Comments on: Tax ‘em into sobriety

By: Mathew

Mathew — Fri, 02 May 2008 21:22:56 +0000

I was going to get all high and mighty about this too, but then I read at the bottom of the linked article that all they are doing is changed the tax on pre mix drinks to be the same as everything else. Seems to me to be a fair enough move to level the playing field.

That being said, this will do nothing to change drinking habits, and is just another populist move from a populist government.

By: IanH

IanH — Thu, 01 May 2008 19:30:41 +0000

At worst it will cost another $10 for a teenager
to get completely paralytic and make a mess/fool
of themselves. Another useless populist knee-jerk reaction,
nothing more.

By: Kev

Kev — Mon, 28 Apr 2008 22:58:28 +0000

Anon, No evidence so watch where the money goes.

Mangoman, The NT Policy may or may not apply in these circumstances. I would imagine the NT was targeting our indigenous brothers with possibly less disposable income than these ‘binge drinking’ kids….that’s just a thought. I know it wouldn’t deter me from a night on the tiles should I be so inclined as lets face it, if you are binge drinking do you really know or care what it’s costing until your cash runs out?

By: Mangoman

Mangoman — Mon, 28 Apr 2008 22:34:27 +0000

Higher price alone wont cut down consumption but it will help. A policy that operated in the Northern Territory for many years, called Living With Alcohol, introduced a price differentiation based on alcohol content, among a range of other things. The effect was to reduce consumption of alcohol considerably. The policy was wiped out after 10 years effective operation by the High Court in a decision in relation to excises. The Feds could have picked it up but chose not to.

I agree, by the way, that there has been no evidence presented that we have any binge drinking ‘epidemic’ and that this current activity has a lot to do with populist bullshit. Unfortunately, this simply carries on the practice of the past.

By: Anon

Anon — Mon, 28 Apr 2008 13:25:13 +0000

I vaguely recall Rudd claiming that his Government would only
implement evidence-based policies.

So where is the evidence that collecting an extra $2bn pa will benefit
Australian society to the tune of, at least, $2bn?