Really Stupid Ideas #1

[drplokta]

First in an occasional series pointing out why ideas that are under discussion are stupid.

Today, we look at setting a minimum price per unit for alcohol. This is a stupid idea because it immediately turns (formerly) cheap booze into a massively profitable line for the supermarkets, with no price competition to worry about. This means that they will spend tens of millions promoting it, and sales may even increase.

The smart thing to do instead is to increase tax, bring tax levels more into line with alcohol content, and perhaps prohibit selling alcohol at below cost price as the government is proposing (although this, while not actively stupid, is very difficult since the government has no way to find out what cost price is).

Comments

[feorag.livejournal.com]

It already is taxed the way you say. Alcohol duty is calculated based on the quantity of actual alcohol, in litres, the producer makes (or is imported, which is done under duty suspension and the importer gets to pay it). There are different rates for different products - spirits are taxed at a higher rate than beer, and alcopops are taxed at a higher rate to discourage them. There are benefits for smaller producers - progressive beer duty for small brewers and an exemption altogether for tiny (farmhouse scale) cider producers.

I often joke that perry should be taxed at the current preferential rate, but that "pear cider" should be on the alcopop scale - the difference being, of course, marketing. Perhaps we should start getting tough about what is allowed to be called, and taxed as, cider (for example), which will automatically shove the cheap (problematic) stuff, full of onions, sugar and adjuncts, into the alcopop category?

For a beer to be called "lager", and taxed as a beer, perhaps we should insist it come up to Rheinheitsgebot standards and be stored for 30 days. Otherwise - it's an alcopop! Stella Artois (which contains rice) would be "reassuringly even more expensive"! I am sure that it would be easy enough to come up with standards that emphasise quality and make cheap piss more expensive.

The whole problem with this entire discourse is that it appears that only the drinking of poor people that is a problem. Also, in the UK, it seems we're drinking less anyway, and the trend was downwards through the last century too). Additionally, after two trips to Oslo in 6 months, I am absolutely sure that the price of alcoholic drinks makes no difference.

Or maybe, just maybe, we should examine why people's lives are so shitty and stressful that they feel the need to drink so much, instead of blaming them? (and another clue, as I learned from the month of no beer, there isn't actually that much else to do at night unless you are really well off and have boring ideas of what constitutes entertainment).

[andrewducker]

Or maybe, just maybe, we should examine why people's lives are so shitty and stressful that they feel the need to drink so much, instead of blaming them?

This.

[evil-mogwai.livejournal.com]

"The whole problem with this entire discourse is that it appears that only the drinking of poor people that is a problem".

One of the papers did a survey not long ago that concluded it was moving more towards Lower Middle Class that were more of a problem on the streets and drinking to excess.

Its a perception think with some of the toffs, sorry upper class, that are involved with policy that it is more the gutter classes causing the problem.

Health costs are caused in the gutter classes too but they don't show up as much as the lower middle classes would because, I believe, that they seek out healthcare for lesser issues.

/I may be wrong with some of the above... it is purely an opinion.