nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Minimum Alcohol pricing to be signed into Law

Timistry

http://www.rte.ie/news/2013/1022/482077-public-health-alcohol-bill/

Multiple excise increases in the last few Budgets and now this... Ireland is already one of the most expensive countries in Europe for alcohol. Like many, I can appreciate the negative impacts that it has on society but these nanny state measures just will not work

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Help!!!!

Go out in any town/city in the U.K. & you will see the same ( if not worse ) behaviour, the difference is that they have cop vans waiting to take the culprits to the police station to sober up & charge if needs be.
The real reason there is problems in Ireland is because of the lack of Garda presence around the country. A lot of Garda stations around the country were closed so the nearest stations is miles away. MUP will only affect the people who responsibly drink. The rest will go out & mug/burgle more to get the money needed to continue their way of life.
Time to bring back more Gardaí stations in towns around the country with drunk cells.
As for A&E there should be fines for people who are brought there by their own stupidity

Help!!!!

Blut2 wrote: »

Cigarettes are 1eur a packet in Dubai, but over 10eur a packet in Ireland. This is clearly daylight robbery. But society has gradually come around to the idea that taxing cigarettes to at least cover the health costs they do to the state makes sense.

Alcohol has almost as many negative side effects on society as cigarettes do (lesser health, but much greater social costs) - heavily taxing it in a similar way makes perfect sense.

Would you prefer to pay more income tax or pay more for booze? Because either way the emergency services at weekends, the long-term healthcare costs for alcohol related health disorders etc have to be paid for. It's a zero-sum game unfortunately.

(I'm not a teetotaler either, I consume roughly the average number of units for an Irish person per week every week. I just have enough common sense to see it as the unnecessary, damaging, luxury good that it is).

Wrong!!! The amount of tax smokers have paid over the years more than paid for the cost of health services. Smokers ended up paying for a lot of non-smokers treatments

Gerry T

Help!!!! wrote: »

Wrong!!! The amount of tax smokers have paid over the years more than paid for the cost of health services. Smokers ended up paying for a lot of non-smokers treatments

Have you some evidence for that ?

Gerry T

Blut2 wrote: »

Cigarettes are 1eur a packet in Dubai, but over 10eur a packet in Ireland. This is clearly daylight robbery. But society has gradually come around to the idea that taxing cigarettes to at least cover the health costs they do to the state makes sense.

Alcohol has almost as many negative side effects on society as cigarettes do (lesser health, but much greater social costs) - heavily taxing it in a similar way makes perfect sense.

Would you prefer to pay more income tax or pay more for booze? Because either way the emergency services at weekends, the long-term healthcare costs for alcohol related health disorders etc have to be paid for. It's a zero-sum game unfortunately.

(I'm not a teetotaler either, I consume roughly the average number of units for an Irish person per week every week. I just have enough common sense to see it as the unnecessary, damaging, luxury good that it is).

There is a big difference. if you are a light drinker you are not going to be a drain on society. But there is no equivalent for smoking.

Help!!!!

Gerry T wrote: »

Have you some evidence for that ?

The Government rakes in an estimated €2bn a year in tax revenue from cigarettes. Ironically, this is quite a bit higher than the sums spent on treating illness caused by smoking. Of course, smoking is a terrible habit that takes, on average, seven years off your life.

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/comment/save-on-health-costs-but-lose-a-packet-on-tax-the-ifs-and-butts-of-the-smoking-debate-30455811.html

Blut2

Gerry T wrote: »

There is a big difference. if you are a light drinker you are not going to be a drain on society. But there is no equivalent for smoking.

There's an exact equivalent - a very light smoker.

Help!!!! wrote: »

Wrong!!! The amount of tax smokers have paid over the years more than paid for the cost of health services. Smokers ended up paying for a lot of non-smokers treatments

This is an extremely positive thing, no? Is it not better that people who make the bad life choice to smoke contribute more to the state? Or would you rather income taxes were raised across the board in lieu of cigarette duty income?

Its rather similar to how people who drive expensive sports cars pay a lot more in VRT, motor tax and petrol tax than someone who drives a Toyota Yaris. If you make a choice to purchase a luxury good then you should pay more tax on it.

Essentially, my point with cigarettes/cars relates to alcohol in that society has already reached the point where certain luxury goods are taxed excessively to both increase government revenue and decrease consumption - sports cars, cigarettes etc. It doesn't make sense to exclude alcohol from this. The only reason its currently so is because punitive alcohol taxation effects a higher percentage of the population than cigarettes or sports cars do, so you hear a louder pushback against it currently.

In time, alcohol will and should fall into the same category of punitive taxation - by all logic its in the same category of luxury/damaging good.

(and again, I say this as someone who enjoys a drink - I'm not some anti-booze evangelist. I just think when you apply logical thinking to it alcohol will in time have to have duty raised substantially)

irish_goat

Let's stick to discussing booze and not smoking, folks.

rubadub

n97 mini wrote: »

Punitive pricing does work, but before anyone starts foaming at the mouth, I have already stated that it hasn't been tried here with alcohol so WE DON'T KNOW.

n97 mini wrote: »

And if I remember rightly "alco pops" died a death here after the balls were taxed off them.

Can you give a definition of what you mean by punitive pricing, as it seems you are screaming we don't know, and then go on to say it already happened here...

Some drinks have higher excise than others, that is already punitive pricing, or maybe not by your definition, this is why I want to hear yours.

A bog standard bottle of smirnoff is currently 20 euro in tesco. Varadkars plan is to have this at a min price of 20.71

Help!!!!

Just cant get my head around people's reasoning that the only solution to a problem is to increase taxation.
Maybe look at the money wasted by governments & councils that could go towards hospitals, more Gardaí & educating people would be a better way to go

odyssey06

Blut2 wrote: »

Cigarettes are 1eur a packet in Dubai, but over 10eur a packet in Ireland. This is clearly daylight robbery. But society has gradually come around to the idea that taxing cigarettes to at least cover the health costs they do to the state makes sense.

The Irish government seem cagey about disclosing how much revenue is currently obtained through all taxes on alcohol. We have no clear idea whether the cost is already covered. And it's noticeable that in the minimum alcohol 'debate', I haven't heard anyone in the government come out and say they need more revenue from alcohol to cover these costs. Especially as minimum alcohol revenue doesn't even go to the state.

Alcohol has almost as many negative side effects on society as cigarettes do (lesser health, but much greater social costs) - heavily taxing it in a similar way makes perfect sense.

There is so much vagueness in that sentence I'm hesistant to even respond to it as it suggests I accept its premise. I do not. One could just as easily argue that if we are concerned about social effects we should target specifically those social costs directly rather than relying on an indirect lever whose effectiveness is not clear. If you want to tackle drink driving, is higher excise on alcohol really the best weapon we have? You seem to suggest that indirectly through punitive taxation it will ripple through to all these social costs.
If we need to tackle driving under the influence, we need to effective laws for driving under the influence of drugs too as well as alcohol. How will punitive taxation help there?
Ditto for "alcohol induced violence" on streets. If there's violence on the streets, I want to see it tackled, not rely on the maybe of an increase in the price of alcohol on the shelves. There are other reasons for violence on the street and need to be tackled on the streets and in the courts. Not on the supermarket shelves.
(As an aside, I'm very dubious as to how much "alcohol related violence" is really caused by alcohol rather than alcohol being used as an excuse for criminal and anti-social behaviour).

And there are many ways around punitive taxation - legally across our shared land border with the North, or illegally through counterfeit imports or home brews. And let's be honest, efforts to tackle cigarette smuggling are a joke and they are sold on the streets of our capital.

Would you prefer to pay more income tax or pay more for booze? Because either way the emergency services at weekends, the long-term healthcare costs for alcohol related health disorders etc have to be paid for. It's a zero-sum game unfortunately.

The long-term impact on costs to the government of alcohol is not clear. One would expect alcohol related health issues to feed into reduced life expectancy, and while this means higher health costs, it could also mean lower pension costs etc. I don't think anyone has done those sums so it's premature at best, if not flat out wrong, to categorise it a zero sum game.

The most visited attraction in 2015 in our country was the Guinness Storehouse. Nearly one in three visitors to the Guinness Storehouse in 2015 were from the UK, followed by United States of America (22%), Ireland (7%), France (6%) and Germany (6%).
'Pub culture' frequently features in promotions for Ireland abroad.
How would those visitors respond to punitive taxation? Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales etc will start to look a lot more appealing if prices for alcohol get even higher in pubs, hotels and restaurants - which I assume you want to see as part of your punitive taxation?
What impact would that have on tourism jobs and revenue and VAT?

Summing up the balance sheet here would be an extremely challenging enterprise.

L1011

n97 mini wrote: »

Everywhere else is irrelevant. The societal issue is in Ireland, and €1 a can is cheap relative to spending power.

Its entirely relevant, as the countries with similar spending power are cheaper and don't have the societal issue. Pricing does not impact on it.

n97 mini wrote: »

E
Punitive pricing does work, but before anyone starts foaming at the mouth, I have already stated that it hasn't been tried here with alcohol so WE DON'T KNOW. Some posters seem to have crystal balls, I don't.

We already punitively price alcohol. It doesn't work. You later on in this very post make an (inaccurate, though) claim that we have punitively priced spirits here - make your mind up!

n97 mini wrote: »

Where punitive pricing has been shown to work here is with motor taxation (which is an infringement of civil liberties imho: I shouldn't be punished just for owning a car with a large engine), and certainly cigarette smoking has declined but pricing has lead to a significant black market.

Moving car drivers to a different size of car doesn't stop them driving. It hasn't done anything for that.

n97 mini wrote: »

And if I remember rightly "alco pops" died a death here after the balls were taxed off them.

Never happened

They went out of fashion, that's all.

Cider (not alcopops) had its duty ramped and hasn't declined.

dr.fuzzenstein

n97 mini wrote: »

Everywhere else is irrelevant. The societal issue is in Ireland, and €1 a can is cheap relative to spending power.

Punitive pricing does work, but before anyone starts foaming at the mouth, I have already stated that it hasn't been tried here with alcohol so WE DON'T KNOW. Some posters seem to have crystal balls, I don't.

Where punitive pricing has been shown to work here is with motor taxation (which is an infringement of civil liberties imho: I shouldn't be punished just for owning a car with a large engine), and certainly cigarette smoking has declined but pricing has lead to a significant black market. And if I remember rightly "alco pops" died a death here after the balls were taxed off them.

Therein lies the problem. Everyone who smokes in my office has fags with foreign stamps on them. Every single one of them. No one who smokes and has half a brain buys cigarettes in Ireland, you'd want to be stupid to do so. Not with the fcuking idiotic prices they charge here. Those grey market cigarettes don't show up on the Irish stats, so they are incorrect. So, these people smoke, may have adverse health effects and might have to be treated by the Irish health services. And the beauty of it? Due to the idiotic pricing here, they will have contributed no tax via duty on tobacco products, so while their taxes will go to another country, the Irish health service is out of pocket. I am personally proud to have paid not a single penny and later cent in duty to the Irish state over the last 20 years before I gave up. And if MUP comes in, I will endeavor to repeat the same with alcohol. I believe in sensible taxation, but once it gets stupid, people WILL find a way past it. Sometimes it's right to say "fcuk that sh*t sideways with a broken bottle". Where the state is clearly out to simply steal from you, I have to defend my own interests. If there is any justice in the world, the Irish will simply go abroad en masse and I hope it seriously damages the retail market and state coffers here.
Oh and when it comes to cars, you're suddenly Mr Anti Tax? It's not a buffet, you know. You can't pick and choose which one you like.

oblivious

@Blut2 please read the forum charter, Alcohol is not bad. People are bad.

n97 mini

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

Therein lies the problem. Everyone who smokes in my office has fags with foreign stamps on them. Every single one of them. No one who smokes and has half a brain buys cigarettes in Ireland, you'd want to be stupid to do so. Not with the fcuking idiotic prices they charge here. Those grey market cigarettes don't show up on the Irish stats, so they are incorrect.

The Irish figures are based on surveys, I believe the question is "Do you smoke 1 or more cigarettes a week" (I've been surveyed, but not for a while). The authorities are smarter than you think and analyse rubbish to find out the size of the black market (the empty boxes aren't smuggled out again), last time I looked it was around 25%. I'd expect punitive pricing to affect the black market in alcohol, but with MUP no-one in the supply chain has any incentive, so it might actually shrink.

n97 mini

L1011 wrote: »

Its entirely relevant, as the countries with similar spending power are cheaper and don't have the societal issue. Pricing does not impact on it.

You're missing my point. What happens in other countries has no bearing on what happens here. It's a problem with Irish society's relationship with alcohol. The only other country that has a "it's Friday let's drink ourselves onto a coma" mentality is the UK. If alcohol was free in some countries they wouldn't have a problem as getting off your face just isn't socially acceptable.

dr.fuzzenstein

n97 mini wrote: »

You're missing my point. What happens in other countries has no bearing on what happens here. It's a problem with Irish society's relationship with alcohol. The only other country that has a "it's Friday let's drink ourselves onto a coma" mentality is the UK. If alcohol was free in some countries they wouldn't have a problem as getting off your face just isn't socially acceptable.

There we have it then. You agree that price is not the deciding factor and simply increasing it is not the solution to the "problem" (that exists according to the vintners association)
Thank you for validating my argument.

n97 mini

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

There we have it then. You agree that price is not the deciding factor.

...in other countries. Please don't misquote me!

rubadub

n97 mini wrote: »

I'd expect punitive pricing to affect the black market in alcohol, but with MUP no-one in the supply chain has any incentive, so it might actually shrink.

I am still awaiting your definition of punitive pricing, preferable with example figures -since your posts seem to contraditct themselves.

I am completely confused as to how you or anybody could possibly think minimum pricing would shrink the black market for booze. No idea how you think there is no incentive to sell it on the black market if this comes in. Even the off licences themselves would have an incentive to sell booze off the books, though I would only expect independent ones to do this, just like cigarettes.

n97 mini

rubadub wrote: »

I am completely confused as to how you or anybody could possibly think minimum pricing would shrink the black market for booze.

Current black market for booze involves (f.e.) selling something cheaper than Smirnoff as Smirnoff. That would disappear as the margin on vodka would be high enough that publicans would forego the small margin they made selling Rachmaninovksi as Smirnoff.

So straight away the supply side has no incentive for black market trading under MUP.

Will the consumer side make up for that shortfall? It's relatively easy to bring cigarettes in a significant quantity on a €40 flight from (f.e.) Latvia, but what about drink? Cigs versus booze might be like diamonds versus coal.

n97 mini

rubadub wrote: »

I am still awaiting your definition of punitive pricing,

Punitive pricing is whatever people are broadly willing to not pay.

rubadub

n97 mini wrote: »

Punitive pricing is whatever people are broadly willing to not pay.

Can you give figures, do you think the proposed MUP is punitive?

Your black market logic makes absolutely no sense to me whatsoever, actually wondering if you are trolling as its so ridiculous. If anybody else agrees with you I will bother to explain, but seems you are on your own.

L1011

n97 mini wrote: »

You're missing my point. What happens in other countries has no bearing on what happens here. It's a problem with Irish society's relationship with alcohol. The only other country that has a "it's Friday let's drink ourselves onto a coma" mentality is the UK. If alcohol was free in some countries they wouldn't have a problem as getting off your face just isn't socially acceptable.

And Scandinavia. And much of eastern Europe.

Your "point" is confused, rambling and contradictory.

dr.fuzzenstein

n97 mini wrote: »

Current black market for booze involves (f.e.) selling something cheaper than Smirnoff as Smirnoff. That would disappear as the margin on vodka would be high enough that publicans would forego the small margin they made selling Rachmaninovksi as Smirnoff.

So straight away the supply side has no incentive for black market trading under MUP.

Will the consumer side make up for that shortfall? It's relatively easy to bring cigarettes in a significant quantity on a €40 flight from (f.e.) Latvia, but what about drink? Cigs versus booze might be like diamonds versus coal.

Of course it still works, in fact it has just become twice as profitable.
Bring in vodka from the continent that can cost as little as €5 (remember, no hoardes of drunken Germans around Aldi), pour into Smirnoff bottle and sell that for €15 under the counter at the local market. Or should cheap hooch not be available, turpentine, brake fluid, white spirit, anything will do.
You think it can't be done? Were you born yesterday? How do you think millions of cigarettes are brought in? Not to mention cannabis, cocaine, heroine, ecstasy and anything else you fancy.
We have just given the drug dealers one more avenue of profit.
So in future there will be two ways for the state and therefore the health service to lose revenue. People who frequent their friendly (or not so friendly) local drug dealer, who can hook them up with a bottle of cheap booze and whatever else they fancy. This will not only lead to loss of revenue, but also more problems with intoxication and A&E attendance.
Double loss for the state and the health service, since these people (this type of clientele would most likely be on a medical card) have not contributed to the state coffers (illegal drugs and booze are notoriously hard to tax) and now require expensive medical care and some may even need transplants.
The second way for the state to lose is from more ordinary people who will take a trip to Newry or France and stock up on booze for the year. Same result with less antisocial behaviour, less tax take and increased cost to the health service.
I can't see anything good come of this. You're thinking is "Ah jaysis, dem drinkers, we should be punishin' dem, now!", but that is not a good enough reason for introducing legislation that has one purpose and one purpose only: to protect the pub trade.
Oh and I nearly forgot, apart from costing the healthservice more money, this will also cost a few hundred million in beefing up border controls and the Gardai. Which will not happen. We never spend money in Ireland, we just wham up taxes.

You say Ireland has a messed up relationship with alcohol. Maybe try to change that with education and enforcement? If there is indeed a need for a cultural shift, whamming up the price will do nothing.

syklops

Current black market for booze involves (f.e.) selling something cheaper than Smirnoff as Smirnoff. That would disappear as the margin on vodka would be high enough that publicans would forego the small margin they made selling Rachmaninovksi as Smirnoff.

I envy your naivety.

If I buy booze at 9am in the morning on Moore Street, I know its not Smirnoff. I'm hoping it is actual vodka, in fact im hoping its actually alcohol and is actually suitable for human consumption.

Black market selling will become commonplace. Even more commonplace than it is now, and scruples will be shed. If someone wants to make a fast buck, theyll fill a few bottles of Smirnoff with anti-freeze, sell them on Benburb Street for a tenner each and hope they make it home before Fair City starts.

Help!!!!

n97 mini wrote: »

You're missing my point. What happens in other countries has no bearing on what happens here. It's a problem with Irish society's relationship with alcohol. The only other country that has a "it's Friday let's drink ourselves onto a coma" mentality is the UK. If alcohol was free in some countries they wouldn't have a problem as getting off your face just isn't socially acceptable.

Sorry but I've seen the same level of drinking in Australia, New Zealand, South Africa & USA so maybe you need to get out more

aviator7

Help!!!! wrote: »

Sorry but I've seen the same level of drinking in Australia, New Zealand, South Africa & USA so maybe you need to get out more

+1.

If the theory of charging more for alcohol will reduce consumption is true, then the opposite would also be true.

Yet when I am in a country with cheaper drink, I don't drink a higher quantity. I just enjoy the fact I'm paying less.

It's very naive to think think that if people can no longer afford alcohol in a shop, that they won't obtain it by illegal means.

Most of us know people who already obtain drink at a cheaper rate by various means at the current pricing levels. Of course this will increase when the saving becomes even greater.

um7y1h83ge06nx

Of course the black market will expand, it will become more attractive to people that normally wouldn't buy through those avenues.

Back in college a bunch of us used get Vodka from Spanish fishing boats, the fishermen used bring some on board to make some extra cash.

syklops

Back when I was a smoker, I smoked pretty much exclusively foreign bought cigarettes. 90% were ones I bought myself, and the other 10% were ones I bouht off a friend or someone in the office. I would imagine a very large number of current smokers do the same. I avoided paying tax on the 90% of my consumption 100% legally.

If MUP comes in, the good news is I'll be taking more trips to mainland europe.

BuilderPlumber

syklops wrote: »

I envy your naivety.

If I buy booze at 9am in the morning on Moore Street, I know its not Smirnoff. I'm hoping it is actual vodka, in fact im hoping its actually alcohol and is actually suitable for human consumption.

Black market selling will become commonplace. Even more commonplace than it is now, and scruples will be shed. If someone wants to make a fast buck, theyll fill a few bottles of Smirnoff with anti-freeze, sell them on Benburb Street for a tenner each and hope they make it home before Fair City starts.

The black market will increase as long as legislation like this is introduced. We have the dissident IRA selling smuggled fags for this reason, likewise laundered fuel. We are being fleeced left, right and centre by everyone and criminals have come in to fill the void.

Leo Varadkar is another in a list of poor health ministers we have had in recent years. While hospital beds have often been nonexistent and health insurance has become totally unaffordable for many, this rubbish about minimum alcohol unit pricing is all he cares about!! He is there to serve the PEOPLE and solve their problems, otherwise he should not even be there. Tackling pricing is well overdue and he should take aim at health insurance and drive his fellow ministers to tackle insurance and its negative influence on prices of other goods notably alcohol sold in, er, PUBS! High prices are killing business and the vintners should campaign for lower pub prices by getting government to lower the cost of doing business and not trying to influence price and availability of alternative sources of alcohol.

Mr. teddywinkles

n97 mini wrote: »

Everywhere else is irrelevant. The societal issue is in Ireland, and €1 a can is cheap relative to spending power.

Punitive pricing does work, but before anyone starts foaming at the mouth, I have already stated that it hasn't been tried here with alcohol so WE DON'T KNOW. Some posters seem to have crystal balls, I don't.

Where punitive pricing has been shown to work here is with motor taxation (which is an infringement of civil liberties imho: I shouldn't be punished just for owning a car with a large engine), and certainly cigarette smoking has declined but pricing has lead to a significant black market. And if I remember rightly "alco pops" died a death here after the balls were taxed off them.

Put up treble the price. You will still have the same crack around towns and cities in this country. And the same drunken gob****es in A&E. This the point people are trying to get across to you. Its the mental attitude towards drink that needs to change.
Taxation on motor vehicles is totally different. Introducing a carbon tax on people with no green alternative or decent public transport alternative.
Most people need a vehicle for transport to work. Taxing the ****e out of the public wont change that fact.