PDA

View Full Version : alco, tax and other pops!



ER
19-03-2009, 12:47 AM
THE MEDIA: Alcopops will be cheaper within weeks, while almost $300 million is likely to be returned to distillers after the government's tax hike on pre-mixed drinks failed to pass the Senate.

The cost of alcopops, popular with young drinkers, will fall by "70, 80, 90 cents a bottle", Health Minister Nicola Roxon says, with drinks now sold for $5 to be available for closer to $2 in a few weeks.

In a farcical display, the tax measure initially passed when coalition senator Nigel Scullion was in a stairwell instead of in the chamber to vote.

But the government agreed to stick by convention, allowing the vote to be taken again.

Family First senator Steve Fielding sided with the coalition to kill the bill.

Senator Fielding refused to back the 70 per cent tax hike on ready-to-drink alcoholic beverages, which has been operating since last April, after the government refused his demand for a ban on alcohol advertising during daytime sporting broadcasts...

see whole article in
http://au.news.yahoo.com/a/-/latest/5405380/govt-loses-alcopops-tax-vote-senate/

Garvinator
19-03-2009, 12:51 AM
I am still trying to work out how the tax was even legal in the first place since it had not been passed by both houses of parliament :uhoh:

ER
19-03-2009, 01:21 AM
oh I think that falls into the "other pops" category!:hmm:

Basil
19-03-2009, 02:37 AM
I am still trying to work out how the tax was even legal in the first place since it had not been passed by both houses of parliament :uhoh:
My understanding is that the tax was legal pro tem requiring ratification within 12 months.

Any suggestion that taxing one part of the alcohol market would address binge drinking is like suggesting that taxing menthol cigarettes would reduce smoking addiction. This point has been well understood by everyone except the Laba Party. This policy, like the few others that the Kruddites have thrown up are hopeless, almost child-like.

Have I mentioned that the Laba Party is a party of commercial amateurs that will eventually be turfed for incompetence? Go Maxine! Go Noelene! We luv ya! :wall:

Mephistopheles
19-03-2009, 05:45 AM
Regardless of the efficacy of a tax on RTDs in terms of binge drinking (I, myself, prefer to drink at a steady rate), it had one obvious consequence and that was a reduction in the number of halfwits carrying UDL cans at certain establishments that I tended to frequent at one time or another. I called them the "Suburban and Cokes". Any measure that keeps aggressive scum like that out of my pub gets at least a qualified thumbs up from my direction.

In case nobody noticed, the entire thing was probably a result of Kev's notorious wowserism than any particular policy plank of the ALP.

Ian Rout
19-03-2009, 08:43 AM
It makes much more sense if you think of it not as an alcohol tax but as a levy on people who can't work out the ingredients of a bourbon and coke.

Rincewind
19-03-2009, 08:53 AM
It makes much more sense if you think of it not as an alcohol tax but as a levy on people who can't work out the ingredients of a bourbon and coke.

And as a corollary, the poker machine tax is not a tax, per se, but a levy on people who don't understand probability.

Basil
19-03-2009, 09:33 AM
It makes much more sense if you think of it not as an alcohol tax but as a levy on people who can't work out the ingredients of a bourbon and coke.
:lol: Paying $10 HCDs right there, folks!

Mephistopheles
19-03-2009, 10:48 AM
No objection to taxing the stupid from this quarter.

Capablanca-Fan
19-03-2009, 11:02 AM
:lol: Paying $10 HCDs right there, folks!
RW deserves some too for the corollary.

Capablanca-Fan
19-03-2009, 11:05 AM
In case nobody noticed, the entire thing was probably a result of Kev's notorious wowserism than any particular policy plank of the ALP.
I hadn't. I just thought it was a tax grab. So what about Internet censorship, as per this thread (http://www.chesschat.org/showthread.php?t=8924)? More of KRudd's wowserism or just an excuse to grab more power?

Mephistopheles
19-03-2009, 02:22 PM
I hadn't. I just thought it was a tax grab. So what about Internet censorship, as per this thread (http://www.chesschat.org/showthread.php?t=8924)? More of KRudd's wowserism or just an excuse to grab more power?
Both, I'd say, although one follows on from the other. That is to say, Kev would like to grab more power as a result of his wowserism. He wants to protect us from the filth that chokes teh internets.

If it was just a tax grab then it wasn't a very big one and was a lot of effort to go to for less than $90 million in revenue. I'm still going to guess that it's because he's a wowser who wants to inflict his puritanical nonsense upon the rest of us.

Ian Rout
19-03-2009, 02:24 PM
I was motivated by this thread to have a quick look at the economics of getting plastered, so while wandering through Civic at lunch time I checked the alcohol section at the supermarket. Canned spirits and coke seem to be universally 375m cans with 5% alcohol (which makes one can about 1.5 standard drinks), so one bottle of straight spirits equates to about 14-15 pre-mixed cans in alcohol content. I imagine the bottled alcopops work the same way.

Considering that you should be able to get a straight bottle of something reasonable on special if you're not too picky, and factoring in that you also have to then buy the cola, that means you pay about 30-50% extra for the convenience of having it all measured out in a can. So evidently cost is not the main driver.

Taigastyle
19-03-2009, 02:46 PM
Lol.

Theyll need to raise the price of ALL alcohol if they want to stop the "problem"

I think its good the tax got blocked, not like it would work/has worked

Kevin Bonham
19-03-2009, 03:31 PM
Quite a lot of previous specific discussion of this issue on the Wall to Wall Labor thread, mostly May 2008. Had a look at splitting it over here but it weaves back and forth with the rest of that thread to a degree so for now I have left it where it is.

Amusingly here we have seen a Rudd measure that is motivated in part by idealistic wowserism getting killed off by a crossbench senator for not being idealistic and wowseristic enough.

Capablanca-Fan
19-03-2009, 03:59 PM
That's nothing compared to the "Baptists and Bootleggers" coalition that kept Prohibition going in the USA for over a decade.

Garvinator
20-03-2009, 12:58 AM
I was motivated by this thread to have a quick look at the economics of getting plastered This gets the thumbs up for humour value.

Considering that you should be able to get a straight bottle of something reasonable on special if you're not too picky, and factoring in that you also have to then buy the cola, that means you pay about 30-50% extra for the convenience of having it all measured out in a can. So evidently cost is not the main driver.
While we bandy around terms like alcopops, as I learnt in this thread earlier on, the correct term is RTD- ready to drink ie pre mixed drinks. Or as I call some of the drinks, lolli waters :P With the abbreviation RTD being used, probably followed closely behind should be the abbreviation RBT ;)

pax
20-03-2009, 11:59 AM
IMO The Government just went about selling this the wrong way. Instead of selling it as some sort of dramatic move on binge drinking, they should be simply pointing out that it is taking away a tax discount for alcopops. Under the status quo, you actually pay less tax for vodka premixed with lolly water than for vodka in a bottle.

BTW Jono, Conroy's censorship agenda is bad news. Especially seeing that the leaked list (which may or may not be accurate) includes a number of sites (such as online poker sites) which are perfectly legal in Australia.

Capablanca-Fan
20-03-2009, 12:31 PM
IMO The Government just went about selling this the wrong way. Instead of selling it as some sort of dramatic move on binge drinking, they should be simply pointing out that it is taking away a tax discount for alcopops. Under the status quo, you actually pay less tax for vodka premixed with lolly water than for vodka in a bottle.
Good points.


BTW Jono, Conroy's censorship agenda is bad news. Especially seeing that the leaked list (which may or may not be accurate) includes a number of sites (such as online poker sites) which are perfectly legal in Australia.
I agree.

Basil
20-03-2009, 01:01 PM
IMO The Government just went about selling this the wrong way. Instead of selling it as some sort of dramatic move on binge drinking, they should be simply pointing out that it is taking away a tax discount for alcopops. Under the status quo, you actually pay less tax for vodka premixed with lolly water than for vodka in a bottle.
The only problem with this is that the government was only interested in selling:

A Kevin Rudd populist headline, that as we all know
requires the elements of


being a simple digestible concept
headline worthy
topical
having very little commercial sense

eclectic
20-03-2009, 01:18 PM
The only problem with this is that the government was only interested in selling:

A Kevin Rudd populist headline, that as we all know
requires the elements of


being a simple digestible concept
headline worthy
topical
having very little commercial sense

it must also contain room for future photohugging opportunities

Redmond Barry
28-03-2009, 02:39 AM
a think a better policy than taxing alcopops is to tax 4 litre cask wine an extra $50 per unit.

i dont think it will solve alcoholism that much, but anything that deters people from having to resort to drinking budget wine is a good thing.

Igor_Goldenberg
30-03-2009, 08:39 AM
a think a better policy than taxing alcopops is to tax 4 litre cask wine an extra $50 per unit.

i dont think it will solve alcoholism that much, but anything that deters people from having to resort to drinking budget wine is a good thing.

If you don't want to drink budget wine - don't! If you want to pay extra $50, feel free do so. But please lift your hand out of my pocket and don't decide for everyone else.

Redmond Barry
30-03-2009, 08:58 AM
sorry igor it was just some light hearted banter.

i was just trying to mirror the absurdity of the governments policy on alcopops. id imagine that a $50 impost on cask wine would be about as effective as taxing lolly drinks. a completely negligible effort. if people really want to drink to excess they will most likely find a way. if lolly drinks are taxed higher, then people who used to drink them with find another potion to intoxicate themselves with, that avoids paying the extra tax if need be. alcoholism will only be curbed minimally.

you could substitute "single malt whisky", "victoria bitter" or "premium wine" for "4 litre cask wine" and my sentiments would be exactly the same.

a less than comprehensive attack against alcoholism is to target a single product rather than the entire industry.

maybe increasing the legal age of drinking to 21 would be more productive.

but seriously cask wine isnt great.

MichaelBaron
30-03-2009, 12:32 PM
Lets be plain honest about it..The alco-tax is all about raising greater revenue in tax money :(

Ian Rout
30-03-2009, 01:44 PM
but seriously cask wine isnt great.
We had a blind wine tasting party last year to which we sneaked in some Banrock Station 2-litre cask wine (disguised in an ordinary wine bottle). It didn't fare too badly; nobody was tricked into putting it first but nobody likened it to drain cleaner either. The wooden spoon was taken by a bottle from the Rosemont range (about $9-$10 from Dan Murphy's as I recall). Not that there were any connoisseurs present.

Choice did a study some years ago in which they found that the 2-litre casks were preferred to the top selling cheap-end bottles. Though on a unit-price basis they probably also don't cost much less.

Redmond Barry
30-03-2009, 02:16 PM
We had a blind wine tasting party last year to which we sneaked in some Banrock Station 2-litre cask wine (disguised in an ordinary wine bottle). It didn't fare too badly; nobody was tricked into putting it first but nobody likened it to drain cleaner either. The wooden spoon was taken by a bottle from the Rosemont range (about $9-$10 from Dan Murphy's as I recall). Not that there were any connoisseurs present.

Choice did a study some years ago in which they found that the 2-litre casks were preferred to the top selling cheap-end bottles. Though on a unit-price basis they probably also don't cost much less.

personally i dont drink a lot of wine, but the cask wine im talking about is the kind that is a close relative to kerosene and turpentine. i know there is some reasonably good quality cask wine to an extent, but most cask wine generally has a reputation preceding it for a reason. pretty much anything branded "fruity lexia" should be looked apon with suspicion.

im talking the cheapest of cheap. the $6-5.00 jobs that you buy when your only income is austudy. you wont even get close to being drunk because the drink gives you too much of a headache to keep drinking it. and your more likely to o.d. on the fistful of panadol capsules you shove in your mouth to stave off that headache then finish the remaining contents of the cask.

if you consider a six pack of generic beer a luxury, your studying and poor, but you want a quiet drink of something then you probably know what i mean.

its not an experience to repeat too many times though. ;) ;)

MichaelBaron
01-04-2009, 10:49 AM
I love Italain Lambrusco wines...and they come at $7/large bottle. I would not bother drinking away 100's of $$. I think many people drink expensive wines not because they taste so special but to show off to themselves and others. It has more to do with self esteem rather than with value of the wine :)

Redmond Barry
01-04-2009, 03:09 PM
I love Italain Lambrusco wines...and they come at $7/large bottle. I would not bother drinking away 100's of $$. I think many people drink expensive wines not because they taste so special but to show off to themselves and others. It has more to do with self esteem rather than with value of the wine :)

thats true.

i think every family has at least one oenophile.

those unfortunate beings who seem to value wine appreciation as some sort of artform, whereas anybody ignorant to their knowledge is just a common philistine.

TheJoker
02-04-2009, 04:00 PM
Lets be plain honest about it..The alco-tax is all about raising greater revenue in tax money :(

Yes that's right to pay for the spillover costs to society caused by alcoholism. I think its only fair those that use the product pay the costs associated with it.

Of course it wouldn't be necessary if drunks:

1. Would behave and not break the law and therefore not require an extra police presence (read cost to tax payers).

2. Would abstain from visiting public hospitals or visting doctors under medicare with alcohol realted problems

3. Would refrain from causing others to have to visit public hospitals and docotors under medicare (e.g. Domestic Violence)

4. Would stop generating numerous complaints about noise pollution.

I am sure you can think of hundreds of others ways drunk people cost you the tax payer money.

ER
02-04-2009, 05:20 PM
Yes that's right to pay for the spillover costs to society caused by alcoholism. I think its only fair those that use the product pay the costs associated with it.

Of course it wouldn't be necessary if drunks:

1. Would behave and not break the law and therefore not require an extra police presence (read cost to tax payers).

2. Would abstain from visiting public hospitals or visting doctors under medicare with alcohol realted problems

3. Would refrain from causing others to have to visit public hospitals and docotors under medicare (e.g. Domestic Violence)

4. Would stop generating numerous complaints about noise pollution.

I am sure you can think of hundreds of others ways drunk people cost you the tax payer money.

TJ, mate you are good!!! :clap: :clap: :clap:

Redmond Barry
03-04-2009, 12:58 PM
I am sure you can think of hundreds of others ways drunk people cost you the tax payer money.

my time gets wasted when ......... i have to call the cops, then wait for them to turn up when some drunk passes out at my front door.

Ian Rout
03-04-2009, 01:17 PM
I can see some logic to this user-pays approach. On the other hand the implication is that if you have purchased alcohol and used it responsibly then you haven't got full value for your money and should get up to some drunken misbehaviour to rectify this.