Time for a Sugar Tax or VAT on some foods

antrobus

wotsthat wrote: »

The debate is really about whether taxes should be introduced to prevent people from knowingly damaging their own health and thus saving the taxpayer long term.
....

Not necessarily.

In economic terms, if you can identify 'unhealthy foods' that contribute to something like obesity and impose costs on other people, then you have identified a negative externality. You can argue that those unhealthy foods are too cheap as they do not factor in these extra costs, and therefore it's perfectly rational to tax those foods, so that the extra costs are taken into account by consumers.

Taxing those foods will increase their price, which might lead to a decline in their consumption. Or it might not, it depends on the elasticity of demand for the foods concerned. But that does not really matter in economic terms, because the real point in taxing those foods is to ensure that the true cost of consumption is being borne by those who consume those foods, and not by anybody else.

Generali

posh*spice wrote: »

I thought spirits were zero GI. Wine is 15??

I stand corrected. Thank you.

CLAPTON

SnooksNJ wrote: »

To answer the question, the good taxpayers of this country are taxed enough so I am against any new taxes.

all taxes were once 'new'
are you totally against change of all sorts?

Generali

SnooksNJ wrote: »

I'm against Government involvement as well and think if you allow the government to intervene with the lives of obese people what's to stop the Government to take it further and tax other activities that endanger people's lives like working with haz mats, Dr. and nurses who work with infectious diseases, sky divers, skier's, surfers, ect.
To answer the question, the good taxpayers of this country are taxed enough so I am against any new taxes.

Presumably you could cut or scrap other taxes as a result of an increase in taxation on sugar.

I'd get rid of stamp duty if I ruled the world (SDLT and on shares).

cells

wotsthat wrote: »

If most people just ate less and didn't worry about what they ate less of then health problems would dramatically fall.

Are you sure? Does it not mean heath problems would be moderately delayed?


I recall reading a paper which listed all the reasons people in the UK die something along the lines of

200 / 100,000 were from car accidents
15,000 / 100,000 were from heart attacks
10,000 / 100,000 were from cancer
20 /100,000 were killing yourself
5,000/100,000 were from strokes

etc etc

of course all the reasons added together equaled 100,000 / 100,000 which is obvious

But what that means is if you solve one problem you make the others worse. So if something is invented which completely gets rid heart attacks you would see every other reason for death increase as the sums still need to hit 100,000 / 100,000

This is the reason health care will always coat as much as you want it to

shaggydoo

purch wrote: »

Not very bright are you ?

Originally Posted by posh*spice
Bright enough not to have diabetes

purch wrote: »

What a sad pathetic person you are.

Seriously?

If you can around insulting and flaming people what do you expect?

CLAPTON

cells wrote: »

Are you sure? Does it not mean heath problems would be moderately delayed?


I recall reading a paper which listed all the reasons people in the UK die something along the lines of

200 / 100,000 were from car accidents
15,000 / 100,000 were from heart attacks
10,000 / 100,000 were from cancer
20 /100,000 were killing yourself
5,000/100,000 were from strokes

etc etc

of course all the reasons added together equaled 100,000 / 100,000 which is obvious

But what that means is if you solve one problem you make the others worse. So if something is invented which completely gets rid heart attacks you would see every other reason for death increase as the sums still need to hit 100,000 / 100,000

This is the reason health care will always coat as much as you want it to

at the moment is it pretty safe to say that 100% of us will die

and if we don't die from one thing we will die from another.

however in general terms, it seems moral and sensible to discourage (not forbid) people from killing themselves through avoidable life style choices.

in economic terms it seems sensible to discourage people un-necessarily acquiring illnesses that are expensive to treat for the rest of us (like type 2 )


reductio ad absurdum is absurd in these circumstances

cells

CLAPTON wrote: »

at the moment is it pretty safe to say that 100% of us will die

and if we don't die from one thing we will die from another.

however in general terms, it seems moral and sensible to discourage (not forbid) people from killing themselves through avoidable life style choices.

in economic terms it seems sensible to discourage people un-necessarily acquiring illnesses that are expensive to treat for the rest of us (like type 2 )

But health care costs what you want it to cost

if type two diabetes is completely removed it just means more dementia patents more stroke patients more pensioner benefits etc

this doesn't mean don't try to get rid of disease. It means it won't cost you any less (might cost you more) to provide health care. So it should be seen more as a heath/wellbeing and longevity benefit as money wise it's probably a loss to treat most post age 50-60 diseases

beecher2

Many diabetes patients are elderly - it is often the case that Type 2 develops when people are older. Maybe part of the reason for the increase is simply the fact that people are living longer and managing conditions for a longer time period than used to be the case.

Generali

IIRC, 28 people died in 1992 from accidents involving trousers.