Government to set min price on gargle

Zubeneschamali

HansHolzel wrote: »

I'd be more concerned about shafting the consumer's liver.

No, if that was it you'd want to increase the price of all booze, not just the cheap stuff.

I think I see the real plan:

Poor people can't afford the drink, so their livers are in good shape.

Rich people shaft their livers at an unchanged rate, but now there is a bigger pool of healthy livers out there for donation, so the rich people get to shaft several livers in succession.

Banjo String

HansHolzel wrote: »

I'd be more concerned about shafting the consumer's liver.

Publicans and the VFI aren't though.

Don't try telling me that they have the consumers health in mind here, they don't.

Give me an example of a landlord/publican that would give a toss if his pub was stuffed to capacity, 7 nights a week with folk necking pint after pint followed by whiskey chasers and Jaeger bombs?

No, their booze is the good, non liver damaging booze. Its the offies cheaper stuff that's the danger here.

Right?

mathepac

Eutow wrote: »

.. The LVA/VFI look at the off-licence trade as an enemy to the on-trade. ...

Nonsense. LVA & VFI members own and operate off-licences. The issue is below-cost selling in supermarkets, the loss-leaders to get punters through the doors.

Dravokivich

mathepac wrote: »

Nonsense. LVA & VFI members own and operate off-licences. The issue is below-cost selling in supermarkets, the loss-leaders to get punters through the doors.

And how about the pubs that have their drink more competitively priced? This will affect them too.

P_1

Minimum pricing for anything really isn't free market (which is what our economy is supposed to be right?). It just smacks far too much of protectionism for the vintners trade to me. Hopefully the EU will recognise it for what it is and boot it swiftly into touch (although our gombeen government does have form when it comes to ignoring things that the EU tells it that they don't like)

Banjo String

mathepac wrote: »

Nonsense. LVA & VFI members own and operate off-licences. The issue is below-cost selling in supermarkets, the loss-leaders to get punters through the doors.

Strange they don't mind that right this minute, I could walk into Tesco and buy 2 x 2ltr bottles of coke for €3.20

They charge the same price (more sometimes) for a 200ml bottle though.

In Tesco I get 20 x times as much for my money though.

yoyo

Banjo String wrote: »

Publicans and the VFI aren't though.

Don't try telling me that they have the consumers health in mind here, they don't.

Give me an example of a landlord/publican that would give a toss if his pub was stuffed to capacity, 7 nights a week with folk necking pint after pint followed by whiskey chasers and Jaeger bombs?

No, their booze is the good, non liver damaging booze. Its the offies cheaper stuff that's the danger here.

Right?

Actually, on the whole VFI/Responsibility thing. How about a new law is introduced to make it an offense for an off license or public house/nightclub to serve intoxicated persons? With severe penalties for those that breach this rule.
That would mean the pub/club cannot serve a patron more than 3 pints (or whatever that ridiculous "limit" the government came up with). This would ironically make more sense than the minimum price fixing crap they are proposing (that incidentally was blocked from being brought into law in Scotland due to the EU stepping in). And of course, I would not agree with it but on principle it is a more "realistic" solution.
On another note I cannot wait for JD Weatherspoons to set up over here to properly piss off those VFI idiots. On the whole pubs closing and "job loss", Off Licenses are also being forced to close due to these new taxes, with loss of jobs to go with it.

Nick

goose2005

HansHolzel wrote: »

If you can't grasp that drink is an urgent public health issue in Ireland, then there's no point engaging with you any further.

I do. The answer is to target the problems directly i.e. more prosecutions of people for being drunk and disorderly, and better addiction services for those who want to stop. Increasing the price will affect consumption mostly in light/moderate consumers, heavy drinkers will just spend the little extra

mathepac wrote: »

Nonsense. LVA & VFI members own and operate off-licences. The issue is below-cost selling in supermarkets, the loss-leaders to get punters through the doors.

Except it isn't below cost. If it was, then how would off-licenses make a profit?

mathepac

Banjo String wrote: »

Strange they don't mind that right this minute, I could walk into Tesco and buy 2 x 2ltr bottles of coke for €3.20

They charge the same price (more sometimes) for a 200ml bottle though.

In Tesco I get 20 x times as much for my money though.

I know it's only an AH thread but I thought the topic was alcohol pricing, not soft drinks. Ah well ...

mathepac

goose2005 wrote: »

...
Except it isn't below cost. If it was, then how would off-licenses make a profit?

"Below cost selling in supermarkets" is what I posted. Have you been to the off licence already??

Dravokivich

goose2005 wrote: »

Except it isn't below cost. If it was, then how would off-licenses make a profit?

When it comes to loss leaders, they don't really care about the immediate return on that specific product. It's somewhat of an invitation to the shop as whole with the idea that "an item you want, that we had a slim profit margin on costs you less, so you can come buy stuff that we have a higher profit margin on and recoup the difference while still coming out with a profit."

But I don't think that in itself is ethically bad to the consumer. I could consider buying quite a quantity of drink with such an offer, but that doesn't mean I'll be busting my liver trying to drink it all as quick as inhumanly possible.

Banjo String

mathepac wrote: »

I know it's only an AH thread but I thought the topic was alcohol pricing, not soft drinks. Ah well ...

But below cost selling isn't exclusive to alcohol.

You gave the below cost example BTW.

mathepac

Banjo String wrote: »

But below cost selling isn't exclusive to alcohol.

You gave the below cost example BTW.

As the thread is about alcohol or "gargle" pricing, just in in case that's news, I took it for granted that reasonable people would remember that. Ah well ...

HansHolzel

yoyo wrote: »

This would ironically make more sense than the minimum price fixing crap they are proposing (that incidentally was blocked from being brought into law in Scotland due to the EU stepping in).

Nick

Sigh. Get your facts right. Five EU countries only objected last July. Therefore the only judgement so far is this one.

BBC 3 May 2013:

"A legal challenge to the Scottish government's plans to introduce minimum pricing per unit of alcohol has failed.

The Scotch Whisky Association (SWA) took action against the proposal, which it said would breach European law, after it was passed by MSPs.

A Court of Session ruling dismissed the action and said plans to introduce 50p per unit minimum pricing were legal.

The SWA said it was surprised and disappointed by the ruling and would appeal the decision.

Lord Doherty said the minimum alcohol pricing policy was within the powers of Scottish ministers and not incompatible with EU law.

A summary of his decision said: "The court ruled that the Acts of Union were not an impediment to the minimum pricing measures. The court also decided that the measures were not incompatible with EU law."

Banjo String

mathepac wrote: »

As the thread is about alcohol or "gargle" pricing, just in in case that's news, I took it for granted that reasonable people would remember that. Ah well ...

No need to get stroppy.

Your, and the VFIs argument about below cost selling doesn't hold up.

I don't see chippers lobbying the govt because spuds/chicken and sausages can be bought cheaper in supermarkets.

Ditto, petrol stations complaining supermarkets sell 4 x double decker chocolate bars cheaper than they sell one.

Xtravision/HMV going to the wall because of downloads and internet companies offering cheaper alternatives.

First they got the off licence reduced opening hours implemented, now they have their pricing in sight.

Stark truth is, if the pubs would adapt to a changing environment (less disposable income should mean cheaper pints) they should make a night in the pub affordable. Not gouge the punters that wander in, and lobby the govt to punish those who partake in the odd can/bottle of wine who budget more savvy and therefore don't wander in.

rubadub

mathepac wrote: »

The issue is below-cost selling in supermarkets, the loss-leaders to get punters through the doors.

from another thread

rubadub wrote: »

Have you any evidence of this below cost selling. I hear publicans talk about it all the time, but no evidence. I do know distributors attempt to charge publicans a fortune, some of these morons seem to think everybody pays the same wholesale prices, and therefore proclaim below cost selling, simply because they get charged more.


I have looked for the info and never found any evidence at all, NEVER, supermarkets do not readily disclose figures.

What I did find was very interesting figures from the UK. They have a similar enough situation as here, moaning publicans and claims of below cost selling. When there was talk of setting a minimum price the UK also investigated making below cost selling illegal, as it was presume it was so widespread. When investigated it found that only 2-4 products were being sold below cost in all the major supermarkets combined, these were oddball products too, not your big name trays of beer you see on sale. The idea was scrapped because of this.

A few alleged publicans post on boards, none were ever able to provide a links below cost selling went on to the extent they make out, any links at all, whether believable or not.

And non of the publicans ever responded to my questioning of the below cost model in convenience type stores. e.g. my centra frequently has 20 Heineken for €15, I have never seen people doing a weekly shop there, most getting the beer are only buying the beer.

Eutow

mathepac wrote: »

Nonsense. LVA & VFI members own and operate off-licences. The issue is below-cost selling in supermarkets, the loss-leaders to get punters through the doors.

And super-markets and corner shops selling alcohol are part of the off-licence trade. The Vinters don't like the competition and are trying to cut off this type of competition by lobbying the government who will comply under the guise of health concerns.

mathepac

Banjo String wrote: »

No need to get stroppy.

Your, and the VFIs argument about below cost selling doesn't hold up.

I don't see chippers lobbying the govt because spuds/chicken and sausages can be bought cheaper in supermarkets.

Ditto, petrol stations complaining supermarkets sell 4 x double decker chocolate bars cheaper than they sell one.

Xtravision/HMV going to the wall because of downloads and internet companies offering cheaper alternatives.

First they got the off licence reduced opening hours implemented, now they have their pricing in sight.

Stark truth is, if the pubs would adapt to a changing environment (less disposable income should mean cheaper pints) they should make a night in the pub affordable. Not gouge the punters that wander in, and lobby the govt to punish those who partake in the odd can/bottle of wine who budget more savvy and therefore don't wander in.

All probably fine arguments if I wasn't writing about supermarkets selling alcohol below cost price.

At this stage it's time for me to pause and remember where I'm posting and to whom.

msg11

Haven't even read this thread yet.

But I can see this happening. Tesco and the likes are keeping there mouth shut on this one because they know that if the publicans get there way with min pricing. Not only will the prices be higher in Tesco and the likes but at the same time they will always be cheaper. Because publicans are rip offs and when they get there way they will hike the price up higher than Tesco and the likes, Tesco and the likes will always be cheaper as they are not as greedy as the publicans.

mathepac

Eutow wrote: »

... The Vinters don't like the competition and are trying to cut off this type of competition by lobbying the government who will comply under the guise of health concerns.

Members of the vintners' associations and lobby groups operate off-licences as well as pubs, as I have pointed out before.

Eutow

mathepac wrote: »

Members of the vintners' associations and lobby groups operate off-licences as well as pubs, as I have pointed out before.

And those that also own off-licences will profit anyway if minimum pricing is introduced, so they have nothing to lose. Those that are not members don't benefit which is what they want.

Provide a link that proves supermarkets sell below cost.

Zubeneschamali

Banjo String wrote: »

Stark truth is, if the pubs would adapt to a changing environment (less disposable income should mean cheaper pints) they should make a night in the pub affordable.

Even starker truth: if they don't adapt, and close because they are too expensive, I don't care.

rubadub

mathepac wrote: »

All probably fine arguments if I wasn't writing about supermarkets selling alcohol below cost price.

but they don't sell below cost, I already explained this.

mathepac wrote: »

Members of the vintners' associations and lobby groups operate off-licences as well as pubs, as I have pointed out before.

I don't see your point. It's win win if you own a pub and offie. Some people seem to think of this minimum pricing as a sin tax, but we are not even getting the benefit of that, its not a tax. Its not a rise in excise or a levy that's proposed, the extra cost goes to the offie, and only the small VAT difference goes to the government. I reckon any drop in sales in an offie would be made up for by their now guaranteed high profits, its no wonder they are seemingly not complaining about it.

Banjo String

mathepac wrote: »

At this stage it's time for me to pause and remember where I'm posting and to whom.

Or bow out and admit your argument doesn't mean jack

HansHolzel

I wish there were more grown ups on Boards.

hatrickpatrick

HansHolzel wrote: »

I hope you don't refuse to buy, say, car insurance on the ideological grounds of government interference with your freedom.

Insurance isn't a nanny state issue, it's there to protect the rights of anyone I might crash into. You're comparing apples and oranges.

hatrickpatrick

HansHolzel wrote: »

I'd be more concerned about shafting the consumer's liver.

It's my liver and it's my choice whether to shaft it or not - not the government's.

HansHolzel wrote: »

No, it's a conspiracy by aliens.

HansHolzel wrote: »

I wish there were more grown ups on Boards.

Those two quotes really don't sit well together at all, do they? :pac:

HansHolzel

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Insurance isn't a nanny state issue, it's there to protect the rights of anyone I might crash into. You're comparing apples and oranges.

You "might" do a lot of things in life, hence the need for effective government and not any libertarian nonsense that would leave us with no roads because no one would build or maintain any outside their own driveway.

HansHolzel

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

It's my liver and it's my choice whether to shaft it or not - not the government's.

Those two quotes really don't sit well together at all, do they? :pac:

Sarcasm is evidently lost on you,

When you grow up you may ditch the notion your cirrhosis won't be a burden on society.

Eutow

HansHolzel wrote: »

I wish there were more grown ups on Boards.

HansHolzel wrote: »

You "might" do a lot of things in life, hence the need for effective government and not any libertarian nonsense that would leave us with no roads because no one would build or maintain any outside their own driveway.

I wish people would be more coherent in their arguments. Please explain the above and how it is relevant to the topic.