Great News... Beer Prices Will Go Down !!!

[sammy]

Good news for some, perhaps, but bad news in the sense that perhaps we're likely to see more and more drunkards, young and old, staggering about...?

... in the news as an argument to further taxes on alcohol.

I don't get what the "problem" finns have with alcohol. It's not like the overwhelming majority of the population spends their last penny on drinks or are unable to control their alcohol intake. Nevertheless I keep on seeing this propaganda that portrays Finns as idiots that cannot hold themselves from getting wasted. I grew up with beer and wine prices just above milk prices ( less than 10 years ago I could by a beer bottle for 21-24 cents and I remember helping my grandfather selling wine for 20 cents /liter) and I don't regard my own people any more smarter and self conscious than Finns.

I don't think putting more tax on booze would as such solve anything - however, as the recent stats show, the tax cut performed a few years ago is nevertheless showing in e.g. young / teenagers' drinking habits - btw strangely enough, and I did not know this, the amount of non-drinkers has grown but similarly the amount of those who drink a lot and often has also increased (that is, drinking habits have polarised, the 'moderate' drinkers are a diminishing group!?!) - see for example this article

http://neuvoa-antavat.stakes.fi/FI/kehi ... oret_1.htm

It's the group of serious drinkers that I'm worried about - not only for their own sake but also for what the consequences will cost the taxpayers in the long run.

And yes, of course there are drunkards in every country - however I'd still maintain that the tradition of "getting wasted for the sake of it" is relatively strong in Finland - and I remember seeing some article or another just recently stating that this kind of drinking habits are typical of many 'northern' countries, not only the Nordic ones. In these cultures, drinking hard just to get blotto is of course not genetic, but it can be a reflection of 'cultural' drinking habits ie. "what is acceptable", "what is cool", "what is (supposed to be) fun".

Thus, I'm just worried that low alcohol prices might increase the problems, if the roots of the problem are not sorted out - I'm NOT saying that taxation would be a solution to the problem. At least not a comprehensive one.

Anyway, naturally I would not exactly mind cheaper beer or wine, not me! Yet I do not think it is currently too expensive, so on a personal level the price is not an issue...

As for enjoying the Nordic model... hmm. It has got its downsides, but generally I'm rather happy with it even if/when I'm not getting direct personal profit from it (at least not now!) and need to cough up some of "my money" to the "wind" so to speak. To put it short, things could be worse. Don't know if that's a particularly clever attitude though. Probably not.

[ajdias]

Thanks Sammy, i'll have to read through that page later on.

Thus, I'm just worried that low alcohol prices might increase the problems, if the roots of the problem are not sorted out - I'm NOT saying that taxation would be a solution to the problem. At least not a comprehensive one.

Exactly.

Anyway, naturally I would not exactly mind cheaper beer or wine, not me! Very Happy Yet I do not think it is currently too expensive, so on a personal level the price is not an issue...

Someone correct me if I this is incorrect but wine has been more penalized tax wise in the last years than other drinks. It's not that wine taxes grew higher than other drinks, but when their reduction was lower than the others.
You would think that anyone trying to promote good drinking habits would want to favour those drinks that are less likely to cause healthy and social problems (how many finns booze on Cabernet Sauvignon? ) but naturally those on the goverment are the best, most experienced and most qualified people so they must know better...

however they are generally the best, most experienced and most qualified option that we have..

did you mean:

while they are generally the best, most experienced and most qualified option that we have they are still seek to maximize electoral votes, avoid risky measures that defy established conventions and might uppset their voters and are quite confortable seeking more revenue for the state?

The cristian democrat lady and her suggestion to close "vinahanat" during the Tehy action comes to mind.

[sammy]

Yes, indeed when the taxes were lowered, the prices of strong liquor went down the most IIRC. The price of wine hardly dropped at all, when compared to e.g. kossu. Anyone could have told the decision-makers that this was not necessarily a Good Thing. But no!

...naturally those on the goverment are the best, most experienced and most qualified people so they must know better...

however they are generally the best, most experienced and most qualified option that we have..

did you mean:

while they are generally the best, most experienced and most qualified option that we have they are still seek to maximize electoral votes, avoid risky measures that defy established conventions and might uppset their voters and are quite confortable seeking more revenue for the state?

The cristian democrat lady and her suggestion to close "vinahanat" during the Tehy action comes to mind.

Just for the record, that last quote (in bold) was not from me.

[ajdias]

Just for the record, that last quote (in bold) was not from me.

ups. i did not mean to embarass you (kidding karhu). I've now edited my comment.

[Finlander]

The added benefit is of course that every euro of tax collected in alcohol tax is one less euro that the government needs to collect in income tax from your salary, meaning we can all continue to enjoy this Nordic social model......

Maybe the Nordic social model is precisely the problem?

I for one don't "enjoy" the Nordic model, and can't wait for its demise. This idea of making government responsible for every aspect of our lives is a very flawed concept, that only leads to officials manipulating the public for a cash grab when needed. They'll shamelessly say, "We're raising alcohol taxes to protect you." Yeah, right.

Alcohol pricing is a perfect example. Go to any other European country (aside from Sweden, equally brainwashed with Finland), and you'll see dirt-cheap pricing of wine and beer. Yet none of them have issues, like Finland purportedly does. At best, Nordic-style high-pricing causes binge drinking and diverts users to harder liquor for best value.

Oh, and another very negative aspect of the famed Nordic model is that nobody wants to pay for it. Your post is a perfect example

[Hank W.]

Go to any other European country (aside from Sweden, equally brainwashed with Finland), and you'll see dirt-cheap pricing of wine and beer. Yet none of them have issues, like Finland purportedly does.

is Estonia in Europe?

[Pete]

I recently read that beer prices worldwide are actually going to increase due to a shortage in hops caused by extremely poor harvests in numerous countries. I'm not sure what kind of timeframe is involved but according to one Australian paper, it won't take too long!
http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/tro ... 44940.html

[theHook]

Perhaps a little late to add this - my usual trick - but ...

The reason for the tax cuts referred to was basically economic - the pols were worried about people rushing over to Estonia and buying their cheap booze there leading to a loss of tax revenue. What cheap booze would they buy - probably the most concentrated they could to make it easier to carry. So the biggest cuts were on the strong stuff. For some time the big supermarket chains have wanted to sell wine, but they are prevented by the same pols that made those tax cuts. Alco gets to keep the wine sale profits.
(Admittedly Alco has a lot of buying power with the wine producers as a result, and they do sell some good wines.)
You fancy a bottle of wine with dinner - go to Alco. Oh, since you're there why not get a bottle of kossu to clear the palate after? Or before? Better make that two!

And don't forget the children! Apparently we have to now raise prices to protect the children. Forgive me for thinking that it is illegal to sell the stuff to them already. Obviously I don't get it. Laws don't work, high prices do. Well Ok, maybe they would be more effective than unenforced laws - easier to do anyway. But consider this. The person who wants their fix, be it booze or whatever, will find the money for it somewhere. And they will steal if necessary. Trying to fix the problem by raising taxes affects people who are not part of the problem in more ways than one.

And in the extreme - ban the stuff completely. If cutting down a little is good, cutting down more must be better. Banning it must be best. No wait - that didn't work, did it!

[sammy]

Perhaps a little late to add this - my usual trick - but ...

The reason for the tax cuts referred to was basically economic - the pols were worried about people rushing over to Estonia and buying their cheap booze there leading to a loss of tax revenue. What cheap booze would they buy - probably the most concentrated they could to make it easier to carry. So the biggest cuts were on the strong stuff. For some time the big supermarket chains have wanted to sell wine, but they are prevented by the same pols that made those tax cuts. Alco gets to keep the wine sale profits.
(Admittedly Alco has a lot of buying power with the wine producers as a result, and they do sell some good wines.)
You fancy a bottle of wine with dinner - go to Alco. Oh, since you're there why not get a bottle of kossu to clear the palate after? Or before? Better make that two!

And don't forget the children! Apparently we have to now raise prices to protect the children. Forgive me for thinking that it is illegal to sell the stuff to them already. Obviously I don't get it. Laws don't work, high prices do. Well Ok, maybe they would be more effective than unenforced laws - easier to do anyway. But consider this. The person who wants their fix, be it booze or whatever, will find the money for it somewhere. And they will steal if necessary. Trying to fix the problem by raising taxes affects people who are not part of the problem in more ways than one.

And in the extreme - ban the stuff completely. If cutting down a little is good, cutting down more must be better. Banning it must be best. No wait - that didn't work, did it!

The thing is, you're not exactly wrong there - but you're forgetting the issue of who's going to have to take care of all the negative after-effects of alcohol abuse (remember these are not limited to the drinkers themselves, but also include victims of alcohol-induced violence and crime -who sometimes include, yes you guessed it, children... plus the health-related issues etc). Who is it going to be? Who is going to pay for that? Am I right in presuming that everyone wants someboby els... excuse me, the government to do something about it?

Of course, the monopoly and "ridiculously high prices" do bring money to the government, but IMO it is utterly selfish of us civilised and moderate users to think that this would be the only reason for the current policy. It often seems that in these discussions, no-one gives a frying duck about any other financial costs than the price of their own precious bottle.