Should there be an increase in tax on alcohol?

Post Reply
Dr Lobster*
Posts: 2104
Joined: Sat 30 Aug, 2003 20.14

part of me thinks that despite the argument that increasing the tax on alcohol punishes those who drink responsibly, i don't see why the extra cost of policing should be stuck on the bottom line of my council tax, which, it has to be said the police in my area have taken the biggest percentage rise this year.

now, i enjoy a few jars of cobra after a curry pot noodle like the next man, but in the end, even if the price of alcohol generally doubled it wouldn't really affect me.

there is also no justification for selling two litre bottles of cider for £1.50, i can't imagine anybody of sane mind would drink that kind of poo but apparently the 'hoodies' do.

would you like to see an increase in the price of all alcoholic beverages ?


i personally would support a rise in the duty on alcohol providing that the extra revenue generated is directly passed on to cover the cost of policing in the area and hopefully in the long term the council tax rises were mitigated by this.
Stuart*
Banned
Posts: 2150
Joined: Fri 24 Jun, 2005 10.31
Location: Devon

I disagree with the government ethos that the best way to change attitudes on a particular topic (be it alcohol, environmental issues etc) is to increase taxes. Certainly it can achieve a level of "success" in that there would be a marginal reduction in demand for whatever is being more heavily taxed. This wouldn't be an equitable reduction across the whole population though.

The problem is that these policies create an artificial two-tier society: those who can afford the "discouraged item" and those who are deprived on the basis of cost. If something is truly wrong for society then either ban it or ration it equally; don't try to make additional revenue from it which will ultimately be spent on a totally unrelated issue.

As far as the alcohol issue is concerned, I doubt that doubling the cost of a 2 litre bottle of cheap cider through taxes will discourage all of those that this policy is aimed at. It assumes that all anti-social behaviour is caused by stereotypical 'low-paid hoodies'. I imagine they will either spend less money on essentials or find another (not necessarily legal) source of income to fund the additional expense. Those outside the stereotype, who simply buy cheap alcohol because it is cheap, will be able to afford the extra cost.
User removed
User avatar
Mr Q
Posts: 381
Joined: Tue 05 Sep, 2006 11.31
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

The real question behind this, is alcohol the real reason why 'crime' is up? It's certainly a convenient answer. I can tell you here in Melbourne, authorities are concerned about an apparent increase in the number of fights breaking out in the city at night. Alcohol is essentially being blamed, although it's being directly linked with an increase in the number of licensed venues within the CBD. Hoteliers are quite keen to see the number of licences for venues that serve alcohol restricted (of course they would - it reduces the number of competitors). Yet what few people seem willing to acknowledge is that this marked rise in violence has come at the same time that smoking has been banned inside pubs and clubs. Everyone has to go out into the street for a fag, and so now there are more fights being observed because people are outside. Hence people think the level of violence has increased.

The reality is, some people get aggressive when they're drunk. This is not a new phenomenon. Indeed, I'd strongly suggest that it's a problem that's been around since alcoholic beverages were first concocted. Is there a greater problem now than there has been in the past? Our politicians seem keen to tell us it is, but I'm far from convinced. I appreciate there are communities who are genuinely fed-up with the antics of the heavily intoxicated. I know there are parts of some cities which are considered by many to be no-go zones after dark. So I absolutely accept that there is merit in increased policing in these circumstances - people have the right to feel safe. But does that need to be achieved through increased taxes on alcohol? I'd say only if alcohol is the sole cause. But it isn't. There are plenty of people who consume alcohol - and indeed copious amounts of it - who never get involved in fights at all. Why should they be forced to pay higher taxes directly on their consumption of alcohol for problems that they are not causing or contributing to? It's not the alcohol that's the problem, it's the people who get involved in the fights - people can be aggressive with or without alcohol. For that reason, it's my view that any increased policing should be paid for out of general taxation.
StuartPlymouth wrote:The problem is that these policies create an artificial two-tier society: those who can afford the "discouraged item" and those who are deprived on the basis of cost. If something is truly wrong for society then either ban it or ration it equally; don't try to make additional revenue from it which will ultimately be spent on a totally unrelated issue.
Well, with respect, it's not generally the affluent who are getting involved in these fights. That's not to say it can't be, but what I think the statistics suggest is that its young males who are those most prone to drunken aggression. The typical profile of this demographic would tend to indicate relatively low levels of income - either because they're at uni, or they're in entry-level jobs. Increasing the tax on alcohol might not discourage them from consuming alcohol at all (nor should it, because as you point out, it's an entirely legal product), but it may result in them consuming less. That having been said, the problem with alcohol is that it's a product that affects your judgment - in a sober state of mind, you might intend to limit yourself to 3 drinks, but end off the night lying in a gutter having consumed 10 (not that, I'm sure, anyone here at Metropol would have done that :oops: ). That being the case, the effectiveness of taxes on alcohol to discourage higher levels of consumption seems questionable to me.
Image
User avatar
Nick Harvey
God
Posts: 4145
Joined: Fri 15 Aug, 2003 22.26
Location: Deepest Wiltshire
Contact:

NO.
User avatar
rob
Posts: 1072
Joined: Sat 06 Sep, 2003 12.01
Location: Overton, Hampshire
Contact:

Nick Harvey wrote:NO.
Very well put argument Nick. :D
Weekdays from 7am-10am on Andover Radio
Overton Radio: Weekdays 2pm-4pm, Weekends 8am-11am
User avatar
Nick Harvey
God
Posts: 4145
Joined: Fri 15 Aug, 2003 22.26
Location: Deepest Wiltshire
Contact:

I felt a little balance was required, Rob.

Not necessarily to the argument itself, but definitely to the size of the argument.
User avatar
Gavin Scott
Admin
Posts: 6442
Joined: Fri 15 Aug, 2003 13.16
Location: Edinburgh
Contact:

I agree, Nick.

I enjoy a pint of cider. Not one of these new drink-it-over-ice designer things, just Dry Blackthorn or Strongbow. I'm invariably going to be burdened by more tax given that "cider" is a problem drink. They won't distinguish between what I drink in a pub and those "White Lightening" concoctions kids buy in corner shops.

We'll I'll be damned if I'm going to pay more than I am already.

I'll just develop a coke habit and pay nothing to the Exchequer.

Fuck em.
User avatar
rob
Posts: 1072
Joined: Sat 06 Sep, 2003 12.01
Location: Overton, Hampshire
Contact:

nodnirG kraM wrote:Trouble is it tends to make me forget.
Sorry... what did you say?? :D
Weekdays from 7am-10am on Andover Radio
Overton Radio: Weekdays 2pm-4pm, Weekends 8am-11am
User avatar
Mr Q
Posts: 381
Joined: Tue 05 Sep, 2006 11.31
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Nick Harvey wrote:Not necessarily to the argument itself, but definitely to the size of the argument.
Sorry Nick. :oops: I really am trying.
Image
cdd
Posts: 2607
Joined: Fri 15 Aug, 2003 14.05

I think the big problem is not the purchasing of bottles of alcohol at the supermarket etc - people who buy alcohol at a supermarket tend to consume it at home - but the sale of alcohol at pubs, clubs etc.

So the way I'd limit consumption would be to give everyone a card they have to swipe at licensed establishments that lets you purchase up to e.g. three units of alcohol purchasable per 24 hours.

I also disapprove of alcopops and speculate that there is a greater amount of irresponsible behaviour as a result of these drinks than from conventional alcohol such as beer.
User avatar
Gavin Scott
Admin
Posts: 6442
Joined: Fri 15 Aug, 2003 13.16
Location: Edinburgh
Contact:

cdd wrote:I think the big problem is not the purchasing of bottles of alcohol at the supermarket etc - people who buy alcohol at a supermarket tend to consume it at home - but the sale of alcohol at pubs, clubs etc.

So the way I'd limit consumption would be to give everyone a card they have to swipe at licensed establishments that lets you purchase up to e.g. three units of alcohol purchasable per 24 hours.
That wouldn't work for me who, generously, buys enough booze for a handful of friends coming round to my house.

EDIT: I misread what you wrote, but I still don't agree. Why should I have my consumption curtailed because the more thuggish elements can't behave properly?

No, the problem here is that kids will always drink - irrespective of the cost. I'm always shocked at the amount of disposable income that children enjoy these days.

The shops supplying alcohol to kids should lose their licence. Its as simple as that. Two strikes and they lose their livelihood. Might be enough to focus their minds.

I think alcohol is a massively destructive force in society. Far worse than cannabis is, for example.

However, while it is legal for adults to partake in it, then it should be sold at a fair price. Why should law abiding folks have to pay extra because kids and dodgy shopkeepers are causing the problem?
Post Reply