Minimum alcohol pricing is nigh

Leroy42

I think it says the opposite. Surely with the 2nd highest prices we should be nowhere near the top 10 in consumption. There is no doubt that lower prices would see higher consumption rates, and as such then MAP must be seen as a good thing. IMO, your post only serves to prove the point.

But regardless of where we sit on the league tables, as I said the price whatever consumers are willing to pay for a product. No phone is 'worth' €1,000 in terms of the work and components, but the marketing, the feelings that usability all add to the price that people are willing to pay. Are Apple overprices, IMO yes. Are people willing to pay that price, so far yes, so in actual market terms they are priced correctly.

So, is alcohol overpriced compared to other EU countries? Yes, clearly. So people have the option. Refuse to buy it, buy it in other countries, make it themselves or simply pay the price. So far, despite the high prices, people continue to opt for the last option in the main.

So I think we are simply talking about two slightly different things (and I am probably not explaining my point very well).

Doctor Jimbob

Leroy42 wrote: »

I think it says the opposite. Surely with the 2nd highest prices we should be nowhere near the top 10 in consumption. There is no doubt that lower prices would see higher consumption rates, and as such then MAP must be seen as a good thing. IMO, your post only serves to prove the point.

But regardless of where we sit on the league tables, as I said the price whatever consumers are willing to pay for a product. No phone is 'worth' €1,000 in terms of the work and components, but the marketing, the feelings that usability all add to the price that people are willing to pay. Are Apple overprices, IMO yes. Are people willing to pay that price, so far yes, so in actual market terms they are priced correctly.

So, is alcohol overpriced compared to other EU countries? Yes, clearly. So people have the option. Refuse to buy it, buy it in other countries, make it themselves or simply pay the price. So far, despite the high prices, people continue to opt for the last option in the main.

So I think we are simply talking about two slightly different things (and I am probably not explaining my point very well).

Which is one of the many reasons why minimum pricing is a bad idea and a focus on education and a cultural shift would be much more appropriate. We really need to move away from the image of the pub being the highlight of Irish social life if we really want to reduce levels of drinking. That's not to say I want pubs banned or anything of the sort, but having taken a break from drinking lately it's really difficult to convince anyone in my age group (early 30s) that I know to engage in any social activity that doesn't involve a drink. That's a cultural issue, and one that isn't going to be solved simply by pushing up prices.

VinLieger

joe40 wrote: »

The price in other markets is not relevant to price here unless we are talking about essential services that people can't do without.

The argument the poster i was replying to was presenting was that our consumption rate showed our pricing made sense when compared to other markets, whereas the data shows it does not.

Also other markets pricing is definitely relevant no matter the product, especially so in this case as our consumption rate keeps being brought as a problem up however comparing it to other countries it is nowhere near as bad as some would like to make out.

Leroy42

VinLieger wrote: »

The argument the poster i was replying to was presenting was that our consumption rate showed our pricing made sense, whereas the data shows it does not.

Well not quite. It doesn't show the pricing doesn't make sense. It shows that we would tolerate a far higher pricing. If the pricing was too high then the consumption would be much less, but a 2nd highest price results in 7th highest consumption. For your argument to make sense a 2nd highest price would lead a 2nd lowest consumption.

The pricing appears to have have had a negative effect on consumption, hence why we are down in 7th.

I wonder what the split of consumption is between offy and pub? Are there reliable stats. Anecdotally I would assume that Offy sales sales grown whilst pub sales have dropped, but I am not sure what the split is.

sbsquarepants

realitykeeper wrote: »

The "punishment" is priceless for the majority. Sure the cost of drink will be more expensive but on the plus side, it will cost more for the minority to get drunk. Drunk people tend to cause more accidents, get into more fights, they tend to be louder, more obnoxious and smellier than your average Joe.

So higher prices have a definite benefit.

They might benefit publicans. Plus it's another stealth tax in reality (who gets the extra money on each bottle / can?)

The sort of knob end who gets steaming drunk and makes a twat of themselves will still do just that. Alco's will drink regardless of price. When have you ever heard someone say "Jaysus paddy was mad on the pints till the last budget, he said that extra 10p a pint was the straw that broke the camels back!"

Mr + Mrs sensible who stay home and watch a movie with a bottle of wine or a few beers will just have to fork out more of their hard earned cash for that "privilege"

It's a stupid idea.

If FG were left to their own devices they'd implement a national bedtime, and the usual toss bags would be on here supporting them "because a good nights sleep is in everyone's interest"

Shower of fúcking blue shirts:mad::mad:

VinLieger

joe40 wrote: »

I know a lot of the price is excise, but that tax would have to be gotten from other sources if not alcohol.
I would prefer excise duty on alcohol than extra tax on food or fuel.

Is this not indicative of another problem though? Some say our population is dependant on alcohol but due to the excise being so high our government could be said to be equally if not more dependent on it as it brings in such a large amount of taxes.



Surely we should be moving away from being so dependent on one specific sector for tax and broadening the tax base in this regard?

Macker

facehugger99 wrote: »

€12.50 for a bottle of Gin! I presume you go blind after a few shots.

Jesus - it's no wonder this minimum pricing legislation is required.

So you think a E30 bottle of Gordons is better than a 12.50 bottle from Aldi. Lidl or Tesco? It's called own brand and happens with a lot of goods ye know.

KrustyUCC

Just pure snobbery

The Rape of Lucretia

KrustyUCC wrote: »

Just pure snobbery

Is the root of all alcohol drinking. Spot on. Vanity if you will. Posturing and affecting to display to the world one's specialness by choice of drink, when really it is just an indicator of how gullible they are to the traps of the advertising campaigns. This price increase, if it even reduces consumption by the merest smidgeon, is a dashed good thing indeed.

realitykeeper

I would suggest alcohol should be used as a fuel instead of drinking it.

realitykeeper

odyssey06 wrote: »

And no German in history has ever taken pride in German beer? Or schnapps?
The French, Spanish and Italians in their wine?
The Scotch or Japanese with their whisky?
The Czechs and beer?

There is no connection between taking pride in the output of your country and anything to do with economics or alcoholism.

And finally, the German NAZIS recruited in BEER HALLs. Minimum alcohol pricing wouldn't have stopped that, so clearly it's a useless device.

The Germans take more pride in their engineering prowess and as for the wine producers, their is quite a difference between the wine connoisseur savoring the aroma of a fine Margaux and a fat sweaty red neck downing his twentieth pint o` stout.

realitykeeper

sbsquarepants wrote: »

They might benefit publicans. Plus it's another stealth tax in reality (who gets the extra money on each bottle / can?)

The sort of knob end who gets steaming drunk and makes a twat of themselves will still do just that. Alco's will drink regardless of price. When have you ever heard someone say "Jaysus paddy was mad on the pints till the last budget, he said that extra 10p a pint was the straw that broke the camels back!"

Mr + Mrs sensible who stay home and watch a movie with a bottle of wine or a few beers will just have to fork out more of their hard earned cash for that "privilege"

It's a stupid idea.

If FG were left to their own devices they'd implement a national bedtime, and the usual toss bags would be on here supporting them "because a good nights sleep is in everyone's interest"

Shower of fúcking blue shirts:mad::mad:

With a minimum price, the alcoholic will run out of money sooner which is great. Mr & Mrs Sensible`s bottle of wine would be above the MUP anyway so they will not be affected at all.

Mr. teddywinkles

realitykeeper wrote: »

If drink is not cheap you have no reason to object to a minimum price.

So I should pay more again for a few misable beers I have at weekend just because a minority can't control themsrlves no matter what the price is raised to

The Rape of Lucretia

Mr. teddywinkles wrote: »

So I should pay more again for a few misable beers I have at weekend just because a minority can't control themsrlves no matter what the price is raised to

For the last time, damn it, its not about the minority. This is a law for the general good of everybody. Its nothing to do with alcoholics. Its about the average person still under the illusion that a few drinks are doing them no harm. Reduction for all, improves the lives of all. It isnt punishing anyone. It is rewarding everyone, and thus society as a whole.

Reputable Rog

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

For the last time, damn it, its not about the minority. This is a law for the general good of everybody. Its nothing to do with alcoholics. Its about the average person still under the illusion that a few drinks are doing them no harm. Reduction for all, improves the lives of all. It isnt punishing anyone. It is rewarding everyone, and thus society as a whole.

Why do you care what somebody else is lawfully doing? I bet you drive around with pro life stickers on your car as well, imposing your views on everyone.

Fr Tod Umptious

Reputable Rog wrote: »

Why do you care what somebody else is lawfully doing? I bet you drive around with pro life stickers on your car as well, imposing your views on everyone.

Pro life advocates do not have a monopoly on "imposing their views on everyone"

It could be argued in this day and age that it's the other end of the political spectrum that could be accused of that.

Apologies for the off topic post.

Spanish Eyes

This will not work. People do not like to be told what to do, or pay a higher price for doing something completely legal in their own home, just because Nanny said so.

The increase in price is not even going into the Exchequer coffers, so where is it going does anyone know?

But MUP might benefit the publicans, which is all we need to know really.

elperello

The extra charged to the consumer under MUP will go to the drinks trade ie. wholesaler, distributor, retailer.
The Government will of course get the VAT on the extra charged.

kylith

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

For the last time, damn it, its not about the minority. This is a law for the general good of everybody. Its nothing to do with alcoholics. Its about the average person still under the illusion that a few drinks are doing them no harm. Reduction for all, improves the lives of all. It isnt punishing anyone. It is rewarding everyone, and thus society as a whole.

How is charging me more for a few quiet beers at home rewarding me?

Fr Tod Umptious

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

This will not work. People do not like to be told what to do, or pay a higher price for doing something completely legal in their own home, just because Nanny said so.

The increase in price is not even going into the Exchequer coffers, so where is it going does anyone know?

But MUP might benefit the publicans, which is all we need to know really.

So how will this "not working" manifest itself?

Will people continue to buy alcohol in supermarkets and off licenses at the same rate they currently do ?

Because if that happens then your statement of "or pay a higher price for doing something completely legal in their own home" will not be true.

Mr. teddywinkles

kylith wrote: »

How is charging me more for a few quiet beers at home rewarding me?

Y'all live another 20 years guaranteed don't ya know

elperello

kylith wrote: »

How is charging me more for a few quiet beers at home rewarding me?

The people promoting this think they know better than you what is good for you.

A bit like corporal punishment long ago "it's for your own good".

The beatings will continue until morale improves.

The Rape of Lucretia

kylith wrote: »

How is charging me more for a few quiet beers at home rewarding me?

Not just you, but wider society as a whole. And its the beer that you are not drinking that benefits you, not the ones you are having. Harmful tough they are too. Its a simple case of the less, the better.

kylith

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

Not just you, but wider society as a whole. And its the beer that you are not drinking that benefits you, not the ones you are having. Harmful tough they are too. Its a simple case of the less, the better.

How does me having one or two beers impact wider society? The amount that the average person drinks does little harm to them or anyone else.

The people with the problems will beg, borrow, and steal to get their fix, or resort to drinking meths. The people drinking the top-end stuff won't even notice. The people that will be effected are people like me, who enjoy having one or two beers with a film, or a glass of wine over dinner, or a wee dram before bed the odd night.

Jesus, if it went into government coffers and could be put in some way toward addiction services that'd be something, but that doesn't seem to be the case.

The Rape of Lucretia

kylith wrote: »

The people that will be effected are people like me, who enjoy having one or two beers with a film, or a glass of wine over dinner, or a wee dram before bed the odd night.

I think the problem is evident. Hard liquor included. You are doing untold damage to your own health. This law will help you reduce.

One_Of_Shanks

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

its the beer that you are not drinking that benefits you, not the ones you are having.

Should be acceptable for me to feel those benefits Mon-Thurs and on Sundays then, without having to pay double the already inflated prices here (quadruple what other EU nations pay), when I decide to take a wee break from the benefits.

Either way, if I'm going to pay a premium for the same product, the least I deserve is for that money to be a tax that goes back into our economy.
But this isn't going to be the case, is it?

elperello

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

Not just you, but wider society as a whole. And its the beer that you are not drinking that benefits you, not the ones you are having. Harmful tough they are too. Its a simple case of the less, the better.

QED

One_Of_Shanks

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

I think the problem is evident. Hard liquor included. You are doing untold damage to your own health. This law will help you reduce.

My bad for taking the bait with my previous post. Weird little hobby you have there of posting on threads to wind people up.

Have a nice evening

elperello

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

I think the problem is evident. Hard liquor included. You are doing untold damage to your own health. This law will help you reduce.

QED X 2

KungPao

Any restrictions on say Lidl throwing in a free pizza with 6 of the finest Perlenbacher, or the local offo giving a free bag of doritos or whatever with an 8pk of Heino, to somewhat offset the increase?