Government to set min price on gargle

The Narrator

kjl wrote: »

Were you this outraged when they started charging for plastic bags? The extra tax can be used to treatment centers and education.

Don't like the fact that the supermarkets are charging 80c for a plastic bag.

How much of that goes towards education when the levy itself is 15c?

I was just trying to make a point that raising the prices of everything and having people at each others necks isn't going to fix anything.

Raising price on drink isn't going to fix anything.

Tbh that money would more than likely just go towards the banks, not towards treatment centers and education.
If there was a guarantee that the price increase would go towards those things, I'd be happy for an increase. The money won't though, so I don't see the point personally.

rubadub

seanie_c wrote: »

Alcohol is just another chemical/drug people use as a coping mechanism.

Yes, alcohol is abused, but why?

Their conscious altering substance of choice might be illegal, most alternatives are, many which the medical community would consider far safer alternatives.

Many people have a drive for hunger, sex and experiencing altered states of consciousness. If you are thin and not particularly fond of food you might find it hard to understand why others are obese and so fond of overeating, same with sex and intoxicants.

kjl

I am bowing out of this one, truly hope they bring this in and when they do I will have a massive sh1t-eating grin on my face thinking of everyone on this thread :P

rubadub

kjl wrote: »

you somehow want to argue that alcohol consumption won't go down if people are charged more for it?

I never said/claimed anything of the sort, dunno how you came up with that one!

kjl wrote: »

Are you saying that the extra revenue will simply go into the shop keepers hands?

This is what any proposed plan I have seen suggests, the only extra revenue is the VAT difference between the original price an the new min price.

In my example if the new min price was 1.50, the government only gets 9.35cent more and tesco get 40.65cent more.

If they put the excise up then the pubs have to charge more or bear it too. The sneaky way they are suggesting means the offies are now whinging, since they get this "free profit", and the publicans get more business, well that's the plan, I know their 10pm closing time plan backfired amongst my friends, if out early enough many just clear out at 9.50pm to get drinks and go back somewhere else.

Dravokivich

kjl wrote: »

ok so people are not using loads of bags because the are charged for them, and you somehow want to argue that alcohol consumption won't go down if people are charged more for it? I would imaging the demand would be elastic.

Are you saying that the extra revenue will simply go into the shop keepers hands? Well if that is the case I don't agree with it, it should be a tax and not a forced suggestion.

What were you arguing for again? I'm finding it hard to keep up.

jimgoose

rubadub wrote: »

...If they put the excise up then the pubs have to charge more or bear it too.

It's worse than that. It came to my attention recently that most publicans are obsessed with margin as a percentage of the total price charged to the end consumer, and that's why when the pint goes up say 10c, they'll put it up by at lease another 5c.

OldNotWIse

kjl wrote: »

I would change your username to OldAndWise, fair play.

Ah but by your standards, that would be the wrong box.

You see when I say "I have been sober for the majority of 30 years" what I mean is - I was sober for the first 17 years, and then after that followed a period where I was not sober for more of the time. I currently average about 95% of my week sober...so all in all, yes I have been sober for the majority of 30 years - but I guess you'd still class me as some kind of dipso, whoring around pubs, half p1ssed and generally wreacking havoc on society (and clogging up A&E without even being there). :rolleyes:

jimgoose

OldNotWIse wrote: »

...I guess you'd still class me as some kind of dipso, whoring around pubs, half p1ssed and generally wreacking havoc on society (and clogging up A&E without even being there). :rolleyes:

Hither came Conan the Cimmerian, black-haired, sullen-eyed, sword in hand, a thief, a reaver, a slayer, with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

OldNotWIse

kjl wrote: »

I am bowing out of this one, truly hope they bring this in and when they do I will have a massive sh1t-eating grin on my face thinking of everyone on this thread :P

Ah, so that's what you do instead of drinking. We all have our vices.

ScumLord

kjl wrote: »

ok so people are not using loads of bags because the are charged for them, and you somehow want to argue that alcohol consumption won't go down if people are charged more for it? I would imaging the demand would be elastic.

The difference is of course your not under the influence of plastic bags after you buy the first one. After the 3rd or fourth pint, the chances of you emptying your wallet on more drink increases exponentially. It's not going to stop someone drinking more it's just going to punish them while they're weak.

jimgoose

ScumLord wrote: »

The difference is of course your not under the influence of plastic bags after you buy the first one. After the 3rd or fourth pint, the chances of you emptying your wallet on more drink increases exponentially. It's not going to stop someone drinking more it's just going to punish them while they're weak.

Aye. And I'd add, when was the last time you heard anyone say "Jaysis, I'd murder a couple of plastic bags!"??

kjl

kjl wrote: »

I think your friend was unlucky. If it was a simple blood test, why didn't she go to GP?

Yeah he was there for a blood test as after all that's what you need when you break your leg.
If you have to resort to making things up in order to try and prove your point then you've already lost.

To quote myself:

A friend of mine broke his leg on a Tuesday morning and wasn't seen till the next day.

strobe

kjl wrote: »

ok so people are not using loads of bags because the are charged for them, and you somehow want to argue that alcohol consumption won't go down if people are charged more for it? I would imaging the demand would be elastic.

Do you really not see the difference between plastic bags and alcohol?

The purpose of plastic bags is to hold items purchased from a shop to make the items easier to convey. When the bag levy came in, people still wanted to convey their items to the same degree but used the cheaper available options - reusable bags or paper bags. These allowed people to continue to convey their items while avoiding the cost of the levy. People didn't just convey items less.

The purpose of alcohol is to produce the effects of alcohol (and to a lesser extent, to taste the way the various alcoholic drinks taste).

To see the drop off effect from the plastic bag levy on alcohol there would need to be a ready to go alternative to alcohol that would provide the exact same function and effects as alcohol.

There's no reusable/paper bag alcohol sitting there waiting. Alcohol is alcohol.

The comparison to make, if you have to make one, is item conveyance -vs- producing the effects of alcohol.

People conveyed items just as frequently as before once the plastic bag levy came in.

jester77

strobe wrote: »

Do you really not see the difference between plastic bags and alcohol?

The purpose of plastic bags is to hold items purchased from a shop to make the items easier to convey. When the bag levy came in, people still wanted to convey their items to the same degree but used the cheaper available options - reusable bags or paper bags. These allowed people to continue to convey their items while avoiding the cost of the levy. People didn't just convey items less.

The purpose of alcohol is to produce the effects of alcohol (and to a lesser extent, to taste the way the various alcoholic drinks taste).

To see the drop off effect from the plastic bag levy on alcohol there would need to be a ready to go alternative to alcohol that would provide the exact same function and effects as alcohol.

There's no reusable/paper bag alcohol sitting there waiting. Alcohol is alcohol.

The comparison to make, if you have to make one, is item conveyance -vs- producing the effects of alcohol.

People conveyed items just as frequently as before once the plastic bag levy came in.

Have they brought in a deposit system yet in Ireland for bottles and cans or is everything just dumped?

Would be a good starting point if it doesn't exist yet.

darkpagandeath

jester77 wrote: »

Have they brought in a deposit system yet in Ireland for bottles and cans or is everything just dumped?

Would be a good starting point if it doesn't exist yet.

hahaaha i had a good laugh at that one ... recycling costs the government money why would they do that ? it's far easier to say were charging for plastic bags so people wont use them ...

kjl

ScumLord wrote: »

The difference is of course your not under the influence of plastic bags after you buy the first one. After the 3rd or fourth pint, the chances of you emptying your wallet on more drink increases exponentially. It's not going to stop someone drinking more it's just going to punish them while they're weak.

As far as I am aware, most people wouldn't be under the influence when they are purchasing alcohol in an off licence. There would be no difference in price in your scenario.

kjl

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Ah but by your standards, that would be the wrong box.

You see when I say "I have been sober for the majority of 30 years" what I mean is - I was sober for the first 17 years, and then after that followed a period where I was not sober for more of the time. I currently average about 95% of my week sober...so all in all, yes I have been sober for the majority of 30 years - but I guess you'd still class me as some kind of dipso, whoring around pubs, half p1ssed and generally wreacking havoc on society (and clogging up A&E without even being there). :rolleyes:

Well yeah, I would. 8 hours a week you are pissed and you think you don't binge drink. :rolleyes:

kjl

kjl wrote: »

Well yeah, I would. 8 hours a week you are pissed and you think you don't binge drink. :rolleyes:

Look, you come across as some killjoy who when they couldn't handle the effects of alcohol decided instead to take on a superior attitude and look down upon anyone who enjoys a few drinks.

There is nothing wrong with having a few beers, be that in the comfort of your own home or a pub. Sure there are people who get so drunk they can't stand up but it's got nothing to do with you or anyone else. Raising the price of alcohol won't stop anyone who wants to drink from drinking. The entire thing is just another way for publican members of the dail to squeeze a little more out of an Irish people who at the minute are scraping by. If I want a quiet drink I'd much prefer to pay a couple of euro for a nice imported beer than I would sit in a crowded pub which is what this whole movement is about. Publicans don't want people drinking at home, they want people spending close to 5 euro a pint in their drab pubs.

mikom

Control.

Kev.OC

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Ah but by your standards, that would be the wrong box.

You see when I say "I have been sober for the majority of 30 years" what I mean is - I was sober for the first 17 years, and then after that followed a period where I was not sober for more of the time. I currently average about 95% of my week sober...so all in all, yes I have been sober for the majority of 30 years - but I guess you'd still class me as some kind of dipso, whoring around pubs, half p1ssed and generally wreacking havoc on society (and clogging up A&E without even being there). :rolleyes:

kjl wrote: »

Well yeah, I would. 8 hours a week you are pissed and you think you don't binge drink. :rolleyes:

Am, hang on. Did I miss the newsletter where being anything less than 100% sober meant I was automatically put in the "pissed" category? I didn't realise those were my only two options.

So all those times I had a single lone beer while cooking dinner I was being a pissed alcoholic? And the state charging me more for my occasional few bottles will save me from myself and make me see the error of my ways? Is that what you're saying kjl?

OldNotWIse

kjl wrote: »

Well yeah, I would. 8 hours a week you are pissed and you think you don't binge drink. :rolleyes:

8 hours exactly? Are you sure? Hows your maths? Or have you been on the gargle?

ps why do you assume not being 100% sober automatically means someone is p1ssed? Do you think one can get p1ssed on a pint? Maybe you do...cheap date I suppose :P

OldNotWIse

Kev.OC wrote: »

Am, hang on. Did I miss the newsletter where being anything less than 100% sober meant I was automatically put in the "pissed" category? I didn't realise those were my only two options.

So all those times I had a single lone beer while cooking dinner I was being a pissed alcoholic? And the state charging me more for my occasional few bottles will save me from myself and make me see the error of my ways? Is that what you're saying kjl?

Not only that, but you were whoring around too ya dirty thing ya. Fornicating all over the pub and bringing the pillars of our very society down so you were, not to mention clogging up our A&E. Over to the bold corner with you now and think about what you've done.:)

kjl

kjl wrote: »

you somehow want to argue that alcohol consumption won't go down if people are charged more for it?

I work in an off licence, the last time they put a euro levy on wine it made no difference to sales at all, bar the massive rush on budget day. Sales remained stable afterwards.
Putting the price up will change nothing, it's the attitude towards alcohol which needs to change in this country and I've yet to see the government take any sensible steps towards doing this. Price hikes make zero difference.

Banjo String

€14.30 for two pints of beer. (Not even craft beer either)

Maybe the govt and the VFI have their priorities wrong.

Introduce a MAXIMUM that they can sell drink at. They really shouldn't be wondering as to why their pub trade is doing out with rip off prices like this.

seiphil

Banjo String wrote: »

€14.30 for two pints of beer. (Not even craft beer either)

Maybe the govt and the VFI have their priorities wrong.

Introduce a MAXIMUM that they can sell drink at. They really shouldn't be wondering as to why their pub trade is doing out with rip off prices like this.

That's extortion.

It's not even a nice pub.

syklops

jester77 wrote: »

Have they brought in a deposit system yet in Ireland for bottles and cans or is everything just dumped?

Would be a good starting point if it doesn't exist yet.

I wish they would. I have a small potential fortune accumulating underneath the stairs. Currently I have no incentive to dispose of them or recycle them so they just keep accumulating.

Banjo String

seiphil wrote: »

That's extortion.

It's not even a nice pub.

6 x 500ml bottles of Perlenbacher (very decent pilsner, 4.9%) from Lidl = €6.99

1 x pint of watery gloop in templebar cattle market. = €7.15.

Yet they're whinging the pub trade is dying........

Rocket science it is not.

Zubeneschamali

Banjo String wrote: »

Introduce a MAXIMUM that they can sell drink at.

Or just don't go in there?

Gummy Panda

Banjo String wrote: »

€14.30 for two pints of beer. (Not even craft beer either)

Maybe the govt and the VFI have their priorities wrong.

Introduce a MAXIMUM that they can sell drink at. They really shouldn't be wondering as to why their pub trade is doing out with rip off prices like this.

"No cover charge"

They are charging it every pint.

Banjo String

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Or just don't go in there?

I didn't. The photo wasn't taken by me.

Nice that you missed the point though. We have the vfi complaining a decline in their trade and blaming it on off licence sales.