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

MSE_Luke

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'

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.

surfsister

pity a bout the sugar tax on gin n tonic!!! lol!

robin58

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.

A._Badger

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”.

robin58

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!

One-Eye

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.

stephen77

Well hope it gets children more active and less excuse for companies not to have sports equipment.

robin58

stephen77 wrote: »

Well hope it gets children more active and less excuse for companies not to have sports equipment.

???????????

Kim_13

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.

VfM4meplse

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.