Alcopop tax killed in the senate.

[TZENU]

I wonder if some of the stores will keep the prices up there for several months... ??

[Jason[98.EL]]

we are putting the new pricing on our rtd's tomorow

Grimus

[jcxr]

I want my money back. I've paid the higher prices so I should get it refunded.

[cob115]

Originally Posted by jcxr

I want my money back. I've paid the higher prices so I should get it refunded.

u wont get it unless u kept your recipts

[FGII-XR6]

the money already collected needs to go to treatment programs for alcohol addiction . I work in this area and funding has been gradually reduced over the last few years, we are dramatically underfunded.

[Fev]

^ good luck - the government isn't really interested in public health at the moment..

but ill be happy - i can finally buy just a 6 pack of bundy's instead of a whole bottle when i dont want to.. - which i think is safer for my liver lol

[SB076]

The 300 million should go towards creating the worlds largest tab

[flappist]

Two questions:

1) How does this collection of idiots in Canberra validate the collection of taxes from a law that had not been passed at the time (including the LCT increase)?

2) If these alchopops are so bad then why not ban them outright?
Because some people want them?

Well some people want heroin, others want guns and I am sure there are some who want child mollesting to be legal (which would be a good reason to have guns ).
Ah, maybe it is that you can't tax guns, drugs or rock spiders.

Comrade Chairman Kev Tse-Tung seems to be heading down the dark path at a huge rate of knots.......

[DJR-351]

Just heard the alcopop companies are chasing the $300m as compensation for depressed/lost sales while this tax was enforced...

hmmm, they may have a case eh...

[xtremerus]

[QUOTE=flappist]

1) How does this collection of idiots in Canberra validate the collection of taxes from a law that had not been passed at the time (including the LCT increase)?

I agree, that is why the Govt. can't keep it. It was an ILLEGAL tax. It must be refunded to who paid it.

[vztrt]

Originally Posted by flappist

I will bet anyone a 6 pack of square bear and cola that the price of a 6 pack of square bear and cola is still "tax included" tomorrow.

This is what I was thinking. People are conditioned to these prices so why would they change it?

Was better off buying a bottle and a mixer in the first place before or after the tax.

Does anyone know the prices of the RTD stuff pre and post the alco pops tax?

[boss-290]

MMMMM cheap burban. I'm going to turn into a basket case

[XR6_190]

This may sound like a really dumb question, but does this mean that when I go to the local Bottle shop in a couple of days to get my Bacardi Breezers, or my Vodka Cruisers, or my UDLs, that they will be back to the same prices they were before the pointless tax came in?

Again, i am aware of how silly my question is.

[Bucknaked]

The ones cheering the hardest are the Bottleshops. They passed the increase onto the customer, how many customers would keep their receipts. So they will get to pocket the refunds.

I can't wait to see this government vacate office. The next bill I want to see defeated is the Filter. They should be more concerned with running the country, rather than things like stopping underage binge drinking and restricting what we do with the internet. Parents ultimately are responsible. Let them parent, and don't stick your nose where it's not needed. Concentrate on important issues.

[DJR-351]

Thursday, March 19, 2009 » 03:43pm

Almost $300 million could be returned to distillers, after the government's tax hike on pre-mixed drinks was defeated.

Alcopops are likely to be cheaper within weeks, while almost $300 million will almost certainly be returned to distillers after the government's tax hike on pre-mixed drinks was defeated.

The cost of alcopops, popular with young drinkers, will now fall by between 30 cents and $1.30 a bottle.

A case of Vodka Cruisers will fall in price by around $25.

Family First senator Steve Fielding refused to back the 70 per cent tax hike on ready-to-drink alcoholic beverages after the government refused to agree to his demand for a ban on alcohol advertising during daytime sporting broadcasts, even though the government had agreed to two of his other demands.

The defeat of the legislation blows a one-point-six billion dollar hole in the government's budget.

Bigpond News....

[Tote]

I remember when Australia was proud of its culture, drinkers and all. Even the Prime Minister was a champion beer drinker. If the Government was even slightly interested in quelling binge drinking they would change the trading hours back to midnight closing and then we wouldnt be seeing ****ed footballers at six in the morning running into things on their way home.
Regards,
Tote

[SpoolMan]

Some facts, for those of you that are patting Mr.Fielding on the back, he was going to give the green light to this tax if the Labor Government agreed to ban all alcohol advertising in sport.
Gee I wonder who would have been slapping him on the back if the Goverment bowed to Mr Fielding's demands and banned all advertising in motorsport and all those other sports in Australia that have alcohol sponsorship.

Alcohol is a social problem and these politicians should work together for a better solution rather than politicizing this problem for points.

The $300 million has to go back to the the Distilled Spirits Industry Council of Australia they have said the money will be passed on in full to fight the problems with alcohol.

[Romulus]

Originally Posted by SpoolMan

Some facts, for those of you that are patting Mr.Fielding on the back, he was going to give the green light to this tax if the Labor Government agreed to ban all alcohol advertising in sport.
Gee I wonder who would have been slapping him on the back if the Goverment bowed to Mr Fielding's demands and banned all advertising in motorsport and all those other sports in Australia that have alcohol sponsorship.

Alcohol is a social problem and these politicians should work together for a better solution rather than politicizing this problem for points.

The $300 million has to go back to the the Distilled Spirits Industry Council of Australia they have said the money will be passed on in full to fight the problems with alcohol.

I love it, it's like having a Quit Campaign funded by Winfield :

Fielding has a point though, if the government was serious about alcohol consumption is should have banned alcohol advertising in sport, especially Motorsport. The two are not compatible imo. But neither is alcohol and football and rugby compatible judging from recent events.

Alcohol ads are banned in other countries, UAE is one place that comes to mind where V8SC race.

Alas, I will enjoy a few drinks in a responsible manner at a cheaper rate thanks to Mr Fielding. I agree we should have a $300 million tab courtesy of the Federal Government.

[Work Horse]

Originally Posted by SpoolMan

Some facts, for those of you that are patting Mr.Fielding on the back, he was going to give the green light to this tax if the Labor Government agreed to ban all alcohol advertising in sport.
Gee I wonder who would have been slapping him on the back if the Goverment bowed to Mr Fielding's demands and banned all advertising in motorsport and all those other sports in Australia that have alcohol sponsorship.

Alcohol is a social problem and these politicians should work together for a better solution rather than politicizing this problem for points.

The $300 million has to go back to the the Distilled Spirits Industry Council of Australia they have said the money will be passed on in full to fight the problems with alcohol.

Come off it Mark, we'll not let the facts get in the way of a chance to sink the slipper into the government, or discuss a real issue confronting the country.

[Romulus]

Originally Posted by Work Horse

Come off it Mark, we'll not let the facts get in the way of a chance to sink the slipper into the government, or discuss a real issue confronting the country.

I hear the LCT increase is doing wonders for the local car industry too, NOT!!! Record low February sales. Another smart incentive from the government.

[XR6_190]

Originally Posted by TVS Super Pursuit

I hear the LCT increase is doing wonders for the local car industry too, NOT!!! Record low February sales. Another smart incentive from the government.

Might want to get your facts right, record low sales are not due to LCT, I think the blame there can go more to the Global Financial Chrisis. If you check the numbers closely, you will see that luxury cars aren't sinking anywhere near as quick as cheaper ones, heck Jaguar sales have been climbing for a while now.

That said, that is way off topic.

[Romulus]

Originally Posted by XR6_190

Might want to get your facts right, record low sales are not due to LCT, I think the blame there can go more to the Global Financial Chrisis. If you check the numbers closely, you will see that luxury cars aren't sinking anywhere near as quick as cheaper ones, heck Jaguar sales have been climbing for a while now.

That said, that is way off topic.

You're right, it was a tongue in cheek comment. 22% reduction in car sales in Australia in February. The Chinese however recorded a 24% increase for February.

Back to the topic........

[SpoolMan]

Originally Posted by TVS Super Pursuit

I love it, it's like having a Quit Campaign funded by Winfield

Fielding has a point though, if the government was serious about alcohol consumption is should have banned alcohol advertising in sport, especially Motorsport. The two are not compatible imo. But neither is alcohol and football and rugby compatible judging from recent events.

Alcohol ads are banned in other countries, UAE is one place that comes to mind where V8SC race.

Alas, I will enjoy a few drinks in a responsible manner at a cheaper rate thanks to Mr Fielding. I agree we should have a $300 million tab courtesy of the Federal Government.

Theirs the difference and its written in your post, there are no safe levels of smoking, but there are safe levels of alcohol as long as its consumed in a responsible manner.

Originally Posted by TVS Super Pursuit

Back to the topic........

Good idea.

[Bearman]

Spoolman - Absolutely right!! If Fielding had gotten his way there would be no alcohol sponsorship of sport. No more Jim Beam or Jack Daniels Racing, no more Heineken Golf Classic, the list goes on. It could have been a catastrophe for a wide range of sports, let alone motor sport.

Also there is a safe consumption level for alcohol but not for smokes.

Having said that I am rapt that another ill concieved tax grab from Krudd and co has bitten them on the butt but I will give them some credit for not agreeing with Fieldings demands for the reasons Spoolman spelt out.

I'm amazed they were able to collect this tax before it got through parliament, I wouldn't have thought that was legal!!

Seeing the Marlboro sponsored McLaren F1 team dominate the late '80's and early '90's never made me want to rush out and buy a packet of smokes. Same goes for the alcohol sponsored V8 teams it doesn't entice me to suddenly start going through slabs of JB and Cola!!

[cob115]

fat cat has a better understanding of how slice cheese than labour understands how to goven australia

[Jason[98.EL]]

Originally Posted by vztrt

Does anyone know the prices of the RTD stuff pre and post the alco pops tax?

these prises are aproxamate but here goes

pre tax time a slab of jim beam was $59.95 full price
after tax hike the same slab is around $69.99

roughly the same for the likes of jack daniels cougar bundy (Pre $69.99 / After $79.99 )

P.S we also got another memo at work saying the new prices will be rolled out in the next 2 weeks so we will have a bit longer paying the taxed prices

Jason

[Romulus]

Originally Posted by SpoolMan

Theirs the difference and its written in your post, there are no safe levels of smoking, but there are safe levels of alcohol as long as its consumed in a responsible manner.



Good idea.

Really? I Have 5 smokes in an hour or 2 and drive my car - no problem. I have 5 beers or 5 premixes in the same time (with my smokes) and, ummm, am I right to drive? No argument smoking is bad, but is it more dangerous than a drink in moderation.

Cigarette advertising has been banned since the early nineties, and smoking rates have seem to dropped. Let's apply the same principle to alcohol advertising (and tax the crap out of it at the same time, like done to tobacco products) and see if alcohol consumption/abuse reduces.

I believe Mr Fielding's attitude towards alcohol advertising is the same as the attitude towards cigarette advertising. The dilemma is (as explained on QANDA last night on ABC1) the $1.2 billion dollars spent on advertising by the alcohol companies, and the void left when it's withdrawn.

Is the government really serious about tackling alcohol consumption and related abuse or not......

[4Vman]

Binge drinking is the main issue, moderate occasional consumption is "less of a risk" to your health. I'm not so sure that there is a "safe" level of consumption though..., just a "less is safer" position, the safest level for your health is none...
The "glorification" of alcohol consumption to young people is at odds with the problem it creates... The anti social and mental health issues it creates are horrendous, especially in young to middle aged men.
That said i've got a real problem with over censorship, its a complex problem that won't be solved by banning advertising....

[vztrt]

http://www.theage.com.au/national/fr...d.html?page=-1

Fresh attempt at alcopops tax hike

* April 15, 2009 - 2:45PM

The Rudd Government is to introduce fresh legislation to resurrect its alcopops tax hike.

Health Minister Nicola Roxon said the Government also planned to legislate to validate revenue collected under the earlier legislation.

In March, the Senate rejected the 70 per cent tax hike on alcopops after Family First's Steve Fielding sided with the coalition and voted against the bill.

Ms Roxon said public health experts regarded the alcopops policy as a success as it dramatically reduced sales of the ready-to-drink beverages and the Government was not prepared to abandon those gains.

"Therefore the Government intends to take two steps when parliament resumes in May," she said.

Legislation will be introduced to validate revenue collected under the earlier legislation between April 27, 2008 and May 13, 2009.

"Secondly, we intend to introduce a new tariff proposal with effect from May 14, 2009, ensuring that the alcopops measure remains in place into the future," she said.

"The Government will then introduce legislation to confirm this measure in the same session of parliament."

Ms Roxon said the Government believed the alcopops policy was an effective public health measure.

"And we know that public health experts around the country agree," she said.

Treasurer Wayne Swan, at the same press conference, said the Government was determined to get its legislation past the parliament.

"This is unfinished businesses from the last budget," he said.

When Parliament resumes for the budget session, the Government will bring forward the two pieces of legislation and the new regulation.

Ms Roxon said the two pieces of legislation would be introduced on May 13.

"There will be a piece of legislation validating the revenue already collected, we would expect that the Liberal Party and the minor parties, given the views they've expressed, would support that legislation," she said.

"We will introduce a new tariff proposal, which you will recall from the measure from last year allows 12 months to collect the revenue and for legislation then to be validated.

"We are committing to introducing that in the next session of Parliament ... we are comfortable to introduce two pieces of legislation."

On the issue of validating the revenue already collected, Ms Roxon said the matter would need to be before the house before May 13 to allow the Government to keep the alcopops revenue for the past year.

"We hope it will be passed, that means the revenue that's (been) collected will be able to be put towards those measures that tackle alcohol and binge drinking."

Ms Roxon plans to continue negotiations with the minor parties to win their support from this new plan of action.

"I've already had discussions with the minor parties and will continue to over the coming weeks," she said.

Mr Swan rejected suggestions the latest efforts to get the alcopops tax passed could trigger a double dissolution election.

"[Opposition Leader] Malcolm Turnbull might load the gun but we certainly have no intention of firing it," he said.

Ms Roxon said the latest figures indicated the alcopops tax had raised $365 million to date.

Over the forward estimates period, it was estimated the tax would raise $1.6 billion, less than initially expected because of a reduction in alcopop consumption.

"That could vary in the future because it affects patterns of drinking," she said.

"We would hope that it does continue to affect patterns of drinking, that we see consumption reducing. That is the purpose of the measure."

AAP

[Daymoe]

I just like how they claim it will stop "Binge drinking"... Its more of a money grab, my friends still binge drink regardless of how much tax they pay on alcohol and a lot of them just drink goon.