Sugar Tax

Grenage

mrginge wrote: »

That's a terrible thing to say.

It was clearly a sarcastic statement.

antrobus

mrginge wrote: »

That's a terrible thing to say.

It was only a Modest Proposal.

Mojisola

mrginge wrote: »

That's a terrible thing to say.

Grenage wrote: »

It was clearly a sarcastic statement.

Thanks, Grenage - it was sarcastic, following mrginge's comment.

As one of the long-term sick who is unable to work, I'd have gone long ago. I certainly couldn't afford private healthcare.

kabayiri

Grenage wrote: »

It was clearly a sarcastic statement.

Can we compromise and say it was terribly sarcastic?

AirJoe

antrobus wrote: »

The tax take is going to be spent on sport in primary schools. In England at least. The others can please themselves as per usual. Perhaps the English can hope for some better quality footballers in future.

It's all a nefarious scheme to increase the the sugar tax income by getting the kids hooked on the Lucozade. Won't somebody think of the children!

mrginge

Grenage wrote: »

It was clearly a sarcastic statement.

You don't say...

If only mine was too.

HornetSaver

antrobus wrote: »

Perhaps the English can hope for some better quality footballers in future.

Failing that, we can stick to our colonial roots and buy everyone else's.

The sugar tax is yet another example of the hypocrisy and polarisation of politics. A few years ago, a generally but not exclusively right-leaning segment of society was up in arms about the idea of their taxes paying for the healthcare of those who were not doing enough to look after it themselves. A generally but not exclusively left-leaning segment of society starts to press for a sugar tax, which the former group resists as being anti-business and an example of the nanny state. A Tory chancellor (who admittedly is primarily doing it as those inclined to vote for him are less likely to be affected) brings in a sugar tax, his supporters say relatively little, his opponents accuse him of tokenism.

They essentially all agreed all along, but couldn't bring themselves to admit it, and frankly still can't now.

SnooksNJ

Feral_Moon wrote: »

And a good thing too if it helps reduce incidences of obesity and T2 diabetes which will end up bankrupting the NHS. They have a choice as to whether they buy the stuff. No one is forcing them to. Quite simple really.

The reality is they will pay taxes until they drop dead in their mid 40's. I hope I comforted you in your fears that soda drinkers will live until age 80 draining the NHS.

lisyloo

AirJoe wrote: »

It's all a nefarious scheme to increase the the sugar tax income by getting the kids hooked on the Lucozade. Won't somebody think of the children!

Not sure if you're being ironic, but there are some type 1 diabetic children (not caused by lifestyle) who use lucozade.
What I'm unsure if is whether there are practicable alternatives they could use.

Mojisola

lisyloo wrote: »

Not sure if you're being ironic, but there are some type 1 diabetic children (not caused by lifestyle) who use lucozade.
What I'm unsure if is whether there are practicable alternatives they could use.

Is there something special about Lucozade? Wouldn't any sweet drink or sugar tablets do the same job?