|
Which Thread Title shall we name this new thread? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| Independence Day 2: Resturgeonce |
|
44 | 21.36% |
| ScotPol - Unclustering this gently caress |
|
19 | 9.22% |
| Trainspotting 2: Independence is my heroin |
|
9 | 4.37% |
| Indyref II: Boris hosed a Dead Country |
|
14 | 6.80% |
| ScotPol: Wings over Bullshit |
|
8 | 3.88% |
| Independence 2: Cameron Lied, UK Died |
|
24 | 11.65% |
| Scotpol IV: I Vow To Flee My Country |
|
14 | 6.80% |
| ScotPol - A twice in a generation thread |
|
17 | 8.25% |
| ScotPol - Where Everything's hosed Up and the Referendums Don't Matter |
|
15 | 7.28% |
| ScotPol Thread: Dependence Referendum Incoming |
|
2 | 0.97% |
| Indyref II: The Scottish Insturgeoncy |
|
10 | 4.85% |
| ScotPol Thread: Act of European Union |
|
5 | 2.43% |
| ScotPol - Like Game of Thrones only we wish we would all die |
|
25 | 12.14% |
| Total: | 206 votes | ||
|
TomViolence posted:You saying you haven't read all these articles you meticulously compiled? I have, and that's why I'm confused.
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2016 13:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 23:26 |
|
|
baronvonsabre posted:Could you not have just quoted a single title you want me to refer to, rather than leaving me to guess from the list of many studies showing that it isn't? Would save me a lot of time. No, because I'm phone posting. I also didn't see the need because you emboldened the relevant section. Second study on the list.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2016 14:59
|
|
|
Jedit posted:Thank you. Now, what are your thoughts on the study in that list which openly stated minimum unit pricing is a tax on the poor? I think that it's a good thing. Everyone should be paying tax, whether rich or poor. Although the overall burden should be lowered for those less / unable to pay, this can be done elsewhere. E.g adjust the income tax thresholds or reform council tax into something sane
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2016 15:06
|
|
|
Jedit posted:No, because I'm phone posting. I also didn't see the need because you emboldened the relevant section. Second study on the list. Well, yes, that paper does show a tax increase for the poor, but that's because that paper is actually talking about a general 25% increase on alcohol tax, not minimum pricing of units. I included it as a contrast to the minimum pricing papers, to show how both reduce alcohol-related illnesses/mortalities by increasing the cost but how they do so in different ways and hit different demographics.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2016 15:13
|
|
|
jre posted:You don't get how minimum pricing works do you ? If your normal drink of choice has risen in price then there won't be a cheaper alternative, that's the entire point of the policy. As cigarette and tobacco prices have risen, in combination with cheaper air travel across europe, the market for black market and grey market tobacco (where the duty has been paid somewhere in the EU but the tobacco is then resold illegally) has increased. If alcohol prices rise I see little reason why a corresponding market for alcohol won't take shape, although Brexit may well put the brakes on it a bit. In other words if a bottle of vodka now costs £15 in the shops but wee Jimmy can drop one off for a tenner then actually there is a cheaper alternative.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2016 17:00
|
|
|
duckmaster posted:As cigarette and tobacco prices have risen, in combination with cheaper air travel across europe, the market for black market and grey market tobacco (where the duty has been paid somewhere in the EU but the tobacco is then resold illegally) has increased. If alcohol prices rise I see little reason why a corresponding market for alcohol won't take shape, although Brexit may well put the brakes on it a bit. Can't wait for Barrhead Travel or some other Scottish travel agent to start offering booze cruises to Carlisle & Berwick so you can take advantage of Tesco bevvy sales..
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2016 17:13
|
|
|
Scotpol, where universal free university tuition is a regressive subsidy of the upper classes and flat minimum pricing is a progressive empowerment of the working classes.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2016 17:25
|
|
|
duckmaster posted:As cigarette and tobacco prices have risen, in combination with cheaper air travel across europe, the market for black market and grey market tobacco (where the duty has been paid somewhere in the EU but the tobacco is then resold illegally) has increased. If alcohol prices rise I see little reason why a corresponding market for alcohol won't take shape, although Brexit may well put the brakes on it a bit. This is a red herring, and a common line of attack used by the drinks industry to stave off regulation. Even if the black/grey market does increase (and I'm not saying it wouldn't), it can't make up for the reduction caused by minimum pricing - you wouldn't see the 10% increase in average minimum price in Canada causing a 32% reduction in alcohol attributable deaths if it did.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2016 17:26
|
|
|
Coohoolin posted:Scotpol, where universal free university tuition is a regressive subsidy of the upper classes and flat minimum pricing is a progressive empowerment of the working classes. I support free tuition and Minimum Pricing. Stop trying to blame a "hivemind" just because the facts aren't in your favour. Also, i'm gonna track down the research links for Iohanne's post either later tonight or tomorrow. Just to add a few more drops in the ocean of evidence provided by baronvonsabre.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2016 18:10
|
|
|
duckmaster posted:As cigarette and tobacco prices have risen, in combination with cheaper air travel across europe, the market for black market and grey market tobacco (where the duty has been paid somewhere in the EU but the tobacco is then resold illegally) has increased. If alcohol prices rise I see little reason why a corresponding market for alcohol won't take shape, although Brexit may well put the brakes on it a bit. I wonder if in the light of brexit there will be border stops at the channel tunnel/ferry crossing points and HMRC reps waiting to slam on the import tax
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2016 19:08
|
|
|
working mom posted:I wonder if in the light of brexit there will be border stops at the channel tunnel/ferry crossing points and HMRC reps waiting to slam on the import tax This happens at the Swiss borders because of how insanely cheaper everything is outside of Switzerland, and there's still freedom of movement.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2016 19:18
|
|
|
Jedit posted:Thank you. Now, what are your thoughts on the study in that list which openly stated minimum unit pricing is a tax on the poor? It's not a tax it's a price floor. And even if it were a tax it would be a consumption tax on a luxury item. Do people who oppose minimum alcohol pricing support cutting the tax on cigarettes ? Is that a tax on the poor as well ? duckmaster posted:As cigarette and tobacco prices have risen, in combination with cheaper air travel across europe, the market for black market and grey market tobacco (where the duty has been paid somewhere in the EU but the tobacco is then resold illegally) has increased. If alcohol prices rise I see little reason why a corresponding market for alcohol won't take shape, although Brexit may well put the brakes on it a bit. Is wee Jimmy going to drop off a bottle for every person who likes a drink, every weekend ? Smuggling will increase, but won't stop the policy being effective. Good public health policies are improving the health of populations as a whole, not dealing with individual edge case straw men. I've not seen any alternative proposals to reduce alcohol consumption, what should we instead of this evidence backed policy ?
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2016 19:25
|
|
|
Coohoolin posted:This happens at the Swiss borders because of how insanely cheaper everything is outside of Switzerland, and there's still freedom of movement. Could go the same way as Sweden/Norway where Norwegians near the border sometimes exclusively shop in Sweden
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2016 19:26
|
|
|
jre posted:Do people who oppose minimum alcohol pricing support cutting the tax on cigarettes ? Is that a tax on the poor as well ? Yes.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2016 19:28
|
|
|
Coohoolin posted:Yes.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2016 19:55
|
|
|
baronvonsabre posted:I know ideological purity is very important to you, but just look for a moment at what you're arguing for. Cutting the price of alcohol and cigarettes not only increases the number of people who die due to them, that increase comes disproportionately from the less privileged. I like how we're considering "making thing less available" as the only or best way of reducing these types of ills. Maybe it's possible to have a pouch of tobacco cost less than 11 loving quid AND focus on creating a society where people have no actual reason to indulge in substances, hm?
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2016 20:15
|
|
|
jre posted:It's not a tax it's a price floor. And even if it were a tax it would be a consumption tax on a luxury item. No, because it's a tax on fags. This is, as you say, not a tax. If the money raised from it would go towards social care services and the like that'd be one thing, but it's not. That's a different. Though I'd still oppose it because I like to drink alcohol, & when I'm not raking in the cash I settle for drinking cheap alcohol, I'd just oppose it slightly less. Selfish but eh, there you go. We live in a bleak country, maybe if our governments would stop being so loving awful there'd be less reason for escaping through alcohol. Obviously that is involves slightly more effort than just increasing the price on a bottle of Glen's while doing gently caress all to a bottle of Lagavulin.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2016 20:29
|
|
|
baronvonsabre posted:I know ideological purity is very important to you, but just look for a moment at what you're arguing for. Cutting the price of alcohol and cigarettes not only increases the number of people who die due to them, that increase comes disproportionately from the less privileged. I mean if we're suggesting that our respective policies are but one part of a wider change i would be 100% in favour of dropping all consumption duties and just instituting a massive wealth tax and then doing whatever you need to do to reduce consumption-based health complaints without banning or restricting access to any of the causes. Because again, none of these taxes make any difference to the wealthy, and yet we are not, presumably, concerned about the enormous early mortality rate among people who have access to infinite drink and drugs. I really cannot find a rebuttal to the idea that pricing or banning people out of access to substances is anything but moralizing, or in the very very best case, a miserably stopgap employed by a pathetic excuse for a government until they can find something better.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2016 20:28
|
|
|
Coohoolin posted:I like how we're considering "making thing less available" as the only or best way of reducing these types of ills. Maybe it's possible to have a pouch of tobacco cost less than 11 loving quid AND focus on creating a society where people have no actual reason to indulge in substances, hm?
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2016 20:31
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:doing whatever you need to do to reduce consumption-based health complaints without banning or restricting access to any of the causes. Coohoolin posted:I like how we're considering "making thing less available" as the only or best way of reducing these types of ills. Maybe it's possible to have a pouch of tobacco cost less than 11 loving quid AND focus on creating a society where people have no actual reason to indulge in substances, hm? So we shouldn't do something that been proven to work and would have a major impact in a short time period, but instead wish for some mystical never before seen improvement in living standards that will magically make people not prone to substance abuse ?
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2016 20:36
|
|
|
Leggsy posted:Reducing prices before solving problems with abuse is just putting the cart before the horse and would likely make things a whole lot worse. Smoking has been declining pretty consistently year-on-year, partially due to higher pricing as well as other innovations. Do we really want to reverse that progress because some people are upset that they have to pay too much for what is essentially a luxury? I don't like smoking. I think it's manky, people doing it smell, and the smoke irritates my lungs something rotten. And yet there's something hosed up about this attitude. OK, smoking is a luxury. Bevvy is a luxury. Aren't the plebs allowed luxuries too? If you get your kicks from a packet of Golden Virginia or whatever the gently caress, and that makes the 8 hours you spend at your pointless barely-better-than-minimum-wage job slightly more tolerable, I don't really grudge you that. Yes, encouraging people to stop smoking is good, on the whole. But some people just don't want to stop smoking, like my parents. They will continue to pay the increasing costs, and if they are pensioners then they are probably doing it at the expense of something else. I don't really feel comfortable with the idea that the plebians should just be priced out of "essentially a luxury".
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2016 20:37
|
|
|
jre posted:So we shouldn't do something that been proven to work and would have a major impact in a short time period, but instead wish for some mystical never before seen improvement in living standards that will magically make people not prone to substance abuse ? You can do it if you want to, but you should acknowledge that by doing it you're supporting classist laws and promoting the idea that poor people are too stupid to be trusted with responsibility.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2016 20:44
|
|
|
We're going in circles. I get it, some people have the libertarian view that people should do what they want with low taxes or state intervention and that's a perfectly fine view to have. However, the discussion has been about what policies are best for reducing consumption and abuse and apart from a few vague suggestions like "tax the rich more" I haven't really heard anything compelling.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2016 20:48
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:You can do it if you want to, but you should acknowledge that by doing it you're supporting classist laws and promoting the idea that poor people are too stupid to be trusted with responsibility. This is a stupid argument because most negative behaviours are associated with poverty. So you could argue that the funding the police is classist because offending is associated with poverty. Same for anything which targets obesity If you actually gave a poo poo about people living in poverty you'd support legislation which will improve their health, rather than maintaining ideologic purity.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2016 20:51
|
|
|
Leggsy posted:We're going in circles. So "we will legislate what the poor can do for their own good and they should thank us for it." Perhaps self destructive behavior is a sign of mental disquiet, perhaps there is something about poverty which places a burden on the mental wellbeing of people trapped in it, perhaps an unqualified "you can only trust middle and upper class people with alcohol so only they should be able to have lots of it" is serving to perpetuate the idea that poverty is a sign of an immoral person. jre posted:This is a stupid argument because most negative behaviours are associated with poverty. I give a pretty loving significant poo poo about the lives of people like me and I will not tolerate people hailing patronizing loving laws as good without acknowledging the mindset they are supporting when they support them without reservation. I would accept "the law is bad and will perpetuate classism and will be used as justification not to pursue a better solution, but it might help a few people" but I absolutely will not sit and watch people hail the loving gin act as some shining beacon of progress. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 20:57 on Oct 26, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2016 20:53
|
|
|
People drink too much because life sucks. Taking away the drinking isn't going to make any better.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2016 20:57
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I would accept "the law is bad and will perpetuate classism and will be used as justification not to pursue a better solution, but it might help a few people" but I absolutely will not sit and watch people hail the loving gin act as some shining beacon of progress. What's the better solution that's within the powers of the Scottish parliament ?
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2016 21:00
|
|
|
Coohoolin posted:People drink too much because life sucks. Taking away the drinking isn't going to make any better. Minimum Pricing will not stop people drinking altogether! It will only reduce overall consumption in a way that will significantly increase the general health. People are not going to become celibate monks who eschew all earthly pleasures because the price of a bottle of voddy has gone up by less than a fiver. People are not going to be priced out of drinking unless they are drinking at amounts that are damaging to their own health. I prefer to be on the side that argues against people drinking themselves to death and if that makes me a bad person or not a ~true leftie~ then I don't particularly care.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2016 21:02
|
|
|
Leggsy posted:Except that it has been proven to work! I don't usually get frustrated but I think people are being wilfully dense at this point. Class traitor !
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2016 21:04
|
|
|
I think the concept of "virtue signalling" has finally clicked in my head.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2016 21:03
|
|
|
Hoops posted:I think the concept of "virtue signalling" has finally clicked in my head. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qrf-PRYPxr8
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2016 21:05
|
|
|
Hoops posted:I think the concept of "virtue signalling" has finally clicked in my head. I had to google this term and I can see exactly what you mean.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2016 21:07
|
|
|
Well here's something potentially more interesting. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-37767945 quote:Aberdeen City Council has said it hopes to become the first local authority in Scotland to raise funds through the capital markets. I don't really know enough to critically analyse this at this point, but would this give Aberdeen some form of "stock market"?
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2016 21:23
|
|
|
Coohoolin posted:Well here's something potentially more interesting. Index-linked bonds are basically where the money you get back reflects inflation in the period since you bought the bond, so there's no risk of inflation in the intervening time making your investment worth less.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2016 21:39
|
|
|
Hoops posted:Not a "stock market" exactly. It's issuing debt on the market to raise money, that can then be traded or sold by the person that buys it. A commoditised IOU. When it comes time to pay back the bond holder, Aberdeen council could theoretically then issue more bonds to raise the money to repay them. It gives them a lot of cash to invest in economy-growing programmes, providing they can maintain a good credit rating. Ooh so this is a good thing! Let's all watch while Willie Rennie fucks it up.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2016 21:45
|
|
|
You know, I wouldn't have thought that local councils raising bonds privately would've been legal but I guess it must be
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2016 21:53
|
|
|
Coohoolin posted:Ooh so this is a good thing! Let's all watch while Willie Rennie fucks it up.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2016 22:02
|
|
|
Coohoolin posted:Scotpol, where universal free university tuition is a regressive subsidy of the upper classes and flat minimum pricing is a progressive empowerment of the working classes.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2016 22:16
|
|
|
Cerv posted:Careful with that gigantic straw man. It's a bit flammable How dare you denigrate such good, honest teuchter traditions.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2016 22:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 23:26 |
|
|
This thread makes me want to drink.Hoops posted:It's potentially a good thing, providing everyone pays their council tax. It's a good thing council tax hasn't been frozen otherwise this would be complete waste of time. EDIT: Ha ha that loving red text. Extreme0 fucked around with this message at 00:05 on Oct 27, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2016 23:59
|
|
