[Closed] Alcohol Minimum pricing

the minium pricing being considered though would make a litre bottle of vodka at least £10 something, which is going to be more effective.

[Img] [/img]

I did this a while ago when the Scots were talking about it.

I but Thatchers Gold cider for £2.48 for a 2l bottle... it.s 9.3 units and under these rules I would have to pay £3.65 😯 Thants not fair 😈

.....mind you I have been called an irrasponsible drinker 😳

I like how the govt take the moral high ground - to curb binge drinking, it's not it's to raise revenue!!

Good article in the Independent yesterday about why youngsters binge drink.

Answer suggested was to get them in the pubs, not clubs/parks. That way they don't drink as much and the oldies keep an eye on them.

jimster - its not a taxation. Its a mandatory minimum price based on the current tax levels.

Anti-government rant fail.

It may stop some folk binge-drinking but it's not going to stop all or many IMO, the hard-core will simply spend less on other stuff.

I suppose it may be worth a try, seems to me to be a cultural thing, tough to change.

On Radio 4 this morning, I'm sure they were talking about a lower minimum price. 30p a litre?

It sounded like that would make very little difference to health or deaths, but 50p would make a huge difference.

The prices will only go up if the product is being sold at less than Duty+VAT, but given that break even would be Stock Cost + Duty + VAT, it's unlikely to affect people significantly. That's ignoring overheads, staff costs and profit. It does seem like a pointless exercise though.

the 50p figure was being mooted by the Scots last year. I ran up the graph to illustrate the impact on well known drinks bought at supermarket prices.

The rate the government are currently talking about is based on the level of duty that the drink attracts. Which is why it's different for beer compared to spirits for example.

The principle is to prevent loss leader sales that fuel volume consumption.

Personally I dont buy it.

Raising the price will not change the culture. Fuel and fuel duty are the highest they've ever been but there are more Chelsea tractors, boy racers and car commuters than ever before. It's pointless and will barely pay for itself.

The minimum price proposed means that shops won't be able to sell at below duty and VAT; this in fact rarely happens. As such it will make bog-all difference to drinking and therefore alcohol-related harm. That's why the industry are happy to let it through.
A minimum price of 50p would have a massive impact on 'irresponsible' drinking and save thousands of lives, hospital admissions, violence and damage a year. That's why the industry don't like it and it didn't get very far. Even a minimum price of 50p per unit won't make any difference to you if you don't drink special brew or Asda's finest homebrew. A pint has two units, I've not paid £1 pint since my heady student days in the 90s.

That's enough of that public health rant; I'm back off to trying to stop pregnant women smoking...

The only effect I can see from that it prevents big supermarkets applying discounts that their smaller competitors can't match through lack of sales volume and stock diversity. If anything it's a good thing for the high street, but I can't see it having any meaning full effect on anything. Seems like a sop to someone, though I'm not sure who.

^ I agree with sok - not much difference to most of us, but anyone trying to get drunk as cheap as, it will.

the pubco.s perhaps?

One of the biggest losers of a 50p/unit price floor would be middle-class junk wine drinkers. The price of a 12% bottle of Bulgarian Vino would jump from £3.00 to £4.87 a bottle.

Those of us who get mullered on nothing less than £10 bottles of wine will be untouched by the legislation and continue to cause drink-fuelled havoc across the nations Bowling Greens 🙂

reggiegasket - Member
Good article in the Independent yesterday about why youngsters binge drink.

Answer suggested was to get them in the pubs, not clubs/parks. That way they don't drink as much and the oldies keep an eye on them.

Oh please god, no!! I like my local just the way it is thanks, i.e., not chock full of young folk shouting drunkenly and trying to batter lumps out of each other / me!

BTW - I was looking through a Pub supplies wholesale pricelist the other day and it's bleak to see that the cheapest wines were around £2.40 a bottle. With duty at £225/100litres that means £1.70 of every bottle of wine is Duty at wholesale. Of the remaining 70p the wholesaler and importer have to take their cut, the producer has to pay for bottling and marketing and transport. It leaves a pitiful amount of value in the liquid inside, and is why quality of wine goes up dramatically for every pound you spend over £5 on a bottle as the fixed costs listed above are overtaken by the marginal costs of improved production.

I've been all over Scandinavia a lot - Iceland and Norway especially have exorbitant price levels compared to here. Even taking into comparison wages etc their drink, especially in pubs/restaurants etc is way more expensive.

Yet there is a huge drinking culture - the prices in no way have put anyone off. A night out in Reykjavik has to be experienced to be believed. Everyone is howling drunk!

On the basis of price alone, they should be nations of teetotallers. It is down to culture more than price alone.

What dazzlingboy said.

On that note, I'm going to look at a homebrew kit.

It's not a minimum price of 50p a unit!

we know.

@stoner - Just a coincidence that your graph looks like a viral ad for Tesco?

😉

Am I missing something, or is this just going to raise the price of really nasty cheap booze to the same price as mediocre stuff?

So the winos will just buy the better stuff...

On that note, I'm going to look at a homebrew kit.

Have a look at the Muntons kits

On the basis of price alone, they should be nations of teetotallers. It is down to culture more than price alone.

I agree. IMHO, minimum pricing is just dodging the issue, and will have no meaningful effect. I am totally against tinkering with prices in the mistaken belief that it will suddenly cure the nation's ills. The same thing is mooted occasionally regarding taxation of less healthy food.

I don't see why I should be penalised by higher prices for mars bars or alcohol (my usual tipples wouldn't be affected at the present suggested prices, but no doubt these would creep up over time), because the government wants me to eat/drink less. I eat some "junk" food (primarily too many choccie bars as they are handy to throw in a rucksack), but then go and burn it off on the bike, and I drink in moderation. Why should I pay more to line the pockets of the local supermarket, or more in tax, because some other unhealthy individuals eat too much unhealthy food or drink too much alcohol?

pixel - I think for the "libertarian" attitudes you touch on, this government is loathe to do anything so dramatic either.

Hence the duty-linked price floor. It wouldnt effect you (or me) at all. A minimum price above the duty level though, would. And that would take "meddling" too far in my mind.

Am I missing something, or is this just going to raise the price of really nasty cheap booze to the same price as mediocre stuff?

you're missing something.

The current proposal is only that shops cannot sell alcohol for less than the duty payable on it. i.e. no loss leader beer offers etc.

The Scottish proposal last year was a minimum price based on alcoholic content. That would have the effect of making winos drink more Premier Cru Burgundy.

I've a batch of norfolk werry brewing up at the moment,

40 pints, ~£20 (but then 1 in 4 barrels just doesn't work, so more like £27 if you include that loss).

Homebrew isn't as cheep as you'd imagine, especialy when the lack of any QC can leave you with 40 pints of Stones if you're unlucky!

So what'll happen in pubs?

[s]Chav[/s]Wetherspoons going to increase their prices to a more realistic level, but then will the smaller independent pub will have to increase their prices too?

If they were truly concerned about public health they would ban alcohol and fags (if either was introduced today they'd ban it) but as was said earlier it's too big a revenue raiser for that to happen

only those pubs doing "4 shots of vodka for 50p" deals will have any effect on their pricing. Even Weatherspoons charge Duty+ for their pints.

Even a 50p/unit floor would be well below the price of a pint.
568ml of 4% beer is 2.3 units, or £1.13 minimum price if it were 50p a unit.

Seeing as we're constantly having the fact that idle wasters who couldn't be arsed to go to school, or get a job are not very well off (despite having 6 kids) and we shouldn't be penalising them, I find the increasing in prices of their favourite weekday fluids a tad hypocritical.

I'm sure we'll have Wayne or Tracy, or suchlike on our TV screens soon telling us how unfair it is that they will struggle to afford bread and milk if the price of booze goes up, so lets pre-empt this and give them a few more benefits to compensate. I don't mind my taxes being increased to allow for it.

so lets pre-empt this and give them a few more benefits to compensate. I don't mind my taxes being increased to allow for it.

You need to give them alcohol vouchers rather than money otherwise they may go a waste it on stuff like food.

Good point jon 😉

Apologies if this has already been mentioned, but how about have separate duty rates for on-license and off-license sales?

Adding to that point - although potentially a bad idea, the government decided rather than paying the landlord directly for DSS tenants, they'd give the tenants the money to look after themselves/buy beer with.

It actually worked quite well on our road, as the small handful of houses that were rented out to wasters soon had the landlord kicking them out, due to non-payment.

The royal society of gastroeterologists (the medics who deal, generally, with alcohol related medical issues) have compiled lots of evidence that, unfortunately, does show that the rates of alcohol related mortality and morbidity are directly (inversely) related to the minimum price per unit of alcohol.

I don't like it, as I like to responsibly enjoy cheap alcohol, but unfrtunately that's the way it is folks!

DrP

Panic not pixel. Introducing a minimum price on alcohol would save millions on NHS, police and local authority spending so you might find that extra few pennies will reap its rewards on not having to bump up other taxes to fund these spiraling costs.
Even at a rate of 50p per unit if you do drink responsibly the actual impact on your pocket will be only be a few pence a week or nothing at all.

I don't drink responsibly

Ian - that might be a good idea, but Duty is paid by the producer*/importer, not the retailer so it would require some stiff policing to prevent on-licence sale product finding it's way into off-licence retailer's hands.

* One of the reasons that alcopops were "invented" was that brewers were producing 4-5%+ beers on which they paid the duty for the alcohol production, but they then reduced the alcoholic content of the beer to make it more palatable/sell better. The spare alcohol had had it's duty paid on it, but was sitting idle. So some genius thought: "I know, let's bung it in some lemonade/blue antifreeze and flog it to neds!" Bob's your drunk uncle, a new market is born! 🙂

And really these prices only affect 'at home drinkers' (like myself). If you ahve a pub where the price per unit is less than 50p, let me know!

DrP

I don't like it, as I like to responsibly enjoy cheap alcohol, but unfrtunately that's the way it is folks!

DrP

That's the way what is ? Is it the law that expert knowledge from the medical fraternity should determine how everyone else lives their lives ?

It might just be that some people would happily trade 5 years of their lifespan in order to drink and enjoy the 40 odd years of their adult life.

Just a thought.

tm - I insist on being patronized! Bring me doctors and socialists!

Shouldn't the price of cheap booze, white lightning et al, be reduced rather than increased? that way, the knd of people who sit around in parks drinking themselves into oblivion will seriously reduce their life span and the loss of income through tax will be made up by not paying them benefits and looking after them in hospital later on?
Free packet of smokes with every bottle of special brew anyone?

As a matter of interest, what is the duty for alcohol atm?

Could this be the end of the road for:

[img] http://www.cheetah3d.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=7455&stc=1&d=1250618410 [/img]

Apparently this will have great benefits and longer lives.

Ultimately if we ban or price all "nasty" things out of existance we'll end up with a country full of 1000 years bores heads all expecting to be looked after.

Maybe we should consider dropping the price so there are plenty of care home spaces available, and I can retire earlier....

but hang on... if we all stop drinking and live longer then the pension pot will fail big time 🙁

As a matter of interest, what is the duty for alcohol atm?

depends:

Low Alcohol beverages, wine and made wines (1) up to 4.0% £69.32per 100 litres
Low Alcohol beverages, wine and made wines (1) exceeding 4.0% but not exceeding 5.5% £95.33 per 100litres
Cider and Perry of up to 7.5% £33.46 per 100 litres (this rate was £36.01 between 29/03/10 and 29/06/10)
Beer £17.32 for every 1% of strength per 100 litres
Wine £225.00 per 100 litres
Sparkling Wine of 8.5% volume and above £288.20 per 100 litres
"Intermediate products" (like port and sherry) £299.97 per 100 litres
Spirits and spirit based - "RTDs (Ready to Drink Products)" (2) £23.80 for every 1% of strength per 100 litres (1) Excluding spirit based drinks - see below (2) - ie "made products containing distilled alcohol In the 2002 budget, the Chancellor created a new fiscal category by linking spirit based "RTD's" to the duty on Spirits. Previously spirit based "RTD's" had been dutied at the same rate as wine and cider based RTD's.

Anti-government rant fail.

It's not though Stoner. Even a rabid Tory like you can see that it's simply a cynical attempt by this ConDemNation to raise revenue. So, a perfectly valid 'anti-government rant'.

Introducing a minimum price on alcohol would save millions on NHS, police and local authority spending

...that they could then go and spend on dealing with issues caused by the inevitable increase in the use of other drugs, and illicit alcohol production.

Someone mentioned Scandinavia earlier; what they din't mention, is the prolific amount of illegal alcohol production in those countries. Many folk, speshly in lesser populated areas, will brew their own hooch. It's actually quite an ingrained part of their culture, it seems. When I visited Norway, my gf's dad had a still in his basement. Totally illegal, and the penalties are very harsh. Doesn't stop anyone! He would actually have tasting sessions with his friends, who all brewed their own too, including the local police chief...

Pricing the poorest users off alcohol would merely push them towards other drugs. Heroin is cheaper now than it's ever been (British forces being in Afghanistan have nothing to do with this at all, of course...). In areas like the one I live in, alcohol misuse is rife, but nowhere near the socially destructive problem Heroin uses is. Cocaine is cheaper and more freely available too. Crack Cocaine is no longer a drug used solely by council estate 'scum', but in fact is now also being used by people with more 'respectable' lives.

So, the government's claims to be concerned with the health of the nation are quite frankly a smokescreen. Like they actually give a toss about some old winos anyway ffs!

If you ask me, there should be a [i]maximum[/i] price on booze. No more than £3 a pint tops. That way, I wouldn't have to mug some middle-class wine aficionado to get the money for my next fix. 🙂

Thanks for that, certainly clears it up.

I can see why the govt want to be seen to be doing something to curb the drink culture in the country, and lets be honest the state some people get in is pretty dire to put it mildly. However why should the rest of us get penalised enjoying a quiet bottle with our Sunday lunch?

it's simply a cynical attempt by this ConDemNation to raise revenue. So, a perfectly valid 'anti-government rant'.

you're turning into TJ what with that phobia about reading stuff Fred.

Announcing the plans for England and Wales, Home Office Minister James Brokenshire said it acknowledged "concern over how cheaply some alcoholic drinks are being sold" and the link between alcohol and disorder.

"Banning the sale of alcohol below the rate of duty plus VAT is the best starting point for tackling the availability of cheap alcohol and will send a clear signal to retailers and the public that government takes this issue seriously."

there is [b]no[/b] mechanism in the proposls to raise revenue for the government. So you also get an "anti-goverment rant fail" sticker. I'll print of some more for you, I reckon I'll need them...

hang on, i'm confused, how does this raise revenue?

i'm stupid, and fragile, please be gentle...

careful now, I have spare sticker here for you 🙂

It doest raise revenue. That's the point that Fred missed so spectacularly.

itsa not a revenue raising exercise

I do find it funny that in Scotland this was blocked by an alliance of labour, tory and Lib Dem.

I am for it myself - some of the drinks the alcoholics like such as frosty jack or tenants crucial brew are very very cheap per unit of alcohol. Screaming drunk for a couple of quid?

It wouldn't affect me as I buy expensive alcohol - £3.20 pints in my local

jimster - Member

Thanks for that, certainly clears it up.

I can see why the govt want to be seen to be doing something to curb the drink culture in the country, and lets be honest the state some people get in is pretty dire to put it mildly. However why should the rest of us get penalised enjoying a quiet bottle with our Sunday lunch?

It won't!

£3.20 pints in my local

That's socialist champagne prices for you....

Looking at that graph on the first page,

Has no-one else spotted that the most expensive items on there (by a hefty margin) are Breezers and WKD, with Smirnoff Ice bringing up a close third?

Surely that's proof positive that a minimum price isn't going to affect binge drinking and alcohol-fueled violence and stupidity one jot? I don't remember the last time I saw someone thrown through Woolies' window after a couple of lads been on the Merlot a bit hard.

that was my original point when I first published the graph.

A 50p floor would hit CabSav Englanders far harder than BuckieNeds

well, "CabSav Englanders" are just as capable of drinking too much...

Has no-one else spotted that the most expensive items on there (by a hefty margin) are Breezers and WKD, with Smirnoff Ice bringing up a close third? .........Surely that's proof positive that a minimum price isn't going to affect binge drinking and alcohol-fueled violence and stupidity one jot?

Don't the yoofs / binge drinkers all drink cheap vodka and cider before they go down the pub so they're pretty Brahmsed before they go out to save money, so I think it would make a difference.

Don't the yoofs / binge drinkers all drink cheap vodka and cider before they go down the pub so they're pretty Brahmsed before they go out to save money, so I think it would make a difference.

Would it be cynical of me to suggest that the only thing it'd make a difference to is shoplifting statistics?

*Get's ready for Stoner's sticker.

If you increase the duty and VAT raised on the extra duty, and ban the sale of loss-leading drinks by supermarkets and the like you won't increase revenue?

Also these are duty prices before manufacturing / distribution costs are taken into account.

duty is payable on the product (i.e. its a fixed amount based on the nature of the product and it's alcoholic content - see the duty rates quoted up there ^ a bit), not the costs of production.

fixing a minimum equal to the duty & vat just means that the retailer isnt allowed to subsidise the consumers bingeing by discounting into the tax part of the product price. Doing so undermines the public health policy objectives of the rate of duty.

whenever you raise taxes, you raise revenue. The existence or otherwise of a duty-linked floor to the retail price makes no difference. This policy does not in itself intend to raise the rates of duty. That would be done separately in a budget,

LOL - sums it up nicely IMO.

[url= http://newsthump.com/2011/01/18/raising-prices-will-reduce-consumption-just-like-it-has-with-petrol-insists-government/ ]Raising alcohol prices will reduce consumption - just like it has with petrol.[/url]

Do prohibitive measures ever do that much to curtail drug use ?

It'll just create a black market and extra criminality IMHO.