And yet the actual data shows a small drop in 2019.Have you a source for that odyssey? According to it is on the increase, not decrease.
If you are only interested in counting the cents, if it kills way more people it may end up saving the State in pensions and other social supports.And yet the actual data shows a small drop in 2019.
So obesity is a far bigger health problem; it kills way more people and costs the State about 3 times as much in additional health spending.
I'm all for minimum unit pricing but not without a sugar/fatty/yes, you are a bad parent so we have to do this/ tax.
No, that's the great thing about smoking; it kills you reasonably quickly (and you pay al that extra tax while you are killing yourself). Smokers may actually save the country money and with all that erectile dysfunction it causes they have fewer children to feed.If you are only interested in counting the cents, if it kills way more people it may end up saving the State in pensions and other social supports.
People don't live forever in perfect health. If they don't die at 60 from a heart attack or smoking, they live until their 80s on long pensions, medical card prescriptions, nursing home care etc
The litres of alcohol consumed by tourists in a country were based on the number of tourists who visited a country, the average amount of time they spent in the country, and how much these people drink on average in their countries of origin (estimated on the basis of per capita consumption of recorded and unrecorded alcohol). Furthermore, tourist alcohol consumption also accounted for the inhabitants of a country consuming alcohol while visiting other countries (based on the average time spent outside of their country and the amount of alcohol consumed in their country of origin). These estimations assumed the following: 1) that people drink the same amounts of alcohol when they are tourists as they do in their home countries, and 2) that global tourist consumption is equal to 0 (and thus tourist consumption can be either net negative or positive)
| Year | Litres Consumed per Capita (per WHO stats here) |
2000 | 15.1 |
2005 | 14.2 |
2010 | 12.1 |
2015 | 12.5 |
2018 | 12.9 |
That's always the case. If we are introducing minimum unit pricing we should introduce a fatty (sugar) tax.
I'd be in favour of both.
Place a tax on foods which contain a high level of Sugar/Glucose/Corn Syrup, just like they do on alcohol.How would that work out of curiosity?
Alcohol is the opium of the masses?In any event, back on topic, it's pretty clear that minimum unit pricing is just an effort to make the lives of poor people a little more miserable.
That'd work too. I'd be in the lower tax band but certainly above the exemption threshold.Why not just cut out the middle-man and tax people based on their body fat percentage and spare the rest of us the misery?
Maybe we can figure out some way of taking it from the supermarkets and use it to offset the 10% of total budget the HSE spends on alcohol related diseases and injuries.Minimum unit pricing is pure nanny state nonsense that does nothing other than to transfer wealth from poor people to supermarkets.
We have already figured that out. We take in a huge amount of excise on alcohol. It was over €1.2bn in 2019. I'd imagine people who drink also pay income tax too.Maybe we can figure out some way of taking it from the supermarkets and use it to offset the 10% of total budget the HSE spends on alcohol related diseases and injuries.
We have already figured that out. We take in a huge amount of excise on alcohol. It was over €1.2bn in 2019. I'd imagine people who drink also pay income tax too.
Yea, but it comes closer than the sugar tax does to covering the cost of obesity. Fat people cost a fortune, there's no getting around them, sorry, it.That only covers the cost if everyone who drinks doesn't avail of any other service or benefit provided by the state or earns enough to be in the relatively small cohort of earners who are net contributors to state coffers. But of of course that isn't remotely realistic and so excise doesn't come close to covering alcohol related healthcare costs.
Alcohol sales were something like €7.5 billion in 2018. VAT is another €1.5 billion on top of the excise.That only covers the cost if everyone who drinks doesn't avail of any other service or benefit provided by the state or earns enough to be in the relatively small cohort of earners who are net contributors to state coffers. But of of course that isn't remotely realistic and so excise doesn't come close to covering alcohol related healthcare costs.
It's €1.2billion. Details in the link.I'd like to see how the figures for 'alcohol related healthcare costs' were arrived at.
Thanks, VAT and excise together might just about be sufficient to cover all of the below costs.It's €1.2billion. Details in the link.
Absolutely, I'm certainly not arguing that alcohol should be banned. The health costs above and additional societal costs of problem drinking stem from a minority of alcohol consumers. A larger percentage of problem drinkers are price driven, so increasing the costs of the likes of vodka you could use to strip paint should disproportionately impact those and underage drinkers while having little or no effect on the majority who like an occasional glass or two of something with their dinner.Moderate consumption of alcohol in all risks mortality studies indicate possible health benefits to consumption in terms of reduced heart attacks.
By 'price driven' do you mean they purchase the cheapest available... but if they are problem drinkers it doesn't necessarily mean they will drink less, just allocate more income to continue purchasing the cheapest strongest available even if that's €20 not €13 for vodka?Absolutely, I'm certainly not arguing that alcohol should be banned. The health costs above and additional societal costs of problem drinking stem from a minority of alcohol consumers. A larger percentage of problem drinkers are price driven, so increasing the costs of the likes of vodka you could use to strip paint should disproportionately impact those and underage drinkers while having little or no effect on the majority who like an occasional glass or two of something with their dinner.
Assuming they can afford to spend that much more which isn't the case for many problem drinkers. Scotland would have a similar drinking culture to ours and the results there showed a non-significant increase in household spending (61p per week) but a drop in the weekly purchasing of alcohol that was concentrated in the households that purchased the largest volumes.By 'price driven' do you mean they purchase the cheapest available... but if they are problem drinkers it doesn't necessarily mean they will drink less, just allocate more income to continue purchasing the cheapest strongest available even if that's €20 not €13 for vodka?
And does that mean beer and wine needed to be targeted by MUP or should it just have been used for spirits or products over 20%?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?