Skip to content Skip to main navigation

Community

Charity and fundraising auctions for the Canberra community

The effects of the Alcopops tax (Family Planning in Gungahlin)

By Jonathon Reynolds - 24 August 2008 31

The effects of the Alcopops tax (Family Planning in Gungahlin)Individuals may prefer to consume “Alcopops” because it offers them convenience, the ability to accurately control their alcohol intake, and provides a level of safety from the dangers of drink spiking.

Yet the Federal government chooses to penalize these drinkers and possibly drive them to consume bottle based spirits and mixers where they do not potentially have the same control and safety.

Obviously wanting to appear a good corporate citizen and recognising the potential sales opportunity here in “The Projects” (A rather apt name a bemused colleague uses to describe the planning and social experimentation the local government undertakes in Gungahlin), it appears that the local Woolies is taking the knock on (or should that be the “knock up”) effects of the Alcopops tax seriously.

Woolies now sensibly encourages an impulse purchase of a packet of prophylactics to go with your bulk bottle of spirits and soft drink mixer.

What’s Your opinion?


Post a comment
Please login to post your comments, or connect with
31 Responses to
The effects of the Alcopops tax (Family Planning in Gungahlin)
p1 10:44 am 25 Aug 08

Want to see underage drinking go down? Totally change the culture of drinking in the country, and increase the education of children within the family structure.

mmm, sounds simple, doesn’t it.

oh, and at AussieGal83

That comment may not have been very funny, but it was intended as a joke. I assume that your belief in Jebus is so secure that you need to defend any slander against his minions on earth venemantly?

peterh 10:27 am 25 Aug 08

jakez said :

peterh said :

Thumper said :

want to stop underage drinking? up the legal age to 21. then the mates who are 18 can’t buy for their younger mates. and by the time they are 21, they can face tougher penalties for providing to minors.

I don’t think that has really worked in the USA.

yeah, but at 21, most kids don’t give a rats about their younger mates.

jakez 10:14 am 25 Aug 08

peterh said :

Thumper said :

want to stop underage drinking? up the legal age to 21. then the mates who are 18 can’t buy for their younger mates. and by the time they are 21, they can face tougher penalties for providing to minors.

I don’t think that has really worked in the USA.

peterh 9:55 am 25 Aug 08

Thumper said :

I was under the impression that alchohol sales had not gone down and that harder drinks had increased proportionally to the decrease in alcopops.

However, if anyone has an independent source to prove otherwise i’ll be happy to agree.

I was looking at the info for retail sales the other day, as my super is interlinked with the retail trade.

Spirit sales have increased, alco-pops are down, no mention about complementary sales of frangers.

the problem is that the retail stats are based on select areas of the nation. Aboriginal communities are excluded from the figures, as are less influential suburbs.

want to stop underage drinking? up the legal age to 21. then the mates who are 18 can’t buy for their younger mates. and by the time they are 21, they can face tougher penalties for providing to minors.

Thumper 9:44 am 25 Aug 08

I was under the impression that alchohol sales had not gone down and that harder drinks had increased proportionally to the decrease in alcopops.

However, if anyone has an independent source to prove otherwise i’ll be happy to agree.

Holden Caulfield 9:11 am 25 Aug 08

Haha, frangers next to booze. That’s gold!

tom-tom 8:50 am 25 Aug 08

jr: with respect to what you said to josh;

has the total amount of spirits sold gone up or down since the tax was introduced? Let me answer that one; it has gone down; its almost as if the tax was working. Hmmmm. Oh and what did the expert on teen drinking invited to address the fed. Lib caucas ( the session they invited the media to) have to say about the tax? I’ll give you a hint; he was a fan.

Its simple economics that when a price rises some demand shifts to substitutes and some demand disapears, just because some demand shifts to substitutes doesn’t mean the tax hasn’t reduced total demand. The fact you’ve failed to grasp this while uncritically swallowing the alcohol industry opinion says a lot. Considered a job with news limited?

Oh and no matter how pompously you reply when people refute your arguments; you’re still wrong.

Jonathon Reynolds 12:29 am 25 Aug 08

@josh

josh said :

…want to avoid the “penalty”? then stop drinking. or, to quote a horde, “put up or shut up”.

(a) The excise should be equitably applied on a volumetric basis (i.e. based on the amount of alcohol involved). The way legislation is currently structured it it little more than a revenue raising exercise and simply encourages individuals to save a considerable amount by purchasing bulk spirits and mixers. In my mind the conscientious drinker is being penalized for adopting a responsible (measured) approach to alcohol consumption.

(b) For you information I am personally unaffected by the “alcopops tax” as for the most I don’t drink, and on the rare occasions when I do drink it is never an “alcopop”.

(c) So how many times have you been prepared to put your hand up and stand for public elected office? I’ve done it twice so far.

ant 11:39 pm 24 Aug 08

That’s a bit much. You might disapprove of beer, but P1 has a right to drink it without going to hell.

AussieGal83 10:58 pm 24 Aug 08

p1, go to hell. And rot there.

p1 10:54 pm 24 Aug 08

Actually, I am drinking beer. But I am waiting for the Alcopop tax to fail to make it all the way through parliament, so that the government can refund me all the taxes that I have paid over the last few months……

teepee 8:28 pm 24 Aug 08

p1 can clearly been mixing his own. I hope he/she has condoms.

tp

josh 6:44 pm 24 Aug 08

> Yet the Federal government chooses to penalize these drinkers

oh for f***’s sake. if you’re going to make a ridiculous statement, at least spell it right. in any case, it’s not penalising anyone.. you’ll note people still have the choice, and can avoid this “penalty” by simply not purchasing the product.

want to avoid the “penalty”? then stop drinking. or, to quote a horde, “put up or shut up”.

p1 6:30 pm 24 Aug 08

…unprotected sex… = Catholics

…greatest threat to mankind… = Evil

QED

The Pope = Satan

Sammy 5:48 pm 24 Aug 08

A leading World Health Organization academic on birth control, reproductive health and population issues, John Gillebaud, recently told a conference that ‘unwanted teenage pregnancies following bouts of binge drinking are contributing to the world’s unsustainable population growth’ and that ‘unprotected sex leading to unwanted pregnancies is the greatest threat to mankind’.

1 2 3

Related Articles

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top
Copyright © 2017 Riot ACT Holdings Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.
www.the-riotact.com | www.b2bmagazine.com.au | www.thisiscanberra.com

Search across the site