Sugar Tax?
Comments
-
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/415522/HO_Guidance_on_BBCS.pdf
Edit As regards fags, the biggest factor in their declining sales is the smoking ban. All my life I heard people say, 'I;m giving up if they reach 2 quid' Then it was 3 then 4, 5, 6 ...
But the smoking ban was the big thing.0 -
Fraid not Bally.Sugar tax? Fat tax? Why stop there? What about a salt tax to reduce the number of people with hypertension? Or a tax on red meat, particularly sausage and bacon which experts are now telling us are linked to higher incidence of cancer?
Stevo, will I be able to offset my broccoli, beetroot and blueberry intake against my fat tax liability? I need to know.
I wonder how much a bag of sugar would cost under this proposed new regime? Or how you decide how much to tax a product? By % of sugar, or absolute weight? Would end up being a bit of a dogs dinner of a tax and probably just a revenue raiser rather tha a health improver.
It's a free country and that includes being free to eat crap food. IMO people need to take some personal responsibility, and apply some common sense to what they eat. If you don't then that's a bit of Darwinism in action."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
I agree 100% of what is there.
Fraid not Bally.Sugar tax? Fat tax? Why stop there? What about a salt tax to reduce the number of people with hypertension? Or a tax on red meat, particularly sausage and bacon which experts are now telling us are linked to higher incidence of cancer?
Stevo, will I be able to offset my broccoli, beetroot and blueberry intake against my fat tax liability? I need to know.
I wonder how much a bag of sugar would cost under this proposed new regime? Or how you decide how much to tax a product? By % of sugar, or absolute weight? Would end up being a bit of a dogs dinner of a tax and probably just a revenue raiser rather tha a health improver.
It's a free country and that includes being free to eat crap food. IMO people need to take some personal responsibility, and apply some common sense to what they eat. If you don't then that's a bit of Darwinism in action.
But we aren't free to drink alcohol or smoke cigarettes without being taxed to the hilt. Why should junk food be any different.
PS:- I am aware that my junk food/healthy food tax subsidy is pure fantasy land. Any tax would be a cash cow.
I can see the common sense in the theory just as much as I am cynical about the motives.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
Fraid not Bally.Sugar tax? Fat tax? Why stop there? What about a salt tax to reduce the number of people with hypertension? Or a tax on red meat, particularly sausage and bacon which experts are now telling us are linked to higher incidence of cancer?
Stevo, will I be able to offset my broccoli, beetroot and blueberry intake against my fat tax liability? I need to know.
I wonder how much a bag of sugar would cost under this proposed new regime? Or how you decide how much to tax a product? By % of sugar, or absolute weight? Would end up being a bit of a dogs dinner of a tax and probably just a revenue raiser rather tha a health improver.
It's a free country and that includes being free to eat crap food. IMO people need to take some personal responsibility, and apply some common sense to what they eat. If you don't then that's a bit of Darwinism in action.
yes it is but we tax tabaco, alcohol and sometimes you know, people need protecting from them selves, just as in the 2 previous mentioned products.
Its about taxing sugary drinks not a bag of sugar, which would encourage people to make healthier choices, saving us all money, something Osbourne will need to do pdq.
Governments havent done this before, because of their links to the lobbists.0 -
Now if we take your point that that people need protecting from themselves, and I added 'Labour governments' to that list, you would say that was patronising
Fraid not Bally.Sugar tax? Fat tax? Why stop there? What about a salt tax to reduce the number of people with hypertension? Or a tax on red meat, particularly sausage and bacon which experts are now telling us are linked to higher incidence of cancer?
Stevo, will I be able to offset my broccoli, beetroot and blueberry intake against my fat tax liability? I need to know.
I wonder how much a bag of sugar would cost under this proposed new regime? Or how you decide how much to tax a product? By % of sugar, or absolute weight? Would end up being a bit of a dogs dinner of a tax and probably just a revenue raiser rather tha a health improver.
It's a free country and that includes being free to eat crap food. IMO people need to take some personal responsibility, and apply some common sense to what they eat. If you don't then that's a bit of Darwinism in action.
yes it is but we tax tabaco, alcohol and sometimes you know, people need protecting from them selves, just as in the 2 previous mentioned products.
Its about taxing sugary drinks not a bag of sugar, which would encourage people to make healthier choices, saving us all money, something Osbourne will need to do pdq.
Governments havent done this before, because of their links to the lobbists.
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
But some (you could argue most) need protecting from themselves when it comes to sugary/fat food and drinks.
Fraid not Bally.Sugar tax? Fat tax? Why stop there? What about a salt tax to reduce the number of people with hypertension? Or a tax on red meat, particularly sausage and bacon which experts are now telling us are linked to higher incidence of cancer?
Stevo, will I be able to offset my broccoli, beetroot and blueberry intake against my fat tax liability? I need to know.
I wonder how much a bag of sugar would cost under this proposed new regime? Or how you decide how much to tax a product? By % of sugar, or absolute weight? Would end up being a bit of a dogs dinner of a tax and probably just a revenue raiser rather tha a health improver.
It's a free country and that includes being free to eat crap food. IMO people need to take some personal responsibility, and apply some common sense to what they eat. If you don't then that's a bit of Darwinism in action.
yes it is but we tax tabaco, alcohol and sometimes you know, people need protecting from them selves, just as in the 2 previous mentioned products.
Its about taxing sugary drinks not a bag of sugar, which would encourage people to make healthier choices, saving us all money, something Osbourne will need to do pdq.
Governments havent done this before, because of their links to the lobbists.
Isn't that the point?
The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
It's a free country and that includes being free to eat crap food. IMO people need to take some personal responsibility, and apply some common sense to what they eat. If you don't then that's a bit of Darwinism in action.
On this we do agree, stev0, i m not a big believer in state intervention into our personal lives BUT as we can see with Speed limits, MC helmets, the taxes and the restrictions on tabaco, amongst other things, sometimes the state does have to step in, folk would still have the freedom to buy this stuff, just that they d pay extra for it.
With poor education, clever marketing etc people are slowly damaging their health and me and you as net tax payers are picking up the bill and its a huge bill too, so its in all our interests to reduce this financial burden on the nhs.
As for being patronising and protecting us from labour Governments ? yes if run by Blair
0 -
One thing - if the price of sugary ready meals sky rockets , at what stage does either, fresh food become a viable alternative, the manufacturers reduce sugar content to make it 'sugar tax exempt', but then, as rick says above will the ingredients change so it's just a lump of MSG, fat (is MSG fat?) and herb, and no sugar0
-
One thing - if the price of sugary ready meals sky rockets , at what stage does either, fresh food become a viable alternative, the manufacturers reduce sugar content to make it 'sugar tax exempt', but then, as rick says above will the ingredients change so it's just a lump of MSG, fat (is MSG fat?) and herb, and no sugar
MSG is non essential amino acid which fools the pancreas into producing insulin even if there are no carbs present this leads to low sugar which triggers hunger...it an industry standard way of getting people to eat more which is good for business!my isetta is a 300cc bike0 -
I have to say I am a bit torn on this one mamba. Like you I am generally non-interventionist on the state front although I can see the argument about helping fund the NHS - by people likely to call on it, as with smoking for example.
It's a free country and that includes being free to eat crap food. IMO people need to take some personal responsibility, and apply some common sense to what they eat. If you don't then that's a bit of Darwinism in action.
On this we do agree, stev0, i m not a big believer in state intervention into our personal lives BUT as we can see with Speed limits, MC helmets, the taxes and the restrictions on tabaco, amongst other things, sometimes the state does have to step in, folk would still have the freedom to buy this stuff, just that they d pay extra for it.
With poor education, clever marketing etc people are slowly damaging their health and me and you as net tax payers are picking up the bill and its a huge bill too, so its in all our interests to reduce this financial burden on the nhs.
As for being patronising and protecting us from labour Governments ? yes if run by Blair
Part of me says let them kill themselves however they want - smokers exercise this freedom of choice already. However I suppose either way there could be benefits - i.e. if it just raises revenues and we continue to have small armies of weebles waddling around, then that helps fund their treatment paid for by the beneficiary. If it really does put people off buying the stuff and health improves then the burden on the NHS goes down.
The problem as I see it is on two fronts:
1. Setting the tax at a meaningful level that will achieve one or both of the above. Probably quite high.
2. Making it work (what to tax and how much) given the massive plethora of food and drink products available to buy."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
The other thing is that people won't just die quietly. They will suffer prolonged, disease ridden deaths which we continue to medicate against. Diabetes, obesity, organ failure, limited mobility, cancers, dare I say benefits for those who cant work? etc etc. It's not like they just drop dead. It costs a fortune over a continuously long period to look after these people who willingly neglect themselves and their bodies expecting other people to pick up the tab.
Of course there is the counter argument that if you aren't in a padded cell then you are at risk as well...but, roughly speaking, even including the more reckless extreme sports, the +ves outweigh the -ves, from a pure NHS cost perspective due to general improved fitness and lifestyle.
That does come across as very brutal and I'm not suggesting that anyone with obesity deserves to drop dead, i'm trying to (poorly) convey that the long term cost benefits are very real, notwithstanding the additional revenue raised.
Also - would there be a need to tax all sugars the same? Sweets are sweets are sugar, likewise as is Cola - people know that, whereas on the other hand a lasagne shouldn't be 25% sugar, and thus a tax would encourage the manufacturers to step up.
That said, I recently heard that some of the middle eastern countries have horrendous levels of obesity and diabetes as they guzzle coke like water. Needless to say the waterparks were a sight to behold, makes seano look like an Adonis.0 -
we continue to have small armies of weebles waddling around
Eh, big fat armies of weebles, surely?
Sugar tax? Blue sky idea, no chance of sensible or successful implementation. The Mega Food Corp Incs of this world would run rings round our numbnut civil servants' attempts to set that up.0 -
Pedantwe continue to have small armies of weebles waddling around
Eh, big fat armies of weebles, surely?
Sugar tax? Blue sky idea, no chance of sensible or successful implementation. The Mega Food Corp Incs of this world would run rings round our numbnut civil servants' attempts to set that up.
Agree though - as I said above, difficult to see how it could work in practice."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
If sugar was making people fat why dont these obese pro cyclists carry bacon and lard in their jersey instead. They might be able to climb those hills faster.0
-
If sugar was making people fat why dont these obese pro cyclists carry bacon and lard in their jersey instead. They might be able to climb those hills faster.
http://www.ridemedia.com.au/features/eating-habits-of-pro-cyclists-the-weight-debate/0 -
The sugar tax is happening, just for soft drinks though.www.conjunctivitis.com - a site for sore eyes0
-
Chris Bass wrote:The sugar tax is happening, just for soft drinks though.
Credit to the Tories on this one, soft drinks appear to be the big problem and with a year or so before it comes in, the industry will have time to re formulate their drinks and of course, like insurance tax, always room to push it up, when times are tight lol!!
Proceeds to Primary School Sport too .... win win! almost a socialist policy :shock:0 -
Quoted for posteritymamba80 wrote:Chris Bass wrote:The sugar tax is happening, just for soft drinks though.
Credit to the Tories on this one
It'll make those cans of Monster and Relentless that I neck on downhill days a bit dearer but wtf."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Taxing what goes in is the wrong approach. People can just get their calorie fix from Smarties instead. The solution is simple - the more you eat the more you poo. Tax toilet paper. Obviously you can never charge more than £5 per sheet.0
-
That could get very expensive for vegetarians and muesli eating liberals. I like it.earth wrote:Taxing what goes in is the wrong approach. People can just get their calorie fix from Smarties instead. The solution is simple - the more you eat the more you poo. Tax toilet paper. Obviously you can never charge more than £5 per sheet."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
earth wrote:Taxing what goes in is the wrong approach. People can just get their calorie fix from Smarties instead. The solution is simple - the more you eat the more you poo. Tax toilet paper. Obviously you can never charge more than £5 per sheet.
Blimey, that would go down well in Chez Slog! :roll:
The toilet paper usage of Mrs Slog and the junior one has always astounded me, you'd think it grew on trees.
The older I get, the better I was.0 -
Capt Slog wrote:earth wrote:Taxing what goes in is the wrong approach. People can just get their calorie fix from Smarties instead. The solution is simple - the more you eat the more you poo. Tax toilet paper. Obviously you can never charge more than £5 per sheet.
Blimey, that would go down well in Chez Slog! :roll:
The toilet paper usage of Mrs Slog and the junior one has always astounded me, you'd think it grew on trees.
I know, one sheet to clean and one to polish0 -
As you recall, I was sceptical of a sugar tax, and still am. You can get 30 cans of COKE for £7 at the supermarket, that's 23p a can. 2 litres of PEPSI is a quid. What level of tax would make these products unattractive to people? These are the expensive brand leaders, the own brand/generic products are cheaper still.
A tax of 30% would make a can of COKE 30p - hardly prohibitive is it?0 -
Ballysmate wrote:As you recall, I was sceptical of a sugar tax, and still am. You can get 30 cans of COKE for £7 at the supermarket, that's 23p a can. 2 litres of PEPSI is a quid. What level of tax would make these products unattractive to people? These are the expensive brand leaders, the own brand/generic products are cheaper still.
A tax of 30% would make a can of COKE 30p - hardly prohibitive is it?
Correct but the extra tax sends a message that these sort of drinks are potentially harmful and of course this is a tax to the drinks companies, they might not even pass it on but what they will do is to reduce sugar content and as Mamba said, the proceeds are going to school sport, that in its self will have a much bigger impact.
i ve seen first hand the benefits of primary school sport and also what happens when the funding is withdrawn.0 -
Ballysmate wrote:As you recall, I was sceptical of a sugar tax, and still am. You can get 30 cans of COKE for £7 at the supermarket, that's 23p a can. 2 litres of PEPSI is a quid. What level of tax would make these products unattractive to people? These are the expensive brand leaders, the own brand/generic products are cheaper still.
A tax of 30% would make a can of COKE 30p - hardly prohibitive is it?
But if the high sugar drink is 10p per can more than the sugar free opton, it would be enough to change many peoples buying habits.
I see sports drinks are included, so Lucozade sales are going to take a hit. Also the BBC reported :Mr Osborne's sugar tax announcement sparked a big fall in the share price of soft drinks makers but it was welcomed by TV chef Jamie Oliver, who has been campaigning for such a move.0 -
Lookyhere wrote:Ballysmate wrote:As you recall, I was sceptical of a sugar tax, and still am. You can get 30 cans of COKE for £7 at the supermarket, that's 23p a can. 2 litres of PEPSI is a quid. What level of tax would make these products unattractive to people? These are the expensive brand leaders, the own brand/generic products are cheaper still.
A tax of 30% would make a can of COKE 30p - hardly prohibitive is it?
Correct but the extra tax sends a message that these sort of drinks are potentially harmful and of course this is a tax to the drinks companies, they might not even pass it on but what they will do is to reduce sugar content and as Mamba said, the proceeds are going to school sport, that in its self will have a much bigger impact.
i ve seen first hand the benefits of primary school sport and also what happens when the funding is withdrawn.
I think they will pass it on. But say they don't and let the tax eat into their profits. You only pay tax on profit, not turnover, so the expected tax rake is reduced. But as I said, they will pass the tax on. If they don't, people will continue to pay the same 23p a can for their sugar intake so there will be no health benefits.
I'm all for school sports btw.0 -
i think the industry will pass some on but the main driver will be for them to reduce sugar content to avoid it all together, problem would then arise "what happens to the school sports funding projects that would have started" would they carry on funding them?
Down here we went from having a thriving schools partnership to nothing, manager sacked, inter schools champs gone, a real shame, another governement cut with little thought to its effects and then they ve had to spend more re introducing it all again.....0 -
-
I think they should go down the same route as cigarettes and just plaster the cans with pictures of fat people, that should do it.
Like Bally says - unless the tax is massive it will have no impact.www.conjunctivitis.com - a site for sore eyes0 -
Lookyhere wrote:Correct but the extra tax sends a message that these sort of drinks are potentially harmful.......quote]
I doubt it very much. Didn't really work with smokers and drinkers, did it?
Simply a money raising scheme disguised as good intentions or the taxes would really be prohibitive, or the products banned altogether.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0
