It seems that there is a consensus in the main parties that the days of cheap booze are numbered. On the BBC news tonight examples were given where the price was as low as 22p per can for lager. Bottles of cider containing 7 units are on sale for £1.25.
As a drinker, I have rather mixed feelings about proposals for minimum prices. I suspect that the treasury knows that drinkers are easy targets. Under the banner of health awareness, taxes are hiked up. It seems perverse that beer is cheaper than mineral water. How can it possibly cheaper to bottle beer than water? Is this due to supermarkets using alcohol to entice in shoppers, or blatant profiteering with water?
It would seem sensible for supermarkets and alcohol sellers to pay for the cost of healthcare for those who's health they ruin. If this means the price of booze being higher, I have no issue with that. If the tax raised exceeds the costs to the country of paying the associated health care and social costs, then that is fundamentally wrong. I would say that the government should establish an "alcohol fund". This would pay the health and social costs of drink related illness and death. This would be entirely funded from alcohol taxes.
It isn't the role of government to tell us how to live our lives. It isn't the responsibility of non drinkers to pay for the effects of drink. Then again, it isn't the responsibility of moderate drinkers to subsidise tee-totallers. We don't live in puritan times, and I for one am staunchly opposed to these type of nanny state politics. The one issue it won't solve is the type of drinker who goes into Tesco's and nicks the booze. I my experience, these are the most hardened drinkers and no strategy will easily address them.
4 comments:
Rog
You say “It would seem sensible for supermarkets and alcohol sellers to pay for the cost of healthcare for those whose health they ruin.”
Supermarkets do not force people to drink or turn moderate drinkers into alcoholics! People must take responsibility for their own lives and actions.
If alcohol sellers are forced to pay their customers healthcare costs, they will pass that on to us in the form of higher prices. Why should the rest of us subsidise those who have a problem?
Supermarkets might sell some products below cost as a loss leader to entice us into their stores, but the vast majority of the public do not abuse alcohol. Why should those of us who are responsible drinkers (or abstainers) not be entitled to receive the benefits of a free market economy?
David,
If the price of the beer was raised by 10p a pint in supermarkets (not pubs, they are struggling & are more expensive), that would cost someone drinking 10 pints £1 per week. Someone drinking 100 pints would pay £10. At the moment tee totallers sponsor alcoholics via the NHS.
Abstainers would not suffer as they dont buy alcohol, they would be better off. Moderate drinkers would see a moderate increase, offset by a decrease in income tax. Heavy drinkers would be out of pocket.
Don’t forget Rog, if cheap supermarket sherry goes up in price, Statler & Waldorf will suffer!
hiccup
Post a Comment