Obvious bit of whataboutery that I must nonetheless mention: The 8.5%ABV cider I favour isn’t of the ‘White Lightning’ variety (owned by Heineken), but from companies such as Butcombe, Westons, and Thatchers (all based in the UK).

Is it not politically counter-productive to place locally produced scrumpy in the same tax bracket as imported wines?

I also would like to suggest that if Londoners drank Old Rosie instead of all that mud-water ale then they wouldn’t be so grumpy and stressed out.

Actually, I should put some clear figures to yesterday’s rises.

For beers and lagers, the 5% hike amounts to a 0.8p rise in duty per 1% ABV per litre, to which you also have to add VAT, which give a rise of near enough 1p per 1% ABV.

For ciders, duty on standard still cider is up by 4.1p per litre, so about 5p per litre when VAT goes on, which strong still cider going up by 6.2 per litre – about 7.5p with VAT

Gwyn:

Although not shown, to keep things simple, its worth pointing out that the figures given for beers and lagers are for the mass produced products.

Small brewers and micro-breweries are actually taxed at a lower rate depending on scale of output – IIRC, there are three different bands depending on the number of hectolitres of beer produced annually.

I would be more than happy to see the Treasury operate a similar scheme for locally produced traditional scrumpy, having had many a good night (and lousy morning after) on Old Rosie.

Trouble is that good cider around here is already more expensive than a good ale, I think that’s what’s so galling about the rise is that it’s not as if it was particularly cheap anyway (excluding supermarket white lightning, ofc).

4. Good point.

*Why lager? Because people who drink real ale are a) adults, and b) have a much higher IQ and don’t need me to draw them a diagram to tell them how much tax they’re coughing up every time they buy a pint.

Home Office to raise the terrorist threat level in Minehead to ‘who gives a fuck, Butlins doesn’t open for another fortnight’

brilliant!

As I mentioned on another thread, this doesn’t just effect cider drinkers, it effects those who have mates who drink cider and who buy drinks in rounds.

It’s a tax on sociability.

I thought the left were meant to stand up for the poor?

1) People drink alcohol because they enjoy the effect it has on them.

2) Alcoholic drinks vary widely in terms of the the price per unit.

3) If those on low and fixed incomes want to be able to drink alcohol they have to buy it as cheaply as possible.

4) Strong cider represents the drink with the lowest price per unit currently available.

5) The relatively huge increase in cider tax will fall hardest on the poorest drinkers- the people the left are supposed to represent.

Apologies if I’m wrong but I thought I detected a whiff of the Islington barbecue in this post (where, in my experience, Diamond White is never on the table). Anyway leftists should not be supporting policy that attacks the least well off.

Moreover, there is a campaign being conducted by the fake charities to get a minimum price for alcohol and it is clear to me that this tax increase is the first salami slice along that road. As liberals, we should be telling the government to stop listening to the unelected authoritarian busybodies who want ever more legislation to impose what they believe to be in our interests.

Ultimately, cider tax is about the state trying to micro manage lives

Pagar:

There are days when you take things a little too seriously and miss the punchline…

You see, that Alistair Darling is a clever bloke after all – the increase in duty on cider won’t price teenagers out of the market but it will raise a bit more of the tax needed to pay for all those smart orange jackets that the kids get given to wear while they’re cleaning up the mess they’ve made in the local park.

So its really all just a clever job creation scheme for teenagers.

There are days when you take things a little too seriously and miss the punchline…

OK agreed. I was aware your tongue was fairly adjacent to your cheek.

Nevertheless minimum pricing is on its way which, for all non-recovering alcoholics throughout the country, is very bad news indeed.

Except for

http://www.wine-making-guides.com/rice_saki_wine.html

Outstanding taste, knocks your head off and almost free.

9
‘I thought the left were meant to stand up for the poor?’ – well yes they are,but it was the government who imposed this tax and they are not left.

The tax on cider is the government sending a message to the voters that teenage binge drinking will be addressed, as Unity has already suggested, although I believe it will be problematic for small producers.

I am not, in principle, against taxations to cover the cost of externalities which classical liberals/libertarians never seem to factor into their simplistic market model.

I don’t suppose you live around a city/town centre where avoiding vomit on Saturday and Sunday morning has become an art-form.

I suggest a LibCon meet at the Coronation Tap pub where rich and poor can all get smashed on Exhibition together one last time.

@12, the point is, the people who’re drinking strong cider for 60p a litre are not the people who’re starting fights and throwing up in town centres on Friday and Saturday night. The binge-drinking-pub-fighting group are largely young, employed people with relatively high disposable incomes (because they live at home or in flatshares, no kids, no mortgage, etc) who’re happy to spend gbp150 on booze, a few lines of coke, cab fares, etc. The strong cider drinkers are a) tramps and b) young kids who wouldn’t be allowed anywhere near a club on a Friday or Saturday and couldn’t afford to go even if they were.

My question on Unity’s chart is why the bloody hell don’t we just tax alcohol volumes? We could continue to have some exceptions for small artisanal producers if we wanted to, but in general wouldn’t it make sense to have the same tax on consuming 20ml of pure alcohol whether you take it as a double shot of vodka, as a half-pint of Duvel, or as a pint of Fosters?

14
Perhaps my post wasn’t clear but my comment about sending a message to the voters did not infer that I believed that increasing taxation on cider actually targetted the right group. Personally I think it’s just a PR excercise which will hit the wrong people.

FYI:

I hate cider and beer gives me gut rot as I get older, so wine is the way forward.

All hail Darling!