Proposed minimum alcohol pricing

Greyian · 14-12-2015 03:55PM

flutered wrote: »

why have they not just abolished the below cost selling by the muntiples,.this alone would be a harvest for the revenue

Does anyone actually have a source for the repeated claims of below-cost selling?

Duty on a 500ml can of Carlsberg works out to 48.5c per can (€22.55 excise per hectolitre per cent of alcohol in the beer).

The excise rate in the UK is £18.37 per hectolitre per cent of alcohol in the beer. This converts to €25.29. This means that the excise rate is 12% higher in the UK than it is here.

Currently in the UK, you can buy a 20 can (440ml - 3.8%) pack of Carlsberg for £12.00 (€16.52). The VAT on the pack is £2 (20%), so the net price is £10 for the pack, or 50p per can. Excise per can is 30.7p (0.44*0.1837*3.8). This means the price without any government tax is 19.3p (26.56c). If we adjust for the fact that can is smaller (by 12%) and lower alcohol (4.3% here vs 3.8% in the UK, so 13.15% difference), this means that we should be looking at shops here being able to sell cans of Carlsberg at 33.66c for a 500ml, 4.3% can.

So if they were selling at the same non-tax rate as the UK, the "standard price" (i.e. not a special offer) rate for a can of Carlsberg would be 33.66c. When we add the excise of 48.5c, we get 82.16c. Then add VAT of 23%, we arrive at €1.01.

So, unless Asda are selling their Carlsberg below cost all of the time (which seems very, very doubtful), it seems highly unlikely that the "24 cans for €24" deals we see down here in the Republic involve much/any below cost selling whatsoever. It seems the real reason people believe that the Christmas deals involve below cost selling is because they have gotten so accustomed to being ripped off the rest of the year.

Fr Tod Umptious · 14-12-2015 08:48PM

hmmm wrote: »

The politics of this move is very bad for FG IMO, it will cost them more votes than they expect. It's not like the smoking ban where there was a broad consensus - years of media campaigning meant that most people understood the danger of smoking.

It's not the case with this - sure I hear the doctors saying we have a problem with people who do not consider themselves heavy drinkers but who are (according to the medical definition), but I don't think that argument has been won yet. I would say that most middle class people, who maybe like a beer or a glass of wine in the evening, see themselves as very different to the wino or 20 year old who ends up comatose in ER.

The politics of this is that at a time when the economy is growing, people are feeling more secure in their jobs & there aren't great pressing social issues for most people to care about (most people don't care about the "housing crisis" let's face it), this is one of those easy to understand issues which some/many of the public will latch on to. There'll be lots of pious nodding when a doctor is telling us about the evils of alcohol, but in private you can already hear the murmurings of opposition, and the identification of FG with this move.

It won't cost them any votes worth talking about.

The middle class family you mentioned will look at a broader range of issues when voting, not just the price of wine.

And the wino or 20 year old who ends up comatose in the ER is unlikely to be registered or even politically aware.

And no party or candidate in their right mind would run on a ticket that the government are trying to make alcohol is supermarkets too expensive.

You said that people don't care about the housing crisis, I'd argue they care less about the price of drink.

ancapailldorcha · 15-12-2015 12:59PM

flutered wrote: »

is not norris funded by the taxpayer, the only diff between him and some one on welfare is the amount of tax payers money it costs to fund both his salary and sick pay from trinity

Hi flutered. Please read the charter before posting again as this forum is for serious debate and we'd prefer posters' contributions to be more substantial than this. Thanks.

gizmo555 · 23-12-2015 01:09PM

Looks like it's back to the drawing board for our government, given today's (Dec 23) ruling from the Court of Justice of the European Union:

The European court has ruled that the Scottish government’s plan to impose a blanket minimum price for alcohol is in breach of EU free-trade laws.

In a significant blow to one of Nicola Sturgeon’s flagship policies, the European court of justice has said the policy could be justified on health grounds under EU law only if it was more proportionate and effective than using general taxation . . .

. . . “The court of justice considers that the effect of the Scottish legislation is significantly to restrict the market, and this might be avoided by the introduction of a tax measure designed to increase the price of alcohol instead of a measure imposing a minimum price per unit of alcohol.”

The court said it noted that the Scottish legislation “pursues a twofold objective, namely to reduce not only the hazardous consumption of alcohol, but also, more generally, the Scottish population’s consumption of alcohol. Although the imposition of a minimum price per unit intended to increase the price of cheap alcohol is an appropriate means of reducing the consumption of alcohol, a practice such as that adopted in Scotland is not justified where it is possible for health to be protected equally effectively by less restrictive tax measures.”

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/dec/23/minimum-alcohol-price-in-scotland-could-breach-eu-law-court-rules

Godge · 23-12-2015 03:26PM

gizmo555 wrote: »

Looks like it's back to the drawing board for our government, given today's (Dec 23) ruling from the Court of Justice of the European Union:

The European court has ruled that the Scottish government’s plan to impose a blanket minimum price for alcohol is in breach of EU free-trade laws.

In a significant blow to one of Nicola Sturgeon’s flagship policies, the European court of justice has said the policy could be justified on health grounds under EU law only if it was more proportionate and effective than using general taxation . . .

. . . “The court of justice considers that the effect of the Scottish legislation is significantly to restrict the market, and this might be avoided by the introduction of a tax measure designed to increase the price of alcohol instead of a measure imposing a minimum price per unit of alcohol.”

The court said it noted that the Scottish legislation “pursues a twofold objective, namely to reduce not only the hazardous consumption of alcohol, but also, more generally, the Scottish population’s consumption of alcohol. Although the imposition of a minimum price per unit intended to increase the price of cheap alcohol is an appropriate means of reducing the consumption of alcohol, a practice such as that adopted in Scotland is not justified where it is possible for health to be protected equally effectively by less restrictive tax measures.”

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/dec/23/minimum-alcohol-price-in-scotland-could-breach-eu-law-court-rules

Some of the lobby groups think it would work here.

However, when you see the Vintner's Group in among them, you wonder about their bona fides.

johnnyskeleton · 23-12-2015 03:49PM

Godge wrote: »

Some of the lobby groups think it would work here.

However, when you see the Vintner's Group in among them, you wonder about their bona fides.

Its so transparent that its not even funny! Imagine the taxi representatives lobbied the state to impose minimum pricing on public transport on the dubious assertion that it will encourage more people to walk to work and thus save the environment!

minitrue · 23-12-2015 03:58PM

If they were genuine we'd now be facing a massive increase in duty on alcohol to ensure we couldn't get "cheap drink".

As the real intention was to help the dedicated alcohol vendors (pubs and off-licenses as opposed to general stores that also carry alcohol) the most we'll see is some asinine attempt to ban below cost selling of alcohol and just maybe even a ban on all off-license sales of alcohol wherever anything else is sold ... except associated products like junk food, sugar syrups and tobacco of course as that would eat into the profit margins of the lobbyists.

23-12-2015 04:00PM

Good to see this being torpedoed

gizmo555 · 23-12-2015 04:53PM

Godge wrote: »

Some of the lobby groups think it would work here.

The court's decision places the onus on the government to show that minimum pricing is proportionate and will work better than tax as a means of reducing consumption.

The Scots couldn't use tax, as taxation powers haven't been devolved to them from the UK Parliament. We can, so it will be correspondingly harder for us to show that tax won't work as well as minimum pricing.

A Dub in Glasgo · 23-12-2015 05:40PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Good to see this being torpedoed

Don't think it has been torpedoed at this stage, the Scottish Government was proposing within a very limited range of powers. If they can convince the Court of Session in Edinburgh that minimum unit pricing is the best way to tackle the health problems associated with alcohol abuse in Scotland then it will not contravene EU law

minitrue · 23-12-2015 08:31PM

Varadkar 'committed' to minimum alcohol pricing

Believes he can make a strong case for it and has officials talking to AG. The bill completed the second stage in the Seanad last week.

Blut2 · 24-12-2015 06:35PM

minitrue wrote: »

Varadkar 'committed' to minimum alcohol pricing

Believes he can make a strong case for it and has officials talking to AG. The bill completed the second stage in the Seanad last week.

What a complete waste of time and money. Raising duty on alcohol would raise prices across the board (in theory reducing alcohol consumption), increase government revenue and wouldn't fall foul of the EU ruling.

How can entering a protracted legal battle to attempt minimum alcohol pricing be justified? Is FG support for the LVA so blatant?

Lockstep · 27-12-2015 01:51PM

Minimum pricing is a pretty sad joke. It amounts to little better than a tax on working class drinking and a backslap to the publicans.
We clearly do have a problem with alcohol in this country but the fact the government sought to tackle it via minimum pricing (rather than increasing the tax on it) makes it hard to see it as anything beyond a sop to the VFI.

The Adam Smith Institute have an excellent article on why it's both ineffective and pointless. See here

Freak Midget · 27-12-2015 06:54PM

It's a stupid idea. A problem drinker won't cut back cos the booze is more expensive, he'll just have even less money for food and rent.

Spanish Eyes · 27-12-2015 07:02PM

Qui Bono?

Is it the State. or is it the drinks industry?

Can someone tell me who benefits from the MUP price rise. Thank you.

Blut2 · 27-12-2015 08:06PM

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

Qui Bono?

Is it the State. or is it the drinks industry?

Can someone tell me who benefits from the MUP price rise. Thank you.

The state benefits the least from a MUP.

If the producers up prices to meet the minimum price then they'll benefit. If they don't, the shops will up their prices and benefit. Tax take will not increase substantially either way - the extra money is just going to the retailers/suppliers.

Whichever of the above happens, the LVA/publicans will benefit the most however as their prices will remain the same while off-license prices will increase dramatically.

If there was an increase in duty on alcohol instead, prices across the board (both in pubs & off licenses) would increase - in theory decreasing consumption, if the government's logic is to be believed. But more importantly it would also increase revenue for the government at the least, which would be a positive to take away regardless of any changes in consumption levels.

edit: A MUP really has no logical reason to be used given this - why increase profits for producers/retailers at the expense of the public? An increase in duty would at least benefit the state financially while in theory having the exact same reduction in consumption from an increased retail price. The only reason Scotland aimed for a MUP instead of an increase in duty was because the devolved Scottish government cannot levy taxes on alcohol, MUP was their only way to increase prices. The only argument I've seen in favour of it instead of an increase in duty in Ireland has come from publicans.

flutered · 27-12-2015 10:08PM

2.50 per pint, in puerto del carmen lanzorotte today

nice_guy80 · 29-12-2015 08:08PM

the people making the laws don't really think of the impact of these changes on ordinary citizens

it will affect the likes of the pensioners and low income earners more, who like and deserve their few drinks every week, than those people buying wine for the dinner table on a Saturday evening.

it just makes life harder, and won't really make any difference in stopping people drinking.
they'll just have to spend a higher % of their income on alcohol to continue their current life

Tigger · 29-12-2015 08:11PM

flutered wrote: »

2.50 per pint, in puerto del carmen lanzorotte today

when im in lanzorotte i drink with breakfast, did you?

johnnyskeleton · 29-12-2015 08:22PM

flutered wrote: »

2.50 per pint, in puerto del carmen lanzorotte today

Tigger wrote: »

when im in lanzorotte i drink with breakfast, did you?

Mod Note:

Ahem...political discussion...

rubadub · 24-09-2017 12:21PM

I know its an old thread, can't see a newer one.

nice_guy80 wrote: »

the people making the laws don't really think of the impact of these changes on ordinary citizens

it will affect the likes of the pensioners and low income earners more, who like and deserve their few drinks every week, than those people buying wine for the dinner table on a Saturday evening.

I think they know fine well the impact, but come up with their own figures, which I guess many people just believed. Here are some realistic figures -though in reality many people are drinking well over the "safe" limit so would be a lot more than this.

rubadub wrote: »

I saw some figures pulled out of the air, making out like the increase will be very little.

https://www.kildarestreet.com/sendebates/?id=2015-12-17a.93

Colm Burke (Fine Gael)

It has been alleged that the measures will cause difficulties for people on lower incomes. It is recommended that people should limit the number of units of alcohol they drink weekly to 17 for men and 11 for women. Minimum pricing would result in a weekly increase in costs for a person adhering to this recommendation of approximately 30 cent per week or €1.20 per month. These figures refer to people who are buying alcohol in off-licences.

http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/seanad2015121700002

Senator Jillian van Turnhout:

People who drink alcohol purchased in supermarkets and consume it within the safe limits will pay 30 cent a week more, which is €15.70 over a full year, with minimum unit pricing.

now for real figures.
https://www.aldi.ie/galahad-12---pack/p/062226006338400

That is aldis budget beer, 12 x 500ml x 4% for €8.79. This will increase to €18.94. So this is 18.94 units. The increase is €10.15, so 53.6cent per unit.

For a man the limit is 17 units per week (in 2012 it was 21). So the increase is €9.11 per week and €473.82 per year. Over 30 times more than the estimate ministers are quoting.

Of that extra money aldi get €385.22 the government get a mere €88.60 in tax.

hatrickpatrick · 24-09-2017 05:42PM

expectationlost wrote: »

media reporting this as if its going to happen, very strange

K-9 wrote: »

Indeed, title amended but we don't have to sell newspapers or attract listeners.

The Irish media still hasn't got used to the post-2016 paradigm of the government not being 100% guaranteed to win every Dail vote. What's interesting about it is that the lack of a majority hasn't just meant that the party whip is ineffective, it has also emboldened backbenchers to rebel against their own party. For instance, it was a group of FG senators, not opposition, who filibustered the bill in the Seanad due to concerns over the physical separation aspect of the bill - the minimum pricing aspect hasn't even come up for debate yet.

So yeah, I think that even legal obstacles aside, this bill has a looooong way to go.

hatrickpatrick · 05-10-2017 03:35PM

The bill has been delayed again, just by one week this time - was due to be reintroduced to the Seanad next week, has now been delayed until the week after:

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/health/new-law-will-see-christmas-guinness-ad-being-banned-36198650.html

So far all the fuss still seems to be around advertising and structural separation. Wonder if these delays signify any potential stumbling block for minimum pricing as well?

blanch152 · 05-10-2017 04:48PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

The bill has been delayed again, just by one week this time - was due to be reintroduced to the Seanad next week, has now been delayed until the week after:

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/health/new-law-will-see-christmas-guinness-ad-being-banned-36198650.html

So far all the fuss still seems to be around advertising and structural separation. Wonder if these delays signify any potential stumbling block for minimum pricing as well?

It is just another sign that this current Dail is unable to agree on anything other than the lowest common denominator. What a farce.

rubadub · 05-10-2017 05:30PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Wonder if these delays signify any potential stumbling block for minimum pricing as well?

People still seem to have no idea about the min pricing, I see it on comments online and spoke to people I know today. If people saw the real potential increase per year for "safe level drinkers" AND realised the bulk of the profit is going to the supermarkets then there would be a lot more opposition. I am very surprised the likes of people before profit are not highlighting this. Many people were taking to the streets about potential water charges which are a fraction of the yearly cost that this could be to them.

another link in the indo

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/health/remember-the-proposed-booze-curtains-smaller-shops-have-won-the-battle-against-them-36195365.html

Remember the proposed 'booze curtains'? Smaller shops have won the battle against them

Smaller shops have won their battle to get rid of the proposed 'booze curtain' which would have hidden alcohol from customers' view.
In a move that is set to incense public health campaigners, the shops will continue to be allowed to display alcohol - although it must be confined to around two shelves.
The climb-down is understood to be among a series of amendments in the controversial Public (Health) Alcohol Bill, the Irish Independent has learned.

The legislation, which is to return to the Seanad next week after being on hold for a year, has been subjected to intense lobbying by the drinks industry, retailers and pressure from backbenchers.

They demanded changes to the planned alcohol restrictions in smaller shops, which they claimed were financially onerous and impractical. It led to the Bill being withdrawn from the Seanad last year and going back to the drawing board in a bid to placate its opponents.

Meanwhile, the Government is under pressure to impose excise duty on alcohol in Tuesday's Budget after failing to introduce any levy in 2016 or 2017.

elperello · 05-10-2017 11:47PM

"People still seem to have no idea about the min pricing, I see it on comments online and spoke to people I know today. If people saw the real potential increase per year for "safe level drinkers" AND realised the bulk of the profit is going to the supermarkets then there would be a lot more opposition. I am very surprised the likes of people before profit are not highlighting this. Many people were taking to the streets about potential water charges which are a fraction of the yearly cost that this could be to them."

Agreed there.
If this comes in there will be push back but it will be too late.
It will wipe out the 5e increase in the pension for even a modest drinker.

Fr Tod Umptious · 06-10-2017 12:12AM

elperello wrote: »

"People still seem to have no idea about the min pricing, I see it on comments online and spoke to people I know today. If people saw the real potential increase per year for "safe level drinkers" AND realised the bulk of the profit is going to the supermarkets then there would be a lot more opposition. I am very surprised the likes of people before profit are not highlighting this. Many people were taking to the streets about potential water charges which are a fraction of the yearly cost that this could be to them."

Agreed there.
If this comes in there will be push back but it will be too late.
It will wipe out the 5e increase in the pension for even a modest drinker.

Sorry but no one is going to put minimum pricing of alcohol and water charges anywhere remotely near the same ball park.

elperello · 06-10-2017 12:16AM

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

Sorry but no one is going to put minimum pricing of alcohol and water charges anywhere remotely near the same ball park.

Correct.
There will be nobody marching on the streets to prevent a rise in drink prices.
However there will be lot of disgruntled drinkers/voters.

Capt'n Midnight · 08-10-2017 12:33AM

The big issue here is that this won't raise a single extra cent for healthcare.

The govt need to state clearly that ALL of the extra price excluding VAT will be pocketed by the retailer and distributor.

You might argue that VAT will be higher, so the Govt makes more money but I'd argue that people buying cheap drink aren't exactly awash with cash and so would probably reduce spending elsewhere, hopefully in not going to the pub rather than cutting back on healthy food.

In the case of the supermarkets with own brands like ALDI, LIDL, Tesco they won't have to share with a distributor as they buy abroad and/or have lots of buying power.

McMurphy · 08-10-2017 01:19PM

Lanzarote last week.

Tesco in Dublin this week.

Remind me how drink is far too cheap in this country again Leo.

Proposed minimum alcohol pricing

Comments