Cameron's alcohol tax...

[RedHerring2]

Par for the course in GD. To be expected, I think.
Some have likened GD like a conversation in the pub.
On that basis, you wouldn't expect to discuss the same topic all evening with a drinking partner, would you?

I think it's a little more than a conversation in the pub, 'cos posts are recorded in print and it's not a private matter between a couple/few individuals.

 

[ladylola]

Taxing as a way to redress any habits is about the only way a government will approach it. I feel that the view taken is that if there is aproblem that they need to be seen to be acting on then making a bit more money out of it is ok , as the example cited about alcoholics paying as much as it takes for their booze.
If the (or any) government was really serious about reducing alcohol abuse then there are much better ways. For example , how about rationing? Practically everyone has a chip and pin type of card so use the exsisting technology to create an "account" for everybody that is "credited" with so many units of alcohol per week (current thinking is 21 units a week for men although that figure wasn't arrived at by any scientific methods it was just a number pulled out of the air). That way alcohol abuse is reduced almost overnight, with subsequent savings on police and health services, and the real beauty is the system could be extended easily and cheapily to cover fats or whatever.
Of course alcoholics would all have to registar and then recieve treatment as appropreate.

 

[joe-90]

Twenty years ago the amount of alcohol in a pint of bitter was 1.9 proof.

Today it's 5. something. Therefore if you reduce the alcohol in beers back to 'less than 2% proof' you'll reduce alcohol consumption. The same with cider. Wines and spirits should be priced according to the alcohol content.

 

[ladylola]

Twenty years ago the amount of alcohol in a pint of bitter was 1.9 proof.

Today it's 5.

So does this mean an alcoholic would consume , and of course pay for, almost three times the beer to get their "fix".
Duty onbeers below 2.5 * was reduced in the last budget ( I think that figure is about right) but there are virtually no beers with less than 3.5* to be found.
Just as an after thought on that , if I went into a pub and ordered a shandy made with a 3.5* beer the resultant drink would be below 2.5* so why don't I pay a reduced tax on the drink Don't worry though I know what the official answer would be

 

[joe-90]

Alcoholics need to pay for their medical bills. The higher the duty on alcohol the better.

 

[ladylola]

Yes I agree there is a least an argument that they should pay for their own treatment of what is a self inflicted aliment, although of course the same argument could be used for smokers, obese people and maybe at a push even cyclists who "wouldn't have needed treatment for that road traffic accident if they hadn't been cycling in the first place".
And as long as all us social and moderate drinkers are happy with paying higher taxes on booze or whatever for the benifit of those who can't or won't moderate then " the higher the duty the better".

 

[joe-90]

There would be less chance of alcohol dependency if the price was high as they wouldn't be able to afford to get that way in the first instance.

 

[Blasphemous]

It's always bemused me that in France, they have a similar size population but a much larger country. The tax on alcohol, tobacco, road fund license and fuel is lower (or non-existent), yet the roads are in better condition, the health service is of higher quality.
How come they can do it?

They can't go on at the rate they are, just like other European countries, they're in financial trouble.

If the (or any) government was really serious about reducing alcohol abuse then there are much better ways. For example , how about rationing? Practically everyone has a chip and pin type of card so use the exsisting technology to create an "account" for everybody that is "credited" with so many units of alcohol per week (current thinking is 21 units a week for men although that figure wasn't arrived at by any scientific methods it was just a number pulled out of the air). That way alcohol abuse is reduced almost overnight, with subsequent savings on police and health services, and the real beauty is the system could be extended easily and cheapily to cover fats or whatever.
Of course alcoholics would all have to registar and then recieve treatment as appropreate.

Of course there's a whole world of Black Market available to those who smoke and drink. What's to stop someone who doesn't drink/smoke from buying up their quota of Alcohol, Fags, Fatty Food etc and selling them on to someone else? Nowt wrong in them making a profit too in my eyes but of course the millionaire Osborne will want a cut of the profits, so best to keep it quiet/black market.

Alcoholics need to pay for their medical bills. The higher the duty on alcohol the better.

So because there are some people that can't control themselves means everyone else who enjoys a drink and drinks responsibly and controls their intake has to suffer financially because of the first group of people.... yeah that sounds fair!

Even with it's issues of abuse (ie others selling on their quota), I'm inclined to favour ladylola's suggestion. I'm fed up with the notion that because there are some people who abuse certain things then the rest of society has to pay more for that product. Insurance is a good example of were we're all made to pay extra because of the abuse of others but once we show we can be trusted to be sensible then the cost comes down in line with our risk factor.

 

[joe-90]

You could raise duty on drink and fags and lower it on other stuff that householders use to offset it. ie lower the VAT on gas and electric.

 

[Blasphemous]

You could raise duty on drink and fags and lower it on other stuff that householders use to offset it. ie lower the VAT on gas and electric.

An excellent suggestion Joe, will the millionaires Cameron and Osborne think of anything like that... like shyte will they.

 

[joe-90]

Joe-90 for PM.

 

[enyam]

You could raise duty on drink and fags and lower it on other stuff that householders use to offset it. ie lower the VAT on gas and electric.

An excellent suggestion Joe, will the millionaires Cameron and Osborne think of anything like that... like shyte will they.

Seeing as we only pay 5% on electric and gas its likely to up rather than down.

 

[ladylola]

Ah but if you raise taxes on booze and fags to reduce consumption and then reduce the tax on other stuff to off set this there's the problem that the booze tax if successful results in a shortfall of overall tax.
Blas , yes the black market the Achillies heel of any system really, and of course in my idea it would be possible to see a granny being prosecuted for giving her allowance to her own son for his 21st birthday party, so the system would also require an influx of common sense too.

 

[joinerjohn]

Bah, the government go on and on about so called "Binge Drinking", then show us the evidence of drunken youths in town centres, causing mayhem etc, fighting and tying up valuable NHS resources in A&E on Friday and Saturday nights. If they want to cut down this binge drinking culture, then apply the laws as they are at the moment re "drunk in a public place"," disturbing the peace", etc but make the fines/sentences a lot stiffer.
Lets say a couple of drunken youths are arrested for fighting/causing a public nuisance/whatever, on a Friday night in some city/town centre, then lock them up till Monday morning, where they are straight in court in front of a magistrate. Give the magistrates the power to levy a hefty fine, plus community service/ curfew. Not the usual £30 fine , make it a fine of £500 minimum. 100 hrs community service and a 3 months curfew from 7.00 pm on a Friday evening until 7.00am on a Monday morning.
The £500 fine would be paid at a rate of approximately what they would normally spend at the weekends getting drunk.
Any further breaches of this sort within 2 yrs would incur double the penalty and so on.

This would go a long way towards cutting down drunken , rowdy behaviour up and down the country. These young un's would soon learn, that they can't go out getting blind drunk and causing trouble, without reaping the consequences of such behaviour.

I think this is the way to go, but,,,,, we all know any government isn't going to go down that route, much simpler to raise taxes on alcohol so the many have to pay for the misdemeanour's of the few.

PS the governments actual definition of binge drinking is anyone who drinks more than 5 units of alcohol per day. So in effect when I go to the darts match on a Tuesday evening and have 3 pints, the government think I'm a "Binge Drinker" on Tuesdays. (tomorrow evening I hope to set a new record, as will 3/4 of the bloody country ) ) Pffffffffffffffftttttttttt

 

[ladylola]

Bah, the government go on and on about so called "Binge Drinking", then show us the evidence of drunken youths in town centres, causing mayhem etc, fighting and tying up valuable NHS resources in A&E on Friday and Saturday nights. If they want to cut down this binge drinking culture, then apply the laws as they are at the moment re "drunk in a public place"," disturbing the peace", etc but make the fines/sentences a lot stiffer. / on a Friday night in some city/town centre, then lock them up till Monday morning, where they are straight in court in front of a magistrate. Give the magistrates the power to levy a hefty fine, plus community service/ curfew. Not the usual £30 fine , make it a fine of £500
The £500 fine /
Any further breaches of this sort within 2 yrs would incur double the penalty

I think this is the way to go, / pay for the misdemeanour's of the few.

PS the governments actual definition of binge drinking is anyone who drinks more than 5 units of alcohol per day. / Pffffffffffffffftttttttttt

Can't disagree , firm but fair. I'd also have the community service done in some kind of pink overall with their crimes emblazoned on the back.