Yet Another Cycling Forum
Off Topic => The Pub => Food & Drink => Topic started by: Canardly on 31 July, 2023, 05:28:52 pm
-
This is being sold as an aid to good health by increasing taxation rates on alcohol at the hightest level for fifty years or so. Is it in reality a transfer of fag tax to booze as people give up smoking?
-
Is it war on the poor, honest, hard-working boozer?
Rates for beer apparently going down. New rates here:
https://www.strongandherd.co.uk/alcohol-duty-from-1-august-2023
Obligatory out-of-date Graun article here:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/mar/15/alcohol-duty-increase-historic-blow-to-wine-and-whisky-industry
-
bottles of wine are going up in price by 45p
however, if I can persuade local pubs to stock mild that is 3.4% or less could be good
-
bottles of wine are going up in price by 45p
Indeed. You will find a few brands about that are 11% rather than 12%. That's easier to do for a white than a red. I expect the 6 for 5 offers will disappear. Wine's already a shrinking sector and glass isn't great packaging for something that travels- it's far too heavy to be green, however recyclable. And the energy cost in melting it is huge.
Wine people are crying loudly into their cups that they're being targeted much more than the beer or spirits vendors are.
-
One sector’s targeting is another sector’s realignment of previous unfair practices I guess. When Phase 2 comes in with its proposed full sliding scale of tax rates by alcohol content rather than wide bandings, it may go some way to stopping the never ending slide toward higher and higher alcohol content that seems to have happened over the last 40 years.
-
Nooooooo! Port!
-
One sector’s targeting is another sector’s realignment of previous unfair practices I guess. When Phase 2 comes in with its proposed full sliding scale of tax rates by alcohol content rather than wide bandings, it may go some way to stopping the never ending slide toward higher and higher alcohol content that seems to have happened over the last 40 years.
Absolutely. We ignore very much just how bad alcohol is for us, even aside from the addiction related costs, on the basis that it is yummy.
-
We ignore very much just how bad alcohol is for us ...
Good timing! I often drink one 175ml glass of wine near the end of each evening. Yesterday I read about how a test in South Korea and Japan of 30,000 people shows how even one glass of wine raises a person's blood pressure, mostly the systolic. As my systolic is higher than I would like and I only have half a bottle of wine in the house I decided this morning that once that half bottle has gone then that will be the end of my drinking alcohol.
-
We're no closer yet to answering Canardly's question: Is it in reality a transfer of fag tax to booze as people give up smoking?
TBH I'm not sure in which way to interpret the question: That this is a new drive using tax to dissuade people from doing something unhealthy? That it's a search for revenue to replace the duty no longer paid on the tobacco people are no longer buying? That it's the start of a long-term project over multiple government cycles to increase the price of alcoholic drinks faster than inflation? All of these, none of these, something else?
-
Is alcohol in moderation unhealthy? Probably not. And even if it were, it’s a vice that dates back to the beginning of human civilisation. Cigarettes, on the other hand, have zero benefits. There’s no moderate cigarette habit.
I suspect these taxes will punish the people who knock back a 2 litre bottle of White Lightning rather than a bottle of Chianti. Poor people, why won’t they learn?
-
I suspect these taxes will punish the people who knock back a 2 litre bottle of White Lightning rather than a bottle of Chianti. Poor people, why won’t they learn?
Yes, it’s a regressive tax. People who can afford to buy posh wine and artisan gin won’t notice. For those White Lightning consumers, the tax will be a much higher proportion of the purchase cost so the difference will be more significant.
And it won’t stop poor people being alcoholics, just as fag tax hasn’t stopped poor people being addicted to nicotine.
-
Just that. But some middle class will feel that something is being done and the government will have the cash. Wins! Next week: kick the homeless, win prizes.
-
I think the Scots HAVE found that higher booze prices result in lower alcohol consumption.
For myself (only) when choosing sweet fizz to accompany a festive meal, I've found the alcohol tax a deterrent when choosing 'ciders'.
-
Hopefully there will be a resurgence in 3.5% beer and 8% German wines. Everything has become too strong now.
-
Probably just a coincidence but our street's beer club* pricing has risen this week (4pt plastic containers of a varying choice of 4 or 5 beers from North Cotswold Brewery) has risen from £11 to £12 - still a bargain against pub prices, and it's delivered to one of the members who then delivers to our front door every Friday.
*7 or 8 members, it started in May 2020 when the pubs were shut and has carried on (was £10 per 4pts)
-
I think the Scots HAVE found that higher booze prices result in lower alcohol consumption.
The WHO provides good evidence to support alcohol taxation as an effective measure to reduce consumption at an overall population level, but there are nuances - the BMJ say it may not be good at protecting those most at risk.
-
Is alcohol in moderation unhealthy?
More unhealthy than sugar, more unhealthy than nicotine1, more unhealthy than marijuana.
Certainly the WHO think so : https://www.who.int/europe/news/item/04-01-2023-no-level-of-alcohol-consumption-is-safe-for-our-health#
1. It's not the nicotine that does for you, it's smoking tobacco
-
And even if it were, it’s a vice that dates back to the beginning of human civilisation. Cigarettes, on the other hand, have zero benefits. There’s no moderate cigarette habit.
Tobacco use also dates back to the beginning of civilization.
Current archaeological research on cultigens emphasizes the protracted and intimate human interactions with wild species that defined paths to domestication and, with certain plants, profoundly impacted humanity. Tobacco arguably has had more impact on global patterns in history than any other psychoactive substance, but how deep its cultural ties extend has been widely debated. Excavations at the Wishbone site, directed at the hearth-side activities of the early inhabitants of North America’s desert west, have uncovered evidence for human tobacco use approximately 12,300 years ago, 9,000 years earlier than previously documented. Here we detail the preservation context of the site, discuss its cultural affiliation and suggest ways that the tobacco may have been used. The find has implications for our understanding of deep-time human use of intoxicants and its sociocultural intersection with food crop domestication.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-021-01202-9
And I'm sure the same is true of coca, opium, psychedelic mushrooms, kava-kava, and others. Antiquity of use is probably a not good basis for taxation.
-
Hopefully there will be a resurgence in 3.5% beer and 8% German wines. Everything has become too strong now.
Most scottish beers are 3.5 - 4.5%. Rare ones are 5%
Very few daft 6-8% beers.
Whether that is the alcohol tax or not, I don't know.
We do tend to stock up on whisky when we go to England.
-
Have they put a tax on diastatic malt syrup yet?
ISTR that some years ago Norwegians were smuggling sugar in from Sweden (or was it t'other way round?) because people were distilling their own moonshine to avoid taxes so one of the govts clamped down on large sugar purchases.
-
Is alcohol in moderation unhealthy?
More unhealthy than sugar, more unhealthy than nicotine1, more unhealthy than marijuana.
Certainly the WHO think so : https://www.who.int/europe/news/item/04-01-2023-no-level-of-alcohol-consumption-is-safe-for-our-health#
1. It's not the nicotine that does for you, it's smoking tobacco
I think of you drank a pint of 8% w/v nicotine solution you’d die. The WHO delights in categorising daft levels of risk and life is inherently a risky proposition.
I’m a big fan of table beers (about 3%) so would be happy to see more.
-
I’m a big fan of table beers (about 3%) so would be happy to see more.
I rarely drink anything alcoholic ,but used to enjoy the occasional low strength glass in the summer. They seemed to drop of fashion in pubs. As you say, hopefully this will see a return.
I didn't know they were called Table Beer
Sent from my moto g22 using Tapatalk
-
I find current zero alcohol beers/lagers quite palatable. I like a glass of wine with a meal, but have yet to find a non-alcoholic wine that doesn't taste just like fruit juice.
-
I think the Scots HAVE found that higher booze prices result in lower alcohol consumption.
The WHO provides good evidence to support alcohol taxation as an effective measure to reduce consumption at an overall population level, but there are nuances - the BMJ say it may not be good at protecting those most at risk.
Alcoholics will forgo food to get alcohol.
-
I’m a big fan of table beers (about 3%) so would be happy to see more.
I rarely drink anything alcoholic ,but used to enjoy the occasional low strength glass in the summer. They seemed to drop of fashion in pubs. As you say, hopefully this will see a return.
I didn't know they were called Table Beer
Sent from my moto g22 using Tapatalk
I can't keep track (well, don't try, TBH) of these terms like "table beer" and "session beer".
-
I would understand session beer to be in the 3.5% to 4% abv bracket, table beer should be under 3%, preferably closer to 2%.
Have to confess I do have a bit of a taste for the strong stuff - a good 6.5% DIPA, for example. The problem with strong beers is the alcohol needs to be balanced by the hop and malt flavours. Too many of the current hipster brews are a car crash, strong for the sake of it with no balance at all. Often with ridiculous over-sweet additional flavours.
Anything 8% and upwards is just silly.
-
Anything 8% and upwards is just silly.
Tell that to the Belgians.
-
I think the Scots HAVE found that higher booze prices result in lower alcohol consumption.
The WHO provides good evidence to support alcohol taxation as an effective measure to reduce consumption at an overall population level, but there are nuances - the BMJ say it may not be good at protecting those most at risk.
Believe that's what came out of the MUP review here.
Plastic Pack cider disappeared.
As an approach it isn't targeted at addicts, it's targeted at reducing general consumption and pre-loading pre-pub/club.
-
My sister is an alcoholic and has at times lots of money (when her benefits are restored with backpay) and no money and it only takes 1 drink to turn her from Dr Jekyll into Mr Hyde as it were anything more is just a bonus in the aggressive obnoxious drunk K state.
Haven't alcohol taxes stayed stable in number terms for years and years cos unpopular?
-
I would understand session beer to be in the 3.5% to 4% abv bracket, table beer should be under 3%, preferably closer to 2%.
Have to confess I do have a bit of a taste for the strong stuff - a good 6.5% DIPA, for example. The problem with strong beers is the alcohol needs to be balanced by the hop and malt flavours. Too many of the current hipster brews are a car crash, strong for the sake of it with no balance at all. Often with ridiculous over-sweet additional flavours.
Anything 8% and upwards is just silly.
We used to drink Skol 1080 as students. 8.5%, I think. Not unpleasant at all.
-
It seems, on a population scale minimum unit pricing has reduced harm in Scotland.
A bit.
https://news.stv.tv/scotland/medical-experts-defend-research-into-minimum-alcohol-pricing (https://news.stv.tv/scotland/medical-experts-defend-research-into-minimum-alcohol-pricing)
-
It’s univariate though, since if you price people out of alcohol, it doesn’t mean they take up clean living and get a gym membership.
-
You'd expect the deterrence benefit to be mostly felt in those who are currently children rather than those who are already drinkers. So let's see in 20 years or so.