3 ms·

Pubs are dying. Have been for years. Many deaths were postponed because their taxes were reduced due to Covid. Those taxes are now returning to normal levels.

by flir 9mo ago

Pubs are dying. Have been for years. Many deaths were postponed because their taxes were reduced due to Covid. Those taxes are now returning to normal levels. This will result in a glut of deaths, as pubs that were just hanging on go under. The policy question is, basically, do we want to subsidize pubs because they're part of our national culture, even though we don't use them nearly as much as we used to?

christkv 9mo ago
Lower taxes is not subsidising a business.
- hermanzegerman 9mo ago
  It is, when it gets a favourable treatment over other businesses
kristianc 9mo ago
"Does Britain really need?" has been responsible for the gutting of so much of what used to make Britain a nice place to live over the last 20 years. You can say she same about public libraries, local bus routes, civic architecture, arts funding, youth services, maintenance budgets. The damage has been incalculable.
- flir 9mo ago
  You won't find any argument from me on all those other things. But pubs are a weird place to draw the line.
  - kristianc 9mo ago
    Every one of them individually seems like a weird place to draw the line. Social fabric and the ties that bond matter.
  - ljm 9mo ago
    Probably because the line keeps getting moved. There's a lot of pressure to build housing with little to no consideration of community, either existing or new. Just get rid of all the third spaces in an area and turn it into a lifeless residential suburb or something. Once pubs are gone it'll be something else.
jaccola 9mo ago
The government has decided that they know what’s good for you better for you than you do. So they tax alcohol at incredibly high rates. Without this more pubs could exist. So I don’t think it’s a case of subsidising as much as removing the disincentive.
- yunohn 9mo ago
  I’m not familiar with the UK, but is the tax on alcohol at pubs higher than at a store? My general understanding was that people have just shopped visiting pubs for other reasons - like diluted drinks, crappy food, loud music, etc.
  - t-3 9mo ago
    Bars and pubs aren't really competing against the store or restaurants, they're competing against you drinking alone or with only close friends. If stepping in to have a beer and shoot the shit would cost a significant chunk of a day's wages, you just won't do it, but if I can buy more beer with an hours wages than I can drink in an hour, it's not a bad time.
    - iso1631 9mo ago
      Weatherspoons charge under £3 for a pint in town. That's 15 minutes at minimum wage. Beer was far more expensive 25 years ago - £1.60 in 2000 in the student pub when I first started buying my own beer, that was about half an hour at minimum wage. On the cost side: Wages are higher, energy costs more, rent is higher (because if the pub can't operate the owner can get planning permission to convert it to a private dwelling and sell it for £600k rather than making £12k a year in rent) On the demand side: People are healthier and drink less. It's nowhere near as acceptable to go out for a few pints at lunch time. People can't drive to a rural pub.
      - messe 9mo ago
        > Weatherspoons charge under £3 for a pint in town. That's 15 minutes at minimum wage. Yeah but then you've to drink at spoons.
nofriend 9mo ago
It's hardly a subsidy if it's the removal of a tax that will go away entirely if the business is shuttered. This is frankly an awful framing. A well designed tax taxes a small portion of the business' margin. If the business has small margins, the tax is proportionately small. The tax in question is one that applies regardless of whether the business is making any money, and hence seems to have the express purpose of killing businesses.
carlosjobim 9mo ago
> ...do we want to subsidize pubs... Reducing taxes are not subsidizes. Subsidizes are when the government gives tax money to a business, not when they take a little less from a business. People might think it's the same equation, but the difference in reality is enormous for the economy.

by flir 9mo ago

christkv 9mo ago

Lower taxes is not subsidising a business.

hermanzegerman 9mo ago
It is, when it gets a favourable treatment over other businesses

kristianc 9mo ago

"Does Britain really need?" has been responsible for the gutting of so much of what used to make Britain a nice place to live over the last 20 years. You can say she same about public libraries, local bus routes, civic architecture, arts funding, youth services, maintenance budgets. The damage has been incalculable.

flir 9mo ago
You won't find any argument from me on all those other things. But pubs are a weird place to draw the line.
- kristianc 9mo ago
  Every one of them individually seems like a weird place to draw the line. Social fabric and the ties that bond matter.
- ljm 9mo ago
  Probably because the line keeps getting moved. There's a lot of pressure to build housing with little to no consideration of community, either existing or new. Just get rid of all the third spaces in an area and turn it into a lifeless residential suburb or something. Once pubs are gone it'll be something else.

jaccola 9mo ago

The government has decided that they know what’s good for you better for you than you do. So they tax alcohol at incredibly high rates. Without this more pubs could exist. So I don’t think it’s a case of subsidising as much as removing the disincentive.

yunohn 9mo ago
I’m not familiar with the UK, but is the tax on alcohol at pubs higher than at a store? My general understanding was that people have just shopped visiting pubs for other reasons - like diluted drinks, crappy food, loud music, etc.
- t-3 9mo ago
  Bars and pubs aren't really competing against the store or restaurants, they're competing against you drinking alone or with only close friends. If stepping in to have a beer and shoot the shit would cost a significant chunk of a day's wages, you just won't do it, but if I can buy more beer with an hours wages than I can drink in an hour, it's not a bad time.
  - iso1631 9mo ago
    Weatherspoons charge under £3 for a pint in town. That's 15 minutes at minimum wage. Beer was far more expensive 25 years ago - £1.60 in 2000 in the student pub when I first started buying my own beer, that was about half an hour at minimum wage. On the cost side: Wages are higher, energy costs more, rent is higher (because if the pub can't operate the owner can get planning permission to convert it to a private dwelling and sell it for £600k rather than making £12k a year in rent) On the demand side: People are healthier and drink less. It's nowhere near as acceptable to go out for a few pints at lunch time. People can't drive to a rural pub.
    - messe 9mo ago
      > Weatherspoons charge under £3 for a pint in town. That's 15 minutes at minimum wage. Yeah but then you've to drink at spoons.

nofriend 9mo ago

It's hardly a subsidy if it's the removal of a tax that will go away entirely if the business is shuttered. This is frankly an awful framing. A well designed tax taxes a small portion of the business' margin. If the business has small margins, the tax is proportionately small. The tax in question is one that applies regardless of whether the business is making any money, and hence seems to have the express purpose of killing businesses.

carlosjobim 9mo ago

> ...do we want to subsidize pubs... Reducing taxes are not subsidizes. Subsidizes are when the government gives tax money to a business, not when they take a little less from a business. People might think it's the same equation, but the difference in reality is enormous for the economy.