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

11213151718305

Comments

  • Posts: 17,728 ✭✭✭✭[Deleted User]


    I disagree, the "drinking problems" are myths from the government.
    Yes, VAT only. ;)

    lol, you can keep your sneary wink as you didn't know about the VAT a few mins ago ;) "No, its not" ;)
    No its not...It goes to the brewers/shopkeepers.

    Their increased revenue is taxed to some extent at sometime. So it's not just the VAT.
    If that's what you want, we should just increase excise duty on alcohol and have the taxman collect the extra. That would cost me more than minimum pricing will, but I would support it. It is fair and discourages abuse by all................

    I'd go with that too but the minimum alcohol pricing isn't without benefits, while not being perfect of course.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,817 ✭✭✭howamidifferent


    Augeo wrote: »
    lol, you can keep your sneary wink as you didn't know about the VAT a few mins ago ;) "No, its not" ;)

    .

    I'd read the thread and I think your about the 1000th person to mention VAT so yes I was aware of it Thanks.


  • Registered Users Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    Augeo wrote: »
    I'd go with that too but the minimum alcohol pricing isn't without benefits

    Yep, great for Vintners and snobs. Sorry, I meant Vintners and other snobs.


  • Posts: 17,728 ✭✭✭✭[Deleted User]


    I disagree, the "drinking problems" are myths from the government.
    I reckon you're after a few too many ;)


  • Posts: 17,728 ✭✭✭✭[Deleted User]


    I disagree, the "drinking problems" are myths from the government.
    Yep, great for Vintners and snobs. Sorry, I meant Vintners and other snobs.

    Are vintners snobs?
    Most of my local pubs were ran by semi gangsters.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    Augeo wrote: »
    I reckon you're after a few too many ;)

    Can you explain what benefit minimum pricing has over simply raising excise duty on alcohol? I can tell you what I think the benefits are, let's see if you can add any more:

    1) Only poor people are affected, not middle class Dail deputies or their voters who never buy booze for less than €2 a bottle anyhow.

    2) It doesn't raise the price in pubs, which are already way higher than a minimum, so it distorts the market in favour of the Vintners and against Aldi, Lidl and other discounters, and against Buckfast/Dutch Gold and in favour of Fine Wine and craft beer.

    Can you think of any other advantage of minimum pricing over raising excise duty?


  • Registered Users Posts: 13,247 ✭✭✭✭ArmaniJeanss


    Augeo wrote: »
    Do you agree with minimum alcohol pricing?

    Yes, but primarily because of the increased revenue, clawback of welfare :)

    It's redistributing the redistributed money, more of my tax will go to services etc, brilliant IMO.

    If revenue increase is what you want then you should be totally against MUP and instead clamouring for a €1 a unit increase in excise.

    It would have the same effect of increasing the €1 can to €2 which would be all extra tax take, whereas MUP is just going to collect VAT at 23% of the extra €1, i.e., ~21cent. And MUP may lead to no tax revenue increase at the top of the market at all, the €80/€100 bottle of wine will likely be too high up the chain to be affected even by the domino effect that poster vinligier has discussed.

    Excise duty increase would have the additional advantage in that they could literally bring it in from midnight tonight.


  • Posts: 17,728 ✭✭✭✭[Deleted User]


    I disagree, the "drinking problems" are myths from the government.
    Can you explain what benefit minimum pricing has over simply raising excise duty on alcohol? I can tell you what I think the benefits are, let's see if you can add any more:

    1) Only poor people are affected, not middle class Dail deputies or their voters who never buy booze for less than €2 a bottle anyhow.

    2) It doesn't raise the price in pubs, which are already way higher than a minimum, so it distorts the market in favour of the Vintners and against Aldi, Lidl and other discounters, and against Buckfast/Dutch Gold and in favour of Fine Wine and craft beer.

    Can you think of any other advantage of minimum pricing over raising excise duty?

    My few too many remark was actually in reference to the post above yours.

    Anyway, as I said "I'd go with that too but the minimum alcohol pricing isn't without benefits, while not being perfect of course"

    But I do also think that a minimum €2/can in off licenses would make underage drinking more expensive. There's benefit to that.

    I think " Only poor people are affected, not middle class Dail deputies or their voters who never buy booze for less than €2 a bottle anyhow." isn't true. Lots of well off folk will be effected too, lots of well off folk like a can or two of an evening and like it costing as little as possible.

    BTW, I don't like your tone old boy, lose the attitude if you want to converse further.


  • Posts: 17,728 ✭✭✭✭[Deleted User]


    I disagree, the "drinking problems" are myths from the government.
    If revenue increase is what you want then you should be totally against MUP and instead clamouring for a €1 a unit increase in excise...............

    I don't recall saying I want, I mentioned I was in favour, agreeable with, as in not against. The poll options are very limited.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 16,635 ✭✭✭✭dr.fuzzenstein


    MeatTwoVeg wrote: »
    Because €2 isn't a lot of money for a can of beer.

    That's why it's cheap.

    What don't you understand about that?

    No, €0.29 a can (including deposit) is cheap.
    I'm looking left, I'm looking right...
    No, no hordes of drunken Germans lumping the sh*t out of each other or pissing and puking in alleyways.
    Very strange, I can't explain it, its almost as if price, well, how do I say this, has nothing to do with it.
    If society was a car, the government is trying to fix a flat battery by pumping up the left rear tire. When it blows up, they'll get another one and pump that till it too blows. All the while whilst throwing up their hands to the sky and loudly exclaiming "WHY ISN'T THIS WORKING?!"
    Say, are you employed in the civil service by any chance? It certainly would explain a lot...


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 17,568 ✭✭✭✭VinLieger


    the €80/€100 bottle of wine will likely be too high up the chain to be affected even by the domino effect that poster vinligier has discussed.

    Definitely the higher you go in price the less effect it will have. It will affect most beers but serious top shelf spirits and wines likely won't see too much added on.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 16,635 ✭✭✭✭dr.fuzzenstein


    VinLieger wrote: »
    Definitely the higher you go in price the less effect it will have. It will affect most beers but serious top shelf spirits and wines likely won't see too much added on.

    Yep, we can tell this decision was worked out by the champagne socialists and the prawn sandwich brigade.


  • Registered Users Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    VinLieger wrote: »
    It will affect most beers but serious top shelf spirits and wines likely won't see too much added on.

    Why should it affect "most beers"?

    Most beers are already above the minimum. Supermarkets have to be banned by law from selling cheaper than minimum, why does anyone imagine they are going to volunteer to further drive down sales by upping prices on other beers?


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,798 ✭✭✭goose2005


    MeatTwoVeg wrote: »
    €2 a can is pleanty cheap enough.
    It costs about 13 cents to produce


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,568 ✭✭✭✭VinLieger


    Why should it affect "most beers"?

    Most beers are already above the minimum. Supermarkets have to be banned by law from selling cheaper than minimum, why does anyone imagine they are going to volunteer to further drive down sales by upping prices on other beers?

    Because the beer companies also set the price, take heineken they consider themselves a premium brand in Ireland, if a bunch of non premium brands are suddenly raised to the same price as heineken they will raise themselves again to maintain that illusion of a premium brand. They have precedent for doing exactly this when wetherspoons tried selling pints of heineken at 3 euro in their flagship irish location. Heineken demanded they either increase the price OR they would stop supplying the irish locations, wetherspoons told them to take a hike and now you can't get heineken in irish wetherspoons, same with guinness who insisted on charging a premium price that wetherspoons refused to set so you cant buy guinnes in irish wetherspoons either


  • Registered Users Posts: 15,853 ✭✭✭✭Spanish Eyes


    I wonder if any producer will take a case to the EU on this, similar to the Scottish Whisky Association in Scotland?

    Surely the ruling in the Scottish case applies only to Scotland.

    The EU ruling left it up to the Scottish courts to decide, but hinted that taxation measures could be used instead of MUP.

    I think Ireland should have a ruling from the courts on this aswell. For fairness like, not just following Scotland like sheep.

    Anyhow, I just do not understand why taxation measures are not being taken instead of MUP here. Surely that would benefit everyone by increased loot in the exchequer.

    But wait... the vintners would be equally affected wouldn't they.


  • Registered Users Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    VinLieger wrote: »
    Because the beer companies also set the price, take heineken they consider themselves a premium brand in Ireland, if a bunch of non premium brands are suddenly raised to the same price as heineken they will raise themselves again to maintain that illusion of a premium brand.

    They make money at their existing price, and they will gain market share - who'd buy Dutch Gold when you can buy Heino for the same price, so they'll make more.

    And with the Supermarkets barred by law from cheap offers, you can bet they'll compete on who can offer the best beer at the minimum price instead.

    Minimum pricing will just see cheap beers eliminated from the market, and more share going to the supposedly premium crap like Heineken.


  • Registered Users Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    But wait... the vintners would be equally affected wouldn't they.

    That is just a coincidence, as is the fact that every TD has a publican in the family somewhere.


  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 90,538 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    _Jamie_ wrote: »
    Wait, even wine? :eek:
    Remember not so long ago the price of wine jumped and now there aren't any winos ?

    That extra euro on a bottle of wine has raised €45 million in taxesMinimum pricing will bring €0 extra excise duty.

    Yes alcoholic drinks have VAT but so does most discretionary spending. So it's zero sum unless people reduce spending on food in which case it would mean a VAT decrease. Because, as I've said before the extra price would be pocketed by the supermarkets and wholesalers.

    http://www.irishfoodguide.ie/2013/12/28-of-irish-people-are-drinking-less.html
    The reasons given for drinking less wine than before were:
    I generally drink less alcohol (59%)
    Wine has become too expensive (27%)
    Wine is bad for health (13%)
    The people I’m usually with drink less wine (11%)
    The quality of many wines has declined (3%)
    The wine I like is no longer available (2%)
    Other reason (12%)
    ...
    IMPACT of PRICING
    The number of consumers who would stop buying a brand almost doubles with each €1 increase. 44% of people are spending more on wine that they did one year ago. 42% spend the same and 14% spend less on wine.

    Note it's buying a brand, not buying wine or buying alcohol.
    Also note that 44% are spending more on alcohol.


  • Registered Users Posts: 33,380 ✭✭✭✭listermint


    They make money at their existing price, and they will gain market share - who'd buy Dutch Gold when you can buy Heino for the same price, so they'll make more.

    And with the Supermarkets barred by law from cheap offers, you can bet they'll compete on who can offer the best beer at the minimum price instead.

    Minimum pricing will just see cheap beers eliminated from the market, and more share going to the supposedly premium crap like Heineken.

    No that won't happen it will price differentiate the premium beers.

    You are in total cloud cookoo land if you believe anything other than across the board increases will happen.

    Either that or clearly haven't lived in this country long enough.

    If businesses can wedge a price increase it takes very little excuse to do so.

    This will be enough justification.

    Its a completely nonsense scheme dreamt up by incompetent muppets.


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 90,538 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    I know, right? Who buys beer that's cheaper than €2? In cans, for God's sake?

    Skangers, that's who. Minimum pricing might put manners on them.
    Just turn down the thermostat on your fridge. Super chilled larger all tastes the same.

    TBH if you are buying mass-market beer instead of speciality or craft beer you are probably more concerned that it contains alcohol than savouring the finer aspects of the taste.

    In Germany the Reinheitsgebot means beer can only be made from water, barley and hops and after 500 years they now allow yeast too.

    Don't kid yourself that beer is expensive to make.
    Malting Barley costs about €155/tonne which is enough to make 15,553 pints :eek:

    In reality you need 1.3 tonnes of Barley to get a tonne of malt so it's more like 1p a pint rather than 1cent per pint.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,759 ✭✭✭Winterlong


    To hell with this carry on. I am asking Santa for a homebrew kit. Or will that be the next target of the Vintners and Mary Mitchell O'Conner?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 29,930 ✭✭✭✭TerrorFirmer


    What really gets me is, what happens to say, Lidl Rachmanioff Vodka? 12.99 a bottle currently. That shoots up to almost €30? If so surely Smirnoff and the likes would suddenly have to leap to €35-40?


  • Registered Users Posts: 11,262 ✭✭✭✭jester77


    Anyway as a responsible adult who is of age, not causing trouble and was last anywhere near an A&E 6 years ago (fall, broken bone - guaranteed it would have hurt A LOT less if I'd been on the beer) - I'm off to Dunnes to avail of their lovely offer on chilled Staropramen.

    Five bottles (500ml) for ten euro.

    Before the puritans on here tell me I can't and even if I could I shouldn't as I'm destroying society.

    €10, ouch. I can get a 6 pack of Staropramen for €3.60 here




  • They make money at their existing price, and they will gain market share - who'd buy Dutch Gold when you can buy Heino for the same price, so they'll make more.
    .

    People who prefer Dutch gold?

    Bavaria is my favours beer (aside from draft Guinness), regardless of its price compared to Heineken or other more expensive beer I would still buy it.


  • Registered Users Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    In Germany the Reinheitsgebot means beer can only be made from water, barley and hops and after 500 years they now allow yeast too.

    Strange, I have German beer with wheat in it in the fridge!


  • Registered Users Posts: 15,442 ✭✭✭✭Leroy42


    Interesting article in the Guardian today, basically says the the Public Health Authority in UK have come out in favour of MUP.

    https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/dec/01/minimum-alcohol-pricing-gets-backing-of-uk-governments-health-advisers

    I have read some of the research done on the subject and, at least from my reading, there does seem to be a clear link between the raising of price and the reduction in consumption.

    So whilst I am starting to come around to the concept of raising pricing, I think mainly, for me, the issue is not so much the price itself, but rather the single focus nature of the MUP plan. It does nothing to address the many myriad issues that cause alcoholism, seems to be nothing more than a quick 'look, we did something' approach will be adversely effect certain parts of the market whilst leaving other parts of the market untouched.

    Where did the €2 number come from, as it seems amazing high. Scotland are talking about 45p I think. That is a massive difference. Does it have to do with VAT and excise already included in our price, doesn't appear so.

    So, I am not totally against the 'idea' of using price to aid in the reduction of alcohol, but more that I think if we are serious about dealing with what is clearly a serious problem, we need to do more than simply help the vintners and the premium brands.

    If we use taxation method, or better yet a levy type system (every can sold needs to return a €1 health levy or whatever) and use this money to directly deal with the societal effects of alcohol. Setting up proper drunk tanks to ease A&E pressures. Making social services and counselling available to those effected by alcoholism, better education in the schools and workplaces (people always seem to think that education is only for young people but young people also learn from their parents). Proper investment in the enforcement of the current laws regarding underage drinking, making publicans more responsible for continuing to serve drink to people clearly passed their limits.

    The other possibility, is that much like the car industry which dragged its feet over engine efficiency for years before suddenly being all about efficiency when it became a selling advantage, the breweries have paid not much more than lip service to the area of non alcoholic versions of their brands. Maybe be increasing the price based on alcoholic content it will force the breweries to come out with either lower level of alcohol free to get around the price.

    There would certainly be a large market if you could get your brand to taste the same but have no alcohol in it, a price difference straight off the bat!

    And the levy would be dependent on the type of licence you have. So off licence would be €1, but a pub might be €2, thereby keeping the price difference in line with current market rates.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,154 ✭✭✭Flex


    Just to clear something up. Theres been major confusion about the minimum price of €1. Many media outlets and even civil servants themselves (and the idiot Varadkar) have been working on the assumption that 1 unit = 10ml of alcohol, however, if I recall rightly, the bill states the 1 unit is 10mg of alcohol, which is 12.7ml.

    That has the impact of a slab of 24 cans of 4.5% abv drinks going to €42.52 and a bottle of 700ml whiskey going to €22.05 (not €28). Could someone confirm this?


    On the MUP itself, its been doneto win over the VFI. Government wont consider an excise increase because that hits publicans, and MUP will hit beer far more so than spirits or wine in the Off Trade, and publicans rely mainly on beer. And the people constantly posting about how 'Irish people cant be trusted with alcohol', thats nonsense. Our consumption levels are average. The 'cultural' issue of limiting our drinking to a single occasion of the week, and needing to drink until we go to sleep once we start drinking, etc. need to be changed, but the key to that is not to further denormalise or regulate alcohol and make it seem even more 'special'. I think a use named Seamus put up a couple of posts about this before about the idea that deregulating alcohol and normalising it would be far better approach to changing attitudes, and I completely agree with him.

    If its of any interest, below shows alcohol consumption per capita for 17 European countries, figures are from the WHO report on alcohol consumption projections for end of 2015.

    Rank Country Litres per capita % var vs. Average
    1 Portugal 12.5 17.8%
    2 Hungary 12.4 16.9%
    3 United Kingdom 12 13.1%
    4 Finland 11.9 12.1%
    5 France 11.6 9.3%
    6 Poland 11.5 8.4%
    7 Luxembourg 11.2 5.5%
    8 Ireland 10.9 2.7%
    9 Belgium 10.8 1.8%
    10 Germany 10.6 -0.1%
    11 Spain 10.6 -0.1%
    12 Switzerland 10.4 -2.0%
    13 Denmark 10.2 -3.9%
    14 Netherlands 9.6 -9.5%
    15 Sweden 8.7 -18.0%
    16 Austria 8.5 -19.9%
    17 Norway 7 -34.0%

    AVERAGE 10.6


    Just to add, regards use of emergency services time and resources. I dont have stats on this, but I would bet that the vast vast majority of people arrested or admitted to hospital over excess alcohol consumption are people who have been getting served bars and clubs, not people drinking at home. Again, because this bill was done to throw publicans a bone and win support from them there was little or nothing to impact the On Trade, however, there could simply be implemented a law that the last pub to serve a person arrested for drunk and disorderly activity be fined, or something. Or just fine/punish the person responsible for said behaviour rather than this collective punishment (simple common sense measures like that wouldnt have got Leo Varadkar's name in the papers to nearly the same extent either during the drafting of the bill though)


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 393 ✭✭Mortpourvelo


    Flex wrote: »
    .. however, there could simply be implemented a law that the last pub to serve a person arrested for drunk and disorderly activity be fined, or something. Or just fine/punish the person responsible for said behaviour rather than this collective punishment (simple common sense measures like that wouldnt have got Leo Varadkar's name in the papers to nearly the same extent either during the drafting of the bill though)

    Now don't you go spouting perfectly logical, common sense, fair, workable solutions here young man!!!!

    This is not that type of place!! ;)


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 619 ✭✭✭macnug


    Flex wrote:
    That has the impact of a slab of 24 cans of 4.5% abv drinks going to €42.52 and a bottle of 700ml whiskey going to €22.05 (not €28). Could someone confirm this?


    As far as I remember it was 10c per gram of alcohol which would make your prices correct.


Advertisement