Keeping up with the latest Brexit News

Which option would you prefer?

  • Leave with no deal

    Votes: 122 74.4%
  • Leave with the WA without the backstop

    Votes: 42 25.6%

  • Total voters
    164
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.

Sonic67

Banned
To be fair, it was Thatcher that started the rot. Countless towns across the north have never recovered. We're well into the second generation of impact now.
It was Thatcher that got us out of the rot. It started with Labour, and non stop industrial action.
 

GoingGoingGone

Distinguished Member
And?

To repeat again, we import most of our hops and non EU imports attract a 3.2% tariff. So beer could be cheaper when we leave.

(Not that I think 3.2% on one ingredient will make a big difference)
Hop price $10.37K USD per Metric Ton
2016 Value of UK imports $61.65 million, amount imported 4.71K metric tonnes.
Hop global import and top importing countries - Tridge
Removing the 3.2% would shave a total of USD $1.97 million max off the cost of the imports (2016).

As most of the cost of beer is little to do with the cost of ingredients, result of not having to pay 3.2% import duty would be negligible. Also a lot of the imported hops come from the EU and so are not subject to the 3.2% in the first place.

Some of the best beers made with British hops include:

Spitfire (Shepherd Neame): cask 4.2% abv, bottle 4.5%

Broadside (Adnams): cask 4.7%, bottle 6.3%

Canterbury Jack (Shepherd Neame): cask 3.5%, bottle 4%

Gadds' Dogbolter (Ramsgate): cask and bottle 5.6%

London Pride (Fuller's): cask 4.1%, bottle 4.7%

ESB (Fuller's): cask 5.5%, bottle 5.9%

Wainwright (Thwaites): bottle 4.1%.
British beer-makers fight back against fashion for foreign hops
 
D

Deleted member 13294

Guest
As most of the cost of beer is little to do with the cost of ingredients, result of not having to pay 3.2% import duty would be negligible. Also a lot of the imported hops come from the EU and so are not subject to the 3.2% in the first place.
Go back and look at the final sentence in what you quoted from me.
 

GoingGoingGone

Distinguished Member
Go back and look at the final sentence in what you quoted from me.
I read it
"So beer could be cheaper when we leave. (Not that I think 3.2% on one ingredient will make a big difference)"
and I read your previous post
"So yes, a beer produced in the UK could well be cheaper when we leave the EU"

I was pointing out any difference would be so small as to be negligible/unnoticeable/nonexistent. And also that it would make zero difference to the many beers produced in the UK using british or imported from the EU hops.
 
D

Deleted member 13294

Guest
I was pointing out any difference would be so small as to be negligible/unnoticeable/nonexistent. And also that it would make zero difference to the many beers produced in the UK using british or imported from the EU hops.
So all that effort to agree with me it wouldn't make much difference?

Well done.
 

techquest

Well-known Member
At long last the world is rid of one of the biggest despots of our time. How anyone could use the words mugabe was an Icon of Liberation beggars belief. I never agreed with white rule but to run the country into the ground the way he did was despicable, as was the fact that not a single country did anything about it. The world has become a better place now he's gone and hopefully Zimbabwe will recover in time to come.
 

Juiceloose

Active Member
Manchester. Four or five years ago.

Maybe it's better these days. I hear they're all unconscious on the pavement outside now. Spiced out of their heads :(

A decade of Tory of austerity eh? Now that's a disgrace.
And why was the austerity required? Because Labour as usual spent, spent and spent beyond the country's means.
 

GoingGoingGone

Distinguished Member
So all that effort to agree with me it wouldn't make much difference?

Well done.
Wrong.
I said it won't make any difference at all. Not the same as your 'beer could be cheaper' or even your "Not that I think 3.2% on one ingredient will make a big difference".
It doesn't make any difference to the cost of a pint to the consumer whether hops has an import tariff of 3.2% or if it doesn't have an import tariff at all.

Perhaps you should of looked at the cost of the import first before knee jerkingly (EU bad) going on about a 3.2% import tariff on the hops from USA and Australia and how much of it is actually used in the consumer end product; a pint of beer.
"You are aware we import most of the hops used in beer production including from the USA and Australia? Which attract a 3.2% tariff."
and
"To repeat again, we import most of our hops and non EU imports attract a 3.2% tariff. So beer could be cheaper when we leave."

Hops are only a flavouring, not a major ingredient of beer.
If the amount imported was $10 billion dollars worth knocking 3.2% import tariff off might reduce prices. But not when the amount imported was USD$65 million worth (2016) and the import tariff thus only adds less than USD 2 million to the costs of making the product even if all of the hop imports were subject to tariffs (which they are not). Imports of hops actually fell in 2018 compared to the 2016 figure mentioned and were lower at around £33 million for that year.

A Home brew forum sees people mentioning using 50-100g of hops per 5 gallons (22.7 litres) of beer. So at a max amount of less than 5g per litre or 2.5g of hops per pint.
At the mentioned price of USD $10.37K per metric tonne and 1 million grams per metric tonne that means each gram of hops costs $0.01037 or 1 cent US (£0.008) commercially in bulk. Even buying for home brewing in 100g packets the cost of hops is between just £0.025 to £0.06 per gram depending on variety (and that includes VAT at 20% too).

Assuming that commercial brewing uses the same quantity of hops per pint as home brew:
  • that means the hops cost per pint is around £0.02. £0.02 - 3.2% is £0.01936 with no import tariff or the tariff adds in the region of £0.00064 per pint.
  • Even upping the hops quantity to say 25g of hops per pint (>10 times the mentioned amount) hops cost would be £0.20p cost per pint. £0.20p - 3.2% = £0.1936 with no import tariff or the tariff adds in the region of £0.0064 per pint.
  • The lowest cost that can change to the consumer is 1p and neither of these tariff figures are anywhere near 1p. I'm aware that deducting 3.2% is not the same as adding 3.2% but as the figure either way is so small it's pointless to be totally accurate as it doesn't make any difference to the end result.
  • Only if the amount of hops rises to say 250g per pint (100 times normal amount) could there be a saving with the hops ingredient then costing £2 and the import tariff for the hops then being around 6-7p per pint. But beer with that quantity of hops per pint would be undrinkable.
TLDR: 3.2% import duty for hops makes no difference at all to the price the consumer pays per pint for beer. It cannot do so as the quantities of hops used per pint are very small and the cost of the ingredient is low.
 
Last edited:

GoingGoingGone

Distinguished Member
And why was the austerity required? Because Labour as usual spent, spent and spent beyond the country's means.
To bail out a load of bankers playing fast and loose with CDOs. Incidentally Sajid Javid was one of them...

In the autumn of 2006, Javid was sent to Singapore to lead Deutsche’s credit trading in Asia. That meant, according to the financial magazine Euromoney, that he was in charge of, among other things, collateralised debt obligation (CDOs) – a financial product that was soon to get a very bad name for itself in the coming crisis. Earlier this year, Euromoney highlighted Javid’s role in the controversial pre-crash trading of CDOs. Speaking to a reporter in 2006, Javid had said of emerging-market CDOs: “As long as investors understand the risk/rewards of an emerging-market CDO, they are very appropriate.” That line is now described by a senior debt market reporter as “hilarious”.

The specific allegation aired in the Euromoney article is that Javid was “responsible for structuring an emerging-market synthetic CDO that incurred millions of dollars’ worth of losses for investors”. A US private equity fund alleged that Deutsche had “stuffed the CDO with ineligible loans that resulted in the 14.28% loss rate”, according to Euromoney, though the bank claimed the losses were due to the financial crisis and the risks had been known. The eventual court case was dismissed because it fell outside the five-year statute of limitations.

As the magazine put it: “One former Deutsche Bank colleague expressed amazement to Euromoney at how Javid ‘is spinning his former career’ as a sober investment banker as opposed to a structured credit trader at the heart of the business that precipitated the global financial crisis.” Javid’s spokesman says he does not agree with Euromoney’s description of his activities.

What Thatcherite union buster Sajid Javid learned on Wall Street

It will not be lost on those that have suffered the consequences of the last nine years of austerity following the 2008 financial crisis that the newly appointed chancellor profited from the greed that contributed to it.
John McDonnell questions chancellor's suitability for office
 
D

Deleted member 13294

Guest
I said it won't make any difference at all. Not the same as your 'beer could be cheaper' or even your "Not that I think 3.2% on one ingredient will make a big difference".
So we are in agreement then.

Thanks.
 
D

Deleted member 13294

Guest
To bail out a load of bankers playing fast and loose with CDOs. Incidentally Sajid Javid was one of them.
The deficit was not due to bailing out the banks.

We actually made money on the guarantees we gave (none of which were ever called on).

The deficit was simply due to tax income falling as the economy shrunk, and the labour Government already being in a large deficit when that started.

We currently have the smallest deficit since 2004. That's four years before the crash, during an unprecedented debt fuelled boom.
 

GoingGoingGone

Distinguished Member
So we are in agreement then.

Thanks.
o_O How do you work that out?
You twice said beer could be cheaper without the 3.2% import tariff.
Cannot make any difference does not equal could be cheaper.
Or are we in agreement that that your posts #29180 and #29187 were wrong regarding beer could be cheaper when we leave the EU? :cool:
 
Last edited:

GoingGoingGone

Distinguished Member
The deficit was not due to bailing out the banks.

We actually made money on the guarantees we gave (none of which were ever called on).

The deficit was simply due to tax income falling as the economy shrunk, and the labour Government already being in a large deficit when that started.

We currently have the smallest deficit since 2004. That's four years before the crash, during an unprecedented debt fuelled boom.
1. figures from the National Audit Office (NAO) in 2018 estimated the sum spent to stabilise the banks to be £133 billion.

2. And a defict which for 8 years of the conservative government was higher than 2004.
And a deficit currently not lower than 1998/99 to 2001/02 (lowest it has ever been this century). Who was in government then?

deficit.jpg

3. And a national debt to GDP ratio which rose for every year since 2010 when a conservative government was in power. And was lower during the period when the labour government was in power.

debt.jpg debt1.jpg debt2.jpg
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

The latest video from AVForums

Podcast: CES 2021 Special - Sony, LG, Panasonic, Samsung, TCL and Hisense TV news and more...

Latest News

iFi Audio launches iDSD Diablo DAC/Headphone amp
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
Samsung launches Galaxy Buds Pro
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
Samsung launches Galaxy S21, S21+ and S21 Ultra smart phones
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
Mola Mola debuts Kula integrated amplifier
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
TCL announces TS8132 soundbar
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
Top Bottom