Alcohol taxes to increase
Well the alcohol crisis in Finland has been solved! No more drunk drivers, no more winos in the streets, no more punk kids breaking bottles, no more trips to the emergency room. We’ll finally go back in time to 2003, a much better time in Finnish history, when alcohol was used but once a year for weddings and special occasions…
Taxation on alcohol beverages is also to increase. The tax on spirits will go up by 15 percent. The price of a bottle of grade 3 middle beer will increase by five cents, wines by about 20 cents.
Young people all over Finland are crying out, “Five more cents a bottle?!?! Looks like I’ll have to give up drinking and getting laid, and study at the library instead!”
Politicians are crazy if they think this will effect people’s drinking habits one bit. All it will do is make Finland’s poor a little poorer, and that will lead to even greater social ills.
I couldn’t agree more. The taxes are merely going up to suck money out of people. Why should people drink less? The Finnish way of dealing with alcohol is just immature. Here I mean immature on an individual and on a state level. No problems will be solved this way. It would be better if the government could actually do what it takes to make sure unemployment goes down. That would cut a lot of the drinking problems very quickly. Wasn’t there a recommendation by the EU and other organizations to cut taxes so that employment could finally increase?
Comment by bafana — Fri, Aug 31st, 2007 @ 11:42 am
btw what is the difference on liberal and libertarian?
Comment by henry — Fri, Aug 31st, 2007 @ 12:07 pm
Ah, I love the smell… uhh, sound of irony on Friday mornings…
Comment by Mr. Anonymous — Fri, Aug 31st, 2007 @ 12:19 pm
Tax increases for energy and alcohol are just another way for state to get more money from people. Just another hypocrisy from government. 5c extra won’t change drinking habbits after all. It’s all about money…
Comment by Paul — Fri, Aug 31st, 2007 @ 1:00 pm
It’s all about money…
I don’t think so at all, I think it’s all about politicians wanting to get recognized and re-elected. They want to prove that they’re “doing something”.
Comment by Phil — Fri, Aug 31st, 2007 @ 1:03 pm
Yes “crazy” is a very detailed analysis of the politicians mind.
Nothing will make finnish drinking go away. For it is not about unemployment, poverty or anything else like that.
For I don’t think prohibition, winter war or 80s economy boom has did anything to finnish drinking.
I guess when a country hangs out with russia from it’s infancy its bound to have some consequences.
Comment by philtard — Fri, Aug 31st, 2007 @ 1:09 pm
Henry, liberal in American means socialist, libertarian pretty much same as liberal really means, here in Europe.
Comment by Anna-Leena — Fri, Aug 31st, 2007 @ 1:21 pm
Inheritance tax will also be reformed significantly, as a result of these budget negotiations yesterday. Three out of four people will be totally tax-free in this area after the reform according to Hufvudstadsbladet. This is actually a good success story (for once) for SFP, as they were the ones who have been continually going on about inheritance tax and managed to get it on the agenda (from where it was picked up by larger parties such as Kokoomus).
Comment by JG — Fri, Aug 31st, 2007 @ 1:36 pm
How about lowering the tax on non-alcoholic beverages?
Sure the price of alcohol is high, but when you compare it to the price of a coke it seems almost reasonable. It is the price of the other drinks that drives people to drink alcohol.
So, how much does an alcoholic pay in tax on a shoplifted bottle of beer?
Comment by Fred Fry — Fri, Aug 31st, 2007 @ 2:32 pm
Fred, I was thinking about that the other day as I was reading about the proposed increase in taxes on candy. Kids eat too much candy, so let’s make it cost more so they won’t eat anymore.
I brought it up at work and, of course, most of the Finns rigorously defended it as a means to deter the eating of junk food. I promptly responded then, “Why do they not then lower the tax on healthy food as well?” This brought a chorus of “oh..yeah…i don’t knows”.
I agree with #4 and Paul that it is about money. They are raising the tax on diesel fuel next year (up to 6 cents per liter) and they admitted that though they realize that it will have an adverse affect on the environment (as diesel cars are overall, better for it), their main motivation was income.
It goes to show you that every government is driven by economy and money. None of them ‘really’ give a damn. More people need to realize this.
Comment by Don — Fri, Aug 31st, 2007 @ 2:43 pm
Sorry, here is the link about the diesel fuel tax and the Finance ministries motivation.
http://www.yle.fi/news/id67935.html
Comment by Don — Fri, Aug 31st, 2007 @ 2:48 pm
This is actually a good success story (for once) for SFP, as they were the ones who have been continually going on about inheritance tax
Talk about catering to your base! The Swedish-Finnish families got lots of $$ and are tired of giving it in the state when they die.
Comment by Phil — Fri, Aug 31st, 2007 @ 3:13 pm
The one thing this has done for me is to prove the fact that whatever side of the political picture you stand on in Finland, you’re all the FU*King same. I am so disappointed with the fiscal policy and discussion of taxes by this supposedly centre right government. I was hoping for a lot from this government and a new way of tackling old problems. Instead we get the same dicks with the same solutions (but new names) for the same problems. Piss poor.
Comment by Punter — Fri, Aug 31st, 2007 @ 3:15 pm
I wonder how much more Finnish beer makers will lower the quality to offset effects of the tax increase. Anyone know?
Comment by Kristian — Fri, Aug 31st, 2007 @ 3:19 pm
Talk about catering to your base! The Swedish-Finnish families got lots of $$ and are tired of giving it in the state when they die.
That is a largely untrue stereotype! In fact, you may wish to know that Finland-Swedish people are e.g. more disproportionately employed in agricultural jobs than Finnish-speaking people. Please do not base your entire view of Svenskfinland on Grankulla.
Comment by JG — Fri, Aug 31st, 2007 @ 4:12 pm
12. So Punter, blustering liar & fool will you be rushing out to score that case of Grange you still owe me?
Comment by pi — Fri, Aug 31st, 2007 @ 5:51 pm
Hey, look who crawled out from under a rock. As I have already explained to you DH, I owe you nothing than sympathy for being the person you are. BTW, I have an order ready for collection in December when I shall visit home for Christmas. I might even toast you with the first glass beachside Downunder.
Comment by Punter — Fri, Aug 31st, 2007 @ 5:58 pm
“All it will do is make Finland’s poor a little poorer, and that will lead to even greater social ills.”
So Finland should make all the alcohol tax free and that’s helping the poorest the best. Maybe some subvention too to give it out free for the sake of the poor.
The best social agenda I have ever heard.
Comment by iivana julma — Fri, Aug 31st, 2007 @ 6:04 pm
17:
So I guess you support “nickel and diming” the poor as a “social agenda,” then iivana?
Comment by Dave the Slave — Fri, Aug 31st, 2007 @ 6:30 pm
Actually, I agree with making alcohol as cheap as possible—especially beer and wine. There’s no sense in pushing poor people into using hard liquor, just because it provides more value (i.e. more alcohol per money spent).
It seems to work everywhere else in Europe. Cheap beer costs about 35ct/.5L in Germany. Large wine jugs for 2.50e; not very good, but the habitual drinkers don’t complain. And it keeps them away from the Vodka
The Finnish alcohol policy has always been rather blunt. So people drink more hard liquor in Finland than in other parts of Europe. Then we pay even more welfare and medical costs in the long run.
Comment by Kristian — Fri, Aug 31st, 2007 @ 6:38 pm
Five cents per bottle of beer one way or the other makes absolutely no difference to an alcoholic (or to beer drinkers in general).
However, multiply that five cents by the gazillions of bottles sold every year and you have a tidy sum of money. This is not some “social modeling” experiment. It is what we call a “money grab.”
Comment by Dave the Slave — Fri, Aug 31st, 2007 @ 6:45 pm
“So Punter, blustering liar & fool will you be rushing out to score that case of Grange you still owe me?” -pi
Well now that the tax is going up in Finland, you can be sure that wine is cheaper ANYWHERE else in the world.
Comment by Dave the Slave — Fri, Aug 31st, 2007 @ 6:46 pm
Hypocrisy at its best…
Comment by StupidBanana — Fri, Aug 31st, 2007 @ 6:47 pm
Way to go, porvarihallitus. I hope you’re all happy now.
Comment by Freeridin' Franklin — Fri, Aug 31st, 2007 @ 7:41 pm
Well now that the tax is going up in Finland, you can be sure that wine is cheaper ANYWHERE else in the world.
I am not sure, at least in the EU countries Ireland, the UK and Sweden have higher tax on wine than Finland at present. (Although that does not take into account the rise of 20 cent).
I suspect though that this tax rise won’t have much effect on the consumption of spirits by real alcoholics as it is not enough of an increase for that (and no I don’t mean I am advocating even more tax than the govt on such drinks). However, I suspect the overall consumption will fall slightly after the tax rise as “non-alcoholic” drinkers chose to purchase something other than spirits when in Alko, or perhaps choose not to bother at all… The problem is, such people are probably not the ones that cause the biggest problems.
It’s hard to really know what the solution to the problem of alcohol is. It is very very hard to change a cultural trait and doing-so would take decades. I am sure neither tax (rising or falling), Alko’s monopoly or any other legislation can change that basic fact.
Comment by JG — Fri, Aug 31st, 2007 @ 8:24 pm
So Finland should make all the alcohol tax free and that’s helping the poorest the best. Maybe some subvention too to give it out free for the sake of the poor.
Solving Finland’s alcohol problem takes more than just raising or lowering taxes.
Comment by Phil — Fri, Aug 31st, 2007 @ 9:07 pm
But if you are saying that increasing the alcohol tax was a wrong direction (bad for poor), then you must think that lowering is better. Let’s keep this simple. Your critic was very clear.
Comment by iivana julma — Fri, Aug 31st, 2007 @ 9:23 pm
#25- Yeah, a good place to start would be by enforcing the law rather than just accepting the drunks as a cultural trait of Finland Arrest and throw the drunken youth in the drunk tank overnight, don’t put up with bums pissing on the street and make sure clubs and pubs enforce a code of reasonable intoxication. Regardless of the price of alcohol in Finland, as long as the behaivour we see is “acceoted” then the majority will have to suffer for the actions of a minority.
Comment by Punter — Fri, Aug 31st, 2007 @ 9:25 pm
#26 Why is it that countries with far lower alcohol taxes than Finland don’t suffer from the scrouge of alcohol anywgere near as badly? Yes, lower the tax, particularly on wine and beer and simply enforce the laws we have.
Comment by Punter — Fri, Aug 31st, 2007 @ 9:27 pm
#28. Finland has certain legacy, that’s the reason. Countries, people, history, roots, are not the same. The same system doesn’t work everywhere. Make gambling legal in China and you will see more problems than in Finland. Cultures are different and traveling and living in other countries helps to understand this.
When you say lower the tax, it sound like you don’t have enough money to buy Dom Perignon and you have to drink some cheap champagne:-) That’s bad but working hard helps.
Comment by iivana julma — Fri, Aug 31st, 2007 @ 9:36 pm
Unfortunately, “working hard” doesn’t help, and it’s hardly worth the effort. Here’s and idea of the true cost of this welfare state nonsense.
Cultures are indeed different, but even if gambling were to be introduced to China, then it would just be a matter of time for adverse conditions to normalize.
In the case of Finland’s hard liquor, binge drinking phenomenon, it has never been given a chance to normalize. And this won’t help; it just makes the condition worse.
Comment by Kristian — Fri, Aug 31st, 2007 @ 10:08 pm
It is just very clear that alcohol problems have got worse in Finland during the last 10 years. Tell me what has changed in the Finnish alcohol policy during these years? I answer to myself - only price. Economic situation is better than 10 years ago, unemployment etc, but still more people with alcohol problems. Politicians tried to bring Finnish alcohol policy closer to central European level, but results are not that good. The logic is very simple. If lower price made more problems, higher price will change the trend. If the first hike is too small, then comes the next one. Katainen has already said this.
Comment by iivana julma — Fri, Aug 31st, 2007 @ 10:27 pm
The tax increase has nothing to do with preventing alcohol related death or stoping the ever increasing comsumption.
-The only reason is that it’s an indirect TAX as ALKO or alcohol monopoly is in the hand of the state.
If you really want to stop alcoholism, you need to:
-”Education-Education” Educate children and their respective parents (the models) early enough.
-just take out Vapuu, which is a national binge drinking or a national training day for teens or other to initiate them in heavy drinking
-raise taxes (double then triple it) on alcohol which has more than 20% degree of alcohol and lower tax on beer to promote people drinking lighter alcohol
-in the most drastic way ;->,
- bring a new messiah and rewrite the religion to forbid it
- change the finish climate by providing shorter winter and longer sunny summer —> decrease the gasoline tax->more car->climate change->just cross the fingers ;->
Comment by Greetings from russia — Fri, Aug 31st, 2007 @ 10:48 pm
Greetings from russia: I almost like you but that putin.com. Joke or not? I am against Putin shit but yet again Russia is Brazilian way of society. Or maybe Russians are having their strong man Kekkonen era?
Comment by tim73 — Fri, Aug 31st, 2007 @ 11:47 pm
Where did you find that picture of Hank?
That drunk was a regular in my neighbourhood. He was nice and he always said hi to my dog.
Comment by hfb — Fri, Aug 31st, 2007 @ 11:57 pm
“29- “working hard helps” Have you ever been to Finland? How does working hard help in Finland? As for Finland having a certain “legacy”, sorry but I’ve heard it all before. It’s the standard excuse. As for having money to buy Dom, again a typical Finnish response. Unfortunately the typical Finn understands nothing apart from “dry Finnish white wine” so I won’t even bother with that one. As for Finlands ever increasing problems with alcohol over the last 10 years, the tax cut was only in effect for around 3 of those years so explain the remaining 7.
Post 32, Greetings from Russia got it right in the simple statement “education, education, education. In a country with the worlds best education system it shouldn’t be too much to expect that teenagers would learn that a bottle of kossu every Friday noght is not a great start to life. Nor that brewing “kilju” can have serious long term effects on your health. That going out and standing in the city until 5am drinking with your underage friends can lead to addiction in later life. etc etc etc But then again, you’re the ones with the best education and the big “legacy” (I call it problem) and the answers to all our problems. If only you could solve your own without having to look for excuses.
Comment by Punter — Fri, Aug 31st, 2007 @ 11:57 pm
The fact is that we have a crappy f*-up two meter grey shaded lamp post as our prime minister (thanks ye all country folks..!) who comes up with these nice booze taxation thingies, while competing with Cola Olli (youtube it), in which is better Coca cola zero or regular…
As someone said here before in a similar thread (Kristian perhaps?), ~”loose the booze tax and let the problem solve itself out to the netherworlds”
Btw, this post was written while intoxicated by heavily taxated alcohol.
Comment by Kez0nat0r — Sat, Sep 1st, 2007 @ 12:42 am
Thats me, only if you turn the bottles around I drink cheep $2.00 RUM.
Comment by winter “Yea, Proton Power, now in remission†— Sat, Sep 1st, 2007 @ 2:17 am
“It is just very clear that alcohol problems have got worse in Finland during the last 10 years.”
Sorry, but that propaganda has been used for ages, by politicians, to convince everyone that they need to fork-over more money to “solve the problem.”
You should have seen it in the 1970’s and 1980’s when there were LOTS of really serious cases out there. That was during Finland’s socialist heyday when there was massive unemployment. It doesn’t even remotely compare to what is seen today.
No doubt things have changed for better, but the brainwashing is still the same as before.
“Politicians tried to bring Finnish alcohol policy closer to central European level”
No way. Beer and wine still cost roughly 4-times the central European level. There was no serious attempt at anything. Even drinks in restaurants and pubs are ridiculously overpriced.
Essentially, this is all about funding the high-tax welfare state. But everybody wants someone else to pay for it. Finnish politics in a nutshell. Unfortunately, this is not a very healthy way to shift the burden.
Comment by Kristian — Sat, Sep 1st, 2007 @ 3:19 am
Looks like the party may be over in Estonia also. They are raising taxes on booze by 30 Percent! Sounds like a money grab by the Governments involved.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6957153.stm
Cigs are going up too
http://www.hs.fi/english/article/Social+Services+Minister+calls+for+10+per+cent+hike+in+tobacco+tax/1135229680947
Comment by Rick — Sat, Sep 1st, 2007 @ 5:50 am
“Pekka Puska, Director-General of the National Public Health Institute, has called for a higher increase in the tax on beer and wine than planned in the draft budget.
Puska said on Monday that mild drinks are first steps on the way to heavy consumption.
He also called for the introduction of a milder class-II beer to be sold in food stores alongside class III beer, which has an alcohol content of up to 4.7 per cent.”
————
Class II eh? ha ha ha… here in the us some backward states sell this crap in the grocery stores. It usually sits on the shelf till its expiration date and is then thrown away. Bums in the back of the store go through the trash and drink it. it is 3.2 percent and affectionately known as “PISS WATER”
Comment by Rick — Sat, Sep 1st, 2007 @ 5:58 am
It is just very clear that alcohol problems have got worse in Finland during the last 10 years. Tell me what has changed in the Finnish alcohol policy during these years? I answer to myself - only price.
There was a alcohol tax decrease 10 years ago? I wasn’t here so I don’t know. All I remember is the decrease of 4 years ago, and Finland’s alcohol problems were supposedly getting worse much earlier, so price had nothing to do with it.
Comment by Phil — Sat, Sep 1st, 2007 @ 10:13 am
Phil: Solving Finland’s alcohol problem takes more than just raising or lowering taxes.
Ah, any suggestions of how it would be handled in a better way?
Comment by Mikael — Sat, Sep 1st, 2007 @ 1:16 pm
Yeah, the silver lining in Estonia is that they are drastically cutting income taxes. So a small increase in the price of alcohol—which is very cheap to begin with—isn’t so painful.
Also, they have excellent quality beer in Estonia. Even if Estonian beer were equally priced with Finnish beer, it would still be worth going there with a little trolly cart and getting about 7-cases.
Comment by Kristian — Sat, Sep 1st, 2007 @ 1:41 pm
Ah, any suggestions of how it would be handled in a better way?
As a marketing guy, I know that cost is just one of many ways to affect a product, but it’s only one of many aspects to a successful marketing plan. If a product’s only marketing strategy was cost adjustment, it would fail. And that’s pretty much all Finland’s politicians have done, raise and lower taxes. Finland’s alcohol problems require much more thinking than that!
Comment by Phil — Sat, Sep 1st, 2007 @ 2:37 pm
Estonia simply highlights that the problem is cultural. There is no Alko monopoly in Estonia (in fact, you seem to be able to buy alcohol everywhere) and the prices are low. People still binge drink. Estonia has very similar alcohol problems to Finland, if not worse. (Most of the Russian protesters against the statue move in Tallinn were not just fuelled by Russian state tv alone).
If you got rid of the tax on alcohol and Alko today, people would not be drinking in a Mediterranean mature way tomorrow. In fact, people would probably go out and drink even more.
I think Phil is 100% right with his statement Finland’s alcohol problems require much more thinking than that!
There is unfortunately no easy answer to the problem.
Comment by JG — Sat, Sep 1st, 2007 @ 2:52 pm
People are saying that increasing the alcohol tax won’t help, but didn’t alcohol consumption go up after the last tax cut? (I’m genuinely curious now, not challenging - I’ve heard statistics cited to the effect of consumption going up after the cut, but I haven’t examined the claims closely.)
Comment by Kaj Sotala — Sat, Sep 1st, 2007 @ 3:08 pm
“People are saying that increasing the alcohol tax won’t help, but didn’t alcohol consumption go up after the last tax cut?”
Before the cut, everyone went to Estonia, so there was no way to quantify how much people drank; therefore no basis for comparison.
After the cut, people began buying alcohol in Finland again. So domestic sales numbers went up. Then, politicians used this information to convince people that “drinking increased after the tax cut.”
That’s how the system works in Finland. All soviet-era smoke & mirrors. Most people are still gullible enough to believe it. The current younger generation probably won’t play the same game in the future. Unfortunately, they’re not the ones in power now.
Comment by Kristian — Sat, Sep 1st, 2007 @ 3:20 pm
One thing about the tax that is totally amusing is that the stores will absorb the small tax in beer. In Alko, they will add the tax to the hard liquor and then tack on another euro for themselves. Forget the taxes, it is Alko’s markup on their products that is the real tax. Really. How is it that a bottle of Finlandia vodka costs twice as much in Finland than in the US, when only 1-2 Euros of the difference can be attributed to the alcohol tax.
Comment by Fred Fry — Sat, Sep 1st, 2007 @ 3:29 pm
I have just had a look on Stakes’ webpage. They do release alcohol consumption statistics based not only on sales in Finland, but also factoring in the so-called “unregistered” alcohol consumption (i.e. that bought in from Estonia and elsewhere abroad, homebrew etc).
Here are the figures, in litres of pure alcohol per person:
1995: Registered consumption 6,7 litres, unregistered 2,1L TOTAL 8,8L
2003: Reg. con. 7,7 L, Unreg. con. 1,7 L TOTAL 9,4L
2004: Reg. con. 8,2 L, Unreg. con. 2,1 L TOTAL 10,3L
2005: Reg. con. 8,2 L, Unreg. con. 2,3 L TOTAL 10,5L
2006: Reg. con. 8,4 L, Unreg. con. 1,9 L TOTAL 10,3L
They also state that in 2006 the “real” price of alcohol (i.e. factoring in the tax cut and inflation) were circa 12% less than before the tax cut in 2003.
Comment by JG — Sat, Sep 1st, 2007 @ 3:40 pm
I really don’t get Kristian’s logic. Because income tax is so high in Finland (for example when compared to Estonia), we must have a low alcohol tax. Complain about a income tax but not every single tax. It’s very populistic or even childish. Alcohol, tobacco, gas and cars are excellent place to get tax money. Every society needs that money, even land of hope and glory, US.
“Finland’s alcohol problems require much more thinking than that!”. Very well put, but if Phil or anyone hasn’t give a one single idea, what this is, we can forget these idealistic thoughts.
#35 “working hard helps†Have you ever been to Finland? ” Most of my life. I’m not from wealthy family. I’m not self made millionaire Jari Sarasvuo, but I have always got enough money to drink what I want, was it Moet or XO. I don’t know anyone who says that alcohol is too expensive in Finland.
Go ahead, complain about welfare state, but alcohol tax is the best tax ever figured out and there is clearly opportunity to tax even more and lower taxation elsewhere.
Comment by iivana julma — Sat, Sep 1st, 2007 @ 3:55 pm
JG—they have no way of knowing how many cash purchases of alcohol were made by Finns outside of Finland. It’s speculation at best.
Does Stakes get its funding from the government?
Comment by Kristian — Sat, Sep 1st, 2007 @ 3:58 pm
Phil: As a marketing guy, I know that cost is just one of many ways to affect a product, but it’s only one of many aspects to a successful marketing plan. If a product’s only marketing strategy was cost adjustment, it would fail. And that’s pretty much all Finland’s politicians have done, raise and lower taxes. Finland’s alcohol problems require much more thinking than that!
I don’t want to sound rude but are you saying that raising the alcohol taxes is in fact on of many options we have got - despite the fact that you largely oppose ? In that case I agree with you; the main focus should be on the children under 18. The penalties for parents who let their kids drink should be extremely heavy.
Comment by Mikael — Sat, Sep 1st, 2007 @ 4:09 pm
…oppose this kind of market influence that the state has? - 2nd line, I thought I removed that part.
Comment by Mikael — Sat, Sep 1st, 2007 @ 4:11 pm
“I don’t know anyone who says that alcohol is too expensive in Finland.”
That’s because, in Finland, it’s normal to spend a disproportionately large amount of one’s income on overpriced items and not complain. That notion is reflected in wealth statistics.
“Alcohol, tobacco, gas and cars are excellent place to get tax money.”
Yeah, in principle I favor consumption taxes over income taxes. But I don’t favor consumption taxes on basic items—food, medicine and yes, also not on alcohol. In my opinion, overpriced alcohol causes even more health problems than letting consumption take its natural course. Here’s a nice study from Harvard Medical School that seems to support that view…
Seems very logical to me.
“Complain about a income tax but not every single tax. It’s very populistic or even childish.”
Yes, or maybe it takes more than a child to understand my point?
Comment by Kristian — Sat, Sep 1st, 2007 @ 4:18 pm
“The penalties for parents who let their kids drink should be extremely heavy.”
Right. Then kids can go off to some hiding spot in the woods and drink themselves into a stupor—unsupervised.
So much for learning how to drink responsibly.
Comment by Kristian — Sat, Sep 1st, 2007 @ 4:27 pm
Before the cut, everyone went to Estonia, so there was no way to quantify how much people drank; therefore no basis for comparison.
Good point. Is it enough to explain the whole consumption increase, though? Regularly going all the way to Estonia for your alcohol would be a bother. If we’re to believe Stakes’ figures on registered consumption, it’s gone up 0,7L per person since 2003 - Finland has about 5 300 000 people, so it’d be an increase of 3 710 000 liters. Would people really have ferried over that much alcohol in a year?
Also, http://www.stakes.fi/FI/ajankohtaista/Tiedotteet/2005/49_2005.htm claims that health-related problems from alcohol went up between 2003 and 2004 (presumably, if people just buying their drinks from Estonia before, this wouldn’t have been affected): “1860 people, or 300 more than the previous year, died last year of alcohol-related diseases or poisonings. Liver cirrhosis deaths went up 30 and alcohol poisoning deaths 20 per cent. … Nearly 36 500 alcohol-related treatment periods were registered in hospitals and health care centers, 10 per cent more than in 2003. Treatment periods for both alcohol-related brain and liver diseases went up 16 per cent. There were 12 per cent more treatment periods for intoxicated conditions than in 2003.”
On the other hand, http://tilastokeskus.fi/ajk/tiedotteet/v2004/238ters.html says that alcohol-related deaths were on an increase even before the tax cut. ( http://tilastokeskus.fi/ajk/tiedotteet/v2004/238ters_001.gif for a chart, alcohol-related deaths per 100 000 inhabitants) http://tilastokeskus.fi/til/ksyyt/2005/ksyyt_2005_2006-10-31_tie_001.html says that 150 more people died of alcohol in 2005 than in 2004.
Since the correct way to interpret these seemed a bit unclear (did the tax cut actually worsen things, or would the deaths have gone up anyway?), I pulled up http://pxweb2.stat.fi/Dialog/varval.asp?ma=008_ksyyt_008_1998_001&ti=&path=../Database/StatFin/ter/ksyyt/&lang=3&multilang=fi and got these results for total alcohol-related deaths per year:
1998: 1 490
1999: 1 418 (down 72)
2000: 1 492 (up 74)
2001: 1 497 (up 5)
2002: 1 471 (down 26)
2003: 1 572 (up 101)
2004: 1 864 (up 292)
2005: 2 033 (up 169)
So based on this, it does look like there was a pretty sharp increase in alcohol-related deaths around the time when the tax cut was introduced.
Comment by Kaj Sotala — Sat, Sep 1st, 2007 @ 4:39 pm
“Doing something meaningful about alcohol abuse requires a more profound intervention than “sin taxes†and restricted hours of operation; it requires cultural and attitudinal changes.”
I hope Harward MS also propose how to make these “cultural and attitudinal changes”. Sounds very intellectual indeed but value is zero if you criticize current system but you or our vise Harward men and women couldn’t give any tangible proposals.
Your link to your own writing was funny. For example in Denmark people are happiest in the whole world (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/5224306.stm). Denmark has higher taxation than Finland. Seems to have also higher net worth, regardless or higher taxation (how do you explain this?) And they are happiest! How come? You can’t measure everything by taxes and money. Maybe you will learn that when you grow up.
Comment by iivana julma — Sat, Sep 1st, 2007 @ 4:48 pm
Kristian: Right. Then kids can go off to some hiding spot in the woods and drink themselves into a stuporâ€â€unsupervised.
So much for learning how to drink responsibly.
Yes, you’re absolutely right - there should be classes in “drinking responsibly” starting at the age of 7.
Comment by Mikael — Sat, Sep 1st, 2007 @ 5:44 pm
classes in “drinking responsiblyâ€Â. Should we increase income tax to organize these classes? Or just less math at school:-)
Those guys who consume most of the alcohol have already left a school.
Finnish education system however is so top class and kids basically understand the dangers of alcohol but it’s not reflecting to behavior.
In a short term making quantity discounts illegal (which is happening very soon) is going to help much more than education. The good thing is that it’s possible to do both, not one or other. Changing the price it the quickest way to influence. Very effective too. Unfortunately Phil is not having money for retirement fund then, but life is tough:-)
Comment by iivana julma — Sat, Sep 1st, 2007 @ 5:56 pm
Again, the only way to solve the problem would be to abolish the tax and all restrictions (including age). A litre of 95% ethanol would go for about 2€. Kristian would still consider it overpriced and things would get ugly for a while, but I believe that in 10 years we’d be living in a better country.
I would even sacrifice Alko’s monopoly and pay 20-100% more for my wines.
Comment by Freeridin' Franklin — Sat, Sep 1st, 2007 @ 6:52 pm
@ 28 Punter - Know all on Alcohol, blustering liar and fool “Why is it that countries with far lower alcohol taxes than Finland don’t suffer from the scrouge of alcohol anywgere near as badly?
So we see in the paradise of Australia that -
“The average Australian drinks about nine litres of pure alcohol every year. The Northern Territory rate is 70 per cent higher at 15 litres. But Katherine (a major town in the Northern Territory)has the highest consumption of all within the NT - around 21 litres of pure alcohol per person per year.”
Punter, mate, tell us how the “scrouge of alcohol” is less in Australia with lower taxes, when,
“Anyone buying alcohol in the Northern Territory town of Katherine will be tracked under radical new laws to reduce related problems like assault, rape and murder.”
I may have been away, but not under a rock.
Try to shrug it off, know all, but you were clearly proven wrong on your cock-sure line on the Grange. Mate, I’ll repost the links if you’ve forgotten.
You were taken up on your challenge, showned to be wrong and you’ve failed to make good. A dishonest cheat is universally despised.
Comment by pi — Sat, Sep 1st, 2007 @ 7:42 pm
“sacrifice Alko’s monopoly and pay 20-100% more for my wines.”
I get Australian wine for 5$, and cheep rum (Barcadi) for 11$. But the real cheep stuff is Vodka in a plastic bottle for 2$.
The Market economy works here.
Anr you really getting cheeper prices from Alko?
Comment by winter “Yea, Proton Power, now in remission†— Sat, Sep 1st, 2007 @ 9:49 pm
For crappy vodka and antifreeze rum, no. For quality wine, yes. After the tax cut, single malts cost just about the same they do in countries with low or no alcohol tax, in my experience.
How much do you pay for a bottle of Lagavulin?
Comment by Freeridin' Franklin — Sat, Sep 1st, 2007 @ 10:08 pm
“For example in Denmark people are happiest in the whole world (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/5224306.stm). Denmark has higher taxation than Finland. Seems to have also higher net worth, regardless or higher taxation (how do you explain this?) And they are happiest! How come?”
Well, the net worth is nothing to brag about. Even though it’s slightly richer than Finland, Denmark is still at the bottom of the European pile.
Insofar as being “happiest” despite huge taxes and low wealth… It’s no wonder: Denmark is self-sufficient in energy, as it produces its own oil and natural gas. It even has enough to supply the rest of Europe, at least in part.
And being nestled between economic powerhouses, Germany and Britain, helps a bunch. Nothing like a shopping trip to the inexpensive EU when things are grotesquely overpriced in your own welfare state.
“ You can’t measure everything by taxes and money. Maybe you will learn that when you grow up.”
You got me on that one. Isn’t there a Beatles song to prove it? Just forget about things like healthcare, education, standard-of-living… Otherwise, it’ll ruin the euphoria really fast.
Comment by Kristian — Sat, Sep 1st, 2007 @ 10:35 pm
“Again, the only way to solve the problem would be to abolish the tax and all restrictions (including age).”
Yes, abolishing the tax would be a good start. I also advocate lowering the drinking age for beer and wine to 15, like in Germany—and I think also in France.
Comment by Kristian — Sat, Sep 1st, 2007 @ 10:46 pm
“For example in Denmark people are happiest in the whole world (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/5224306.stm). Denmark has higher taxation than Finland. Seems to have also higher net worth, regardless or higher taxation”
yeahh..when you leave beyond your mean..some kind of time bomb:
http://www.domain.com.au/content/files/misc/table_trillion1.jpg
Denmark’s household Gross Debt as a percentage of income: 290% !!!
compare that with the US which stand at 140% ad Finland at over 100% it’s based on 2006 as we know interest rate have increased since…so can easely add another 20%….
->in Finland the problem is that is drinking habit is badly “anchored” in people habits…
I’m always shocked when i see some teens or older people with a pack of 10 Beers Koff walking througth public place, mols etc.. like business as usual, nobody seems shocked…maybe i’m the only one being surprised by this habit…nobody pays attention..that’s what i’m talking about alcoholism habit being “anchored” in finnish society…
-> you need a shock therapie: a come back to the “prohibition”? ;-> =>Tarja “Ness” Halonen? ;-}
Comment by Greetings from russia — Sat, Sep 1st, 2007 @ 11:12 pm
#60- Hey FW pi. Do you know Katherine? A major town is it? Why are people being tracked? DH you have no idea what you are talking about.
Katherine’s alcohol consumptionis so high because it is full of boongs. Know what thay are? Who gives a rats arse about Katherine. FFS, give me your address or lets meet up cause I’m so sick of the shit that comes out of your mouth that I really think we should talk. PISS ANT LITTLE FINN.
Comment by Punter — Sun, Sep 2nd, 2007 @ 12:57 am
As a matter of fact Pi, you would need a step ladder to get under a rock. You are so typical of the ignorant sterotypical Finn that has no idea what is happening outside of Junntiville because your head is so far up your own arse that your neck is your ball sack. You speak crap about things you have no idea about and preach the perfection of this socialist homeland. Then when push comes to shove (after telling everyone that you’ve been to THE ARMY) you call the doorman and ask for help against some foreigner giving you shit. Seriously, I’m sick to death of people like you and the shit you stand for. All you do is bring down the decent people in this country and build stereotypes about Finns in general. Put your rubber boots on and go milk a cow Juntti.
Comment by Punter — Sun, Sep 2nd, 2007 @ 1:14 am
Boongs? So we’re off the “indigenous Australians” high horse. Somehow your true colours don’t surprise me.
Comment by Freeridin' Franklin — Sun, Sep 2nd, 2007 @ 1:28 am
Indigenous Australians, Boongs, Gins, call a spade a spade. I said that “in Australia they are referred to as indigenous Australians” not that I would refer to them as that. No high horse but at least I know what I’m talking about, there and here too.
Comment by Punter — Sun, Sep 2nd, 2007 @ 2:37 am
“somehow your true colors don’t surprise me” and you true colour is what?
Do I like a “Katherine Coon” that is the cause of the shit up there? NO.
Do I make an excuse of that? NO
Is it my fault they are like that? NO
Do I wish they would get help and have a better chance? YES
Do you have any idea of the situation people are facig there? NO
Franklin, when you know something of the situation the people of the NT are facing and what the pollies are trying to do up there feel free to open a dialogue with me and lets discuss it. Until such time may I suggest you focus on things you may know more about. Like……….?
Comment by Punter — Sun, Sep 2nd, 2007 @ 2:46 am
#63. Danish are happy because they have some oil and they can make trips to Germany to buy cheap stuff. That’s a nice explanation:-)
#65. Net worth includes Gross debt. First you take assest and then you minus liabilities (=debt). If you are wealthy you can have also debt and it’s not so big risk.
Comment by iivana julma — Sun, Sep 2nd, 2007 @ 12:15 pm
True colours? I’m thinking of red and black. Punty, you should really invent some good racist slurs for Finns. There aren’t any I’m aware of that would qualify. Being such an independent thinker, you’re the right man for the job. Stop by a sheep shack back home if you need inspiration. Just avoid the black ones.
Comment by Freeridin' Franklin — Sun, Sep 2nd, 2007 @ 1:50 pm
68 I know what I’m talking about, there and here too. Punter, racist, blustering liar and fool, this little gem of self delusion would be plain hilarious if it wasn’t such a damning indicator of your ignorant arrogance.
It looks like “the scrouge of alcohol” might be even worse back in glorious Aus than even Finland. The presumably lower taxes in Aus still don’t shield them from what seems like a horrific alcohol problem.
Katherine is only one example, being the largest town in the Northern Territory after Darwin and Alice Springs. btw less than one third of people in the Northern Territory are Aboriginal. But of course, someone of your immense knowledge here and there would know these things already.
Punter - racist, blustering liar and fool, have you tried sniffing petrol - isn’t that also a popular Aussie pastime?
Comment by pi — Sun, Sep 2nd, 2007 @ 3:40 pm
I have never read the word “blustering” so many times in my life. What are you, a pirate?
Comment by dave the grave — Sun, Sep 2nd, 2007 @ 4:27 pm
Pi, this city of Katherine you’re so in love with. This major city in The NT, 3rd largest city after Dawrin and Alice Springs. Let’s just look at what it is we’re talking about. Population of NT, a little over 200000. Now population of this mighty major town you’re so upset about? Katherine approx 6500. THAT IS RIGHT. 6500 PEOPLE. Now you (how do we say it) BLUSTERING FOOL why don’t you, as I’ve said before to you specifically, do some research and learn what it is you’re talking about before you come on here and try to educate me or others about Australian society.
6500 people out of a national population of over 21 million. You really are a classic. As for indigenous population in Australia, The NT would no doubt have the highest percentage. If I remember from school days, they had about 25% of the pop and owned half the land up there. As they now have self administration in many parts they are now suffering from many problems too. Alcoholism, petrol sniffing, domestic violence, sexual crimes, assaults and thefts are all common in areas of self admin, so much so the Federal Government (remember they do belong to Australia Pi) has decided to enter their towns, stop the sale of alcohol and remove self admin indefinately. Now PI, tell me, what is wrong with that?
Comment by Punter — Mon, Sep 3rd, 2007 @ 10:21 am
@73. Ahaarr Dave, fear not for Arrr’m no pirate. Rather I simply prefer to address Punty by his full and well earned title, “Punter the racist, blustering liar and fool”.
Comment by pi — Mon, Sep 3rd, 2007 @ 10:22 am
#72- some relatives of mine own a large sheep station in Australia and come to think of it I am inspired by something common there for the likes of you and a few others on this page. It’s the Kiwis that do that to the sheep too, not us but back to the topic. Familiar with the word dag are you? Seems to me to be the perfect sheep inspired description for you and your mates.
Freeridin Daglin? Think about it.
Comment by Punter — Mon, Sep 3rd, 2007 @ 10:25 am
74. Punter the racist, blustering liar and fool, I did some research on Katherine. It is the 3rd largest town in the NT at around 4.5 to 5 percent of the NT population. There are more like 9000 people. So there’s not many people in the territory but still the biggest community of them outside the capital Darwin and Alice Springs is Katherine, what’s your problem calling it one of the major towns of the Northern Territory?
I’m dubious about your claim Aboriginals “own” half the land in the NT. Please privide a reference better that your addled memory of school lessons.
Isn’t it offensive IF they do only own half the the land of the NT if they used to “own” the whole lot of the continent. Wasn’t it stolen from them?
Now by saying “Federal Government (remember they do belong to Australia Pi) has decided to enter their towns” you suggest that Katherine is one of “their” (Aboriginal) when, mate it’s population is only 25% Aboriginal. Have a look at the picture of the lovely white lady who is the mayor and her all white councillors on their web page here http://www.katherine.nt.gov.au/your_council/elected_members_aldermen . It’s clearly not one of these places of “self Admin” that you say the Federal Gvt has “remove self admin indefinately” from.
Once more you show yourself to be full of wind and incorrect.
Comment by pi — Mon, Sep 3rd, 2007 @ 10:50 am
76. Punter the racist, blustering liar and fool, what is that nonsense about, is it the dags around your mouth that impede your ability for honest and sensible communication?
Comment by pi — Mon, Sep 3rd, 2007 @ 10:58 am
Unfortunately you have no ability to see the situation for what it is. When my ggodself or other “foreigners” contribute opinions to FFT, good or bad, at least they are generally (winter excepted??) based on an experience of having lived in Finland, in my case for the past 14 years. To read the drivel coming from you would be equivelant to mentioning some problem in Kilpisjärvi, for eg and trying to base it nationally on the grounds that it is however big by Lappi standards and blah blah blah. Not even Winter would fish for that.
You have no interest in discussion and debate. You come back here and turn a discussion on Finnish alcohol taxes into an ignoranrt rant against Asutralia, Punter and Indigenous Australians, all of which you have no knowledge of. You are an ignorant fool that spends your time fascinated by the “information” you find from Wiki and then wish to enter into debates against people with real life knowledge? You are a great example of the dangers of the internet generation. God help us all…….
Comment by Punter — Mon, Sep 3rd, 2007 @ 11:40 am
So Punter, racist, blustering liar and fool which piece of information I’ve posted do you find incorrect?
As for seeing what the situation is, read the thread, you posted the question linking alcohol taxes and other places. So I’ve shown you some examples from your homeland relevant to this. You don’t seem to like this and start raving about how superior your “real life” knowledge is “I know what I’m talking about, there and here too.”. You don’t seem very willing to learn anything, you already know it all and will not admit that others around here might also know a thing or two.
What’s dangerous is that you’re not willing to allow reality affect your miconceptions and prejudices and continue to mouth off your nonsense.
Being in debt a case of Grange doesn’t seem to temper your fountain of disinformation either.
Comment by pi — Mon, Sep 3rd, 2007 @ 3:40 pm
Grow a brain, go back to school, learn something, anything and then please come to see me. It is a waste of time and effort to even bother with you as you have NO UNDERSTANDING of the things you try to debate. NO IDEAD of anything AUSTRALIAN and I fear probably as little knowledge of things Finnish to.
As for reality, get a taste of it and stop living in your little cyber world (Katherine is a major town) (Australians sniff petrol) (You STOLE the continent off them) and so on.
Comment by Punter — Mon, Sep 3rd, 2007 @ 4:26 pm
All this arguing makes me want a big belt of whisky.
Then I’d belt you two clowns.
Comment by Dave the Slave — Mon, Sep 3rd, 2007 @ 4:51 pm
Dave, let me join you for it, I’ll be the driver (non-drinker) then we can belt him together?
Comment by Punter — Mon, Sep 3rd, 2007 @ 6:37 pm
#76: You’re right, I could use a haircut.
Regarding the problems in the NT, why doesn’t your omniscient, perfect government just let the Invisible Hand solve all problems? What’s with all this welfare-statism? Is the Holy Land run by a bunch of Finns?
Comment by Freeridin' Franklin — Mon, Sep 3rd, 2007 @ 7:13 pm
Fair comment Franklin. I would tend to agree that stop the welfare for all the trouble making wish wash up there and give it to those that truely need it and will use it for its purpose. That in a sense is what the govt are now trying to do bt reforming its distribution and content along with removing “objects” to advancement. It’s a harder line approach but one that just may work in the long run.
In all honesty however, I’m sure in a generations time people will turn around and speak critically of the govt and what they are trying here. Damned if you do, damned if you don’t.
Comment by Punter — Mon, Sep 3rd, 2007 @ 7:22 pm
81.As for reality, get a taste of it and stop living in your little cyber world (Katherine is a major town) (Australians sniff petrol) (You STOLE the continent off them) and so on.
Ok Punter racist blustering fool and liar, perhaps some reality for you once more:
Katherine’s status in the Northern Territory : I didn’t make up the status of Katherine, it is described as one of the Major towns of the Northern Territory in the budget papers of the Northern Territory Government : here you go http://www.budget.nt.gov.au/papers/econ/population.pdf
You didn’t answer if you sniffed petrol but here’s some links to articles that suggests that some Aussies don’t mind a toke of fuel or solvent:
NSW education department - “In NSW students aged 12 years have the highest rates of use with approximately 13% having used solvents in the past week and about a third of all 12 year olds indicating having ever tried solvents.” - Normal Aussie kids in the most populus state, also “Petrol sniffing has proved to be an intractable problem since it was first identified as an emerging issue in the 1970s. Locking up petrol supplies and adding ethyl mercaptan or ’skunk juice’ to petrol supplies have not been successful.”
You still want to deny petrol sniffing exists in Australia, how about the case of buying sex from children with petrol? Very nasty. See
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/elder-jailed-over-petrolforsex/2007/08/29/1188067159707.html?s_cid=rss_national
So how did the white colonists acquire the Australian continent from the inhabitants whose ancestors had lived there for over 40,000 years? Were the locals dispossessed by legal means or some other ways, Punter, rasict, blustering liar and fool?
You were still in AU in 1992 when the Mabo case was handed down in the Australian High Court in which “the effective result of the judgement was to make irrelevant the declaration of terra nullius, or “land belonging to no-one” which had been taken to occur from the commencement British colonisation in 1788″.
Do the massacres sound legal either see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_of_indigenous_Australians
No, that’s right, nor are so many of the other forms of repression and diseases that helped to dispossess the Aboriginal people of their lands.
In Lang, History of NSW (1834) he states “There is black blood at this moment on the hands of individuals of good repute in the colony of New South Wales of which all the waters of New Holland would be insufficient to wash out the indelible stains.”
Grow a brain, go back to school, learn something, anything and then please come to see me.
You display a lack of any academic thought process and instead choose to huff and puff from your high horse even when your opinions are found basesless.
If your brain isn’t dashed by overuse of petrol or other solvents, perhaps you should take advantage of some higher education available to you in Finland.
Comment by pi — Tue, Sep 4th, 2007 @ 4:40 am
Rock dweller, massacres now? Petrol sniffing? Just like your “major town” Katherine? 6500 in Katherine appreox out of a population of 21 million. A massacre? What was that then, 2 dead locals in a fight after a saturday night then? As for your petrol sniffing solvents meaning many chemicals to get stoned on. ie, glue, thinners, metho, kero etc etc etc. Who F’ing cares? Check the stats for the use of “real drugs” and then you might be surprised. Finally as to Mabo (now days Native Title DH, who gives a flying rats arse about it? It’s a politically correct finding that really has no influence at all on the daily lives of 21 million people. Another good reason you should travel and learn as the Wiki pages don’t tell of these “small facts” moron.
If they want their land back and control of my country why don’t they rise up and fight for it? What they have is a situation that is good for them, good for us and therefore good for all. Apart from green hippies with face piercings and people like you that have no real knowledge the daily lives of people are improving. Tell me, what would you do? Give a band of 300000 natives, half of whom are too drunk while the half can’t speak to each other even, control over the land? Send us back to the lands we came from and return Australia to it’s original condition?
FW, you are so below anyone I’ve ever had the misfortune to talk to. At least in the good old days, before Wiki, you could sit down face to face and discuss such matters. I guess thats something you’ve neve learnt to do.
Comment by Punter — Tue, Sep 4th, 2007 @ 6:57 am
87. Punter, racist blustering liar and fool, this outburst merely underlines my previous point - there you go again spraying unsubstantiated opinions without even bothering to check the data presented.
Comment by pi — Tue, Sep 4th, 2007 @ 8:45 am
Punty:
As for your petrol sniffing solvents meaning many chemicals to get stoned on. ie, glue, thinners, metho, kero etc etc etc. Who F’ing cares?
Finnish junttis stand in awe, basking in the glow of your rhetoric skillz.
Comment by Freeridin' Franklin — Tue, Sep 4th, 2007 @ 7:01 pm