Minimum Alcohol Pricing

[Bairnardo]

1 minute ago, virginton said:

No, I argued that fatties should have a supplement added to their income tax rate, based on their deviation from healthy BMI.

Unlike the ridiculous alternative of a consumption tax*, this is consistent with the principle of progressive taxation because it is tied to income tax; rather than targeting the poor with paying higher prices, which is entirely regressive.

 

* Good luck determining whether and what products would be classed as 'junk food'. 

Fair enough. Couldnt remember the crux of it tbh. Think MUP is here to stay though and if anything will get higher, and "junk food" tax is by far the likliest option if anything comes of dealing with mass obesity

[Wee Bully]

1 hour ago, Bairnardo said:

Fair enough. Couldnt remember the crux of it tbh. Think MUP is here to stay though and if anything will get higher, and "junk food" tax is by far the likliest option if anything comes of dealing with mass obesity

Of course it is, because sticking it on income tax only affects those who pay income tax.

Anyone below the threshold, or on benefits will not be impacted at all, and their behaviours unaffected.  

 

[vikingTON]

44 minutes ago, Wee Bully said:

Of course it is, because sticking it on income tax only affects those who pay income tax.

Anyone below the threshold, or on benefits will not be impacted at all, and their behaviours unaffected.  

 

The majority of people in the country pay income tax: and those with more income will pay more for being a fat mess and drain on collective resources. 

A levy on the cost of goods only affects the behaviour of those with the least disposable income in society, while not impacting at all the behaviour of middle and upper classes swilling a bottle of wine every night, or a 2000 calorie three course meal.

Given a choice between the two, I know which one is a credible and progressive incentive-based intervention, and which is risible, middle-class paternalism straight out of the Victorian temperance movement. 

Edited October 16, 2021 by vikingTON

[vikingTON]

NB: Gammon-faced raving about 'how cum they folk on benefits widnae huv to pay that tax' is a full-blown minter from yourself. Still, I'm sure that's based solely on your deep-seated concern for their health!

[Wee Bully]

5 hours ago, virginton said:

The majority of people in the country pay income tax: and those with more income will pay more for being a fat mess and drain on collective resources. 

A levy on the cost of goods only affects the behaviour of those with the least disposable income in society, while not impacting at all the behaviour of middle and upper classes swilling a bottle of wine every night, or a 2000 calorie three course meal.

Given a choice between the two, I know which one is a credible and progressive incentive-based intervention, and which is risible, middle-class paternalism straight out of the Victorian temperance movement. 

A number of fantastic leaps there, so:

1. what proportion of the people in this country pay income tax,

2. what proportion of the income tax payers fall into your “BMI trap”,

3. are you trying to change behaviours, or tax the middle and upper classes?

[Wee Bully]

5 hours ago, virginton said:

NB: Gammon-faced raving about 'how cum they folk on benefits widnae huv to pay that tax' is a full-blown minter from yourself. Still, I'm sure that's based solely on your deep-seated concern for their health!

There is a reason we use excise duties on cigarettes and alcohol at the moment, rather than use income tax.  Why is your “fat tax” any different? 

[vikingTON]

What do you think the reason is that excise taxes are used on fags and booze 'at the moment'? 

Once you provide your utterly gormless answer, be sure to wait for the wallet inspector to check in on you as well.

[Wee Bully]

13 minutes ago, virginton said:

What do you think the reason is that excise taxes are used on fags and booze 'at the moment'? 

Once you provide your utterly gormless answer, be sure to wait for the wallet inspector to check in on you as well.

You really are flailing around now.  

You’re the expert, you tell me.

[vikingTON]

2 hours ago, Wee Bully said:

There is a reason we use excise duties on cigarettes and alcohol at the moment, rather than use income tax.  Why is your “fat tax” any different? 

 

26 minutes ago, Wee Bully said:

You really are flailing around now.  

You’re the expert, you tell me.

Speaking of flailing, I'd simply like you to set out 'the reason why we use excise duties on cigarettes and alcohol'. Be extremely specific. 

[Wee Bully]

16 minutes ago, virginton said:

 

Speaking of flailing, I'd simply like you to set out 'the reason why we use excise duties on cigarettes and alcohol'. Be extremely specific. 

Swing and a miss champ.  Go on - you’re the trained historian.  Tell us. 

[vikingTON]

Quote

There is a reason we use excise duties on cigarettes and alcohol at the moment, rather than use income tax.  

Yet our resident simp can't explain what that reason actually is! 

Edited October 16, 2021 by vikingTON

[Wee Bully]

2 minutes ago, virginton said:

Yet our resident simp can't explain what that reason actually is! 

Ok, given I know you will disagree, i will quote from Wikipedia:

“Excise duties or taxes continued to serve political as well as financial ends. Public safety and health, public morals, environmental protection, and national defense are all rationales for the imposition of an excise. In defense of excises on strong drink, Adam Smith wrote: "It has for some time past been the policy of Great Britain to discourage the consumption of spirituous liquors, on account of their supposed tendency to ruin the health and to corrupt the morals of the common people."^[2] “

 

[Baxter Parp]

24 minutes ago, virginton said:

 

Speaking of flailing, I'd simply like you to set out 'the reason why we use excise duties on cigarettes and alcohol'. Be extremely specific. 

"We" don't impose excise duties on anything.

[Billy Jean King]

If ever there was an argument for higher MUP on booze, VTs performance last night was it.

Dearie me, tackle obesity and alcoholism by "taxing" the working population to purchase alcohol or unhealthy foods whilst allowing those outwith the income tax regime to drink to their hearts content (sic) with a large donner to soak it up is quite the public health policy. He really is a tool !

[Wee Bully]

2 hours ago, Billy Jean King said:

If ever there was an argument for higher MUP on booze, VTs performance last night was it.

Dearie me, tackle obesity and alcoholism by "taxing" the working population to purchase alcohol or unhealthy foods whilst allowing those outwith the income tax regime to drink to their hearts content (sic) with a large donner to soak it up is quite the public health policy. He really is a tool !

I’m just keen to find out why I was wrong about excise duties.  I am on tenterhooks.

[Wee Bully]

2 hours ago, Billy Jean King said:

If ever there was an argument for higher MUP on booze, VTs performance last night was it.

Dearie me, tackle obesity and alcoholism by "taxing" the working population to purchase alcohol or unhealthy foods whilst allowing those outwith the income tax regime to drink to their hearts content (sic) with a large donner to soak it up is quite the public health policy. He really is a tool !

It is also interesting that if virginton’s crazy idea worked, it would actually widen health inqualities by encouraging the “middle and upper classes” (his view of the people who pay tax I am guessing)  to lower their BMI whilst having no impact whatsoever on the poorest in society.  

[vikingTON]

13 hours ago, Wee Bully said:

Ok, given I know you will disagree, i will quote from Wikipedia:

“Excise duties or taxes continued to serve political as well as financial ends. Public safety and health, public morals, environmental protection, and national defense are all rationales for the imposition of an excise. In defense of excises on strong drink, Adam Smith wrote: "It has for some time past been the policy of Great Britain to discourage the consumption of spirituous liquors, on account of their supposed tendency to ruin the health and to corrupt the morals of the common people."^[2] “

Adam Smith did not actually set UK excise policy, but thanks for dredging up your Wikipedia-level analysis anyway. 

The reason why we have excise taxes on fags and alcohol is that they are an easy source of indirect taxation for the government: in the exact same way that governments also used to tax salt or having windows. Unless you think that the window tax was also an intervention based on legitimate public health concerns, then you are tilting at windmills. 

Indeed we can see exactly how this process works, by noting that the level of UK excise duties on alcohol and tobacco are not and have never been related to levels of public consumption. The government does not raise duties because people are drinking or smoking more, nor has that money ever gone to protecting public health. They do so as part of their annual Budget, and the money raises goes into the general pot for completely separate purposes. The same goes for fuel duty, which is also not and has never been set to try and stop people using cars. 

Governments tax consumption because it is politically easier for them to do so than to raise direct taxation. The rest of the explanation offered is simply window dressing. 

[vikingTON]

3 hours ago, Billy Jean King said:

If ever there was an argument for higher MUP on booze, VTs performance last night was it.

Dearie me, tackle obesity and alcoholism by "taxing" the working population to purchase alcohol or unhealthy foods whilst allowing those outwith the income tax regime to drink to their hearts content (sic) with a large donner to soak it up is quite the public health policy. He really is a tool !

The working population aren't being taxed on purchasing alcohol or unhealthy foods under my scheme champ. They would only be taxed on the outcomes of excessive, unhealthy consumption: such as being a bloated, fat mess and a drain on public health resources. If someone wants to have a fish supper every other night but is working and exercising hard enough to stay fit and healthy, then they pay absolutely nothing. 

It is only the MUP and 'junk food' tax' policies that force everyone to pay at point of consumption, by setting a floor on minimum prices that disproportionately affect the poor while not affecting the consumption of the rich in any way whatsoever.

Your own, gammon-faced mewling about 'thae folk on benefits eating and drinking to their hearts content' has been duly noted. This quite clearly has got nothing to do with your concern about public health and everything to do with punching down at the 'scum' beneath you in society. Which neatly summarises the entire premise of public health interventionism in Scotland today. 

 

Edited October 17, 2021 by vikingTON

[vikingTON]

49 minutes ago, Wee Bully said:

It is also interesting that if virginton’s crazy idea worked, it would actually widen health inqualities by encouraging the “middle and upper classes” (his view of the people who pay tax I am guessing)  to lower their BMI whilst having no impact whatsoever on the poorest in society.  

Just so we're clear about this, your argument now is that it is unfair to set up a direct and straightforward incentive link between having a healthy lifestyle and paying less tax, which in turn tracks with the burden placed on the NHS by the level of unhealthy, fat messes in society. Because it would be unfair on the poor to have access to a better-resourced state healthcare system; whereas an American style nation of fatties is the benchmark of equality and social justice. 

There are no words to fully describe the idiot hole you've descended into. 

 

Edited October 17, 2021 by vikingTON

[Jacksgranda]

21 minutes ago, virginton said:

Adam Smith did not actually set UK excise policy, but thanks for dredging up your Wikipedia-level analysis anyway. 

The reason why we have excise taxes on fags and alcohol is that they are an easy source of indirect taxation for the government: in the exact same way that governments also used to tax salt or having windows. Unless you think that the window tax was also an intervention based on legitimate public health concerns, then you are tilting at windmills. 

Indeed we can see exactly how this process works, by noting that the level of UK excise duties on alcohol and tobacco are not and have never been related to levels of public consumption. The government does not raise duties because people are drinking or smoking more, nor has that money ever gone to protecting public health. They do so as part of their annual Budget, and the money raises goes into the general pot for completely separate purposes. The same goes for fuel duty, which is also not and has never been set to try and stop people using cars. 

Governments tax consumption because it is politically easier for them to do so than to raise direct taxation. The rest of the explanation offered is simply window dressing. 

Would that increase your window tax?