Sugar Tax

wymondham

PasturesNew wrote: »

Ration Books would work better.... ration everything.

The thing is, sugar's not just in drinks - there's all those cakes and things.

This is what I'm not sure on - it seems very odd to tax drinks only when if it is a genuine concern about sugar intake it should be taxed at.... anything with sugar in?

Its like the current tax on petrol, but you only pay it if you drive a Blue car!

Generali

mwpt wrote: »

And as usual, the ........ing social justice warriors are out in force on the blogosphere (or whatever) being all shouty about how nasty Osborne is with this as yet another "tax on the poor".

Are the left just so reduced in moral fibre that this is what they've come to? A Pavlovian response to everything the Tories do. Quote from some moron:

"The tax would be immoral, however, whether it worked or it didn't, because it fails to respect the choices of the poor and strips them of even more cash, while leaving the middle classes mostly alone. It's double regressive: firstly by being a tax on a product, rather than income, and secondly by targeting a product disproportionately consumed by those on lower incomes."

Yes, it's all about failure to respect their choices, right?

Any bets this same blogger is vehemently opposed to Universal Credit rather than direct HB payments and so forth because some people have "problems budgeting and won't be able to save to afford the rent"?

I want to go out and punch the entire stupid moronic auto response left winger liberati in the face. Or if that is socially unacceptable, then knock their lattes all over their hung yogurt and eggs on sourdough bread brunch.

Ach, some people just want to hate on the other lot. Tories, gays, stamp collectors; it doesn't matter who the other lot are as long as they keep being wrong. It's just irrational and stupid, rather like Ars**al fans as it goes.

The fact is that if you are going to use a pricing mechanism to address the problem of excess soft drink consumption then the poor are going to feel the cost more keenly. It is worth remembering that obesity and the illnesses and loss of lifestyle quality that go with it are concentrated more strongly among the poor.

Generali

wymondham wrote: »

Will we see trips to Calais to stock up on Coke?

France already has a sugar tax.

wymondham wrote: »

This is what I'm not sure on - it seems very odd to tax drinks only when if it is a genuine concern about sugar intake it should be taxed at.... anything with sugar in?

Its like the current tax on petrol, but you only pay it if you drive a Blue car!

Equally you could argue that it was ludicrous that cigars and cigarettes had different treatments but that was the way it worked in the initial stages of tobacco regulation in the UK.

There are some things that are unique about soft drink vs cake or tomato soup or cook-in sauces. If you drink soft drink then you get sugar, water, CO2 and very little else. They don't fill you up beyond the urge to burp or urinate. Soft drink enables you to consume huge quantities of extra calories.

The fact is that sweet 'n' sour sauce is sugar laden but I just can't eat that much of it.

mwpt

wymondham wrote: »

This is what I'm not sure on - it seems very odd to tax drinks only when if it is a genuine concern about sugar intake it should be taxed at.... anything with sugar in?

Its like the current tax on petrol, but you only pay it if you drive a Blue car!

It's a step forward !!!!!!.

Do we want to do nothing, paralysed by fear because every small step forward doesn't complete the progress?

wotsthat

Generali wrote: »

Ach, some people just want to hate on the other lot. Tories, gays, stamp collectors; it doesn't matter who the other lot are as long as they keep being wrong. It's just irrational and stupid, rather like Ars**al fans as it goes.

The fact is that if you are going to use a pricing mechanism to address the problem of excess soft drink consumption then the poor are going to feel the cost more keenly. It is worth remembering that obesity and the illnesses and loss of lifestyle quality that go with it are concentrated more strongly among the poor.

Yes, the attention seeking Internet will be all over the social injustice aspect but if people want to enjoy our world of plenty by guzzling fizzy pop why shouldn't they?

At what point should poor fat people be allocated a slim middle class mentor?

mwpt

wotsthat wrote: »

Yes, the attention seeking Internet will be all over the social injustice aspect but if people want to enjoy our world of plenty by guzzling fizzy pop why shouldn't they?

Because it costs a lot of money in medical treatment caring for unhealthy people and I approve of any small measure that applies a disincentive to easily alterable lifestyle behaviour. How much these taxes work is up for debate but aside from that, it's nice (for me) that the people who partake in the optional behaviour contribute tax toward the resulting medical care.

For the same reasons I also approve of tax on tobacco and alcohol.

Generali

wotsthat wrote: »

Yes, the attention seeking Internet will be all over the social injustice aspect but if people want to enjoy our world of plenty by guzzling fizzy pop why shouldn't they?

At what point should poor fat people be allocated a slim middle class mentor?

I suppose the counter argument is that the slim middle class people are buying the pop for the D & Es via the welfare system and then paying for their medical treatment through the NHS system.

Don't forget that almost all Ds pay in far less in taxes than is spent on them and, by definition, all Es pay less in tax than they get in spending unless they are breaking the law!

Your point comes down to what makes me hate socialism: it is the Road to Serfdom. You start off with a perfectly decent idea being lets make health care free for everyone. Heck, if we make people well they can go out and get a job and that might even pay for the healthcare bill.

The problems then start. I don't have to take responsibility for my health so I can drink as much as I want and the NHS will patch me up when I get in a fight and maybe even give me a new liver. Okay, we need to close the pubs early (yeah I know WW1 & Lord Kitchener) so let's do that. What about the bar staff that now can't pay their way? It's okay, there's a welfare state.

We end up with a system where it pays to fail.

danothy

wotsthat wrote: »

At what point should poor fat people be allocated a slim middle class mentor?

When their BMI exceeds 25.

Generali

danothy wrote: »

When their BMI exceeds 25.

Fat mentors for pregnant people and body builders now!

Pennywise

There are suggestions that the soft drinks industry will simply "absorb" the tax by price increases across the board, which will do absolutely nothing to change behaviour.

Do we really think that the price of a can of coke will increase whilst diet coke stays the same? Dual pricing in shops, pubs, and fast-food outlets simply isn't going to happen is it?

In Maccy D's, Subway, etc., their "meal" price includes a drink - it can be tea/coffee, a carton of milk, a bottle or water, or something from the dispenser - how can they differentiate their pricing to account for someone choosing a "sugary" drink rather than milk, tea, water or diet coke?

If you order a rum & coke in a pub, are you really going to get charged a few pence more if you ask for proper coke rather than diet coke?

If there was ever a policy that hadn't a hope in hell's chance of working, it's this one!