Minimum alcohol pricing is nigh

The response of the Garda / organs of the State to that shop in Cork will be interesting.

"Sam" is either taking a complete chance, or else has carefully read all the legislation, and designed an offer that is watertight.

I haven't read the legislation, so I can't comment.

No, some decent beers in the German supermarkets have nearly doubled in price, while cheap cooking wine is now five times the price you can buy it in Europe.

He's not paying anything extra for alcohol since mup was introduced. So he is still buying it at the same price it always was when they were able to sell it for €20 a case and make a profit.

Only now, he has to legally sell it for €44 a case or something according to mup guidelines, but it's not a tax, it's his profit. He is selling it for the mup price, but he is also accepting store credit, which you can get €17.43 free when you buy €30 worth of promotional glasses.

It would be €473 that should be in the till. I would expect he would have to pay the vat and excise for the price he sold the cans for, which is €473. Maybe he has factored that into his €30 promotion and can absorb that vat hit at that price.

Not how excise works

If excise had increased the bars would be bitching

7,000 posts, and some people still think MUP is a tax.

There is still a serious amount of ignorance out there.

This is false.

You made the typical mistake of doing this: VAT = (0.23)(selling price)

That is wrong. It's Junior Cert maths.

If the selling price is 47.34, then the ex-VAT cost is: 47.34/1.23 = 38.49.

So the VAT is 47.34 - 38.49 = 8.85.

VAT is added to the cost. A product at 10 ex-VAT is 12.30 after VAT, so the VAT is 2.30 on the 10 euro cost.

Using your wrong maths, the 23% VAT is (0.23)(12.30) = 2.83.

No I was saying that if the vat would have to be added to €47.34 and the next line I said that was likely already added.

Vat is 23% so not hard to work out. It is €2.30 per €10.

Using pressed/not from concentrate LIDL/ALDI apple juice is a way to make cheap cider (aka turbo cider) but it needs months to condition properly and even with that I've had mixed results compared to the beers, ales and stouts I've made in the past. Making cider is actually mush easier than doing partial or full extract ales/beers which requires boiling 26L of liquid (wort) and then rapidly cooling and can be a bit daunting for some.

The only ignorance is from AAI and the pro MUP crowd who are trying to tell us that

1. We have a drink problem.
2. This will help solve it.

Any efforts to work around it are welcomed.

Indeed it is illegal but we need an affected group to take a case on it for it to be shut down and I don't see any representative body standing up to do so like the Scottish whiskey distillers did.

All that legal stuff was cleared up later on, and the Scottish government went ahead. Ireland would want to be particularly stupid if it had been ruled illegal in Scotland. Of course this does not stop the stream of misinformation.

3.4. The CJEU’s Advocate General provided his Opinion in September 2015 [42] , which was followed by the Preliminary Ruling of the Court in December 2015 [43] . The Preliminary Ruling provided guidance to the domestic court in respect of the six points of EU law on which it sought clarity. The ruling indicated that it was for the domestic courts to take a final decision on minimum pricing, but noted that minimum pricing could be legal but would be contrary to EU law if less restrictive tax measures could be used to achieve the aim of the legislation.

3.5. The case returned to the Court of Session Inner House, and a hearing was held over four days in June and July 2016. In October 2016, the Opinion of the Inner House upheld the decision of the Outer House [44] . The SWA then sought permission from the Inner House to appeal to the UK Supreme Court and, in December 2016, the Inner House granted SWA permission to appeal to the UK Supreme Court. The UK Supreme Court hearing was held over two days in July 2017, and the judgment was delivered on 15 November 2017 [45] . All seven judges upheld the findings of the lower courts: that the legislation is proportionate to the public health aim which it pursues, and that fiscal measures would not be as effective in achieving the targeted aims achievable by minimum pricing.