Minimum Alcohol Pricing

[Billy Jean King]

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?

I was meaning anyone who doesn't pay income tax as I stated. That includes millions of pensioners, students, folk unable to work, not just the unemployed. It's a bat shit mental scheme he's proposing.

[vikingTON]

6 hours ago, Wee Bully said:

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.

^^^ verge of tears

George Osborne did not reduce duty on alcohol in the interests of public health. He couldn't give a shite about the latter. In the same way that Rishi Sunak, Alistair Darling, Gordon Brown and every other Chancellor in the UK's history didn't give a single, shiny shite about public health concerns when choosing how to levy indirect taxes for the greatest political effect. 

[vikingTON]

6 hours ago, Billy Jean King said:

6 hours ago, NotThePars said:

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?

I was meaning anyone who doesn't pay income tax as I stated. That includes millions of pensioners, students, folk unable to work, not just the unemployed. It's a bat shit mental scheme he's proposing.

Pensioners being of course the key demographic for the large donner kebab market as you outlined in your original example. 

You're fooling nobody champ. Best to just 'fess up to your open resentment at pesky students and the poor not having to pay a fat tax, while you waddle your way through this grave social injustice.

Edited October 17, 2021 by vikingTON

[Wee Bully]

14 minutes ago, virginton said:

^^^ verge of tears

George Osborne did not reduce duty on alcohol in the interests of public health. He couldn't give a shite about the latter. In the same way that Rishi Sunak, Alistair Darling, Gordon Brown and every other Chancellor in the UK's history didn't give a single, shiny shite about public health concerns when choosing how to levy indirect taxes for the greatest political effect. 

Are you ok?  

Not sure why you think i suggested GO reduced the duty in the interests of public health.  Where did I say that?   Be extremely specific.

[DeeTillEhDeh]

I'm not a fan of MUP because I genuinely believe it is ineffective - however, the alternative presented by the failed historian is truly in the barking mad territory.

[Wee Bully]

Poor VT.  We know what his silence means. 

[vikingTON]

12 hours ago, Wee Bully said:

Poor VT.  We know what his silence means. 

Here was me thinking you had taken Moomintroll's advice and had left the thread. That lasted long. 

As it is, I've no idea what your point is any more. You've used Wikipedia quotes to argue that duties are imposed for public health purposes to control consumption of alcohol and booze; I've demonstrated how the system actually works in practice. The Treasury sets duties and there is absolutely no evidence to show that whoever is in charge - whether that is George Osborne or not - respond to public health mewling when setting duties. It is a straightforward extension of government tax policy and nothing more. 

We also know that duties aren't linked to public health policy on alcohol because there are, err, purpose-built pressure groups calling for exactly that change to be implemented:

https://ahauk.org/what-we-do/our-priorities/alcohol-duty-reform/

Quote

 

ALCOHOL DUTY REFORM

We’re campaigning for a fairer and healthier alcohol duty system.

What is the Alcohol Health Alliance UK campaigning for?

We’re calling on the UK Government to:

 

Create an alcohol duty system that is:

Proportionate: the overall level of alcohol duty should cover to the cost of alcohol to society

Consistent: same strength drinks should pay the same level of tax

Scaled: stronger drinks should pay more tax, per unit alcohol, than weaker drinks

Uprated: alcohol duty should automatically increase in line with inflation or earnings. A body similar to the Low Pay Commission should periodically review the rate and provide advice on the optimal level of alcohol duty

Targeted: alcohol duty rates should be linked to the harm alcohol causes. Alcohol sold in off-trade locations such as supermarkets is associated with more harm than that sold in pubs and restaurants. Charging a higher level of duty for alcoholic drinks sold in the off-trade would allow the Government to target tax increases where they would have the greatest effect; without large tax increases for the hospitality sector.

 

I'm sure that they'll be willing to hear non-sequitur quotations you've lifted off Wikipedia though, so feel free to take your gormless bodying to that platform.  

[bendan]

Surprised this thread hasn't re-activated.

With Sunak making an explicit link between duties and health (though not all the changes actually reflect that), it looks to me like there is less of a need for an MUP. In fact, I've always found it odd that Scotland boasts of being the first country to have such a thing when the only reason we implemented it was because we had no control over duties. 

 

[scottsdad]

37 minutes ago, bendan said:

Surprised this thread hasn't re-activated.

With Sunak making an explicit link between duties and health (though not all the changes actually reflect that), it looks to me like there is less of a need for an MUP. In fact, I've always found it odd that Scotland boasts of being the first country to have such a thing when the only reason we implemented it was because we had no control over duties. 

 

Sunak's efforts will make no difference here. I agree though, they could easily make these changes via tax and earn some money in the process...assuming it was needed.

[Wee Bully]

1 hour ago, bendan said:

Surprised this thread hasn't re-activated.

With Sunak making an explicit link between duties and health (though not all the changes actually reflect that), it looks to me like there is less of a need for an MUP. In fact, I've always found it odd that Scotland boasts of being the first country to have such a thing when the only reason we implemented it was because we had no control over duties. 

 

Sunak is wrong.  The Sage of Inverclyde knows better. 

[bendan]

48 minutes ago, scottsdad said:

Sunak's efforts will make no difference here. I agree though, they could easily make these changes via tax and earn some money in the process...assuming it was needed.

The production and consumption of alcohol is such a big part of the UK economy that he can't do anything that would have a big impact on consumption. We're probably going to see a lot more beers with an ABV of 3.4% on the shelves, but not much else is going to change by the looks of things.

Edited October 28, 2021 by bendan

[NotThePars]

On 28/10/2021 at 12:32, Wee Bully said:

Sunak is wrong.  The Sage of Inverclyde knows better. 

I don't pretend to know anything about this but Sunak is a Randian weirdo.

[scottsdad]

Campaigners in the news today, wanting it raised to 65p. Because this policy has failed, the reaction is to double down on it. 

[Suspect Device]

36 minutes ago, scottsdad said:

Campaigners in the news today, wanting it raised to 65p. Because this policy has failed, the reaction is to double down on it. 

And when that doesn't work we'll raise it again.

Much like the covid mask wearing not working because we're not wearing them 24/7 in all situations.

[Abdul_Latif]

Not to mention there’s the 20p bottle / can deposit scheme ready to kick off next year.

10 Slab of 5% 440ml cans currently available for about £11 to £12, but with the MUP rise and can deposit you’ll be looking at £16.30 minimum. Have to feel sorry for someone on a small pension for example who likes a can in moderation over the week.

PS - I know you get the deposit back, but it’s a pain in the arse and I’ll likely still end up just putting them in the recycling bin, rather than traipse the manky dreg filled cans to a shop.

Edited November 19, 2021 by Abdul_Latif

[Aubrey Maturin]

Instead of throwing money at education in schools about alcohol misuse and on proper rehab services let's just continue blindly down the road of adding more money to a product that will see those who are poorest merely give up a meal to buy drink.  Maybe address the societal issues that are causing people to drink so much instead of a shit policy that won't work. Education not shit legislation.

Half arsed Ill thought out pish again, a bit like the disastrous drug policy.

They're some lot.

[Abdul_Latif]

5 minutes ago, Tynie Trotwood said:

Half arsed Ill thought out pish again, a bit like the disastrous drug policy.

The Academics responsible for these type of studies / proposals, though understanding of the consequences, have no understanding of the people.

So removed from the man in the street, that they just don’t get how their findings / data can be wrong in practice.

Edited November 19, 2021 by Abdul_Latif

[Suspect Device]

15 minutes ago, Tynie Trotwood said:

Instead of throwing money at education in schools about alcohol misuse and on proper rehab services let's just continue blindly down the road of adding more money to a product that will see those who are poorest merely give up a meal to buy drink.  Maybe address the societal issues that are causing people to drink so much instead of a shit policy that won't work. Education not shit legislation.

Half arsed Ill thought out pish again, a bit like the disastrous drug policy.

They're some lot.

To be fair, ttey are doing the education part as well. My daughter (11) has told me she is never touching alcohol because it kills you.

So do drugs apparently.

Don't think that the governement are pushing any sort of nuanced approach in primary. It's prohibition through fear of death.

 

(Her gran (my Mum) did die of liver failure due to alcohol so they're not completely wrong)

[Aubrey Maturin]

27 minutes ago, Suspect Device said:

To be fair, ttey are doing the education part as well. My daughter (11) has told me she is never touching alcohol because it kills you.

So do drugs apparently.

Don't think that the governement are pushing any sort of nuanced approach in primary. It's prohibition through fear of death.

 

(Her gran (my Mum) did die of liver failure due to alcohol so they're not completely wrong)

Yeah so not actually educating kids merely trying to terrify them into abstinence.

Marvellous policy that.

[Sergeant Wilson]

35 minutes ago, Suspect Device said:

To be fair, ttey are doing the education part as well. My daughter (11) has told me she is never touching alcohol because it kills you.

She'll be begging you for prosecco at Christmas and New Year.