Sugar Tax

N1AK

mwpt wrote: »

Heh, well you support a welfare state for one thing. Libertarians favour zero or almost zero state intervention. Even the idea of tax as coercion would be against a true libertarian's views.

Libertarian lite, maybe so.

Generally the kind of Libertarian who is against tax would also be against welfare and national healthcare; which at least fit together. If however we are to be on the hook for dealing with people's decisions then it makes sense to incentivise decisions that minimise our exposure.

Mistermeaner

rather than seeing an additional tax on something that the 'most vulnerable' consume alot of (that is bad for them) as being an attack on them won;t it be good if they stop wasting their limited funds on crap and drink water instead? win-win-win-win

TrickyDicky101

As I understand it (and I could well be wrong) the sugar tax is a tax on the drink company rather than directly on the consumer.


Most of these drinks companies make both sugary and diet versions of their drinks.


How will potential cross-subsidisations of sugary drinks by sales of the diet varieties be avoided?


Is there an expectation that there will be full differential pricing at the point of sale between the sugary and diet versions?

N1AK

TrickyDicky101 wrote: »

How will potential cross-subsidisations of sugary drinks by sales of the diet varieties be avoided?

Is there an expectation that there will be full differential pricing at the point of sale between the sugary and diet versions?

It's unlikely (though possible) but it does however still encourage companies to decrease sugar content in soft drinks; they could make a larger profit by selling at the same price with lower tax.

antrobus

TrickyDicky101 wrote: »

As I understand it (and I could well be wrong) the sugar tax is a tax on the drink company rather than directly on the consumer....

Yes. Technically speaking it is a Soft Drinks Industry Levy which will be payable by producers and importers of soft drinks that contain added sugar, according to their total sugar content. One rate for drinks with above 5 grams of sugar per 100 millilitres and a higher rate for drinks with more than 8 grams of sugar per 100 millilitres. With an exception for "small producers".

TrickyDicky101 wrote: »

...Most of these drinks companies make both sugary and diet versions of their drinks.

How will potential cross-subsidisations of sugary drinks by sales of the diet varieties be avoided?

Is there an expectation that there will be full differential pricing at the point of sale between the sugary and diet versions?

I would expect the price mechanism and competition to sort all that out.

antrobus

N1AK wrote: »

It's unlikely (though possible) but it does however still encourage companies to decrease sugar content in soft drinks; they could make a larger profit by selling at the same price with lower tax.

Yes, it's possible (for example) that Coke might wish to rejig the formula for Coca-Cola Life to reduce the current 5.8g of sugar content to 4.9g.

Generali

antrobus wrote: »

Yes, it's possible (for example) that Coke might wish to rejig the formula for Coca-Cola Life to reduce the current 5.8g of sugar content to 4.9g.

Basically Coke has to become Coke Life to get into the mid bracket.

From the numbers I looked at it's pretty clear where this tax is aimed: it's very squarely at very cheap pop that is bought by price sensitive people (probably poor people).

This is almost certainly a far more regressive tax than the Poll Tax say. Your bottle of Fevertree tonic water at the Braying Hooray or The Oligarch's Daughter pub in Chelsea is barely going to be touched in price. The Tesco Value lemonade, currently selling for 17p for 2 litres will attract a tax of 48p!!!

cells

Generali wrote: »

Basically Coke has to become Coke Life to get into the mid bracket.

From the numbers I looked at it's pretty clear where this tax is aimed: it's very squarely at very cheap pop that is bought by price sensitive people (probably poor people).

This is almost certainly a far more regressive tax than the Poll Tax say. Your bottle of Fevertree tonic water at the Braying Hooray or The Oligarch's Daughter pub in Chelsea is barely going to be touched in price. The Tesco Value lemonade, currently selling for 17p for 2 litres will attract a tax of 48p!!!

the 17p stuff has no sugar in it, its how they can sell it for 17p

cells

I think the biggest impact could be on the syrup industry that supplies that fast food outlets and pubs. Those products are not really the premium full taste stuff you get in cans or bottles but some sort of cheap look-a-like that can be post mixed with soda with the brand of the big suppliers like coke or pepsi.

I can see the industry changing those recipes to be 4.99g/litre as there is less of an issue on maintaining a particular exact taste

Saving 12p per cup would be quite significant for them as they tend to operate on fairly low net margins

Mistermeaner

If it was up to me I would just ban all fizzy poppy drinks. Everyone on water.

While I was at it I'd ban protein powders and all their pseudo science and that Wellman vitabiotics cra p as well

Unfortunately its not up to me.

Yet