« Do parents matter? | Main | Valuing bosses »

January 18, 2011

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Mr T

If the net result is so uncertain, then obviously this is just yer average tax hike…

Funfoid

IMHO, any comment on such a marginal change could not be other than stochastic.

Mark Pack

Chris: What's the evidence for saying that the government hasn't considered the behavioural economics aspects of the issue?

I've no idea if they have or if they haven't, but from your last line you sound as if you know for sure they haven't, so I was wondering whether there's something I've missed (e.g. a memo preliminary to this announcement that should have mentioned them but didn't) or whether it was a case of peroration hyperbole :-)

Patrick C

"This happened because prices can crowd out social norms, and if the price is low enough, its deterrent effect will be weaker than the social norm it displaced.
A similar thing could happen in this case. The low minimum price might be taken as a official vindication of cheap drinking without pricing committed drinkers out of their habits. "

That's an interesting point, but what is the evidence of the effect of social norms and offical deprecation on would-be binge drinkers?

The difference with the Isreali late pick up charge for a child is that in that case there was no price for the service (looking after the child for an extended period), but there already is a market price for alcohol.

Livingonwords.blogspot.com

Interesting take on the issue - my view was far less technical - why bother legislating for something that has so little impact to be basically negligible.

But on a related issue - isn't it time we reduced the tax and duty on tobacco to prevent smuggling and raise revenue?

I posted this last night:

http://livingonwords.blogspot.com/2011/01/time-to-cut-tax-on-fags-and-possibly.html

The comments to this entry are closed.

Why S&M?

Blog powered by Typepad