Alcopop tax killed in the senate.

[Romulus]

It won't get passed. The opposition and several independants have already said they'll kill it again.

[JACK250]

Originally Posted by TVS Super Pursuit

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.

But 5 drinks in an hour isn't drinking in moderation

[Work Horse]

Originally Posted by TVS Super Pursuit

It won't get passed. The opposition and several independants have already said they'll kill it again.

Gee I wonder why they are doing it then?.........

*Cough*Double disillusion of parliament*Cough*

*Cough*Kevin Rudd 74% approval rating*Cough*

*Cough*Malcolm Turnbull 48% disapproval rating*Cough*

*Cough*it's independents not independants*Cough*

*Cough*I must see a doctor Ha Ha Ha*Cough*

[Airmon]

Is it just me or does premixed alcahol still seem to be more expensive then what it used to be? And don't mean due to inflation high, abnormally higher.
Sure its gone down, but not by as much as it went up.

[vztrt]

Federal court has allowed the tax to still be collected while this bill is in parliament.

I've highlighted some of the story that I feel is important to the issue.

http://www.theage.com.au/national/se...3.html?page=-1

Second shot at alcopops tax hike

* Michelle Grattan
* April 16, 2009

THE Opposition and Family First Senator Steve Fielding are being challenged to pass legislation to be re-presented for the $1.6 billion alcopops tax hike — or put in place a double dissolution trigger.

The move will put huge pressure in coming weeks on Senator Fielding in particular, who was widely condemned for joining with the Opposition to defeat the measure in March.

The Government will try again in the budget session to get its tax increase through Parliament, as well as validating the revenue already collected over the past year.

Meanwhile, the Federal Court has brought down a judgement saying the Tax Office can continue to collect the controversial tax for the time being, despite its not being law.

Treasurer Wayne Swan and Health Minister Nicola Roxon said when Parliament resumed for the budget session next month the Government would immediately introduce a regulation, taking effect May 14, to ensure the higher tax remained in place.

This would then be confirmed in legislation — which, if rejected for the second time, would be the Government's first double dissolution trigger. But Mr Swan, in a pre-emptive move to stop an outbreak of speculation about an early election, said that even if the Opposition loaded the double-dissolution gun, "we have no intention of firing it".

Separate legislation would be used to allow the Government to retain the $365 million collected up to the coming budget, which otherwise would be returned to distillers.

Opposition health spokesman Peter Dutton said the Coalition would support the retention of the tax collected, which it had offered to do when it voted against the increase. It would, however, still oppose the continuation of the higher tax.

Senator Fielding also supported the move to retain money collected. But he said the Government was "still trying to hide behind the alcopops tax as a binge drinking measure" when in reality it is "a revenue raiser, and it will not address binge drinking".

Senator Fielding is sticking to his earlier demand the Government ban alcohol ads during sporting telecasts, and said "the tax won't be supported unless they move on the advertising restrictions".

But the Government concentrated the public pressure on Opposition Leader Malcolm Turnbull, rather than Senator Fielding. Mr Swan accused the Opposition of an entirely negative stance on issues including not just alcopops but broadband, economic stimulus, and school modernisation.

A coalition of peak health organisations welcomed the Government's new effort. VicHealth chief executive officer Todd Harper said he hoped the Government would ensure some of the revenue collected would be directed into programs to prevent alcohol harm in the community.

A survey commissioned by VicHealth and the Australian Drug Foundation found more than 85 per cent of people believed the sweet taste of some alcohol products increased the risk of under-age drinking.

But the Distilled Spirits Industry Council condemned the Government move as a complete disregard for the Senate's decision.

The Greens and independent Nick Xenophon voted for the tax increase last time, and are pressing for its passage.

[Fev]

Originally Posted by ILLaViTaR

Agreed. The amount they've spent on disabled people for trams and other things is absurd. It's not their fault that their disabled, but it's not ours either so stop making us pay for it.

i hope you were being sarcastic there, otherwise thats one of the most ignorant things i've ever heard.





Airmon - yeah, i've noticed the prices are still high. The vendors know that customers will be happy its cheaper so they will still charge more for them - which is bullplop..


Anyone know if during the period where the alcopop tax was in, did bar violence increase? Wasn't this when alot of glassing's happened and why Bars in the city now serve in plastic cups? (Sydney)
i wouldn't be surprised since more people would go get drunk at a bar because its not much more then buying it from a bottle-o

[Jason[98.EL]]

the tax is being removed at midnight on the 13th may

that is if the bill doesn't get through if it does the price will remain the same

as the letter we got from the ato there is what they call a cooling off period

it will be interesting to see what happens in the senate on this one.....

Jason

[Jason[98.EL]]

interesting artical on this toppic

Coalition will negotiate on alcopops

The federal coalition says it's willing to negotiate with the government on measures to reduce binge drinking, but it won't support an alcopops tax hike.

Opposition health spokesman Peter Dutton says putting a tax hike on just one alcoholic product is not a serious way forward.

"If the government has something substantive to put on the table, we will look at it and negotiate and we will support sensible legislation," he told ABC television on Thursday.

"But we are not going to support what has just been a terrible grab for tax by desperate government desperate for revenue to try and shore up the other side of their ledger."

The federal government plans to introduce legislation in May to try again for the Senate to pass its 70 per cent alcopops tax increase.

Legislation will also be introduced to validate the $365 million in revenue already raised by the measure.

The Senate rejected the tax rise in March after Family First's Steve Fielding sided with the coalition and voted down the bill.

Mr Dutton said heavy beer sales had gone up in the last 12 months, showing that young people had simply switched from one product to another.

He said the coalition was serious about reducing binge drinking and had a policy.

"We want to make sure that if the government is serious about addressing the problem of binge drinking, they don't just try and dress this up as a health measure when it's really just a tax measure," he said.

"Saying to the Australian public that we are just going to put a tax hike on one product but not on the other, that is not a serious way forward.

Jason

[ILLaViTaR]

Originally Posted by Fev

i hope you were being sarcastic there, otherwise thats one of the most ignorant things i've ever heard.





Airmon - yeah, i've noticed the prices are still high. The vendors know that customers will be happy its cheaper so they will still charge more for them - which is bullplop..


Anyone know if during the period where the alcopop tax was in, did bar violence increase? Wasn't this when alot of glassing's happened and why Bars in the city now serve in plastic cups? (Sydney)
i wouldn't be surprised since more people would go get drunk at a bar because its not much more then buying it from a bottle-o

Yeah it was a bit cold, probably should explain myself better.
Of course they need facilities built for them as it must be a struggle everyday for them but they're going over the top.

They've spent millions modifying all the tram platforms in Melbourne so they're level with the tram which cost tax payers an absolute heap. Managed 100 years without them but someone probably said it was offensive so they built it.

[Airmon]

Raise the tax on all alcoholic beverages and see how many 'private' stills pop up in its place.
People who have drinking problems arn't going to turn around and say "well its more expensive now so I'll stop".

[Work Horse]

Originally Posted by ILLaViTaR

Yeah it was a bit cold, probably should explain myself better.
Of course they need facilities built for them as it must be a struggle everyday for them but they're going over the top.

They've spent millions modifying all the tram platforms in Melbourne so they're level with the tram which cost tax payers an absolute heap. Managed 100 years without them but someone probably said it was offensive so they built it.

Blame the morons who designed stops for able bodied only people in the first place, you narrow minded bigot :

[Romulus]

Originally Posted by Airmon

Raise the tax on all alcoholic beverages and see how many 'private' stills pop up in its place.
People who have drinking problems arn't going to turn around and say "well its more expensive now so I'll stop".

Yep, it's another dumb labor idea. Raising taxes doesn't equal lower consumption, it means more revenue. They've confirmed this in their own budget estimates :

[Serial_Fool]

What really peeved me off is when the Government anounced the intention to resubmit the idea, they claimed it was important for the government to be able to make decisions during the GFC. If that doesn't clarify it isn't a money grab then I don't know what will.

[Falcon Coupe]

Originally Posted by Serial_Fool

What really peeved me off is when the Government anounced the intention to resubmit the idea, they claimed it was important for the government to be able to make decisions during the GFC. If that doesn't clarify it isn't a money grab then I don't know what will.

The Government have an ulterior motive for wanting to pass this motion again.
Do the words "double dissolution" and KRudd 74% approval mean anything to you ?

[Serial_Fool]

I couldn't give a stuff about the governments 74% approval rating and the "double dissolution" has only ever been done 5 times in Australia's history. Give me some figures on the approval rating for Rudd the Dud's tax.... I bet it wouldn't be too supportive of the government's money grab.

[Falcon Coupe]

Originally Posted by Serial_Fool

I couldn't give a stuff about the governments 74% approval rating and the "double dissolution" has only ever been done 5 times in Australia's history. Give me some figures on the approval rating for Rudd the Dud's tax.... I bet it wouldn't be too supportive of the government's money grab.

Don't get me wrong. I dislike the tax as much as the next bloke but hold my tongue mostly due to the Moderator tag.

And you will give a stuff if the Government ends up with a senate majority, this tax and what ever other dopey ideas they come up with will go straight through no matter what the opposition say.

[Serial_Fool]

I think someone in the opposition with some extremely good financial credientials may rise to the challange between now and 2011. Hopefully people by that time will be thinking with the $$$ part of the brain instead of the environmental neo hippy side. The subsequent relation between this "someone" and Australia's time of prosperity may be enough to let this someone form government.

But lets not get off track in this thread, I've ranted much too much.

[Daymoe]

Originally Posted by Falcon Coupe

Don't get me wrong. I dislike the tax as much as the next bloke but hold my tongue mostly due to the Moderator tag.

And you will give a stuff if the Government ends up with a senate majority, this tax and what ever other dopey ideas they come up with will go straight through no matter what the opposition say.

If the Labor government takes over, doesn't that mean they could raise the GST?

[vztrt]

Originally Posted by Serial_Fool

I couldn't give a stuff about the governments 74% approval rating and the "double dissolution" has only ever been done 5 times in Australia's history. Give me some figures on the approval rating for Rudd the Dud's tax.... I bet it wouldn't be too supportive of the government's money grab.

Oh but its to curb excessive teenage drinking!! _

The government will get their way, and then they will focus on beer and wine and bottled spirits and will remove advertising on alcohol, it will take a while but eventually they will shift people's mindset into doing this.

They've pretty much done all they could do with smoking (well almost), so now its time to focus on alcohol and after that they will start on their next campaign.

[aye you]

as far as i understand that without the support f the independents, which Labour don't have, that can't get the bill passed. If they don't get it passed this time I understand that the Labour want to put it to a public vote, which I reckon will fail

[Outbackjack]

Originally Posted by aye you

as far as i understand that without the support f the independents, which Labour don't have, that can't get the bill passed. If they don't get it passed this time I understand that the Labour want to put it to a public vote, which I reckon will fail

I can smell a double disallution (SP?) The public vote will be at the polling booth. If you (not you, just s a generic phrase) think that the coalition are in a bad way now, just wait to after the election......

[Tote]

Although a few more boat people might change the Govts enthusiasm for a double dissolution........
Regards,
Tote

[SpoolMan]

Closed

Boat people, politics, hippie's, Mr. 74% or was this thread about an alcohol tax.