Realise there are a lot of tea-drinkers here, but judging by the expected xmas party turn-out, plenty who like the odd drink or two :Whistling:
Anyway, where does the extra revenue go to? Can’t seem to find this in the reports.
The Government crimbo party?
I only drink Peroni (when possible), at £4.50 a pint they cant be putting more tax on that!
I can only think this would be a good thing,if the price of alcohol go’s up
Not only will this help family life because if you can only afford to drink half as much
as before you are going to be home more of the time
And as for the health benefit from not drinking it’s got to be a good thing
Because drinks are taxed so much, people can’t afford to have a night out anymore instead they buy booze and drink at home. This results in heavier drinking as you don’t need to look after yourself and you have lots more booze. No can worries etc. the tax will only affect the cheapest booze anyway as most have more than the recommended price anyway.
Alcoholics won’t stop drinking. They will make a plan. Sell belongings and stuff. Ruining things even further.
Raising the price will do fuckall but make more money for the government…
We are mortally upset that red wine may become so expensive we have to resort to drinking meths & ribena:pinch: How will that save the NHS any money??:ermm: Ribena poisoning is terrible, so we have heard from some people who have children:w00t:
£4. the minimum price for a bottle wine?. Don’t drink that price range anyway. The £6.99 stuff scours out my stomach well enough.
All the suggestions before this involved the retailers pocketing the extra cash. This is for two reasons. If it is just extra duty there would be nothing to stop the seller cross subsidising cheap booze as now so the price of drink would stay low if customers could be enticed by cheap booze o buy other goods or services. Secondly, if the price is forced up by a law then retailers would be selling less if the policy works, so the extra cash goes to them to compensate them for reduced sales.
Might I suggest a “t” before the o after booze?
You obviously don’t drink …
A piss head will drink, no matter what cost (financially or detriment to their family) its addiction to them, not a hobby…
The rest of us will just pay more tax for the pleasure… It’s a win win for the tax man… One thing is for sure it will never be banned, as the government couldn’t suffer the loss in revenue!
Bored?
Obviously too sober:w00t: Oh no! It’s taking effect already:D
If the government or anybody else for that matter is naive enough to think that the price of booze isn’t going to go up across the board, I’m sorry but they are sorely mistaken.
You can get a can of john smiths in the supermarket for about 50p per can if you buy a case, at 2.2 units per can, that price will rise to over £1. on the same bulk buy premise you can get a premium ale for £1:25 per 500ml bottle. if anybody thinks that the so called premium brands are not going to raise their prices to distance themselves, from a marketing point of view, from the budget end of the market, they are flat wrong. ALL alcohol will rise by at least 45p per unit, no mistake.
As Frank and Jaime have already pointed out, all this will mean is that it costs more to maintain alcoholism which will have a very definite effect on those families and individuals already suffering. yet you can almost guarantee that none of the extra revenue raised will go directly toward supporting those trying to recover from addiction or to the NHS trying to support them through rehab or drug therapy. An alcoholic, once through rehab will most likely end up on anti craving drugs for over 12 months, but will this extra revenue be moved toward treating the very things that the minimum is supposed to prevent? will it heck!
This is another shadow tax designed to reduce the staggering budget deficit by back door taxing the poor (sorry for the cliche) to dig the country out of recession, with no regard for the treatment of the individuals it is designed to protect.
Rant over.
Once again it’s a quick fix solution (which will solve nothing) for a societal problem that needs tackling before we even get to that stage…
Much like speed cameras for speeding and CCTV for crime reduction…
And Rohypnol for getting Mrs J to bed.
Or on a Pan she says in her dazed state.
Though I know she has Pan dreams and quivers wildly.:w00t:
Wow… she dreams of Panagiotis? Mr J, I’d be worried… can never trust those dodgy greeks
No, she has nightmares about this:
I think it’s all balls personally. In Holland where I grew up the cheapest beer we could find was at Aldi and it was something like 45 Eurocents for a half liter can (about 40p give or take). With five quid you could get off your trolley, In addition their pubs and bars close whenever they want, usually when everyone leaves. And yet if you go there, people aren’t falling around drunk in the streets. Having access to cheap booze doesn’t cause alcoholism.
From my point of view i think its a good thing, over the last few years promoters and venue operators have to work to a code of conduct which includes not selling drinks for below certain prices, this has often meant people buy cheap booze from an supermarket, skull it in the Que then end up hammered and not drinking inside, or causing problems in the venue when they have been inside for less than an hour.
IT encourages irresponsible drinking have the current gap in pricing. Note - i’m not saying that the stupid prices in the west end are right, i’m saying that the current gap between a pub in central london and the tesco’s around the corner is a recipe for disaster, and if nothing else bridging that gap will be a positive thing and result in less people “skulling” drinks around the corner before walking into a venue.
It does show the failure of the government to bring a cafe style drinking culture with the 24 hour licensing. Like a lot of the previous government policies and initiatives, it has been a complete failure.