3 ms·

> 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, s

by 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).

by DanBC 7y ago

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).