Saturday, November 12, 2011

Labour backs user pays

Interesting thread over at the Standard, in which various lefty types claim Labour's minimum pricing policy for alcohol is an excellent idea because it means drinkers will cover the costs caused by drunks. (Which it wouldn't, as it's a minimum price not a tax, but for the sake of argument...)

Leaving aside the question of whether the propaganda figures about the cost/benefit ratio of alcohol use in society are correct (they're not), I find it a curious stance for leftists to take, as they're normally flatly opposed to the kind of "user pays" argument they're using here. An argument predicated on sheeting costs home to those statistically more likely to incur the costs has an initial sense of fairness about it that appeals to right-wingers, but leftists are supposedly meant to think of society in less individualistic and vindictive terms. Still, if we did go down that track, as someone completely lacking all interest in sport I wouldn't feel all cut up about the amount of tax the govt could charge you for picking up a rugby ball...

17 comments:

Psycho Milt said...

Doh! No sooner posted it than I realised what was bugging me about it. User pays would be actually billing the individual for the cost of the emergency response, the medical care, the Police response, the investigation, court case, prison sentence etc. So we're not looking at right-wing style user pays, we're actually looking at the classical Labour approach of finding a way to make responsible participants accountable for the actions of the expensive minority. As with their approach to dangerous driving, child abuse and so on, so it is with alcohol.

Anonymous said...

What I find amusing is that these taxes hit Labour's traditional supporter the hardest - the poor and downtrodden.

Seriously, if you can't afford a house, a nice car or holidays to Europe what do you actually have to look forward in life - a smoke and more than a few drinks.

These policies are simply proof that Labour's been taken over by university educated tossers who look down upon these simple working class pleasures.

Of course they're all for legalising weed which is one vice they habitually partake in.

Anonymous said...

Seriously, if you can't afford a house, a nice car or holidays to Europe what do you actually have to look forward in life - a smoke and more than a few drinks.

Seriously? That's all low income people want for themselves? That's all you need to keep them jolly so you can swan off to Europe? Shitloads of cheap alcohol and ciggies is the answer, otherwise they'll be climbing in your windows at night. You know this how? This place is positively infested with morons.

FAIRFACTS MEDIA said...

Indeed PM, it's the usual nannying from Liarbour.
Lefties are just addicted to telling people what to do.
It's about control.
When communism failed, look how the left turned to climate change to promote their control of industry, along with every facet of everyone's life.
Lefties cannot help but want to tell everyone how to run their lives. They cannot leave people alone.

Judge Holden said...

While the last thing Fairy would want is an increase in the price of cheap alcohol, he implacably opposes the liberalisation of drug laws. At the same time he whines about "lefties" controlling people. This demonstrates the appalling effect drink has on someone's mind. Either that or he's just plain thick.

Anonymous said...

Your add-on comment PM is correct; this is yet another example of Leftist puritanism, where a very small minority use a series of dodgy 'studies' are interpreted to provide a position consistent with their idea to ban anything and everything that may resemble barbaric forms of fun....

Psycho Milt said...

What I find amusing is that these taxes hit Labour's traditional supporter the hardest - the poor and downtrodden.

The most fucked-up thing about it is that it isn't even a tax. It's not like they're talking raising the excise tax and putting the money raised into dealing with munters, they're just talking about setting a minimum price to discourage the less well off from drinking.

These policies are simply proof that Labour's been taken over by university educated tossers who look down upon these simple working class pleasures.

I think that about sums it up.

Seriously? That's all low income people want for themselves?

Can't speak for Anonymous, but it seems to me that no, that's not all low-income people want for themselves, but that's not a reason to pointlessly charge them extra for choosing a material pleasure the wowser schoolmarms in the Labour Party think they shouldn't.

Emmess said...

The Labour Party is taking on the working man
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yEdP5y5fT-w

Emmess said...

The Labour Party is taking on the working man
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yEdP5y5fT-w

Anonymous said...

"Seriously? That's all low income people want for themselves? That's all you need to keep them jolly so you can swan off to Europe? Shitloads of cheap alcohol and ciggies is the answer, otherwise they'll be climbing in your windows at night. You know this how? This place is positively infested with morons."

Yep, pretty much and maybe a spot or two.

Labour's nothing but a vacuous brand fronted by the white middle class attempting to persuade the working class that they have their interest at heart when they're just fucking them over and laughing at them. Shit like this is proof.

Having a minimum price level is Labour saying If you can't afford a good chardoney then fuck you.

Anonymous said...

"Labour's nothing but a vacuous brand fronted by the white middle class attempting to persuade the working class that they have their interest at heart when they're just fucking them over and laughing at them."

Whereas the Nats are nothing but a vacuous brand fronted by the white middle class attempting to persuade the working class that they have their interest at heart when they're just fucking them over and laughing at them. And they're doing a far more thorough job and have richer friends.

Anonymous said...

"Whereas the Nats are nothing but a vacuous brand fronted by the white middle class attempting to persuade the working class that they have their interest at heart when they're just fucking them over and laughing at them. And they're doing a far more thorough job and have richer friends."

Umm yeah, but the Nat's aren't pretending to represent the interests of the working class like Labour is and then fucking them over.


That is the distinction.

Your comment offers no revelations whatsoever.

Anonymous said...

Yeah they are, they just phrase it differently. Read their shit, dopey.

Anonymous said...

"Yeah they are, they just phrase it differently. Read their shit, dopey."

Riiiiight.

It's cetainly amusing to think that there are people who actually believe the propaganda put out by political parties.

Anonymous said...

"It's cetainly amusing to think that there are people who actually believe the propaganda put out by political parties."

I don't think anyone does, Einstein. The Nats are pretending to represent working NZers, remember? Except for some reason you think they're not. That's amusing.

Anonymous said...

I think you're gettig a little confused. Have a sleep and think about it dear.

Rob Carr said...

On my part I am happy to support stuff like this because it stops people talking about prohibition. It is a lesser evil.

It comes down to how you conceptualise how people should be liable for harm harm:
1. Direct damage only
2. Third party effects (e.g. increased nationwide healthcare costs)

The left/liberal solution to this can take two forms:
-Penalise direct damage and pay for third party effects from general taxation(Non-intervention Model)
-Penalise direct damage and pay for third party effects from general taxation on the issue in question e.g. motorbikes, alcohol et (Excise Model)

The authoritarian/right models can also take two forms:
-Penalise direct damage and create deliberate disincentives to lower occurrence of third party effects (Minimum Pricing Model)
-Penalise both direct damage and third party effects equally(Zero Tolerance Model)

Finally there is the right/liberal models:
-Penalise direct damage and pay for third party effects by individuals (Personal Responsibility Model)
-Don't do anything (Libertarian Model)

The fact is minimum pricing sits in the wrong side of the political spectrum for them particularly if they want to represent the poor but it is only putting a toe in the water of it and appeases the authoritarians so they can focus on other issues.