Labour pledges wine to cost at least $16 a bottle
September 13th, 2011 at 3:17 pm by David FarrarIn the debate on the Alcohol Reform Bill, Lianne Dalziel has just said that it is outrageous that you can buy a bottle of wine for less than $2/standard drinks.
So this is a sure sign that Labour, if Government, will legislate to ensure wine costs at least $16 a bottle.
Related posts:
- Wine sales in supermarkets
- Labour in retreat
- The policy that Labour is not saying much about
- Life under Labour’s Lianne
September 13th, 2011 at 3:28 pm
Please don’t start putting ideas like that in their heads!
Vote:September 13th, 2011 at 3:30 pm
If she had of said $1/standard drink I would have agreed with her, but only because it is crap!!
A $16 bottle is almost drinkable if you get it on special.
And as we are on wine….. I saw the cardboard box crap upto $29 last night. It was only a month or so ago that these sold for around the $18 mark.
Vote:September 13th, 2011 at 3:32 pm
Whats outrageous is that politicians think they have the right to dictate how much anything costs
And they are fucking hypocrites as well since they take an incredible amount of money in excise duties to spend on their what ever frippery takes their fancy.
Vote:September 13th, 2011 at 3:37 pm
I have been buying excellent Sauv Blanc , Chard, Pinot gris, ‘Clean Skins” at $6,95 ea.
Vote:Dalziel and her wankers are away with the faries. $16 + – get stuffed And Goffie wonders why he/they have problemS.
September 13th, 2011 at 3:42 pm
Maybe it then might generate enough income to pay for the ‘Shouty Sam’ ads that I’m getting thoroughly sick of funding.
Vote:September 13th, 2011 at 3:45 pm
If this is true, then Labour are intellectually bankrupt.
Vote:September 13th, 2011 at 3:46 pm
Blah blah blah they can say anything they like because it means nothing unless you’re actually the government. They aint and they wont be.
Vote:September 13th, 2011 at 3:47 pm
Wine does seem to be moving slightly up in price, but should fall again next year with another glut from the last harvest. No worries about paying $16 per bottle – still good value. We shouldn’t just fixate on the price though. The taxes are mainly to discourage consumption, like excise tax on tobacco and Police action against cannabis plantations. We could keep low price hooch and adopt other measure to reduce public harm from these substances, but tax always seems a good start for politicians, especially if it can be ratcheted up periodically without too many people noticing.
Vote:September 13th, 2011 at 3:58 pm
How many vein popping speeches do we hear from Goff and co about how $10 a week matters to households, how removing GST from fruit and vegetables will improve health but apparently being able to get a “drinkable” bottle of wine for $10 is a crime.
Too easy for too long. Some of us with real jobs actually don’t have limitless amounts to spend on fancy bottles of wine.
Vote:September 13th, 2011 at 4:03 pm
“No worries about paying $16 per bottle”
How is that fair to wine makers? And as far as trying to change the behaviour of alcoholics, the poor alkies will be raiding their kid’s piggy banks, and the nearly poor alkies will become poor alkies. Nice one labour.
Vote:September 13th, 2011 at 4:10 pm
We don’t need to worry about the wine makers. The end price to the consumer doesn’t mean much to them once the taxes and wholesalers/retailers take their cuts. If a wine maker can’t make a profit, they go out of business like anyone else. The ultimate price to consumers is more about tax decisions than anything else.
Vote:September 13th, 2011 at 4:10 pm
Let me guess, Labour will increase the price of cheap wine by taxing it?
Vote:September 13th, 2011 at 4:30 pm
The trouble is we pay politicians like Dalziel too much so that they are out of touch with the value of the average person’s money. Compounding the problem is that they end up getting quality wine served at no cost to them at VIP functions so their personal expenditure on the product is limited.
Vote:September 13th, 2011 at 4:35 pm
“We don’t need to worry about the wine makers”
So wine becoming less cost competitive compared to other alcoholic products is fair according to you? On what basis? And what of the effect on the poor, whose cause labour supposedly champion? The likes of you may be happy to pay 16 bucks a bottle, but how about Joe the cleaner? Meths perhaps?
Vote:September 13th, 2011 at 4:41 pm
One can buy perfectly drinkable wine – not great, but still pleasant to drink – in Australia for $4 a 750ml bottle at the moment. $3.50 if you buy from a big volume store.
Anything over $20 is moving into the zone of needing to know more about the grapes, the winemaker, the region, etc.
Australia is floating in a lake of wine at the moment. More grapes have been grown than can be made into wine, and more wine has been made than can be sold. Great for the consumer, not so great if you’re a grower or winemaker.
Vote:September 13th, 2011 at 4:45 pm
I hardly ever buy anything over $10 a bottle – usually on special at the supermarket. And who the fuck are these people who tell me what I should spend on wine.
Vote:September 13th, 2011 at 4:54 pm
Where’s Eric Crampton when you need him. Lots of evidence that splitting a bottle of wine between two people has positive health benefits. Drinking 2 bottles on your own is likely to be disadvantageous to your health. So, why do Labour want to punish those who drink moderately (and improve their health through so doing) in order to get at a small number of people who drink to excess?
Vote:September 13th, 2011 at 4:59 pm
Scott
Vote:Sorry, I presumed this would be a blanket price rise for all alcohol. Is it only wine?
September 13th, 2011 at 5:06 pm
“Is it only wine?”
Unclear. My first comment was, “If this is true, then Labour are intellectually bankrupt.”
based on Farrar’s:
“will legislate to ensure wine costs at least $16 a bottle”
edit : rereading Farrars post, I might have to back down, as his figure appears to be spuriously speculative. Apologies.
Vote:September 13th, 2011 at 5:10 pm
I wouldn’t be too worried by wine at $16 a bottle. That’d make beer a minimum of about $12 in most pubs, wouldn’t it. If you accept the public health logic, taxation is an effective way to reduce consumption.
Vote:September 13th, 2011 at 5:12 pm
The price of alcohol is ludicrously cheap. Only the drunks will find a steep rise in the price of alcohol a burden. Moderate drinkers will still have their one bottle but the drunks will have to cut back. Too bad. Drunks are a social pest and worse. Anyone who gets regularly drunk should film themselves and know why the rest of us have had a gutsful. I assume legislating for wine to be $16 per bottle will carry over for other alcohol related drinks such as spirits and alco-pops and beer.
Vote:September 13th, 2011 at 5:14 pm
“taxation is an effective way to reduce consumption”
Effective, but fair to those it affects the most, and are least likely to exercise effective autonomy i.e. the poor? I don’t think so.
Note: my edit backdown on previous post.
Vote:September 13th, 2011 at 5:21 pm
Typical, because a few morons cannot control their drinking/gambling/eating the left think that the entire population has to be treated like idiots.
Vote:September 13th, 2011 at 5:29 pm
Is this the same Lianne who was once tipped by Time mag. to be someone in NZ
Vote:Before she was caught fibbing to parliament And ruined her career.
She still hasn’t got the message.
Part of a great crew.
September 13th, 2011 at 5:31 pm
It’s way past time, a good stock haulage firm should back up to the beehives loading ramp and load these out of touch scabby arse fuckers and take them for a nice trip to the local works. Tax Tax TAX Take Take TAKE is this all these brain dead fuckers know?. Love to tax every stupid idea that comes from these dipsticks, we could all retire, the tax take would be huge.
Vote:September 13th, 2011 at 5:38 pm
tvb – “Drunks are a social pest and worse.”
Regardless, a drunk will get his fix one way or another. The poor drunk with a family will just make life for those around him more miserable.
In theory, heavy taxation of alcohol sends the social signal that all citizens are not trusted to exercise sensible choice on the basis of the irresponsible actions of a minority. Prescriptive measures such as tax disincentives are very blunt instruments, and infringe on the rights of those who are capable of making these decisions for themselves.
According to fairly simple principles of personal liberty, the right to drink or take any other drugs should only be restricted for those who cause harm to society. Parents are responsible for their children’s welfare, so no age restriction should be placed on alcohol consumption, provided the child’s welfare isn’t compromised.
Vote:September 13th, 2011 at 5:40 pm
This is it. The move that will blow this election wide open.
Maybe they can use the extra revenue to subsidise the price of out of season veges.
And here was me thinking that they would pull a huge shameless bribe out of the hat at the last minute.
Vote:September 13th, 2011 at 5:51 pm
Lianne Dalziel having a whine, what’s new?
Vote:September 13th, 2011 at 7:26 pm
axe the tax
Vote:September 13th, 2011 at 7:33 pm
I guess they just secured the wowser vote then.
cheers
David Prosser
Vote:September 13th, 2011 at 7:34 pm
“We don’t need to worry about the wine makers”
The way to make a small fortune in the wine making business is to start with a large fortune.
This is typical Labour party intervention. The unintended consequences of their actions will be to make piss poor quality wine makers viable and cut the profits of the good wine makers. Will overall consumption of alcohol decrease – probably not.
Like mentioned earlier up thread, Labour think they can trumpet that $10/week is important while they quietly claw back $15/week in additional targeted taxes.
Vote:September 13th, 2011 at 7:40 pm
burt
Vote:So do you think alcohol consumption would decrease if it were cheaper?
September 13th, 2011 at 7:41 pm
Do we need another good reason not to vote Labour?
Vote:September 13th, 2011 at 7:53 pm
Highly ironic given that the last Labour administration included two notorious drunks – Dyson and Hughes.
Labour should sort out their own MPs before trying to preach to the rest of us.
Vote:September 13th, 2011 at 8:18 pm
“So do you think alcohol consumption would decrease if it were cheaper?”
It wouldn’t change much. Most people drink what they want. Might even make it seem less glamourous if any old wino could buy it.
Vote:September 13th, 2011 at 8:20 pm
Well, that makes a couple of Kiwibloggers who refuse to believe in the elasticity of demand.
Vote:September 13th, 2011 at 8:25 pm
I used to rub shoulders with a few of Labours potential high flyers and noticed that alcohol was an important ingredient in their social life. I can hear them grinding their teeth over this.
Vote:September 13th, 2011 at 8:28 pm
How much then will the other produce of the Devil cost?
Vote:How much will be the price of a Big Mac or a packet of cigarettes?
September 13th, 2011 at 8:43 pm
Another politician that sees the electorate as retarded untermenschen to be controlled and dictated to, all for our own good.
Can you even begin to imagine the ego of these bastards, that they come to believe they are so superior to the rest of us that it is a moral imperative for them to strip us of our freedoms for our own good.
Vote:September 13th, 2011 at 8:46 pm
“Well, that makes a couple of Kiwibloggers who refuse to believe in the elasticity of demand.”
I suspect that alcohol obeys its own rules of demand. Were advertising of it banned and packaging made neutral, sensible consumption encouraged and abuse not tolerated, rather than the blunt prescriptive prohibitive measures some would advocate, then perhaps we could progress as a more enlightened society.
“OH! BUT THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!”
Vote:September 13th, 2011 at 10:01 pm
I don’t think Labour pollies worry too much about the price of a bottle of wine when all they have to do is get their parliamentary staffers to steal them as happened at the Press Gallery’s Xmas bash early on this term.
BTW. 2 bottles of Oyster Bay SB available at the Stubbington (Hampshire) wine shop as I write this for the princely sum of £10 ($20). Someone has to be making a loss at this price and it won’t be the retailer.
Vote:September 13th, 2011 at 10:24 pm
mikenmild: not all demand is elastic.
The reality is that increasing the price of alcohol tends to reduce consumption amongst moderate drinkers, and have much lower impact on serious drinkers (alcoholics – addicts). If we accept that it’s OK for people to have a glass of wine or two – so we’re not advocating prohibition here – then it would be reasonable to weigh the increased costs for moderate drinkers against the benefits for alcoholics.
For the moderate drinkers, there are a lot of them, and their demand is elastic. So they either pay more money, or they drink less wine than they might otherwise have wanted to. They have less satisfaction/utility than they would otherwise, and there are a lot of people impacted.
For alcoholics, their demand is relatively inelastic. They don’t get much health benefit (they keep drinking anyway), and they pay a lot more money. It’s arguable that they’re better off at all, to the extent they are better off it’s unlikely to outweigh the loss to all the moderate drinkers.
In short, classic lefty position. Focus on a small group who might have benefits (even though there’s weak evidence for that benefit). Ignore totally the large group who are worse off, and ignore entirely the unexpected side effects. More government regulation is always a good thing for the left.
Vote:September 13th, 2011 at 10:41 pm
mikenmild
The simple answer is no. But it’s not that simple is it. Increasing the price of bottled wine will decrease the consumption of bottled wine, but not necessarily the overall alcohol consumption. This is the point, Labour hit out at ‘cheap’ bottled wine and want to be our nanny and protect us from it – by making it artificially less affordable but more profitable for nanny and bulk cheap-wine makers.
Meanwhile home brewing booms – and the people have bulk alcohol again.
So with this social engineering nanny tax, what was nanny protecting us from again ?
Vote:September 14th, 2011 at 7:03 am
mikenmild – “So do you think alcohol consumption would decrease if it were cheaper?”
Alcohol consumption would decrease if consuming it were punishable by 40 lashes. Doesn’t mean coercive measures are necessarily good ideas. Broad prescriptive restrictions impinge on the rights of those people to whom these measures are irrelevant.
How do you justify this unfairness?
Vote:September 14th, 2011 at 9:42 am
@burt: “Labour hit out at ‘cheap’ bottled wine”
To be fair Dalziel was commenting on the price per standard drink, and was using cheap wine as an example, so one might infer that cheap bottled wine is not the target, rather the target is price per standard drink. Whether or not this would change your argument I’m not sure.
Personally I don’t think it would necessarily change things all that much: Alcohol is relatively easy to obtain much more cheaply than one can purchase it off the shelf of a supermarket anyway, so those that really want their fix will find a cheaper way to get it, and addicts won’t have a choice either way.
Vote:September 14th, 2011 at 9:50 am
So who are labour targeting for their constituency then?
Beneficiaries and haters who DON’T drink?????
hah, they will only get about 120 votes next election with that policy.
Vote:September 14th, 2011 at 10:14 am
Price is only one element of a regime to control a poisonous susbtance like alcohol or tobacco. There seems no reason to suppose that the same measures adopted successfully to control tobacco would not have the same result when applied to alcohol.
Vote:A combination of health services, price regulation, restrictions on advertising and controlled sales could be expected to reduce the overall cost to us of alcohol use.
I’d personally be happy with a tobacco-like control regime applied to alcohol and any other pyschoactive substances, including presently illegal drugs.
There is a difficulty in unfairly penalising responsible users of such substances. The questions, as in many areas, is the balance. Should the Police be allowed to randomly stop 1,000 people to catch 2 or 3 drivers who are over the limit?
September 14th, 2011 at 10:21 am
“Price is only one element of a regime to control a poisonous susbtance”
Are you going to try and address the ethical concerns I raised for using price as a mechanism of social control, or are you only interested in prognosticating, only to scurry back to hide when your ideas are challenged?
Come on Mike, show some spine.
Vote:September 14th, 2011 at 10:48 am
To first allocate true costs to alcohol you have to remove the influence of the alchol lobby.This includes those that drink responsibly The cost of alcohol to society is grossly misrepresented in most mainstream debate.
When the truth of the damage it causes is compared to the other social intoxicants then we might move towards a more healthy drug policy.
If the price is raised to far past the cost of home brew there will be negative results on health
Vote:Sly groging, home stills etc would cause more problems than the rise in price will solve
September 14th, 2011 at 1:19 pm
mikenmild: tobacco has no safe dose, and no known health benefits (so far as I recall). Alcohol is believed to have positive health benefits up to 2 drinks per day, and up to 4 drinks per day are still healthier than zero. Arguably we should be talking about how to force everyone to have 2 drinks per day, so as to improve their health. It’s about as rational as suggesting we should prevent people from drinking so as to improve their health.
My impression is that you’re, pure and simple, a wowser. Either that or your blind labour cheer leading means that you’re failing to see how stupid your proposition is.
Vote:September 14th, 2011 at 1:45 pm
Scott
Vote:Promote a removal of taxes on alcohol and tobacco for all I care. I’m just pointing out that they play a role in reducing demand.
PaulL
Taxation on substances can have a dual purpose: dampening demand and collecting revenue to offset the social costs. I’m no wowser – I’m prepared to pay more if that’s part of a sensible package to reduce the harm from alcohol. This is not too much different from ACC levies on motorists – a vast majorioty of safe motorists subsidising the less risk-averse.
September 14th, 2011 at 5:43 pm
mikenmild
That’s the key issue really – the leftist retarded world view that one size fits all. ACC is an excellent example of the majority funding the cost of the minority. Just once the self serving lefties should design a system for better outcomes rather than for ease of administration.
Vote:September 14th, 2011 at 6:11 pm
mm – “This is not too much different from ACC levies on motorists”
You raise an interesting point. As you acknowledge, the majority are subsidizing the risk takers. Shouldn’t risk takers pay for the risks they choose to take? In other words, shouldn’t citizens be free to choose their risk cover, commensurate with the way they manage their risk?
Vote:September 14th, 2011 at 6:58 pm
It stands to reason that The users of alcohol should pay for the social cost
Start adding up 30% of A&E add 30+% of crime, a bit for random violence, wife beating and rape not reported.
plus some more for all the deaths. Then there is the destruction of family’s So it goes on.
Shit piss would be far to expensive.
HaHaHa
Vote:September 14th, 2011 at 7:03 pm
Griff
Would be more sensible to ditch the socialist notion of “No fault” in our one-size-fits-all accident insurance scheme. I know it’s massively popular to have other people cover the risks but alcohol is a good example. Violent Drunk people could easily be charged for the costs associated with their behaviour…. I know that idea won’t win votes for a nanny state – but is no fault sustainable ? If it were surely we wouldn’t be the only country in the world that has it.
Vote:September 14th, 2011 at 7:09 pm
burt
Vote:The problem with that would be collecting the fair share from those drunks who are never located. Burden on the health system, possibly other undetected anti-social behaviour, etc. How do you provide the resources which the state consumes to combat drunk driving, for example, but could never be attributed to individuals.
September 14th, 2011 at 7:10 pm
ACC is treated like welfare by some and I mean that in a bad way
To many abuse it
Why should I pay for others lifestyle or stupidity
I do not play sport and have never had a major accident, that was my fault. yet I pay as much as someone who has done both
repeatedly
not fair
Vote:September 14th, 2011 at 7:14 pm
Griff
Vote:That’s the insurance principle though, isn’t it. Your house and contents premiums help to pay for others’ burglary losses.
September 14th, 2011 at 7:15 pm
Griff
If you were a heavy drinker, your private insurance premium would reflect that risk, and also be a fair disincentive to moderate your drinking. You could drink as much as you liked, but you would have to pay for your own risk.
The problem, of course, is how to assess a person’s risk factor without infringing on their privacy, so until we come up with a good idea of how to monitor a persons risk, tax seems to be the easiest way.
Oh shit. I’ve just argued myself into a corner. Doing Mike’s job for him.
Vote:September 14th, 2011 at 7:26 pm
How ’bout all these “politicians” get strung up from the nearest lamppost.
Problem solved.
Vote:September 14th, 2011 at 7:28 pm
I think there’s a hysteria in the media and politicians assisted by the “science” in the form of the medical profession and the attitude of security folk who understandably see its worst effects over alcohol. I think it’s hysteria cause I don’t see that same attitude reflected in the general population.
When I was young and foolish and who isn’t both those when young, it was basically beer all the time, wine never and spirits at the odd big rage but not often.
It’s the change in the tonics not the change in availability which is the issue here. As usual the idiot politicians completely miss the correct root cause, the media try to reinforce the error with “science” and the security folk just stand by with their arms folded, looking very stern indeed.
If you had any common sense that’s what you’d target for you can’t legislate away people’s attitudes which drives – newsflash apparently to some – their behaviour. So the only way to change them – duh – is to change their attitudes by giving spirits a really bad name in the media AND make it really really difficult for them to get hold of, with respect not to all, but to the bad tonics.
But they don’t do that, do they.
Vote:September 14th, 2011 at 7:30 pm
In private insurance you get a discount/lower excess if you don’t claim and get higher premiums /larger excess if you do.
This does not happen in no fault ACC
With alcohol the indirect cost is high this is not paid by direct tax.
If alcohol Was taxed enough to pay the costs it creates. It would become to expensive creating black markets and other distortions
Sane policy would accept this and strive to minimize the harm and use
This logic apply to all intoxicants
Vote:September 14th, 2011 at 8:24 pm
Griff
Vote:But private insurance does not always provide an accurate pricing of risk. For some purposes, socialisation of costs may be more efficient in providing overall general welfare. So we get the differences between the public health system, ACC cover and private insurances against burglaries. Arguably there is not much difference in those risks or the ability to insure against them.
September 14th, 2011 at 8:33 pm
“But private insurance does not always provide an accurate pricing of risk”
I’m not sure how you have come to this conclusion. Surely it would be in the interests of a private insurer to accurately assess the risk it covers, or they would go out of business.
One idea, would be for people to be given the choice of public or private cover, and any public services they use would be paid for at a market rate by their insurance company. Basic cover would be redeemable through tax rebates.
Vote:September 14th, 2011 at 8:44 pm
Although I do concede, in relation to alcohol, that a tax designed *solely* to pay for societal harm caused by alcohol is reasonably fair, except to moderate drinkers who cause no harm. (But then, their expenditure is comparatively small.)
I do not agree, however, that using tax as a disincentive to drink is in any way fair, or justified. Its effectiveness is irrelevant, and contravenes basic human rights.
Vote:September 14th, 2011 at 9:23 pm
privet insurance works on the pricing of risk your car or house premiums depend on were you live your claim history and the risks you take You can reduce risk get rewarded for not claiming and move to an area that is safer
public insurance socializes the risks and your personal responsibility there is no incentive for an individual to minimize risk or take responcability
Vote:September 14th, 2011 at 9:36 pm
I guess they just secured the wowser vote then.
cheers
David Prosser
Stiff competition from the Greens there.
Vote:September 14th, 2011 at 10:20 pm
mikenmild: not sure if you’re deliberately ignoring one of my points, or missing it in the other points.
Simple question. If we think we should ask people to pay more towards their health costs if they drink to excess, should we also ask people who don’t drink enough to pay more for their health costs? Given that there is strong evidence of positive health benefits of drinking in moderation?
Vote: