Minimum alcohol pricing is nigh

ohnonotgmail

Deebles McBeebles wrote: »

Proof or just take your word?

you could educate yourself on what is involved in MUP which basically involves setting a minimum price for alcohol. It doesn't affect the duty collected in any way.

squawker

Deebles McBeebles wrote: »

More nanny state nonsense.

nothing to do with health

all a smokescreen to help out the vintners lobby and get people back to get ripped off by the public houses

@ facehugger, whats the name of your pub?

KrustyUCC

facehugger99 wrote: »

Clue is in the post - try re-reading.

Alcohol is not cheap here

That is a myth that is being used to railroad through this bill

Take a can of Perlenbacher in Lidl

On sale in Spain for €0.35. On sale here €1.05

Already 200% dearer than in Spain

Under this bill it will increase to €1.89 which is 440% dearer for the exact same can

No doctor could claim that the same can is over 5 times more damaging to the health of an Irish person than a spanish person or that the same can has 5 times the societal harm in Ireland than in Portugal yet every person here who buys that can is punished again

Lets take a bottle of whiskey in Aldi. Their own brand Queen Margot. The red one not the ages black one.

Sells in Germany €9.99

Sells in Ireland €15.29 as it is. That is already 53.05% dearer than Germany

Under this bill the same bottle would now be €22.09. That would be 121.12% dearer than Germany and an 44.47% increase in price overnight

odyssey06

Deebles McBeebles wrote: »

Not a penny of it goes to the government's coffers? I find that impossible to believe.

There will be an indirect increase in VAT receipts but the vast majority of the increase in price goes to the retailer.
But, if the reason this has been brought in is to reduce consumption, and consumption does fall, then we would expect to be a net revenue loss to the government.

Edit: I should also add we would expect further loss if the prices are cheaper in Northern Ireland. The North is considering a minimum price but at a far lower level than the Republic. If OBriens etc profits increase as a result of this measure, the government may gain from some additional corporate tax receipts.

Greyfox

facehugger99 wrote: »

If a few snowflakes have to miss out their cheap slabs of larger as a result, I'm more than happy with that.

So in other words you couldn't care less about people on low wages who work hard and still struggle to afford a decent social life.

VinLieger

Deebles McBeebles wrote: »

Proof or just take your word?

This is a minimum price increase its not a tax or excise like we are used to. It means off licenses and super markets have to sell alcohol for a minimum price per alcohol unit, sure a few more cents will end up in vat and maybe then they will pay some more tax due to risen profits but the bulk is pure profit for the off trade.

facehugger99

Greyfox wrote: »

So in other words you couldn't care less about people on low wages who work hard and still struggle to afford a decent social life.

I don't consider getting pissed on cheap lager to be a decent social life.

facehugger99

KrustyUCC wrote: »

Under this bill the same bottle would now be €22.09. That would be 121.12% dearer than Germany and an 44.47% increase in price overnight

€22 for a bottle of spirits - oh the humanity!


Crazy-low price even with minimum pricing in-play. We need to get this measure introduced ASAP and ramp it up pronto!

VinLieger

facehugger99 wrote: »

I don't consider getting pissed on cheap lager to be a decent social life.

So people less well off than you don't deserve your consideration?

KrustyUCC

facehugger99 wrote: »

€22 for a bottle of spirits - oh the humanity!


Crazy-low price even with minimum pricing in-play. We need to get this measure introduced ASAP and ramp it up pronto!

Might be a so called 'crazy-low price' for you

I don't think many more would call that a low price especially when exactly the same product can be got for far cheaper in other countries

squawker

KrustyUCC wrote: »

Might be a so called 'crazy-low price' for you

if facehugger would give us the name of his pub we could join him for a 35ml glass for €6

now that's value

hank scorpio89

facehugger99 wrote: »

I don't consider getting pissed on cheap lager to be a decent social life.

So it's only social if the drink you have with friends is expensive ?

weldoninhio

facehugger99 wrote: »

I don't consider getting pissed on cheap lager to be a decent social life.

Who mentioned getting pissed??

VinLieger

weldoninhio wrote: »

Who mentioned getting pissed??

Indeed facehugger seems to be the one with the problem if he cant responsibly enjoy a drink without getting pissed

andekwarhola

facehugger99 wrote: »

I don't consider getting pissed on cheap lager to be a decent social life.

Thanks for that bulletin. Isn't there a church congregation somewhere you can address?

facehugger99

squawker wrote: »

if facehugger would give us the name of his pub we could join him for a 35ml glass for €6

That 'joke' has been made already.

Apologies for ruining the acoustics of the echo-chamber in here.

Perhaps ye'd like to get back to complaining about paying historically low prices for alcohol and feverishly thanking each other's posts?

weldoninhio

facehugger99 wrote: »

That 'joke' has been made already.

Apologies for ruining the acoustics of the echo-chamber in here.

Perhaps ye'd like to get back to complaining about paying historically low prices for alcohol and feverishly thanking each other's posts?

So prices are “historically low” and consumption is dropping year on year.

Maybe if they lowered prices even more, consumption would drop even lower???

Leroy42

What do people put this year on year fall in consumption down to?

weldoninhio

Leroy42 wrote: »

What do people put this year on year fall in consumption down to?

Older people dying, young people being more image and health conscious and not drinking as much

Reputable Rog

I honestly cannot see what Facehuggers problem with other people's indulgences is. I don't condone heavy drinking but at the same time if someone wants to get rat arsed st home in front of the telly or on a railway siding then frankly it's none of my business, it's their choice.
It's the same as recent referendum, I voted yes because I don't want to interfere with other people's choices.
The problem with sanctimonious individuals like Facehugger is they want to interfere in everyone's lives because it makes feel good about themselves.
This is only the start, next he'll be after food,internet shopping and whatever self righteous cause he can piggyback on.

oceanman

weldoninhio wrote: »

Older people dying, young people being more image and health conscious and not drinking as much

doubt that...most of the people you see in the pubs are young people...

listermint

oceanman wrote: »

doubt that...most of the people you see in the pubs are young people...

The stats and facts counter your doubt.

weldoninhio

oceanman wrote: »

doubt that...most of the people you see in the pubs are young people...

They may be in pubs, but they definitely aren’t drinking as much as my generation and I’m only 36. Most young lads I see out in my town play football or GAA and are in the gym during the week too. They’ll socialise in the pub, but normally they’ll have a few rather than going out and getting gee-eyed like I used* to
















*may still do it occasionally

Mr. teddywinkles

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

That too.

Smoking levels in this country were reduced by higher prices, less visibility and better education.

But it took 30 years.

You can do the same with alcohol.

Yet there's still youngsters taking up smoking. So much for a prevention for next generation.

Deebles McBeebles

Deebles McBeebles wrote: »

Where will the extra money made from upping the price of alcohol/tobacco go then?

The retailer and or manufacturer.

A can of regular beer, lets just say for example costs €1. If this was a tax, then they'd be adding 90cent of tax to the can. That 90 cent would go to the exchequer, pay down the debt, add a wing to the children's hospital. They aren't doing that. They are just saying the cheapest a shop can sell it at is 1.90. Spar/Tesco/Lidl and Diageo get to split the difference between themselves.

elperello

Deleted User wrote: »

The retailer and or manufacturer.

A can of regular beer, lets just say for example costs €1. If this was a tax, then they'd be adding 90cent of tax to the can. That 90 cent would go to the exchequer, pay down the debt, add a wing to the children's hospital. They aren't doing that. They are just saying the cheapest a shop can sell it at is 1.90. Spar/Tesco/Lidl and Diageo get to split the difference between themselves.

And the extra money is only being taken from people who enjoy a drink at home. They will not be allowed to shop around and buy a legal product at the market rate.

Those who go to to the pub or restaurant will pay no extra under this Bill. They will still be able to drink at the price dictated by the market for these establishments.


Expensive drink good.
Less expensive drink bad.

(with apologies to George Orwell)

Fr Tod Umptious

Mr. teddywinkles wrote: »

Yet there's still youngsters taking up smoking. So much for a prevention for next generation.

I doubt it could ever be totally eliminated, but the numbers taking up smoking has been in decline for a number of years now.

Fr Tod Umptious

odyssey06 wrote: »

_Spain has achieved progress in reducing tobacco consumption over the past decade, with rates of daily smokers among adults coming down 32% in 2001 to 24% in 2011_
http://www.oecd.org/els/health-systems/Briefing-Note-SPAIN-2014.pdf

I don't know what the price differential is versus 30 years ago, but you are arguing that high prices reduce smoking. But this argument doesn't stand up if Spain's rates dropped by the same as Ireland and their prices are half the prices of ours.

When I grew up Benson & Hedges sponsored snooker, drinks companies sponsored lots of events. I didn't start smoking, and my choice of first drink had nothing to do with who was sponsoring the All Ireland. I really don't think much of the 'visibility' argument whatsoever.

Good for you, but drinks companies would not be spending millions on advertising and sponsorship if it did not work.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

I doubt it could ever be totally eliminated, but the numbers taking up smoking has been in decline for a number of years now.

Why the hell are you still talking about smoking? You don't smoke alcohol!

Pauliedragon

The problems with booze could be tidied up a bit by enforcement of the laws that already exist. I know a guy who started work in a shop recently and was told that there's a few troublesome drunks come in for booze and when management contacted the cops for help a guard rocks up and his advice was to just serve them to get rid of them from the shop even though they would be causing trouble down the road later. Why are police giving advice like that? There is two offies in my area and every weekend there is underage drinking in the same car park causing issues with noise, vomit, rubbish etc. Everybody knows this is going on and everybody knows where these kids are getting the booze from so where are the cops? My local and I'm sure a lot more pubs serve people until they literally fall down. A few Sundays ago as I walked in a guy fell backwards hitting his head on the floor and eventually crawled back to his feet only to be served another drink straight away. If we start getting serious about these issues people might get the message and MUP might not be necessary.