Minimum alcohol pricing is nigh

Fr Tod Umptious · 04-10-2018 11:15am

weldoninhio wrote: »

So now Joe Soap and Mary Soap who might have bought 6 cans and 2 bottles of wine a week only buy 3 cans and one bottle.

So that’s the tax take halved from moderate drinkers, who make up the majority of drinkers. Where does this money come to replace this?? We are still running at a deficit and taking loans to keep the lights on.

That's kind of the category my wife and I will fall into.

And quiet honestly I don't have a problem with it.

Less alcohol is no harm.

Doctor Jimbob · 04-10-2018 11:15am

skerry wrote: »

I think the money spent treating the Soap family for alcohol related health issues over their lifetime could far outweigh the tax take from buying said alcohol in the first place.

I admit I don't know the Soap's well enough to comment fully on their alcohol intake as I've only passed them on the street a handful of times, but I'd imagine the government is more concerned about the burden on the health care system appeasing the vintners than the few quid they lose out on tax for one less bottle of vino a week.

FYP

odyssey06 · 04-10-2018 11:17am

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

That's kind of the category my wife and I will fall into.

And quiet honestly I don't have a problem with it.

Less alcohol is no harm.

You don't have a problem with giving Tesco or whoever you buy from those euros instead?
You could just drink less now and save the money.

Sure why don't you go into Tesco and tell them no I don't pay €1 for this sliced pan, here's €2 instead.

odyssey06 · 04-10-2018 11:20am

Quackster wrote: »

Unless Northern Ireland remains in customs union with the EU (which currently seems very unlikely), legal cross border alcohol shopping will virtually cease on the 1st January 2021 in the event of a deal.
In a no-deal deal scenario, it will end on 29th March next year.

Technically would that mean duty free could be back on the table?
But I'm struggling to see how that works logistically, would you have to try to claim back the duty when exiting at the 'soft' border?

weldoninhio · 04-10-2018 11:22am

skerry wrote: »

I think the money spent treating the Soap family for alcohol related health issues over their lifetime could far outweigh the tax take from buying said alcohol in the first place.

I admit I don't know the Soap's well enough to comment fully on their alcohol intake as I've only passed them on the street a handful of times, but I'd imagine the government is more concerned about the burden on the health care system than the few quid they lose out on tax for one less bottle of vino a week.

Moderate drinking doesn’t have any health implications. We are still going to be dealing with the health implications of the problem drinkers, with the tax take halved.

Doctor Jimbob · 04-10-2018 11:29am

weldoninhio wrote: »

Moderate drinking doesn’t have any health implications. We are still going to be dealing with the health implications of the problem drinkers, with the tax take halved.

I'd argue that it's debatable whether or not moderate drinking has health implications, but either way I completely agree that MUP is a stupid way of dealing with it. What exactly is the message being sent out? Risking your health is fine if you can afford it? Only poor people could be stupid enough to risk their health?

skerry · 04-10-2018 11:30am

I disagree, the "drinking problems" are myths from the government.

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

skerry wrote: »

I think the money spent treating the Soap family for alcohol related health issues over their lifetime could far outweigh the tax take from buying said alcohol in the first place.

I admit I don't know the Soap's well enough to comment fully on their alcohol intake as I've only passed them on the street a handful of times, but I'd imagine the government is more concerned about the burden on the health care system appeasing the vintners than the few quid they lose out on tax for one less bottle of vino a week.

FYP

I'd have thought a Doctor would have known better than to presume that the burden on the health care system due to alcohol related issues in this country is in any way sustainable. The facts are there in the data as opposed to some presumption that the government are in cahoots with the Vintners, but believe whatever makes you feel better about yourself.

skerry · 04-10-2018 11:32am

I disagree, the "drinking problems" are myths from the government.

weldoninhio wrote: »

skerry wrote: »

I think the money spent treating the Soap family for alcohol related health issues over their lifetime could far outweigh the tax take from buying said alcohol in the first place.

I admit I don't know the Soap's well enough to comment fully on their alcohol intake as I've only passed them on the street a handful of times, but I'd imagine the government is more concerned about the burden on the health care system than the few quid they lose out on tax for one less bottle of vino a week.

Moderate drinking doesn’t have any health implications. We are still going to be dealing with the health implications of the problem drinkers, with the tax take halved.

Based on what exactly? Recent research states that no amount of alcohol is good for you, but that's not what most people want to hear.

Doctor Jimbob · 04-10-2018 11:33am

skerry wrote: »

I'd have thought a Doctor would have known better than to presume that the burden on the health care system due to alcohol related issues in this country is in any way sustainable. The facts are there in the data as opposed to some presumption that the government are in cahoots with the Vintners, but believe whatever makes you feel better about yourself.

I'd have thought people would understand at this stage that an internet username doesn't reflect someone's profession, but there you go.

As for the "presumption that the government are in cahoots with the vintners", well I'll just leave this here again:

Supporting Irish Pubs: Fine Gael recognises the importance of the Irish pub for tourism, rural jobs and as a social outlet in communities across the country. We will support the local pub by 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.

But believe whatever makes you feel better about yourself :rolleyes:

Fr Tod Umptious · 04-10-2018 11:41am

odyssey06 wrote: »

You don't have a problem with giving Tesco or whoever you buy from those euros instead?
You could just drink less now and save the money.

Sure why don't you go into Tesco and tell them no I don't pay €1 for this sliced pan, here's €2 instead.

Actually when you put it that way I might just stop altogether.

I'll keep buying bread though, at whatever price it is, it's kind of important to the family diet.

Mr. teddywinkles · 04-10-2018 11:41am

skerry wrote: »

Based on what exactly? Recent research states that no amount of alcohol is good for you, but that's not what most people want to hear.

So is coffee and most fast foods and anything containing sugar.

Doctor Jimbob · 04-10-2018 11:42am

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

Actually when you put it that way I might just stop altogether.

I'll keep buying bread though, at whatever price it is, it's kind of important to the family diet.

Bread is unhealthy if you eat too much of it though. The price should be doubled in the shops but kept the same in restaurants, because that's a logical and not remotely absurd solution.

skerry · 04-10-2018 11:44am

I disagree, the "drinking problems" are myths from the government.

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

skerry wrote: »

I'd have thought a Doctor would have known better than to presume that the burden on the health care system due to alcohol related issues in this country is in any way sustainable. The facts are there in the data as opposed to some presumption that the government are in cahoots with the Vintners, but believe whatever makes you feel better about yourself.

I'd have thought people would understand at this stage that an internet username doesn't reflect someone's profession, but there you go.

As for the "presumption that the government are in cahoots with the vintners", well I'll just leave this here again:

Supporting Irish Pubs: Fine Gael recognises the importance of the Irish pub for tourism, rural jobs and as a social outlet in communities across the country. We will support the local pub by 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.

But believe whatever makes you feel better about yourself :rolleyes:

Ahhhhmmm, the Doctor part was a joke, possibly not a funny one but I laughed and that's the main thing.
Nice quote and all but doesn't change the fact that this country has a bad relationship with alcohol and has done for a long time and any measure to correct that can't be a bad thing.

odyssey06 · 04-10-2018 11:45am

skerry wrote: »

Based on what exactly? Recent research states that no amount of alcohol is good for you, but that's not what most people want to hear.

The "latest" research is this..
"Alcohol may be helpful for people at risk of heart disease, but should be avoided by people with a family history of cancer, a new study suggests. "
https://www.independent.ie/life/health-wellbeing/alcohol-can-help-those-with-heart-disease-risk-but-should-be-avoided-by-people-with-a-family-history-of-cancer-new-study-37383378.html

Other "all risk" mortality studies conducted over decades with tens of thousands of subjects don't show any detrimental effects to moderate alcohol use.

odyssey06 · 04-10-2018 11:46am

skerry wrote: »

Ahhhhmmm, the Doctor part was a joke, possibly not a funny one but I laughed and that's the main thing.
Nice quote and all but doesn't change the fact that this country has a bad relationship with alcohol and has done for a long time and any measure to correct that can't be a bad thing.

You really have fallen hook line and sinker for the Vintners propaganda haven't you?

Doctor Jimbob · 04-10-2018 11:47am

skerry wrote: »

Ahhhhmmm, the Doctor part was a joke, possibly not a funny one but I laughed and that's the main thing.
Nice quote and all but doesn't change the fact that this country has a bad relationship with alcohol and has done for a long time and any measure to correct that can't be a bad thing.

I agree that we should take measures to limit abuse of alcohol, I just don't agree that this is a good measure. Raising the price does nothing but limit the problem to those who are better off. Worst case, people who are addicted sacrifice important things like food to feed their habit. I think it's a short sighted approach that will cause more problems than it solves, but I suppose we'll see.

skerry · 04-10-2018 11:53am

I disagree, the "drinking problems" are myths from the government.

odyssey06 wrote: »

skerry wrote: »

Ahhhhmmm, the Doctor part was a joke, possibly not a funny one but I laughed and that's the main thing.
Nice quote and all but doesn't change the fact that this country has a bad relationship with alcohol and has done for a long time and any measure to correct that can't be a bad thing.

You really have fallen hook line and sinker for the Vintners propaganda haven't you?

I have never spoken to a Vintner, nor have I read any of their propaganda pieces, so no, I haven't.

bob mcbob · 04-10-2018 12:01pm

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

If you believe that, you'll believe anything.

The total dreck like Galahad, St Bernard Lager Beer etc. probably goes off the market entirely.

Dutch Gold etc. goes up to the MUP price.

Heineken, Carlsberg, etc - what the trade here laughably call 'premium lagers' - are often sold now below what the MUP is. But there's no way they'll sell their 'premium' product at the same price as Dutch Gold, so they'll put their prices up purely for marketing reasons.

Expect the same thing with craft beers, too - can't be selling them at the same price as Swineken...

Wines and spirits - the ripple effect of price increases will go right up through the price range, too.

No decent multibuy offers at Christmas or bank holidays ever again.

Cross border shopping will go through the roof.

True but the important thing is that FG is seen by the LVA and VFI to be throwing them a bone. No doubt they'll soon be clamouring for the MUP to be increased, for "health reasons".

The experience I have seen in Scotland is

Any of the high strength s**t beer / cider selling below MUP has gone off the market and in the case of stuff like diamond white, that is a good thing.

The mass market "premium" lagers have not been too much affected by the MUP but the price difference between them and real premium beers (brewdog / innis & gunn) is reduced. More people are trading up and buying quality. The craft beer makers seem to be using this as an opportunity to increase volumes

I have not seen any difference in wine prices.

All promotions on alcohol are gone

Some supermarkets won't let you use vouchers / etc if alcohol is included in your basket

In general for a moderate drinker drinking good beers / wine I have not seen any difference.

VinLieger · 04-10-2018 12:10pm

skerry wrote: »

I have never spoken to a Vintner, nor have I read any of their propaganda pieces, so no, I haven't.

Can you explain FG's 2011 manifesto pledge to vintners which was the originator of the thought process for this bill?

Supporting Irish Pubs:Fine Gael recognises the importance of the Irish pub for tourism, rural jobs and as a social outlet in communities across the country. We will support the local pub by 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.

Forgive me but i see no mention of health concerns in there.

Also if this really was about health why are they not introducing this as a tax and funneling the proceeds towards the health service to help offset the cost of alcohol on our health system and better fund addiction services?

Leroy42 · 04-10-2018 12:14pm

VinLieger wrote: »

Can you explain FG's 2011 manifesto pledge to vintners which was the originator of the thought process for this bill?

Fully agree that it was the initial thinking, but the way that it turned out was not that.

The debate out health of the product, the focus on this being an attempt by the vintners to boost trade, the inclusion of the cancer labels etc have all meant that I doubt this is really going to make any significant positive difference.

And in fact, if this is simply the step to banning sports advertising, etc then it could very well be a long term negative.

joe40 · 04-10-2018 12:18pm

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Not for the first time in this thread, see the relevant text from the Fine Gael manifesto back in 2011:

"Supporting Irish Pubs: Fine Gael recognises the importance of the Irish pub for tourism, rural jobs and as a social outlet in communities across the country. We will support the local pub by 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."

It may or may not work, but supporting the vintners is quite clearly the intention of this legislation.

But pubs are "important for tourism,rural jobs and as a social outlet", I don't see anything wrong with supporting that but I also don't think MUP will have any affect. It is easy to say something in manifesto just to be seen to be doing something.
Again correct me if I'm wrong but did this bill not contain a whole raft of measures some of which will actively hurt pubs like limiting how a local pub can support a sports team or event by limits on alcohol sponsorship
The MUP was only part of the bill.

VinLieger · 04-10-2018 12:21pm

Leroy42 wrote: »

Fully agree that it was the initial thinking, but the way that it turned out was not that.

The debate out health of the product, the focus on this being an attempt by the vintners to boost trade, the inclusion of the cancer labels etc have all meant that I doubt this is really going to make any significant positive difference.

And in fact, if this is simply the step to banning sports advertising, etc then it could very well be a long term negative.

It was the original thinking but once they realised that A it was illegal and B people would be pissed off they fumbled around looking for a new excuse and settled on health.

Every one of the health concerns raised have been pretty roundly dismissed as ridiculous as they also can be applied to multiple other food products on the market that are not being gone after anywhere near as heavily. And the idea that price will affect alcoholics has been equally shown to quite simply be absolutely stupid.

The likes of Alcohol Ireland and college of physicians jumped on board as is this is their big nimby issue but it still doesn't make the MUP or goal of the legislation as a whole any less about trying to help the vintners as the main goal.

And as I previously pointed out if health was a concern they would be trying to fund alcohol health and addiction services better by making this a tax and funding them using the proceeds.

The obvious evidence of that is there is zero burden throughout any of this quite large and complex bill being put on vintners.

end of the road · 04-10-2018 12:23pm

skerry wrote: »

Ahhhhmmm, the Doctor part was a joke, possibly not a funny one but I laughed and that's the main thing.
Nice quote and all but doesn't change the fact that this country has a bad relationship with alcohol and has done for a long time and any measure to correct that can't be a bad thing.

i don't agree. ireland may have had a bad relationship with alcohol in the past but i don't believe it does now. i believe the relationship is over-exaggerated to push a particular agenda by the powers that be and lobby groups.
in turn due to this constant feeding of such information, some of the average members of the public, going on their experiences with those who are genuinely problem drinkers, think that such behaviour is the norm from all drinkers.
minimum pricing won't make problem drinkers go away, they will just spend more money, which in turn will go into the pockets of the supermarkets.

facehugger99 · 04-10-2018 12:26pm

bob mcbob wrote: »

In general for a moderate drinker drinking good beers / wine I have not seen any difference.

Ah here now, that's not what the lads want to hear.

You're supposed to say that the tax-take has flat-lined, black market shopping is through the roof and a state of anarchy has been declared because Johnny Cheapslab can't get pissed for a €10 anymore.

Doctor Jimbob · 04-10-2018 12:28pm

joe40 wrote: »

But pubs are "important for tourism,rural jobs and as a social outlet", I don't see anything wrong with supporting that but I also don't think MUP will have any affect. It is easy to say something in manifesto just to be seen to be doing something.
Again correct me if I'm wrong but did this bill not contain a whole raft of measures some of which will actively hurt pubs like limiting how a local pub can support a sports team or event by limits on alcohol sponsorship
The MUP was only part of the bill.

If alcohol is as harmful as those in support of this bill want us to believe, we need to move away from the importance of pubs as a social outlet. I don't see how you can see nothing wrong with supporting pubs while being in favour of plans to reduce alcohol consumption.

Doctor Jimbob · 04-10-2018 12:30pm

facehugger99 wrote: »

Ah here now, that's not what the lads want to hear.

You're supposed to say that the tax-take has flat-lined, black market shopping is through the roof and a state of anarchy has been declared because Johnny Cheapslab can't get pissed for a €10 anymore.

Actually I for one would be delighted if what's described in that post came to pass.

Carry on with your ridiculous "Johnny Cheapslab" narrative all you like though.

joe stodge · 04-10-2018 12:43pm

with the new minimum alcohol pricing bill will I have to get a mortgage to buy cans?

Quackster · 04-10-2018 1:07pm

I disagree, the "drinking problems" are myths from the government.

odyssey06 wrote: »

Technically would that mean duty free could be back on the table?
But I'm struggling to see how that works logistically, would you have to try to claim back the duty when exiting at the 'soft' border?

Duty free is generally restricted to plane or ferry (or more unusually train) travel as opposed to crossing a land border so you won't be able to claim back the UK duty but you'll still be restricted to bringing back a very small allowance before being forced to pay Irish duty and VAT on your purchases. You may be able to claim back the UK VAT though.

There'll also be the hassle of having to stop at an Irish customs facility somewhere to make your declaration and pay any monies due or risk being stopped, having your goods confiscated and potentially being fined if you attempt to smuggle alcohol across the border.

odyssey06 · 04-10-2018 1:14pm

Quackster wrote: »

Duty free is generally restricted to plane or ferry travel as opposed to crossing a land border so you won't be able to claim back the UK duty but you'll still be restricted to bringing back a very small allowance before being forced to pay Irish duty and VAT on your purchases. You may be able to claim back the UK VAT though.

There'll also be the hassle of having to stop at an Irish customs facility somewhere to make your declaration and pay any monies due or risk being stopped, having your goods confiscated and potentially being fined if you attempt to smuggle alcohol across the border.

Yeah I thought the logistics would be tricky... Maybe it will be boom time for the greenore ferry!

sbsquarepants · 04-10-2018 1:40pm

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

That's kind of the category my wife and I will fall into.

And quiet honestly I don't have a problem with it.

Less alcohol is no harm.

So up until now why haven't you and your wife not just bought less alcohol and kept the money for yourselves?

Do you and the missus need governmental help to regulate your spending or something?

Minimum alcohol pricing is nigh

Comments