Tuesday, November 17, 2009

Sallies call for 25 percent increase in alcohol tax

The Salvation Army wants a 25 percent increase in alcohol tax because it would cut teenage and other problem drinking by 10 percent (perhaps Mr Crampton can explain that one?)

What it would also lead to is less discretionary dollar and less money available to donate to charity, although I already bin any requests for money from the Sallie Army. And I get a lot, having been a past supporter. (How much money do organisations waste continuing to pester people who have told them to go jump? Barnardos is another prime example.)

But reducing the discretionary dollar won't worry these guys who are deep into the taxpayer's pocket already via government funding. Perhaps they are sensing that Sir Geoffrey and the law commission need some support for their draconian ideas and have also figured calling for increased alcohol tax will curry favour with their biggest benefactor - the government. After all it is the government that stands to gain the most from increased tax.

Salvation Army welfare centres have seen a growing number of families coming to them citing alcohol abuse and addiction as a leading cause of poverty and domestic violence in their lives.


People can be as self-destructive as they like when the government guarantees a pay cheque not contingent on work. Perhaps the Salvation Army should be thinking about that.

When William Booth launched the Army on its mission, the three greatest social evils were poverty, homelessness and unemployment. He, like his hero John Wesley, saw that the Kingdom of God has as much to do with this world as the next. The famous Cab Horse Charter resulted from Booth's observation that the London cab horses were provided with food, shelter and work; and he was determined to ensure that these most basic of needs were provided to all people. Booth also recognised that work was a critical factor in human worth. His great scheme for social and spiritual regeneration has as its keystone ‘work for all'.


Not benefits for all.

14 comments:

Eric Crampton said...

At best estimates, the elasticity of alcohol consumption among heavy drinkers is -0.28. That means that if the price of alcohol goes up by 10%, heavy drinkers' consumption drops by 2.8%. So if the price of alcohol went up 25%, heavy drinkers' consumption would drop by 7%.

But increasing the tax by 25% wouldn't increase the price of alcohol by 25%. The alcohol tax is a large part of the cheapest booze, but it's of course not the only part. So a 25% tax increase would be less than a 25% price increase, and so heavy drinkers' consumption would drop by less than 7%.

Oh -- moderate drinkers' elasticity is -0.44. So however much heavy drinkers cut their consumption, moderate drinkers cut by almost twice as much.

TM said...

I find myself being more drawn toward a minimum price for alcohol as a step in the right direction.
There is no magic bullet for problem drinking, and in many ways I think let boozers be boozers, but the real costs are picked up by the taxpayer (e.g. on our health and courts systems) and innocent victims of drunken behaviour (victims of assault, drunk drivers etc).
I have the greatest respect for the social work the sallies do, and it has to be realised that they (and other organisations) supplement government social services for those that fall through the cracks. They don't always take the best position on issues (homosexual law reform being one that springs to mind) but they do genuinely help those most vulnerable. They opposed lowering the drinking age to 18, in fact I think their submission was that it should be raised to 21. They see a lot more of the negatives than most of us would.
A minimum price for alcohol might not reduce consumption much for heavy drinkers, but it's the youth that we really need to be focusing on, and the moderates who are at risk of crossing to alcoholism.
Even if a minimum price for alcohol (and I'm thinking in the region of $20 per 160ml, the equivalent of 1 dozen 4% beers, or 2 bottles of 11% wine) didn't have much effect on drinking habits, at least it would increase the tax take to help deal with the negative impacts.

Anonymous said...

Save me from these bloody do-gooders!

Shem Banbury said...

I think it is a fantastic idea by the Sallies. The social cost of alcohol makes alcohol New Zealand's most destructive drug.

Years of liberal laws, designed to makes us 'better drinkers' and pointless ads about 'its HOW we are drinking' have only made the problem worse

This wont bring about social change, this will only come when we ALL see ourselves as part of the problem, but at least it is a step in the right direction

brian_smaller said...

Ozy mandias - as soon as you said we must ALL see ourselves as part of the problem you showed your left wing nanny state dependency. If my neighbour is an alcholic it is not MY repsonsibility but HIS. If I want to drink two bottles of whiskey a week is is MY decision, not anyone elses. I am not part of anyone else's drinking problem and should not be punished by higher taxes for THEIR actions.

Lindsay Mitchell said...

Ozy, First you say it is a "fantastic idea" and then that it "won't bring about social change".

Then you say, "Years of liberal laws, designed to makes us 'better drinkers' and pointless ads about 'its HOW we are drinking' have only made the problem worse."

Yet the NZ 2009 Social Report says the long term trend in hazardous drinking for 15 year-olds and older is 'no change' since 1996/97.

What bugs me is too many people base their opinions on emotion instead of facts and reason. What can that possibly mean, that we are ALL part of the problem? Oh that's right. It's that stupid song again...we're all in this together....

Every time we socialise (share the cost of) the consequences of destructive behaviour, we indulge and encourage the behaviour.

Anonymous said...

The Salvation Army has always been rather authoritarian in their views of government enforcing moral values. One of the great problems of socialism is that it acts as a justification for government control of people's private lives. What is amusing is how quickly some conservatives jump onto that bandwagon, demanding more government intervention in lives, all based on the premise that govt. pays for health care thus all private actions have a "social" cost.

Would those applauding this sort of policy do the same if govt. banned smoking, had forced exercise classes, banned fatty foods, forced people to eat more veggies, etc. It is all the same premise.

And it is interesting to see how quickly some conservatives jump on the state intervention bandwagon, just like their socialist twins.

Oswald Bastable said...

What would have an impact would be CONSEQUENCES.

Being arrested for 'drunk in a public place', spending a night in the drunk tank and dragged up before the judge on Monday for a stiff fine.

THAT was the difference in my younger days.

You still could get drink with no great difficulty, but you learned discretion- or payed a stiff price.

Psycho Milt said...

...it would cut teenage and other problem drinking by 10 percent...

63% of statistics are made up.

Anonymous said...

Easy problem to solve:

zero tax on alcohol.

purchase permitted only by presenting a valid NZ citizenship identity card - which makes clear you are NOT on a benefit or a public servant

penalty for passing on alcohol: revocation of citizenship.

This kind of policy would solve all manner of social problems.

Shem Banbury said...

Brian - I wouldn't vote for the left if it was the only option I had.
Sadly Brian you have been sold the lie that what I do in my house only affects me. This country is slowly seeing the fact that what people do in their homes quickly becomes what they do in public. The sooner people realise this the better.

Lindsay since the 1989 Liquor Act and then the 1999 Sales of Liquor Act we have tried to go down the line of 'teaching' people how to drink. It hasn't worked.

Lindsay you then quote one stat to say that acohol use hasn't changed and then imply I dont use fact or reason. Lets look at the facts.
25% of young people saying they would drink more than 6 drinks on a typical night.
In 2008, 31% of all crime committed in New Zealand involved an offender who had recently drunk.
ALAC estimate that 785,000 drinkers over the age of 18 (29% of all drinkers) could be categorised as ‘habitual binge drinkers’. I could go on

But I supppose you will tell me these were the stats from the 1967 when the liberals took over the alcohol laws.

I am not saying we share the cost. Money will not solve this problem. I am saying that we should share the resonsibility of the problem

brian_smaller said...

Osy - If someone gets pissed and it affects others - by being paralytic in a public place or they are cuaght driving - then hammer them. Make sure there is a consequence to overindulging and then committing publis nuisance or criminal acts. Don't make me pay more for the few bottles of wine I buy each week or the bottle of whiskey I buy once a year.

Shem Banbury said...

I agree Brian people who do a crime should do the time.

Sadly many people, parents, families, communities etc dont take teaching their young people about alcohol seriously. Instead their teaching is modelled through the way they abuse alcohol. In my view this is where the real problem of alcohol lies in NZ. Until this problem is address we can poke all the money we want at it, legislate as much as we want but it wont make a difference.

Lindsay Mitchell said...

Ozy, It boils down to a fundamental difference in the way you and I view the world. As an individualist, I believe that problems and solutions lie with individuals. But that isn't necessarily in conflict with what you are saying. I agree individual parents have a lot to answer for but stop short of extrapolating them into the entire community or saying the entire community holds responsibility.

The stats I used were to show that since lowering the drinking age hazardous drinking has neither worsened nor improved. But I am not denying there is a problem.

And again in your last comment you seem to be saying that latest proposals - including raising tax - won't make a difference. On that we agree.