Lucretia


    naughtb4 wrote: »
    Average price elasticity in alcoholic drinks (ie, the weighted average of price elasticities of all product categories) as a whole is -0.4, meaning that the industry is largely inelastic in terms of price changes.

    And no I think mup is wrong, I could understand it more of it was a tax increase . MUP benefits pubs and alcohol companies more than anyone else

    Inelastic, yes. But not zero. So consumption reduces as price rises.


  • Options
    #3374
    Padraig Mor
    Registered Users Posts: 9,538 ✭✭✭Padraig Mor


    The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »
    Inelastic, yes. But not zero. So consumption reduces as price rises.

    Ireland has some of the world's highest prices so why is our consumption not lower (although it's not actually that high, despite what the zealots would have you believe). Why do plenty of countries with cheaper booze (such as.....most other countries) have much lower consumption rates?


  • Options
    #3375
    VinLieger
    Registered Users Posts: 17,654 ✭✭✭✭VinLieger


    Deedsie wrote: »
    I am very much in favour of the new laws. Hopefully it will reduce session/binge culture in Ireland. Also hopeful the government invest more in mental health to diminish the harm alcohol can do to certain people.


    But they arent going to invest anything more as we saw in the budget and they wont be getting any new money from this farce of a bill to direct towards such services either.


    Those facts just add to the mountains of evidence that show this has nothing to do with the publics health


  • Options
    #3376
    Leroy42
    Registered Users Posts: 15,484 ✭✭✭✭Leroy42


    Padraig Mor wrote: »
    Ireland has some of the world's highest prices so why is our consumption not lower (although it's not actually that high, despite what the zealots would have you believe). Why do plenty of countries with cheaper booze (such as.....most other countries) have much lower consumption rates?

    Why don't you tell us your thoughts on it?


  • Options
    #3377
    Doctor Jimbob
    Registered Users Posts: 7,631 ✭✭✭Doctor Jimbob


    realitykeeper wrote: »
    MUP is about reducing the need for healthcare by deterring people from drinking so much. I would also make the point that not taxing a trader`s wares extra does not equate to giving them something, it only equates to not taking more than you already are. Even without the MUP legislation they are not being given anything because they can up their prices without the MUP just as easily as when they are ordered to up their prices.

    MUP is about driving people back to pubs by reducing the cost difference between them and supermarkets. Even ignoring that, none of what you say is a good reason to implement a minimum price rather than additional tax.

    Edit: I'm not particularly in favour of adding more taxes either - we already pay plenty of tax on alcohol. I could at least follow the logic of a tax though. MUP is nonsense.


  • Options
    #3378
    realitykeeper
    Registered Users Posts: 4,138 ✭✭✭realitykeeper


    Doctor Jimbob wrote: »
    MUP is about driving people back to pubs by reducing the cost difference between them and supermarkets. Even ignoring that, none of what you say is a good reason to implement a minimum price rather than additional tax.

    Edit: I'm not particularly in favour of adding more taxes either - we already pay plenty of tax on alcohol. I could at least follow the logic of a tax though. MUP is nonsense.

    I disagree on all counts. The MUP will impose a minimum price regardless of where you purchase the alcohol. Traders can increase their prices anyway so it is wrong to say they are being given anything by ordering them to increase their prices. Governments generally tend to mismanage things so I would prefer a completely privatized healthcare system. That way you would not have to pay as much tax on alcohol but if you fail to save the difference for your own healthcare provision, you would have to fall back on charity for your healthcare should you need it.


  • Options
    #3379
    Doctor Jimbob
    Registered Users Posts: 7,631 ✭✭✭Doctor Jimbob


    realitykeeper wrote: »
    I disagree on all counts.

    Fair enough, you're entitled to do so.
    The MUP will impose a minimum price regardless of where you purchase the alcohol.

    So would a tax, but the extra money could actually go somewhere useful.
    Traders can increase their prices anyway so it is wrong to say they are being given anything by ordering them to increase their prices.

    I'm saying that a 50 cent increase will go to the traders, whereas if a comparable tax was implemented instead, that 50 cent could go to healthcare. I can't see any way that would be an inferior option.
    Governments generally tend to mismanage things so I would prefer a completely privatized healthcare system. That way you would not have to pay as much tax on alcohol but if you fail to save the difference for your own healthcare provision, you would have to fall back on charity for your healthcare should you need it.

    You don't support government interference in healthcare but you're happy to have them interfere in pricing. Why?


  • Options
    #3380
    VinLieger
    Registered Users Posts: 17,654 ✭✭✭✭VinLieger


    realitykeeper wrote: »
    I disagree on all counts. The MUP will impose a minimum price regardless of where you purchase the alcohol. Traders can increase their prices anyway so it is wrong to say they are being given anything by ordering them to increase their prices. Governments generally tend to mismanage things so I would prefer a completely privatized healthcare system. That way you would not have to pay as much tax on alcohol but if you fail to save the difference for your own healthcare provision, you would have to fall back on charity for your healthcare should you need it.


    So you are for a completely privatized healthcare system but also pro wide ranging government interference and price fixing?


    Those are two mutually exclusive positions.


  • Options
    #3381
    Padraig Mor
    Registered Users Posts: 9,538 ✭✭✭Padraig Mor


    Leroy42 wrote: »
    Why don't you tell us your thoughts on it?

    I've given them previously. To summarise: MUP is solely designed to push people back into the pubs. It is a sop to the vintners (who FG promised to help in their manifesto a number of years ago), given a fig leaf of respectability by painting it as a 'health' move aided and abetted by the useful fools in zealous anti - alcohol organisations. Our alcohol consumption has been dropping for ~15 years at this stage and, while at the higher end of the scale, is not world leading these days. That it cannot achieve its aims is demonstrated by my earlier post: we already have some of the world's most expensive booze, and countries with much cheaper prices drink less. To claim that MUP can curb 'problem' drinking in a fashion that taxation measures cannot requires mental gymnastics so ludicrous as to be laughable - it is clearly and obviously designed to raise prices in off licences, but keep them the same in pubs. These same 'responsible' pubs of course are the ones that will keep serving you till you cannot stand and the source of the vast majority of alcohol related antisocial behaviour and violence - the fights on the street are at pub closing time, not offie closing time.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #3382
    TallGlass
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,935 ✭✭✭TallGlass


    The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »
    Inelastic, yes. But not zero. So consumption reduces as price rises.

    Can you show us this study. Generally interested in what you and they are talking about.


  • Options
    #3383
    TallGlass
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,935 ✭✭✭TallGlass


    Geuze wrote: »
    For the millionth time, the Dail bar IS NOT SUBSIDISED.

    It does not have the same overheads as other pubs, ok.

    It maybe does not make the same net margin as other pubs, ok.

    But the taxpayer does not pay it a subsidy.

    Yeah, right. As mentioned, who bailed them out the last time the TDs wouldn't settle there tabs. It's a farce, remind me again, why they need a bar in there workplace? I get by without one in my workplace.


  • Options
    #3384
    KrustyUCC
    Registered Users Posts: 6,034 ✭✭✭KrustyUCC


    The Government is to provide an additional €84 milion for mental health services in 2019, bringing the total available funding for mental health to €1 billion.

    https://www.rte.ie/news/budget-2019/2018/1009/1001969-1-billion-increase-in-funding-for-health/

    There is no breakdown available for which areas of mental health the additional funding will be channeled into


  • Options
    #3385
    joe40
    Registered Users Posts: 3,811 ✭✭✭joe40


    For all the people that claim this measure is solely an attempt to get more people going to pubs, do they have the same opinion about the law in Scotland.
    Was Nicola Sturgeon only looking after publicans when a similar measure was introduced there.

    An additional tax would affect all drink so people that currently buy off sales that are above MUP would be affected. This measure will only affect the cheapest drinks.

    Off licence/supermarket prices will still be considerably cheaper than pubs especially when you consider cost of taxi etc so this measure will not benefit pubs.

    Good pubs are not just about drinking their product has to be more than that or else they won't survive.


  • Options
    #3386
    Geuze
    Registered Users Posts: 13,092 ✭✭✭✭Geuze


    Hotblack Desiato wrote: »
    If the State rented me a bar at zero cost and let me run it, would you call that a subsidy?

    OK, fair enough.

    But people write and speak as if it receives a direct cash subsidy.


  • Options
    #3387
    KrustyUCC
    Registered Users Posts: 6,034 ✭✭✭KrustyUCC


    joe40 wrote: »
    For all the people that claim this measure is solely an attempt to get more people going to pubs, do they have the same opinion about the law in Scotland.
    Was Nicola Sturgeon only looking after publicans when a similar measure was introduced there.

    An additional tax would affect all drink so people that currently buy off sales that are above MUP would be affected. This measure will only affect the cheapest drinks.

    Off licence/supermarket prices will still be considerably cheaper than pubs especially when you consider cost of taxi etc so this measure will not benefit pubs.

    Good pubs are not just about drinking their product has to be more than that or else they won't survive.

    Did Nicola Sturgeon specifically say she wanted to support Scottish pubs specifically linking supermarket selling to pub viability?

    "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"

    http://michaelpidgeon.com/manifestos/docs/fg/Fine%20Gael%20GE%202011.pdf

    Also note that the proposal is not in the Health section of the manifesto

    Yes additional tax would affect all drinks. Now it's supermarket drink bad pub drink good. Carry on lads

    Tax increase could be spent on health, education etc

    This bill just ensures supermarkets get more for alcohol

    This bill will affect the price of all alcohol in supermarkets. Premium brand wills increase their prices to keep the distance between them and so called 'cheapest drink'


  • Options
    #3388
    joe40
    Registered Users Posts: 3,811 ✭✭✭joe40


    KrustyUCC wrote: »
    Did Nicola Sturgeon specifically say she wanted to support Scottish pubs specifically linking supermarket selling to pub viability?

    "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"

    http://michaelpidgeon.com/manifestos/docs/fg/Fine%20Gael%20GE%202011.pdf

    Also note that the proposal is not in the Health section of the manifesto

    Yes additional tax would affect all drinks. Now it's supermarket drink bad pub drink good. Carry on lads

    Tax increase could be spent on health, education etc

    This bill just ensures supermarkets get more for alcohol

    This bill will affect the price of all alcohol in supermarkets. Premium brand wills increase their prices to keep the distance between them and so called 'cheapest drink'

    I don't particularly care what fine gael put into manifesto to try to get votes. Like all political parties they will promise all things to all people.

    The fact remains this measure was introduced in Scotland as a "public health initiative" not a sop to publicans, so there must have been some research into whether it would be effective or not. By effective I mean have some impact, not a cure for all ills.

    People also keep saying this will raise the price of all drinks, as if it is a foregone conclusion. I understand the reasoning, but don't believe that will happen. Retailers will still price their product to sell.

    If the likes of Heineken, bud or craft beers currently selling above MUP could command a higher price, they would be doing so already.

    I just don't accept the argument their price will automatically go up in line with price increases elsewhere.


  • Options
    #3389
    KrustyUCC
    Registered Users Posts: 6,034 ✭✭✭KrustyUCC


    FactCheck: Is minimum unit alcohol pricing "proven" to work?
    Health Promotion Minister Marcella Corcoran Kennedy made a big claim about the effectiveness of the government’s alcohol policy, this week. We tested it.

    In a debate on TV3′s Tonight With Vincent Browne on Monday, Junior Minister Marcella Corcoran Kennedy claimed that the policy has been “proven to work” in other jurisdictions, citing the example of British Columbia in Canada.

    http://www.thejournal.ie/minimum-unit-pricing-alcohol-ireland-facts-2932210-Aug2016/


  • Options
    #3390
    ThunbergsAreGo
    Registered Users Posts: 10,399 ✭✭✭✭ThunbergsAreGo


    joe40 wrote: »
    I don't particularly care what fine gael put into manifesto to try to get votes. Like all political parties they will promise all things to all people.

    The fact remains this measure was introduced in Scotland as a "public health initiative" not a sop to publicans, so there must have been some research into whether it would be effective or not. By effective I mean have some impact, not a cure for all ills.

    So lets just assume that Scotland have done the research for us? :o

    MUP benefits Publicans and Drinks Companies more than anyone else


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #3391
    Leroy42
    Registered Users Posts: 15,484 ✭✭✭✭Leroy42


    joe40 wrote: »
    People also keep saying this will raise the price of all drinks, as if it is a foregone conclusion. I understand the reasoning, but don't believe that will happen. Retailers will still price their product to sell.

    If the likes of Heineken, bud or craft beers currently selling above MUP could command a higher price, they would be doing so already.

    I just don't accept the argument their price will automatically go up in line with price increases elsewhere.

    I think the clue is in the title. It is MAP. The government is setting the lowest level at which a lager (for example) can be sold. Once a floor is set, lowest price is no longer a factor.

    But there is no upper price. It is why the craft beers sell for far more the lies of Dutch Gold. Simply because the consumer is willing to pay more for that they perceive to be a better product.

    Now, in the short term prices probably won't rise, but after a few months the new price will be factored in by the consumer and they will return to their old habits. So they will again be prepared to pay a premium for the Craft Beer. Thus the Craft beer would be made to maintain the old price as now the 'market' price as increased.

    It might take longer that a few months, I don't know, but it will happen. Just as the price inevitably moves towards €1 instead of .79p after the changeover. It is simply repositition the value of value within the market.


Advertisement