5 ms·

England doesn't have this policy. The rate of alcohol-related deaths is half of that in Scotland. And alcohol is only one issue among many. Increasing the cost

England doesn't have this policy. The rate of alcohol-related deaths is half of that in Scotland. And alcohol is only one issue among many. Increasing the cost of alcohol may reduce the number of alcohol-related deaths but what is actually doing for people who need help? Either they have less money or they go somewhere else. The meta of this policy is kind of interesting too. This kind of price tinkering, control freakery is very New Labour (and probably Conservatives now too, although to a lesser extent). It feels sophisticated, and it is usually accompanied by research from very serious civil servants who model the impact down to the decimal point. The problem is that these policies always has unintended consequences, you use your blunt instrument to achieve your primary aim...but then other stuff happens. I get that we need to give economists jobs...but can't they just do it somewhere else? Rather than tinkering with prices, why not focus on exactly why these people are making these choices? The govt has had long enough. And, from what I have read, NHS Scotland just whine about poverty (and now austerity the bogeyman de jour). We have known for years (over a decade iirc) that these effects still exist after income (rich people in Scotland die faster than in England too). Maybe that is a link worth examining: doctors playing politics and patients with poor life expectancy? Ineffective policy-makers (there is little evidence that the govt are particularly competent in anything other than railing against "Westminster")? Ineffective managers in the NHS?

DanBC 7y ago
> England doesn't have this policy ...yet, but it's probably coming. We know that pricing works to change behaviour. We see this with tobacco, plastic bags, sugary drinks, alcohol. It works, and it works really well. Ideally the increased revenue would be hypothecated to alcohol treatment, but hypothecation is a tricky topic for some reason in the UK.
- smileypete 7y ago
  >We know that pricing works to change behaviour. Only to those in lower socio-economic groups materially affected by the change in prices. So in one sense it's really just exerting more control over the poorer groups of society.
  - rleigh 7y ago
    I'm not sure that's true. Charges for e.g. plastic bags in supermarkets had a dramatic effect across the entire country. Even if you can afford an expense, people don't like paying for things if they don't have to. When saving money is easy--like bringing some old bags to the supermarket, people do adapt their behaviour. It adds up over time to be a decent saving. That said, the problems with alcoholism often affect the less well off, so if it did materially affect them more, then that's probably not a particularly bad thing in terms of satisfying the objectives for the change. This law is primarily affecting the purchase of low quality and high alcohol beverages, like really cheap ciders and lagers. I occasionally buy bottled real ale, and the price has not changed at all. It's around £1.65-£1.80 per bottle in a supermarket. Still much cheaper than at the pub, but several times more what a multipack of cheap cans cost. If the objective is to improve public health by making binge drinking harder, then I think the pricing will actually be effective. It worked for smoking. The pricing of the cheap booze in supermarkets was ridiculously cheap, and I personally think that while it might have benefitted the drinks companies and the supermarkets, it's a net negative for society at large, and overall many people and their families will have their quality of life improved by the change. The change is not stopping purchase of alcohol, or even raising the price of most drinks, but it is raising the price of the stuff people binge on. If you're a moderate and responsible drinker, then you'll not even notice the difference.
  - briandear 7y ago
    Correct. I make a fair bit of money and I honestly don’t even look at prices at the grocery store unless it’s specialty item (like a nice Champagne or something, but even then I barely glance at the price.) These little sin taxes are more about raising government revenue than actually changing behavior. For example, if we really thought the government should intervene with smoking, why not just ban cigarettes? It’s because government has gotten addicted to the taxes collected.
    - matthewmacleod 7y ago
      This is not a tax. It is a minimum price which must be charged. This is an important difference.
- hogFeast 7y ago
  > We know that pricing works to change behaviour. Wut? That makes no sense. What we know is: higher prices of a certain product will cause consumption of that product to fall. Will it happen every time? No. And you don't necessarily know if it is going to change behaviour in the way you want (again, that is the kind of policy control freakery that has, generally, not worked very well but was so beloved of New Labour/Cameron). And it may have unintended consequences. There is no stone tablet inscribed with "price is everything" that the world must obey (although that stone tablet may certainly exist at the UoC). And you missed the point. If England doesn't have this, and alcohol-related deaths are lower is it reasonable to conclude that other stuff is going on (the fact that Scotland has much lower life expectancy would suggest that this is a reasonable conclusion). There is no "increased revenue" (apart from a one-time duty gain...presumably). It is just minimum pricing. Hypothecation isn't a tricky topic, it hasn't been commonly used in govt finance globally since the late 19th century (and this term usually means hypothecating govt revenues to a creditor). If you mean reserving the proceeds of a tax for a certain use though, that happens very commonly in the UK (the reason people, usually, talk about this in the UK is because some edgelords have a problem that national insurance is allocated to the NHS whilst the NI "fund", there is no fund in a financial sense, says that the money can't be spent that way).
clucas 7y ago
Serious question: what if the answer to "why these people are making these choices" turns out to be "culture"? As in, this is the way lots of big Scottish people have behaved in front of lots of little Scottish people for generations, and absent any opprobrium from the rest of society (which is something this law provides, in addition to its purely economic effect), it will continue that way for the foreseeable? At that point would it be reasonable for Scotland, as a society, to decide to put its thumb in the scale through a measure like the one discussed in the article to try to reduce the harm? Note: I've never been to Scotland, don't know any Scottish people, and certainly don't have my finger on the beating pulse of Scottish culture, so the above is purely a hypothetical! I'm just always curious to see how people who emphasize the economic causes of problems think about possible non-economic factors.
- hogFeast 7y ago
  I am not emphasising the economic causes. I am saying precisely the opposite: this is a public health issue being solved by a civil servant like it is a problem in an economics textbook. And yes, the issue is cultural. But that doesn't really matter either way (and if the issue is cultural then you can't solve it by increasing costs any way...you are just taxing people who have a problem).
  - clucas 7y ago
    Fair enough, I see that now on a re-read. Sorry for mischaracterizing your position. But I still think taxing a thing, especially in this particular way where the policy is very clearly saying "we want to address this particular behavior" is a way for a society to indicate that it wishes to change. Stigma can be very powerful and useful for changing behavior and, through attrition, culture. Though obviously it can go overboard. [EDIT: wording]
- pjc50 7y ago
  Culture, and also despair. Perhaps similar to the US opiate crisis. There are a lot of people in the UK who drink "too much", and a general distribution of people genetically predisposed to addiction. To drink yourself to death requires something more, usually falling off the edge of society. People who feel economically and socially unwanted, growing up in a "hard" culture. Glasgow and Dundee in particular were cities of the Empire. When that came to an end in 1950 onwards there was a huge spike in unemployment, and a lot of the traditional heavy industries gradually left. This left a huge scar across both the physical infrastructure of Scotland (run down housing) and its culture. Trainspotting isn't exactly a documentary but it's a culturally appropriate portrait of how things were. This is gradually changing as the country acquires 21st century industries (satellites, biosciences, video games, banking), but that on its own doesn't do a lot for the old drunks.

DanBC 7y ago

> England doesn't have this policy ...yet, but it's probably coming. We know that pricing works to change behaviour. We see this with tobacco, plastic bags, sugary drinks, alcohol. It works, and it works really well. Ideally the increased revenue would be hypothecated to alcohol treatment, but hypothecation is a tricky topic for some reason in the UK.

smileypete 7y ago
>We know that pricing works to change behaviour. Only to those in lower socio-economic groups materially affected by the change in prices. So in one sense it's really just exerting more control over the poorer groups of society.
- rleigh 7y ago
  I'm not sure that's true. Charges for e.g. plastic bags in supermarkets had a dramatic effect across the entire country. Even if you can afford an expense, people don't like paying for things if they don't have to. When saving money is easy--like bringing some old bags to the supermarket, people do adapt their behaviour. It adds up over time to be a decent saving. That said, the problems with alcoholism often affect the less well off, so if it did materially affect them more, then that's probably not a particularly bad thing in terms of satisfying the objectives for the change. This law is primarily affecting the purchase of low quality and high alcohol beverages, like really cheap ciders and lagers. I occasionally buy bottled real ale, and the price has not changed at all. It's around £1.65-£1.80 per bottle in a supermarket. Still much cheaper than at the pub, but several times more what a multipack of cheap cans cost. If the objective is to improve public health by making binge drinking harder, then I think the pricing will actually be effective. It worked for smoking. The pricing of the cheap booze in supermarkets was ridiculously cheap, and I personally think that while it might have benefitted the drinks companies and the supermarkets, it's a net negative for society at large, and overall many people and their families will have their quality of life improved by the change. The change is not stopping purchase of alcohol, or even raising the price of most drinks, but it is raising the price of the stuff people binge on. If you're a moderate and responsible drinker, then you'll not even notice the difference.
- briandear 7y ago
  Correct. I make a fair bit of money and I honestly don’t even look at prices at the grocery store unless it’s specialty item (like a nice Champagne or something, but even then I barely glance at the price.) These little sin taxes are more about raising government revenue than actually changing behavior. For example, if we really thought the government should intervene with smoking, why not just ban cigarettes? It’s because government has gotten addicted to the taxes collected.
  - matthewmacleod 7y ago
    This is not a tax. It is a minimum price which must be charged. This is an important difference.
hogFeast 7y ago
> We know that pricing works to change behaviour. Wut? That makes no sense. What we know is: higher prices of a certain product will cause consumption of that product to fall. Will it happen every time? No. And you don't necessarily know if it is going to change behaviour in the way you want (again, that is the kind of policy control freakery that has, generally, not worked very well but was so beloved of New Labour/Cameron). And it may have unintended consequences. There is no stone tablet inscribed with "price is everything" that the world must obey (although that stone tablet may certainly exist at the UoC). And you missed the point. If England doesn't have this, and alcohol-related deaths are lower is it reasonable to conclude that other stuff is going on (the fact that Scotland has much lower life expectancy would suggest that this is a reasonable conclusion). There is no "increased revenue" (apart from a one-time duty gain...presumably). It is just minimum pricing. Hypothecation isn't a tricky topic, it hasn't been commonly used in govt finance globally since the late 19th century (and this term usually means hypothecating govt revenues to a creditor). If you mean reserving the proceeds of a tax for a certain use though, that happens very commonly in the UK (the reason people, usually, talk about this in the UK is because some edgelords have a problem that national insurance is allocated to the NHS whilst the NI "fund", there is no fund in a financial sense, says that the money can't be spent that way).

clucas 7y ago

Serious question: what if the answer to "why these people are making these choices" turns out to be "culture"? As in, this is the way lots of big Scottish people have behaved in front of lots of little Scottish people for generations, and absent any opprobrium from the rest of society (which is something this law provides, in addition to its purely economic effect), it will continue that way for the foreseeable? At that point would it be reasonable for Scotland, as a society, to decide to put its thumb in the scale through a measure like the one discussed in the article to try to reduce the harm? Note: I've never been to Scotland, don't know any Scottish people, and certainly don't have my finger on the beating pulse of Scottish culture, so the above is purely a hypothetical! I'm just always curious to see how people who emphasize the economic causes of problems think about possible non-economic factors.

hogFeast 7y ago
I am not emphasising the economic causes. I am saying precisely the opposite: this is a public health issue being solved by a civil servant like it is a problem in an economics textbook. And yes, the issue is cultural. But that doesn't really matter either way (and if the issue is cultural then you can't solve it by increasing costs any way...you are just taxing people who have a problem).
- clucas 7y ago
  Fair enough, I see that now on a re-read. Sorry for mischaracterizing your position. But I still think taxing a thing, especially in this particular way where the policy is very clearly saying "we want to address this particular behavior" is a way for a society to indicate that it wishes to change. Stigma can be very powerful and useful for changing behavior and, through attrition, culture. Though obviously it can go overboard. [EDIT: wording]
pjc50 7y ago
Culture, and also despair. Perhaps similar to the US opiate crisis. There are a lot of people in the UK who drink "too much", and a general distribution of people genetically predisposed to addiction. To drink yourself to death requires something more, usually falling off the edge of society. People who feel economically and socially unwanted, growing up in a "hard" culture. Glasgow and Dundee in particular were cities of the Empire. When that came to an end in 1950 onwards there was a huge spike in unemployment, and a lot of the traditional heavy industries gradually left. This left a huge scar across both the physical infrastructure of Scotland (run down housing) and its culture. Trainspotting isn't exactly a documentary but it's a culturally appropriate portrait of how things were. This is gradually changing as the country acquires 21st century industries (satellites, biosciences, video games, banking), but that on its own doesn't do a lot for the old drunks.