MSE News: Budget 2016: New 'sugar tax' on soft drinks but beer & spirits duty frozen

edited 30 November -1 at 1:00AM in Food Shopping & Groceries
9 replies 3.2K views
MSE_LukeMSE_Luke MSE Staff
295 Posts
Fourth Anniversary
MSE Staff
edited 30 November -1 at 1:00AM in Food Shopping & Groceries
Those who enjoy fizzy drinks, cigarettes and wine will be hit by tax changes announced in the 2016 Budget...
Read the full story:
'Budget 2016: New 'sugar tax' on soft drinks but beer and spirits duty frozen'
OfficialStamp.gif
Click reply below to discuss. If you haven’t already, join the forum to reply. If you aren’t sure how it all works, read our New to Forum? Intro Guide.

Replies

  • surfsistersurfsister Forumite
    7.5K Posts
    I've been Money Tipped!
    pity a bout the sugar tax on gin n tonic!!! lol!
  • robin58robin58 Forumite
    2.8K Posts
    I think the biggest laugh about this is they are giving money to schools for sporting activity.

    Then the schools procure their sporting equipment from contracted suppliers who no doubt charge twice the price that you can get in the high street.

    A win win for business.
    The more I live, the more I learn.
    The more I learn, the more I grow.
    The more I grow, the more I see.
    The more I see, the more I know.
    The more I know, the more I see,
    How little I know.!! ;)
  • A._BadgerA._Badger Forumite
    5.6K Posts
    Part of the Furniture 1,000 Posts Name Dropper
    ✭✭✭✭
    More government by screechy single issue pressure groups.

    There isn't a single country where this has been tried where it has worked. There is no evidence that sugar intake is primarily responsible for current obesity levels.

    The following quote from the Institute of Economic Affairs just about sums-up the situation:

    "Early evidence from Mexico suggests that a ten per cent tax on sugary drinks led to an average daily decline in consumption of 36ml per person (Colchero et al. 2016). As Tom Sanders, a professor of nutrition and dietetics, notes, this is the equivalent of 16 calories and is ‘a drop in the caloric ocean”.
  • edited 17 March 2016 at 1:52AM
    robin58robin58 Forumite
    2.8K Posts
    edited 17 March 2016 at 1:52AM
    A._Badger wrote: »
    More government by screechy single issue pressure groups.

    There isn't a single country where this has been tried where it has worked. There is no evidence that sugar intake is primarily responsible for current obesity levels.

    The following quote from the Institute of Economic Affairs just about sums-up the situation:

    "Early evidence from Mexico suggests that a ten per cent tax on sugary drinks led to an average daily decline in consumption of 36ml per person (Colchero et al. 2016). As Tom Sanders, a professor of nutrition and dietetics, notes, this is the equivalent of 16 calories and is ‘a drop in the caloric ocean”.

    Correct!

    It will only work for 'kids' by their parents controlling intake of the soft drink.

    But as we all know products are all about getting you 'addicted' to a particular brand.

    All the tax will do is decrease the purchasing of the soft drinks by the more financially challenged in society who have other more important financial commitments

    With the people who have the money to purchase the products, they will still buy it tax or no tax.

    Jamie Oliver's crusade to me is badly misguided this time.



    Sounds like the crusade of removing sweets from the till areas.

    In my local Tesco Expess they have a healthily food option on an end isle near but away from the till area but banks of high fat grab bags of crisps lined up on either side of the queue waiting area AFTER the healthy foods.

    What a stupid own goal by the sweet crusaders!
    The more I live, the more I learn.
    The more I learn, the more I grow.
    The more I grow, the more I see.
    The more I see, the more I know.
    The more I know, the more I see,
    How little I know.!! ;)
  • One-EyeOne-Eye Forumite
    57.1K Posts
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Photogenic Name Dropper
    ✭✭✭✭✭✭
    Taxing just "fizzy drinks" is stupid and misguided - a bit like taxing just "Superking" cigarettes and not all other types of tobacco. I suppose the aim is to stop kids drinking Coca Cola and to have them consume something healthier like fresh orange juice, banana milk or even a banana:-

    Coca Cola 330ml (taxed) - 35g sugar / 139kcal
    Ribena 330ml (taxed) - 34.3g sugar / 143kcal
    Banana Milk 330ml (untaxed) - 35g sugar / 240kcal
    Fresh Orange 330ml (untaxed) - 34.7g sugar / 155kcal
    1 Banana (untaxed) - 31.4g sugar / 154 kcal

    PS. I notice Mr. Oliver is happy enough to sell coke and other high sugar drinks in his restaurants, and looking at the prices it looks like he has unilaterally decided to charge a rather high tax already.
  • stephen77stephen77 Forumite
    10.3K Posts
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    Well hope it gets children more active and less excuse for companies not to have sports equipment.
  • robin58robin58 Forumite
    2.8K Posts
    stephen77 wrote: »
    Well hope it gets children more active and less excuse for companies not to have sports equipment.

    ???????????
    The more I live, the more I learn.
    The more I learn, the more I grow.
    The more I grow, the more I see.
    The more I see, the more I know.
    The more I know, the more I see,
    How little I know.!! ;)
  • Kim_13Kim_13 Forumite
    1.9K Posts
    Intrepid Forum Explorer Newshound!
    ✭✭✭
    I agree that the sugar tax is too narrow and should include other sugary items, most notably milkshakes which are often worse than fizzy drinks.

    Since it is levied on the manufacturers, what is there to say that it will actually do what it was designed for? The retailers/manufacturers could just up prices across the board, leaving consumers of the diet variants to subsidise the full fat versions that they're not consuming.

    I object to all these taxes that that get charged only for the proceeds to go to 'good causes.' I'd rather they did away with it and used the money to help fund stopping cutting so much/continuously moving the retirement goalposts.
    Sealed Pot 11 #520 ~ /£100
    VSP 2018 #9 ~ £19.55/£180.00
    CCCC 2018 #1 ~ £20.75/£180.00
  • VfM4meplseVfM4meplse
    34.3K Posts
    I've been Money Tipped!
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    A._Badger wrote: »
    More government by screechy single issue pressure groups.
    Unless you are an insulin user, or an athlete, no good can come from sugary drinks.

    If people were able to apply moderation, there'd be no need for taxation.
    Value-for-money-for-me-puhleeze!

    "No man is worth, crawling on the earth"- adapted from Bob Crewe and Bob Gaudio

    Hope is not a strategy :D...A child is for life, not just 18 years....Don't get me started on the NHS, because you won't win...I love chaz-ing!
This discussion has been closed.
Latest News and Guides