Minimum Alcohol Pricing

[DeeTillEhDeh]

Using the tax system (direct or indirect) only works when the product is price elastic.

There have been several studies that have found that trying to use taxation to reduce the demand for some products (like sugar, tobacco and alcohol) doesn't work because they are price inelastic.

There's a good possibility that alcohol may well be one of those products where increasing the price of the product does not have that great a reduction in the demand for the product.

[Billy Jean King]

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. 
 

I made zero mention of "folk on Benefits" you have quite simply made that up.

Swing and a miss chump I think is the vernacular ?

Oh and explain how your "seething fat messes" with a BMI above the VT stipulated level that dont pay income tax, are made to pay for their obesity in your scheme ie a student or a pensioner with a BMI above the VT rate ? Then explain how this extrapolates to MUP for alcohol.

You really are an odious cretin !!!

[vikingTON]

21 minutes ago, Billy Jean King said:

I made zero mention of "folk on Benefits" you have quite simply made that up.

Swing and a miss chump I think is the vernacular ?

Erm no, I simply interpreted exactly what you meant by the harrumphing chicanery below:

Quote

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 

It's quite fucking clear that you were alluding to those below the income tax threshold. Given that non-doms are not exactly known for getting a large donner delivered to their superyacht to 'soak up' the Dom Perignon. 

Punching down on the poorest in society because you don't want to pay more tax than them for being an unfit slob. You stay classy. 

Edited October 17, 2021 by vikingTON

[Clockwork]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-57293223
Minimum unit alcohol price has 'lasting impact'
https://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/one-in-three-adults-drank-more-alcohol-during-first-lockdown
One in three adults drank more alcohol during first lockdown
Guess which ones?

From the link provided, the study concludes that; ‘older people’ (age unspecified although does mention those living in isolation), people with children, those dealing with family illness or loss, essential workers, those working directly in health & social care plus women in general (greater average increase than men) and parents with additional childcare responsibilities all consumed more alcohol during the first lockdown. That’s quite a broad profile there?

[Bairnardo]

Incentivising healthy living seems like a fairer way for all than punishing unhealthy living tbh. We have to want to be a healthier society first and foremost.

Fucked if I know how to do it tbh, although I think, anecdotally speaking, that the young team coming past 18 now seem to have a healthier attitude to drink than I did. So maybe the years of campaignjng against binge culture is beginning to work.

[Jacksgranda]

14 minutes ago, Clockwork said:

 

From the link provided, the study concludes that; ‘older people’ (age unspecified although does mention those living in isolation), people with children, those dealing with family illness or loss, essential workers, those working directly in health & social care plus women in general (greater average increase than men) and parents with additional childcare responsibilities all consumed more alcohol during the first lockdown. That’s quite a broad profile there?
 

 

Yes, indeed!

Looks like school children are the only ones missed out...

[Wee Bully]

1 hour 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. 

That is absolutely desperate. I suspected you were going to come up with something along the lines of “its not hypothecated” and you have not disappointed me.

I didn’t suggest Adam Smith set UK excise policy, but it is clear that it is used to both raise finance, and to drive social policy.  Which is what I originally said, and you leapt all over with your massive clown shoes.

[Wee Bully]

1 hour ago, virginton said:

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. 

 

Not at all - it’s your “fat tax”, not mine.

I’m just pointing out that it wouldn’t have the outcomes you want from it, and is illiterate from both a social policy and taxation perspective.  But given you don’t seem to think that excise duties are used in part for social purposes, your economic illiteracy is unsurprising.  

 

[Billy Jean King]

It's quite fucking clear that you were alluding to those below the income tax threshold. Given that non-doms are not exactly known for getting a large donner delivered to their superyacht to 'soak up' the Dom Perignon. 
Punching down on the poorest in society because you don't want to pay more tax than them for being an unfit slob. You stay classy. 

Only in your warped little mind.

[Wee Bully]

18 minutes ago, Bairnardo said:

Incentivising healthy living seems like a fairer way for all than punishing unhealthy living tbh. We have to want to be a healthier society first and foremost.

Fucked if I know how to do it tbh, although I think, anecdotally speaking, that the young team coming past 18 now seem to have a healthier attitude to drink than I did. So maybe the years of campaignjng against binge culture is beginning to work.

I agree with this - the question is how we make healthy living choices more attractive to all

[Moomintroll]

47 minutes ago, Billy Jean King said:

I made zero mention of "folk on Benefits" you have quite simply made that up.

Swing and a miss chump I think is the vernacular ?

Oh and explain how your "seething fat messes" with a BMI above the VT stipulated level that dont pay income tax, are made to pay for their obesity in your scheme ie a student or a pensioner with a BMI above the VT rate ? Then explain how this extrapolates to MUP for alcohol.

You really are an odious cretin !!!
 

There is no point interacting with that sanctimonious, condescending arsehole, he decided around 2 decades ago to act like an utter twat towards a significant percentage of the population because he could then erroneously tell his mummy he won the internet, he can't even update his stale patter and memes to inject some freshness into his tired act after all this time. Everyone should just ignore him until he finally goes away.

[vikingTON]

18 minutes ago, Wee Bully said:

That is absolutely desperate. I suspected you were going to come up with something along the lines of “its not hypothecated” and you have not disappointed me.

I didn’t suggest Adam Smith set UK excise policy, but it is clear that it is used to both raise finance, and to drive social policy.  Which is what I originally said, and you leapt all over with your massive clown shoes.

It is 'clear'... based on an 18th century treatise, by someone who didn't actually set excise policy, which you dredged up from Wikipedia. 

Another word for that would be 'bollocks' then. 

[Wee Bully]

3 minutes ago, virginton said:

It is 'clear'... based on an 18th century treatise, by someone who didn't actually set excise policy, which you dredged up from Wikipedia. 

Another word for that would be 'bollocks' then. 

Let’s do some more Wikipedia-ing then.  I’m at least giving you a source:

“As a deterrent, excise is typically directed towards three broad categories of harm:

• health risks from abusing toxic substances (thus making it a kind of sumptuary tax); typically this includes tobacco and alcohol
• environmental damage (thus acting as a green tax); this usually includes fossil fuels (such as petrol)
• socially damaging / morally objectionable activity (thus making it a type of vice tax or sin tax); usually this includes gambling, and can include prostitution (including solicitation and pimping) in places where it is legal

Monies raised through excise may be earmarked for redress of specific social costs commonly associated with the product or service on which it is levied. Tobacco tax revenues, for example, might be spent on government anti-smoking campaigns, or healthcare for cancer, heart disease, vascular disease, lung disease, and so on.

In some countries, excise is also levied on some goods for purely punitive reasons. Many US states impose excise on illegal substances;^[4] these places do not consider it to be a revenue source, but instead regard it as a means of imposing a greater level of punishment, by opening up convicted criminals to the charge of tax evasion.”

Are you still maintinaing that excise duties are simply an income raising excercise and are not used for any other social reasons? Be very specific.

[vikingTON]

12 minutes ago, Wee Bully said:

Not at all - it’s your “fat tax”, not mine.

I’m just pointing out that it wouldn’t have the outcomes you want from it, and is illiterate from both a social policy and taxation perspective.  But given you don’t seem to think that excise duties are used in part for social purposes, your economic illiteracy is unsurprising.  

 

It would absolutely have the outcomes that I want from it. By giving people a direct financial incentive to live a healthy lifestyle, this will raise funds for the public health service in almost direct relationship to the number of puffing, fat slobs that it has to care for within society. The lower the rate of obesity, the less tax that gets paid while the burden on healthcare resources also drops. 

It also acheives the second outcome of being a socially progressive measure, by making sure that those with the most wealth available to them pay the most in taxes for their behaviour. While ensuring that those who are living in poverty do not face an extra burden on their everyday consumption, based on middle class concern trolling on their behalf. 

Those are the only two legitimate outcomes of a public health policy and it fits both of them. Thanks for playing anyway. 

[Bairnardo]

14 minutes ago, Wee Bully said:

I agree with this - the question is how we make healthy living choices more attractive to all

Gyms shouldnt be as expensive as they are, for one IMO. Maybe some school provided gateway activities.... Everything you eant to get your kids into is off your own back. You can argue about why thats too much effort for some parents, or too much expense (fucking dancing and gymnastics costs me a fortune) but if we want to change, start that change young. Dont pet kids grow up thinking sedantary is normal 

[Wee Bully]

7 minutes ago, Bairnardo said:

Gyms shouldnt be as expensive as they are, for one IMO. Maybe some school provided gateway activities.... Everything you eant to get your kids into is off your own back. You can argue about why thats too much effort for some parents, or too much expense (fucking dancing and gymnastics costs me a fortune) but if we want to change, start that change young. Dont pet kids grow up thinking sedantary is normal 

Makes 100x more sense than a BMI based income tax.  

[vikingTON]

12 minutes ago, Wee Bully said:

Let’s do some more Wikipedia-ing then.  I’m at least giving you a source:

“As a deterrent, excise is typically directed towards three broad categories of harm:

• health risks from abusing toxic substances (thus making it a kind of sumptuary tax); typically this includes tobacco and alcohol
• environmental damage (thus acting as a green tax); this usually includes fossil fuels (such as petrol)
• socially damaging / morally objectionable activity (thus making it a type of vice tax or sin tax); usually this includes gambling, and can include prostitution (including solicitation and pimping) in places where it is legal

Monies raised through excise may be earmarked for redress of specific social costs commonly associated with the product or service on which it is levied. Tobacco tax revenues, for example, might be spent on government anti-smoking campaigns, or healthcare for cancer, heart disease, vascular disease, lung disease, and so on.

In some countries, excise is also levied on some goods for purely punitive reasons. Many US states impose excise on illegal substances;^[4] these places do not consider it to be a revenue source, but instead regard it as a means of imposing a greater level of punishment, by opening up convicted criminals to the charge of tax evasion.”

Are you still maintinaing that excise duties are simply an income raising excercise and are not used for any other social reasons? Be very specific.

If excise duties were genuinely levied to encourage correct social behaviour, then fuel duties would not have been frozen in the UK since 2009 - in the middle of political and societal caterwauling about climate change and decarbonising the UK economy. Despite the argument for punishing private car use having gained enormous momentum in the past decade, it has actually become far cheaper in real terms to drive rather than use public transport in the UK because of the fuel duty freeze. 

The explanation for this is entirely straightforward. The reason why fuel duties have not been increased is because it was politically undesirable to do so. That issue remains toxic in UK politics to this day. So fuel duty is frozen for an entire decade despite the UK Government and the media and everyone else expressing their concern about the polar bears and the Amazon rainforest and the China's CO2 emissions. 

The idea of using duties to actually change fuel consumption, or alcohol consumption, or tobacco consumption is nothing but sanctimonious window dressing. What matters is whether a government needs more money, and whether it thinks that it can get that money by raising indirect taxes without causing a political backlash. The demands of government tax policy drive the morality play about tobacco and alcohol consumption; not the other way round.

And if you think that it has been anything otherwise then your appointment with the wallet inspector will be an enlightening one. 

Edited October 17, 2021 by vikingTON

[vikingTON]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-26644768

Presumably that renowned public health moralist, err, George Osborne, must have got together with the guys and concluded that the British public just weren't drinking enough alcohol back in 2014. What other possible public health explanation could there be for a government scrapping automatic excise raises put in place by the former governing party? 

Answers on a postcard please to WeeBully (include your bank account details and he'll probably wire you his savings as well!)

Edited October 17, 2021 by vikingTON

[NotThePars]

45 minutes ago, Billy Jean King said:

1 hour ago, virginton said:

It's quite fucking clear that you were alluding to those below the income tax threshold. Given that non-doms are not exactly known for getting a large donner delivered to their superyacht to 'soak up' the Dom Perignon. 
Punching down on the poorest in society because you don't want to pay more tax than them for being an unfit slob. You stay classy. 

Only in your warped little mind.

Nah tbf it definitely has a whiff of that. Who were you actually referring to if not people who don't earn enough to fall into the income tax threshold?

[Wee Bully]

You’ve got to applaud the effort that goes into defending his indefensible positions.  

Using the Tories cutting taxes to boost production (and hence consumption) which was exactly the reason Osborne gave at the time, does not prove that excise duties are not used for social purposes.  It just shows that the Tories value distillers profits over public health.  I’m not particularly shocked at that.

Your examples actually show the opposite of what you think they do.  Which isn’t surprising as if you are arguing black is white, don’t be surprised when everyone else recognises it is still black. 

Time for me to take @Moomintroll’s advice, and leave you to it.  If it helps, I’m happy for you to go downstairs now and tell your mum that you won the internet again.  Well done.

Edited October 17, 2021 by Wee Bully