Tax Equality Day 7.5% Discount

[antijoke]

You do realise alcohol abuse is one of the (if not the) most serious issues facing public health, policing and British society as a whole? Pricing is one of the most effective way of curbing an issue that affects so many people on a daily basis.

So why not just ban it?

 

[Burnsy2023]

So why not just ban it?

Because abolition doesn't work within our current societal and cultural norms.

 

[pitchfork]

You do realise alcohol abuse is one of the (if not the) most serious issues facing public health, policing and British society as a whole? Pricing is one of the most effective way of curbing an issue that affects so many people on a daily basis.

No it isn't, people don't drink less they just become poorer.

Not once has someone been down the pub, thought "Beers gone up by 20p, I'll only have 11 pints instead of 12"

They just drink 12 pints and don't have as much money for other luxuries, and suddenly the landlord is a ****.

People have always drank their fill, it's nothing new "Binge drinking" 10-20 years ago was otherwise known as "A night out"

The problem now is the 24 hour licensing combined with the fact people are naturally becoming bigger *****s which is amplified by the alcohol. That doesn't give them the right to penalise other drinkers, I'd happily go back to the days of lock ins down the pub, doesn't fuss me.

 

[D.P.]

Pardon?

I am not talking about alcohol, I didn't know supermarket restaurants served pints.

It looks like I just read too much into it and took away something the article wasn't saying.

I know full well the fact some foods have no VAT at a supermarket, what I didn't see was clear was the restaurant side of things.

But the food served in restarants is charged VAt, the same as weatherspoons and any other pub. The ingredients and products used to create that food wont be charged VAT, the same as weatherspoons and every other pub.

 

[LordSplodge]

You do realise alcohol abuse is one of the (if not the) most serious issues facing public health, policing and British society as a whole? Pricing is one of the most effective way of curbing an issue that affects so many people on a daily basis.

Alcohol abuse is, indeed, an issue but the fact that the pub industry is being decimated by cheap booze in supermarkets is also an issue.

Causal drinkers are being squeezed out of enjoying a drink and putting prices up in pubs is doing nothing to stop binge drinking especially given people pre-load on cheap drinks from the supermarket.

 

[Burnsy2023]

No it isn't, people don't drink less they just become poorer.

Not once has someone been down the pub, thought "Beers gone up by 20p, I'll only have 11 pints instead of 12"

Whilst that may be the case for some people, many will go to the pub with £20 and buy as many pints as that money will get them. When the price goes up, consumption goes down.

There is plenty of evidence that minimum pricing works such as this study:
Hertua, K. et al. (2008) Changes in alcohol-related mortality and its socio-economic differences after a large reduction in alcohol prices: a natural experiment based on register data. American Journal of Epidemiology.

The problem now is the 24 hour licensing combined with the fact people are naturally becoming bigger *****s which is amplified by the alcohol. That doesn't give them the right to penalise other drinkers, I'd happily go back to the days of lock ins down the pub, doesn't fuss me.

This was a problem well before 24 hour licensing, indeed that was put in to try and prevent the issue of binge drinking without actually addressing the cultural issues which were the root cause.

Like it or not, paying a bit more for a pint saves lives.

 

[anything I don't mind]

Taxation was never meant to be a mechanism for mass social control. It is not Burnsy2023 right to tell people that they should drink less. I don't think anyone needs a study from 2008 to tell them that if they increase the tax on alcohol it will reduce consumption.

The argument that whetherspoon makes is that there has been 10000 pub closers and it is often in many parts of the country the only social hub there is. It is an english tradition and no its not true that people only go to the pubs for drinks, they go to there for meetings/food/socialising, their argument is that if any of the two should be tax in the name of mass social engineer the population, then it should be the supermarkets and not the pubs.

To have to pay £600 million in tax is excessive. But the greedy government and its benefactors would rather have the money and pretend like it is for some good social cause so they can feel better about robbing everyone.

 

[Burnsy2023]

Taxation was never meant to be a mechanism for mass social control. It is not Burnsy2023 right to tell people that they should drink less. I don't think anyone needs a study from 2008 to tell them that if they increase the tax on alcohol it will reduce consumption.

So are you now agreeing with me that alcohol minimum pricing is effective in curbing excessive drinking?

The argument that whetherspoon makes is that there has been 10000 pub closers and it is often in many parts of the country the only social hub there is. It is an english tradition and no its not true that people only go to the pubs for drinks, they go to there for meetings/food/socialising, their argument is that if any of the two should be tax in the name of mass social engineer the population, then it should be the supermarkets and not the pubs.

For a lot of younger people coffee shops are substituting for pubs. You can still socialise, eat and drink without all of the issues that alcohol brings.

To have to pay £600 million in tax is excessive. But the greedy government and its benefactors would rather have the money and pretend like it is for some good social cause so they can feel better about robbing everyone.

How else are the government going to fund public services? Do you think it's wrong other large FTSE 100 companies to be paying billions to the treasury in various taxes?

 

[Alienfish360]

No it isn't, people don't drink less they just become poorer.

Not once has someone been down the pub, thought "Beers gone up by 20p, I'll only have 11 pints instead of 12"

They just drink 12 pints and don't have as much money for other luxuries, and suddenly the landlord is a ****.

You don't see this as an issue?

If people need alcohol that much that, they drink themselves poor. Then that to me is a pretty clear indication of abuse and addiction.

 

[antijoke]

Burnsy you seem very anti alcohol.

 

[Burnsy2023]

Burnsy you seem very anti alcohol.

I'm anti alcohol abuse and pro public health. I do drink occasionally but I don't think it's healthy for our society to have the relationship with alcohol it does. I think that a reduction in consumption can only be a good thing for everyone.

 

[anything I don't mind]

So are you now agreeing with me that alcohol minimum pricing is effective in curbing excessive drinking?



For a lot of younger people coffee shops are substituting for pubs. You can still socialise, eat and drink without all of the issues that alcohol brings.



How else are the government going to fund public services? Do you think it's wrong other large FTSE 100 companies to be paying billions tot he treasury in various taxes?

I would not call it effective at curbing excessive drinking, i would call it effective at making people pay more for less. In fact it could be argued when it comes do drinking that increasing the prices of pints at the pub increases consumption as people will then tend to buy alcohol from the supermarket where it is up to 3-4 times cheaper. Meaning where people would go to the pub and buy 4 pints, they now buy 6-12 pint cans for the same price and even worse they go and sit at home by themselves instead of contributing to social cohesion.

Economically though if you increase the price of a good or service it usually negatively affects demand. Whether due to price controls or direct taxation or just a disruption in the productive process, increases in price will usually have the same effect on demand.

The government is funded through the misappropriation of funds from the productive half of the economy. There are several mechanism for this misappropriation, there was nothing that was ever written down that said the misappropriation should be used to social engineer the population away from things the people in the governments thinks people would be better off without. People have a right in a free country to slowly kill themselves with tobacco and alcohol.

 

[:(Rhodri:)]

I don't think anyone needs a study from 2008 to tell them that if they increase the tax on alcohol it will reduce consumption.

What will have changed in the last 6 years that will have made the study redundant?

The problem is abuse of alcohol affects far more than just the health and wealth of the drinker themselves, leading to increased public spending in policing, healthcare and even just cleaning up.

If minimum unit pricing can reduce consumption and the burden placed on public services by binge drinking then I'd support it.

 

[anything I don't mind]

What will have changed in the last 6 years that will have made the study redundant?

The problem is abuse of alcohol affects far more than just the health and wealth of the drinker themselves, leading to increased public spending in policing, healthcare and even just cleaning up.

If minimum unit pricing can reduce consumption and the burden placed on public services by binge drinking then I'd support it.

This is the crux of it. The government and people like burnsey, don't realy care about this fictitious entity called "public health" what they care about is reducing the cost to the NHS. They see individuals health as a financial liability due to socialised health care (nhs). They want the population healthy because they spend £4 billion (estimate) on alcohol related care per year and that is £4 billion they could have spent on some new metal fences or some high vis jackets with led on them or some golden toilets seats for parliament. Its all about the money, its not about the "public health". The argument is that my health is not the governments concern. My health is only my concern. If i want to be unhealthy then i am free to do that. When I am no longer free to do that then i am no longer free. The government and people like Burnsey are free to try and persuade people to be healthy, be healthy themselves and so on. Where the line must be drawn is using the coercive power of the state to social engineer the population in to being healthy. This was done with tobacco and now they are trying to do it with alcohol. What is next? bacon? butter? cakes? pies? £9 a box of 20 now, all they have done is make smoking class based. Now only the upper class can afford to smoke. I guess they have private health care so works out for the NHS budget, now they can buy more metal fences.

Also there is no such thing as public health, there is only individual health.

 

[Pawnless Endgame]

Thanks OP, although our curry night is tomorrow I'm afraid. Got a reunion with some colleagues from my old workplace.

 

[Burnsy2023]

I would not call it effective at curbing excessive drinking, i would call it effective at making people pay more for less.

And people who are more likely to abuse alcohol tend to be on the lower incomes. The end effect is the same.

In fact it could be argued when it comes do drinking that increasing the prices of pints at the pub increases consumption as people will then tend to buy alcohol from the supermarket where it is up to 3-4 times cheaper. Meaning where people would go to the pub and buy 4 pints, they now buy 6-12 pint cans for the same price and even worse they go and sit at home by themselves instead of contributing to social cohesion.

Minimum pricing and alcohol tax is the same whether sold in a supermarket or in a pub.

Economically though if you increase the price of a good or service it usually negatively affects demand. Whether due to price controls or direct taxation or just a disruption in the productive process, increases in price will usually have the same effect on demand.

You seem to be agreeing with me here again.

People have a right in a free country to slowly kill themselves with tobacco and alcohol.

I disagree. Individual's decision to do this has adverse affects on people other than themselves, be that their family and friends, their employer, the services that need to mop up after these poor decisions etc.

This is the crux of it. The government and people like burnsey, don't realy care about this fictitious entity called "public health" what they care about is reducing the cost to the NHS.

That's a small part of it, but there are bigger issues at play. When people abuse alcohol their more likely to be a victim or perpetrator of crime, their family relationships break down leading to children being mistreated. There are so many ways that alcohol abuse affects people, emotionally, socially and economically. People deserve better than that.

They see individuals health as a financial liability due to socialised health care (nhs). They want the population healthy because they spend £4 billion (estimate) on alcohol related care per year and that is £4 billion they could have spent on some new metal fences or some high vis jackets with led on them or some golden toilets seats for parliament. Its all about the money, its not about the "public health".

Like I said, the cost isn't my biggest concern by far.

The argument is that my health is not the governments concern. My health is only my concern. If i want to be unhealthy then i am free to do that. When I am no longer free to do that then i am no longer free. The government and people like Burnsey are free to try and persuade people to be healthy, be healthy themselves and so on.

Again, like I said, your health doesn't just affect you. There are limits on everyone's freedoms, that's part of being in an organised and civil society.

Where the line must be drawn is using the coercive power of the state to social engineer the population in to being healthy. This was done with tobacco and now they are trying to do it with alcohol. What is next? bacon? butter? cakes? pies? £9 a box of 20 now, all they have done is make smoking class based. Now only the upper class can afford to smoke. I guess they have private health care so works out for the NHS budget, now they can buy more metal fences.

The people most likely to make poor life choices tend to be the least well educated and therefore the least economically mobile. This means that it's just a fact that they are price sensitive and so this is an easy way to change behaviours.

Also there is no such thing as public health, there is only individual health.

WUT?

 

[anything I don't mind]

The Nanny State Despots don’t have a single good intention anywhere in their power hungry, despotic little brains. They hunger for control. That is the only thing that motivates them. “Public health” is simply the Trojan Horse they use to infiltrate the fortress of freedom. In other times, when people had different prejudices, these same types have used different charades, like nationalism and ethnocentrism.

If you’re really concerned about health, go eat a damn carrot and do a few sit-ups. Take charge of your life. Stop pawning your own personal responsibilities off onto the faceless collective by putting the word “public” in front of things that can only really be achieved individually.

 

[Burnsy2023]

Oh, well if we're resorting to childish insults then I'll leave it there.

 

[anything I don't mind]

It was actually a quote referencing mayor bloomberg, when he was trying to push through one of his many "public health" based laws.

Relevant to the question of whether public health exists. It clearly doesn't. There are health statistics, but that is not public health. There is no such thing as public health, it is just a term used by people who like to control the lives of other people.

 

[LordSplodge]

Groen is still good for a laugh it seems...