Abolish minimum alcohol pricing in the UK.

[Murphy Jnr 10]

What's the connection to racism?

[PRESLEY 1,222]

What's the connection to racism?

 

Can you read? The Topic is about drink, and the one of the comments made were load of bull, and the quip was, Red Bull, A DRINK! What the hell has that got to do with racism.

[Murphy Jnr 10]

Can you read? The Topic is about drink, and the one of the comments made were load of bull, and the quip was, Red Bull, A DRINK! What the hell has that got to do with racism.

 

Yes thank you I can

 

The UK has minimum alcohol pricing. UK DUTY (tax) sets the minimum price.

 

Minimum alcohol pricing is a regressive form of taxation. Not only is it regressive, but it is discriminatory/racist.

 

 

How's yours coming along?

[PRESLEY 1,222]

Yes thank you I c

 

How's yours coming along?

 

Nice bit of trolling!

[Murphy Jnr 10]

Nice bit of trolling!

 

It's a genuine question, I don't see the connection between the pricing of alcohol and racism.

[truman 10]

It's a genuine question, I don't see the connection between the pricing of alcohol and racism.

 

I think what Chem1st was saying was that as the religions he mentioned in the OP don't drink than they wouldn't be affected by alcohol duty,therefore, in his mind, it is a "racist" tax.. I think anyway....

[Murphy Jnr 10]

I think what Chem1st was saying was that as the religions he mentioned in the OP don't drink than they wouldn't be affected by alcohol duty,therefore, in his mind, it is a "racist" tax.. I think anyway....

 

A bit tenuous then and as we have the choice of drinking or not then by choosing to drink alcohol we surely choose to pay the duty, don't we?

[truman 10]

A bit tenuous then and as we have the choice of drinking or not then by choosing to drink alcohol we surely choose to pay the duty, don't we?

 

A lot of Chems posts are a bit tenuous and contrived...I think he does it to try to spark a bit of debate really...

[Murphy Jnr 10]

A lot of Chems posts are a bit tenuous and contrived...I think he does it to try to spark a bit of debate really...

 

Well his success rate is high.

[chem1st 10]

I think you're wrong.. retailers have to pay a minimum price (duty) but they can sell it to customers for whatever price they want even if it's below the amount of duty...

 

Aye, but no retailer is capable of selling it at a loss. They can have it as a loss leader, and make the money back elsewhere, but in the end, they cannot sell it at a loss.

 

Thus there is a minimum price.

[El Cid 212]

 

They can have it as a loss leader,

 

Before the last election Cameron promised to make that illegal, but it was just more lies by the master of lies and nice words.

[chem1st 10]

A bit tenuous then and as we have the choice of drinking or not then by choosing to drink alcohol we surely choose to pay the duty, don't we?

 

Alcohol is a part of our culture and is well know to be addictive. It is also known to be beneficial to health in certain quantities, and dangerous in others - much like verything else, the dose is the poison...

 

If the argument is one of choice.

 

Why don't we tax any vegetable/fruit beginning with a letter in the first half of the alphabet. People could choose to avoid the tax.

 

To tax a substance that is used by a certain culture and racial group is discriminatory.

 

It would be racist, much like a fried chicken tax, a pickled vegatble or a quat tax.

 

At the end of the day, the only thing that is really fair to tax, that all groups use and have to use is land/location.

 

Otherwise we risk having discriminatory taxes.

 

Before widespread Muslim immigration an alcohol tax wasn't so bad. (I suppose a bit like the temperance movement back in the day). As generally, all paid it.

 

Alcohol tax discriminates against non Muslims/Mormons/Jehovahs. When these groups make up a sizeable chunk of the population, the tax on alcohol is no longer a fair tax.

 

---------- Post added 02-05-2013 at 23:19 ----------

 

Before the last election Cameron promised to make that illegal, but it was just more lies by the master of lies and nice words.

 

Nobody in their right mind would sell alcohol at a loss - they would just give it away.

 

The only reason it is ever sold at a loss, is to get rid of spoilt containers or to get punters to pay more elsewhere.

 

It is not sold at a loss. The price is it's cost + DUTY. That is the minimum price.

 

But thee should be no DUTY, to only cost, should be it's actual cost! Like homebrew, but one should be able to benefit from economies of scale.

 

Perhaps a communal brewery is in order.