On the first of May the Australian Federal government instituted a dramatic tax hike on alcopops. The stated reason for the increase, which will raise $500 million in revenue, was to curb teenage binge drinking.

The government's logic behind this move, well to be quite blunt about it, defies logic.

As predicted, it will be about as effective in curbing teenage binge drinking as a mouse would be in stopping an armed bank robbery.

Since the introduction of this ludicrous tax, retailers have reported the effect of the tax on sales. Firstly, the sales of RTD’s have dropped. The theft of RTDs by way of shoplifting has increased. The sale of port has increased, and most importantly, the sale of bottle spirits and mixer drinks has also increased. Now, those teenagers intent on binge drinking can get drunk even faster by mixing their own, stronger drinks. Well done Mr Treasurer!

Frankly, on the subject, the government hasn't got a bloody clue. This “solution” takes the definition of the word stupid to a new level.

It is interesting to note the largest purchasers of RTD's are people over 30, not teenagers intent on binge drinking. So the government is punishing the majority with a tax that is designed to do something that just won't work.

The cynic in me says this tax has been designed to deflect publicity away from other issues and is a good excuse for the government to look like it is doing something constructive. The operative words being "look like."
 

At last I’ve found some of your buckshot that I just can’t have at any price. Clearly reading the front page of the Murdoch yellow press and/or watching the new opposition kicking up a fuss on the telly is the sum total of your research on this subject. Has the drop in alcopop sales been matched by the combined increase in the sales of spirits and port to teenagers and the alleged thefts of alcopops by them? You don’t know, neither do I and we won’t be finding out in a hurry. No-one, including the government, has any idea at this stage as to whether the government’s overnight tax increase on alcopops has had any effect on tweeny drinking at all and it will be some time before they do.

One thing I wouldn’t mind however is a straw poll of Mum’s and Dad’s reading this who have noticed that their kids have suddenly started reeking of port. I’m happy to bet you a decent bottle of port that there will be no mysterious spike in port sales this year.

Your beef sounds remarkably like that I’ve heard coming from bottle shop proprietors in Melbourne every day for weeks, the only difference being that their principal grievance is that the tax went up overnight without warning and they were therefore unable to offload pallets of the stuff to the local kids at the old price.
At the risk of carrying on a bit your snippet is also completely out of character. Is this the site that has been host to excellent and comprehensive scientific debate about cork taint? Is this the site that has published any number of well researched pieces about wine scams?

We know that you think that the alcopop tax will be ineffective, that’s a fair bet. Just for once however we know that beyond this opinion you have only recycled, party political and partisan babble to support that view. Stick to what you know love…

My comments have nothing to do with the “Murdoch yellow press” or the opposition. I also don’t have a “beef” as such (but that does not me criticising stupid decisions by politicians.)

I have previously written much about the ineffectiveness of this type of campaign in many other articles on TORBWine prior to writing this article. Most have been about the nanny state approach taken in the UK, but the analogies are the same. If kids or adults want to go and get drunk, the measures that are being put in place in the UK (and are now flowing to Australia) will have about as effective as trying to dry a wet 70 kg Newfoundland dog with a handkerchief. Nice idea when that’s all you have at hand, but very ineffectual.

As far as “research” is concerned, I have repeated what the retailers have been saying about the sales of alcohol since the tax increase on alcopops. I have heard industry spokespeople state that the sale of spirits and port are more than making up for the decline in sales of alcopops.

You criticise me for my lack of research on this subject. Well if you can tell me where I can get any more accurate, definitive data I will be happy to use it.

It seems like the only argument you have with what I have stated is that at this point in time is the lack of concrete facts about sales to su:pport the points I made in the article. No matter what those sales results eventually show, the bottom line remains, this alchopop tax will not stop kids binge drinking; you even seem to agree with that in your last paragraph.

As far as your suggestion about a straw pole by parents to see if their kids suddenly start reeking of port is concerned, if the parents didn’t notice the effect, or smell of alchopops on the kids breath, they are unlikely to notice anything if the alchopops are replaced by rum and coke or Port.

As someone who works in a bottleshop, I've got to say that I'm delighted with the alcopop tax, for myriad reasons. Notably:
 

i) These drinks are mass produced, with the alcohol coming in as a byproduct. This is charmless large-scale production that in no way resembles the checker-playing antics depicted on Jack Daniels ads.

ii) palate development exists as a real phenomenon. Starting people on low end beer or wine is a good thing. No-one but the most olfactory impaired can drink fruity lexia or Carlton Cold forever.

iii) Alcopops are marketed at those underage or very close to it and everyone in the industry knows it. And they're all about making drinking easier for people who are learning how to drink. And that's what the 7% Vodka Cruiser is about - getting young'ns drunk. If it makes it a pain in the erse to mix the drink, or more difficult for them to rub together the $30 plus mixers instead of $13 for a 4 pack of the aforementioned cruisers, then great.

 
iv) Wine is taxed at 39% here. Why exactly should other forms of alcohol be taxed less when they employ less people, provide little to the economy and, ultimately zero net improvement to the world (yes, I'm a snob about this, but, frankly, I don't care).

v) I'm not sure if the more alcopops are bought by people over 30 is a great stat. Firstly, more people that are alive are over 30. The tax effects all those drinks, and things like Jim Beam and Cola are caught up in it. Loads of older tradies in particular drink that stuff. But they're NEVER the folks who come by our shop and buy a carton of UDLs. It is only - and truly only - young binge drinkers that do.

vi) Such binge drinkers are without doubt associated with unsociable behaviour.

vii) is there any chance of getting the tax regime expanded to, well, Sauvignon Blanc?

viii) Of course it won't stop binge drinking. Stopping binge drinking would require a chronic cultural overhaul of the country as a whole and no tax regime is going to stop the desire to get to that alteration of consciousness. But is binge drinking a bad thing? (keep in mind I do it myself) Yes, in terms of health issues, often accompanies antisocial behaviour. So why exactly should we not discourage it? Or more correctly can't we at least introduce a more consistent taxation regime in relation to alcohol products?

 

Copyright © Ric Einstein 2008