Some easily propagandised fool called John Naish in The Times, falling for the seduction of the righteous one-sided equation.
The booze industry should be forced to pay a levy proportional to the rate of drink-related disease its products cause each year. It’s some bar tab: alcohol misuse costs the NHS about £2.7 billion annually. The Cabinet Office estimates the wider cost to Britain at £25 billion.
They are already forced to pay, you sanctimonious turd.
Their business is heavily burdened over and above the level of almost all others in our society with crippling sin taxes, far outweighing any of the cost to the NHS. The Cabinet Office cost is also certain not to include the benefits of the industry to the country such as Corporation Tax, Income Tax of its employees, employers' and employees' NI contributions, and the net gain to the country's balance of payments.
The industry must be manacled to the problem. The more alcohol-related illness it helps to create, the bigger the levy it must pay, and the more interested it will become in preventing misuse.
Or, to put it another way, the more interested it will become in relocating to a country which is willing to welcome the huge contribution their businesses provide to the economy.
Cock.
9 comments:
Alcohol Misuse, what a fascinating phrase.
Is that like pouring it up your arse or attempting to use it to put out a chip-pan fire or something?
If so then yes, down with this sort of thing.
I'm not sure whether I'm misusing this vodka correctly so I may have to buy some more to experiment..
It really does force you to ask whether anyone in the media gives a flying fuck about very much at all?
The Times in particular is really pissing me off at present.
The sooner the MSM goes tits up the better.
A quick Google reveals that Naish is one of that horde of snobby fuckballs hanging onto the anti-consumerist people-have-too-much-stuff neo-austerity bandwagon.
In the comments following...
"This is an industry, by the way, that despite what it says doesn't want responsible drinking - it wants irresponsible drinking. Responsible drinking would realistically mean far less alcohol consumed and less profits for them. So although they don't wish people to suffer they enjoy the money generated from irresponsible consumption."
No shit Sherlock!
A company that wants to sell more of its product. That's got to be a crime in itself isn't it?
Woe betide the coffin makers and funeral services,I say.
BHJ
"Now, I like to think that I enjoy a drink as much as the next person. Sadly, I discovered recently that my “next person” — an old and dear friend — had descended secretively into raging alcoholism."
Well that's that then, he hates himself so plays the blame game. Just like some reformed smokers really. Effing asshole.
Yup, this is one-sided economics at its worst, using anecodtal evidence is completely irrelevant.
Notwithstanding that the £25 billion figure is wildly overstated, that's roughly equal to all the taxes on alcohol (the biggies are VAT and alcohol duties).
The NHS 'cost' is irrelevant as we pay for that through normal taxes anyway.
This is another very good reason for replacing the native population with Asian, muslim and non-alcoholic people.
None of the above is, or is intended to be, racist.
From the National Audit Office:
"In 2007-08, the Department collected excise duties
of £8.3 billion on alcohol, comprising: spirits £2.4 billion,
wine £2.6 billion and beer and cider £3.3 billion."
So, the cost the the Shining White Edifice (NHS) is £2.7 billion. Drinkers have paid nearly 3 times that amount in tax....
Sounds very similar to the cost to Shining White Edifice of smokers who also cost 1/4 of what they pay to the government.
And where do they think these other stupid figures up from??? £25 billion wider cost? Probably the same place the "Safe" alcohol daily allowance was plucked from, i.e. someones puckered brown arsehole.
This whole crap about COST to the NHS really fucks me right off. We have fucking well paid for the fucking thing, why cant we use it? If they sacked all the 800,000 healthcare professionals who never even see a patient, then perhaps it wouldn't cost so much, the big stinking pile of shite.
Arghhhhhhhhh
Post a Comment