|
U-Know! Forum » Just heard on the radio... |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
handofdave 3515 posts |
Sep 30, 2009, 15:36
|
||
|
Well, as already mentioned, if the extent of one's drinking is social in nature (meaning a few pints here and there) nobody's really going to be put out. If you quaff every single day in large amounts it will add up fast. And that's the group that this legislation is aimed at, trying to curb chronic abuse. Booze just isn't a 'need'. Or if it is, then concern ought not to be what it costs, but how it's affecting one's physical and mental health. They just raised taxes here on alcohol. It runs another 50 cents when I buy a half gallon of ale, not really a big deal at all.
|
|||
Squid Tempest 8761 posts |
Sep 30, 2009, 15:41
|
||
|
So the truly addicted will either spend more on their drink or switch to another drug, probably illegal and more deadly. Meanwhile everyone else just gets hit with more tax, or cuts back on social drinking, which is what is currently causing the death of that great British institution and pillar of the community, the pub.
|
|||
|
handofdave 3515 posts |
Sep 30, 2009, 15:59
|
||
|
Squid Tempest wrote: So the truly addicted will either spend more on their drink or switch to another drug, probably illegal and more deadly. Like what? Alcohol is still the cheapest and most readily available high, even if it costs a little more. Squid Tempest wrote: Meanwhile everyone else just gets hit with more tax, or cuts back on social drinking, which is what is currently causing the death of that great British institution and pillar of the community, the pub. Is that due to higher prices, or a gradual decline in drinking habits? Or is it because people just don't have as much expendable income due to ballooning housing/energy/food prices? It's odd to zero in on small tax hikes on booze when the really essential things like rent or a mortgage (biggest single monthly expense) goes sky-high. THAT'S the real issue here... people's discretionary income is being taken by stuff like that, not little tax hikes on a pint of beer.
|
|||
|
Squid Tempest 8761 posts |
Sep 30, 2009, 16:13
|
||
|
handofdave wrote: Squid Tempest wrote: So the truly addicted will either spend more on their drink or switch to another drug, probably illegal and more deadly. Like what? Alcohol is still the cheapest and most readily available high, even if it costs a little more. Squid Tempest wrote: Meanwhile everyone else just gets hit with more tax, or cuts back on social drinking, which is what is currently causing the death of that great British institution and pillar of the community, the pub. Is that due to higher prices, or a gradual decline in drinking habits? Or is it because people just don't have as much expendable income due to ballooning housing/energy/food prices? It's odd to zero in on small tax hikes on booze when the really essential things like rent or a mortgage (biggest single monthly expense) goes sky-high. THAT'S the real issue here... people's discretionary income is being taken by stuff like that, not little tax hikes on a pint of beer. Well, over here the taxes on beer and cigs in particular have taken huge hikes. Not just the odd penny here and there. The drink culture among the young has moved out onto the street, which is where the social problems are occurring. To me this seems a direct result of prices increasing - they're buying cheap gutrot in shops rather than decent beer from the pubs. I think we might have to beg to differ here, Dave, I don't think we're going to agree on this one.
|
|||
|
Moon Cat 9577 posts |
Sep 30, 2009, 16:20
|
||
|
Do I think drunkeness and drung use needs tackling on some level? Yup. But as, I think is pretty much consensus on this point - we have established that, consciously or not, these proposed 'sin taxes' are going to impact more on the poor and vunerable. The big question is why focus on them? Is it because they represent an apparently unpalatable side of society? If it's revenue Governments are after - and let's face it, the so called 'health issue' is way down on the list of priorities here - why are these measures more rapidly and keenly implemented than simply hiking taxes for the rich and super rich? The real, big, corrupt rot starts at the top of the tree and yet Western Governments seem to delight in trying to 'fix' those that have less to contribute be it in taxes or whatever, on the bottom first. Who does more damage in the long term? Some wreck head chuggin' cheap cider on an estate or your Enrons, your Madoffs, your Lehmans?
|
|||
|
handofdave 3515 posts |
Sep 30, 2009, 16:27
|
||
|
I actually don't think we're of two widely separated minds here, just that we're looking at the issue from different perspectives. Tobacco prices are very high here compared to what they used to be. It's led to a huge decline in smoking rates, and the subsequent health costs associated with them. That's a good thing. My wife smokes it, but doesn't gripe about the higher prices... she admits that it's a choice she makes to smoke that nobody is forcing on her. Likewise, nobody is forced to buy alcohol. People ARE forced to pay for housing (unless they want to be homeless... a condition that high rents are forcing on some anyway). I don't know how you'd go about doing this without raising objections about fairness, but to my mind the high octane booze should be taxed under a different rate than quality beers and wines. As long as the state is trying to manipulate people's consumption, they may as well try to steer people away from the 'rotgut' and towards the stuff that isn't specifically designed to get people fucked up in a big hurry.
|
|||
|
handofdave 3515 posts |
Edited Sep 30, 2009, 16:36
Sep 30, 2009, 16:34
|
||
|
I didn't say that the wealthy shouldn't pay.... this isn't an either/or issue. As far as how this impinges on the poor, I don't wanna make it sound like I'm some didactic tut-tutting moralist.... but part of the reason why poverty is so hard to break is that the poor (some of them, not all) throw their money away on lottery tickets, booze, cigs... all stuff that bleeds their income, what there is of it. This is just a cold impartial fact. I see people blow thirty bucks and more at a time on the damn scratchcards every time I visit the local package store.... people living on fixed incomes. Legalized gambling is still gambling... it favors the 'house' at the expense of the players. But AGAIN! I have to keep yammering away at this point, because nobody's acknowledged it yet, the biggest single drain on the poor is the outrageous real estate price hikes of the last decade. Compared to that, a few extra bob for alcohol is nothing.
|
|||
|
Moon Cat 9577 posts |
Edited Sep 30, 2009, 16:47
Sep 30, 2009, 16:46
|
||
|
handofdave wrote: I didn't say that the wealthy shouldn't pay.... this isn't an either/or issue. . I didn't say you did either. What I am trying to say that it strikes me as being a hypocritical load of old toss when the emphasis on what is 'wrong' with society is usually aimed at those lower down the rung and how we should 'fix' them, when I think Governments and we, the people, would be better served by focusing on and addressing corruption and greed at the top of the ladder first. But of course they are either too scared, unwilling or feel it's just not in their interests to do so and thus let's bash the useless fuck-ups down below, cos it's easy and, hey, who cares anyway? I think the things we have been discussing ALL need addressing. What I find irksome and repellent is the where the focus on society's so called 'evils' lies and I find it divisive and hypocritical.
|
|||
|
Squid Tempest 8761 posts |
Sep 30, 2009, 16:47
|
||
|
handofdave wrote: I actually don't think we're of two widely separated minds here, just that we're looking at the issue from different perspectives. Tobacco prices are very high here compared to what they used to be. It's led to a huge decline in smoking rates, and the subsequent health costs associated with them. That's a good thing. My wife smokes it, but doesn't gripe about the higher prices... she admits that it's a choice she makes to smoke that nobody is forcing on her. Likewise, nobody is forced to buy alcohol. People ARE forced to pay for housing (unless they want to be homeless... a condition that high rents are forcing on some anyway). I don't know how you'd go about doing this without raising objections about fairness, but to my mind the high octane booze should be taxed under a different rate than quality beers and wines. As long as the state is trying to manipulate people's consumption, they may as well try to steer people away from the 'rotgut' and towards the stuff that isn't specifically designed to get people fucked up in a big hurry. One thing that might help the situation here might be reducing alcohol prices in pubs. That would encourage the more social types of drinking, where supervision can be provided by landlords.
|
|||
|
handofdave 3515 posts |
Sep 30, 2009, 16:50
|
||
|
Squid Tempest wrote: One thing that might help the situation here might be reducing alcohol prices in pubs. That would encourage the more social types of drinking, where supervision can be provided by landlords. There you go... that's a good idea. At least if people are in a pub there's someone there to make sure they don't get overserved.
|
| Pages: 6 – [ Previous | 1 2 3 4 5 6 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| U-Know! Forum Index | |
