Beer tax changes tomorrow- less on 2.8% or less, 7.5% up 50%

[0a]

I just heard this on the radio, I assume the aim is to stop binge drinking. I'm a member of CAMRA and know lots of people in the trade but missed this one. Anyone Know the details? Seems to me that 2.8% is so weak it won't make any difference and 7.5% isn't a strength I'd be interested in anyway.

Will this make any difference to the boozed up youth on the streets at all?

[66comanche]

A story on it here http://www.nwemail.co.uk/news/millom-brewer-hits-o...

I suppose it drives up the price of Special Brew, Tennents Super and the like, but the people that drink that stuff tend to be tramps not chavs. Will affect some premium specialist beers too which is a shame - hopefully they won't change things for cider as there are some lovely vintage ciders over 7.5%.

What the point is of beer < 2.8% I have no clue, people that drink non/low alcohol beer are idiotic and even the weakest pisswater is over 2.8%.

[0a]

66comanche said:

A story on it here http://www.nwemail.co.uk/news/millom-brewer-hits-o... - that story just says they are proposed changes though.

I suppose it drives up the price of Special Brew, Tennents Super and the like, but the people that drink that stuff tend to be tramps not chavs. Will affect some premium specialist beers too which is a shame - hopefully they won't change things for cider as there are some lovely vintage ciders over 7.5%.

What the point is of beer < 2.8% I have no clue, people that drink non/low alcohol beer are idiotic and even the weakest pisswater is over 2.8%.

They had a brewer on 5 live just now (the source of all my information) and he pointed out the same - that it's impossible to make an interesting beer at 2.8%, and they stated the change will come in tomorrow.

As you say it seems a shame to punish the cider/scrumpy makers based on strength. The real issue is strength multiplied by volume with added cheapness and a tendency to misbehave.

[Engineer1]

I suspect the aim is to stop you getting 75p cans of strong beer, a 7.5% real ale or lager would be a connoisseurs choice and as such a rise in price may well not affect them specially if the beer isn't being sold stupidly cheap already, so the price may go up a little and the whole sale price down a little.

[Plotloss]

So if your current tipple of choice is a delightful 7.5% still perry that today costs £3.30

What will it cost tomorrow?

[Engineer1]

Depends on if you bought it from a supermarket as that price could be below cost already.

[FaineantFreddy]

Plotloss said:

So if your current tipple of choice is a delightful 7.5% still perry that today costs £3.30

What will it cost tomorrow?

Is it this?



or this?

Edited by FaineantFreddy on Friday 30th September 18:58

[Major Fallout]

This is good for me, as my guilty pleasure is water like bottles of French style beer.

[Plotloss]

Well spotted! It's Bee Sting and it's £3.30 in a glass from the barman. I don't do supermarkets.

[zac510]

Plotloss said:

So if your current tipple of choice is a delightful 7.5% still perry that today costs £3.30

What will it cost tomorrow?

Maybe they can relabel it 7.49%

[FaineantFreddy]

zac510 said:

Plotloss said:

So if your current tipple of choice is a delightful 7.5% still perry that today costs £3.30

What will it cost tomorrow?

Maybe they can relabel it 7.49%

If they adjusted the alcohol content to 7.4% it would solve the problem without affecting the taste I would have thought. That's got to be the way the brewers and cider/perry makers are likely to go, isn't it?

[voyds9]

Typical government wrong response, laws already in place for anyone causing a problem, but they try to tax the problem away.

[WhoseGeneration]

voyds9 said:

Typical government wrong response, laws already in place for anyone causing a problem, but they try to tax the problem away.

I agree, except Government refuses to deal with those who cannot drink without getting "fighty".

[mrmr96]

voyds9 said:

Typical government wrong response, laws already in place for anyone causing a problem, but they try to tax the problem away.

Exactly - tax/punish the law abiding under the pretense of tackling a 'problem'.

Same with 'continuous insurance' which criminalises people with taxed but uninsured cars. The scrotes always drove unisured and will continue to drive uninsured.
Same with 'lower drink drive limits' which crimilalises people who have only a couple of drinks. The hard core proper drink drivers were always over the existing limit and will continue to be over the new limit.
Same with 'lower speed limits' which criminalises people driving at a sensible speed. The real dangerous drivers will continue to be inattentive and drive at innapropriate speeds regardless of the new limit.
etc

[Mojocvh]

mrmr96 said:

Exactly - tax/punish the law abiding under the pretense of tackling a 'problem'.

Same with 'continuous insurance' which criminalises people with taxed but uninsured cars. The scrotes always drove unisured and will continue to drive uninsured.
Same with 'lower drink drive limits' which crimilalises people who have only a couple of drinks. The hard core proper drink drivers were always over the existing limit and will continue to be over the new limit.
Same with 'lower speed limits' which criminalises people driving at a sensible speed. The real dangerous drivers will continue to be inattentive and drive at innapropriate speeds regardless of the new limit.
etc

[WhoseGeneration]

mrmr96 said:

Exactly - tax/punish the law abiding under the pretense of tackling a 'problem'.

Same with 'continuous insurance' which criminalises people with taxed but uninsured cars. The scrotes always drove unisured and will continue to drive uninsured.
Same with 'lower drink drive limits' which crimilalises people who have only a couple of drinks. The hard core proper drink drivers were always over the existing limit and will continue to be over the new limit.
Same with 'lower speed limits' which criminalises people driving at a sensible speed. The real dangerous drivers will continue to be inattentive and drive at innapropriate speeds regardless of the new limit.
etc

I've said this before, however, to repeat.
Government relies on making the majority fearful.
So, over the decades, I have seen more and more restrictions from Government.
"For the greater good".

[0a]

Mojocvh said:

I couldn't agree more. It's the same reason why i've stopped watching 'cop' programmes as it seems driving like a maniac/without insurance gets you little or no punishment. Don't tell me a few tickets for 50 in a 40 are the same (typically).