Sugar Tax?
Comments
-
And the pictures - they need to be of really fat people.Chris Bass wrote: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.
Percentage wise it will hit the cheapo bottles of fizzy drinks quite hard - you can get 2l bottles of Cola in Tesco for less than 50p so at the upper rate of 24p/litre, that will double the price. I'm guessing that the sort of people this is aimed at would buy the bargain basement stuff like this."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Well of course, the Lib dems or Labour would never go in for any sort of nanny state intervention would they. People who live in glass houses...Rick Chasey wrote:Nothing like some nanny state intervention is there Stevo?"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Stevo 666 wrote:Percentage wise it will hit the cheapo bottles of fizzy drinks quite hard - you can get 2l bottles of Cola in Tesco for less than 50p so at the upper rate of 24p/litre, that will double the price. I'm guessing that the sort of people this is aimed at would buy the bargain basement stuff like this.
would you be suggesting that only poor people are fat?!
www.conjunctivitis.com - a site for sore eyes0 -
Stevo 666 wrote:
Well of course, the Lib dems or Labour would never go in for any sort of nanny state intervention would they. People who live in glass houses...Rick Chasey wrote:Nothing like some nanny state intervention is there Stevo?
I don't mind it. I get the impression you do :P0 -
Chris Bass wrote:Stevo 666 wrote:Percentage wise it will hit the cheapo bottles of fizzy drinks quite hard - you can get 2l bottles of Cola in Tesco for less than 50p so at the upper rate of 24p/litre, that will double the price. I'm guessing that the sort of people this is aimed at would buy the bargain basement stuff like this.
would you be suggesting that only poor people are fat?!
There is a correlation.0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:Chris Bass wrote:Stevo 666 wrote:Percentage wise it will hit the cheapo bottles of fizzy drinks quite hard - you can get 2l bottles of Cola in Tesco for less than 50p so at the upper rate of 24p/litre, that will double the price. I'm guessing that the sort of people this is aimed at would buy the bargain basement stuff like this.
would you be suggesting that only poor people are fat?!
There is a correlation.
There is plenty of research
http://frac.org/initiatives/hunger-and-obesity/why-are-low-income-and-food-insecure-people-vulnerable-to-obesity/Raleigh RX 2.0
Diamondback Outlook
Planet X Pro Carbon0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:Chris Bass wrote:Stevo 666 wrote:Percentage wise it will hit the cheapo bottles of fizzy drinks quite hard - you can get 2l bottles of Cola in Tesco for less than 50p so at the upper rate of 24p/litre, that will double the price. I'm guessing that the sort of people this is aimed at would buy the bargain basement stuff like this.
would you be suggesting that only poor people are fat?!
There is a correlation.
Not really, obesity affects all income groups(some more than others of course) funnily enough poor men and rich women have the lowest rates - poor education seems to be a large factor!0 -
Lookyhere wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:Chris Bass wrote:Stevo 666 wrote:Percentage wise it will hit the cheapo bottles of fizzy drinks quite hard - you can get 2l bottles of Cola in Tesco for less than 50p so at the upper rate of 24p/litre, that will double the price. I'm guessing that the sort of people this is aimed at would buy the bargain basement stuff like this.
would you be suggesting that only poor people are fat?!
There is a correlation.
Not really, obesity affects all income groups(some more than others of course) funnily enough poor men and rich women have the lowest rates - poor education seems to be a large factor!
do you know what correlation means?www.conjunctivitis.com - a site for sore eyes0 -
Chris Bass wrote:Lookyhere wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:Chris Bass wrote:Stevo 666 wrote:Percentage wise it will hit the cheapo bottles of fizzy drinks quite hard - you can get 2l bottles of Cola in Tesco for less than 50p so at the upper rate of 24p/litre, that will double the price. I'm guessing that the sort of people this is aimed at would buy the bargain basement stuff like this.
would you be suggesting that only poor people are fat?!
There is a correlation.
Not really, obesity affects all income groups(some more than others of course) funnily enough poor men and rich women have the lowest rates - poor education seems to be a large factor!
do you know what correlation means?
an assumption was being made that poor people are fat, poor people are the target of this new tax as if the wealthy are immune from obesity and well off folk dont stuff their kids with cola.
a little balance is needed, thats all.
Correlation: a link between a smug condescending question and an arsehole?0 -
Didn't we conclude elsewhere that there is no correlation between education and intelligence?Lookyhere wrote:Not really, obesity affects all income groups(some more than others of course) funnily enough poor men and rich women have the lowest rates - poor education seems to be a large factor!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 -
http://www.noo.org.uk/securefiles/16031 ... 014_v2.pdf
" For women, there is an almost linear relationship, with obesity levels decreasing as household income rises.
Women in the highest socioeconomic group have significantly lower obesity
prevalence than the other income groups. For men, the pattern is less clear. There is
little difference between obesity prevalence across the income groups"
but also look at the % differences (within women), not as big as you guys are implying and not at all with men.
you need to look at why, rather than inaccurate cheap shots at poor people.0 -
Pepsi max contains no sugar and would be exempt from any sugar tax I presume.
I am no biochemist but this article, if accurate, may cloud the issue a bit.
http://www.dietdoctor.com/is-pepsi-max- ... our-weight0 -
Ballysmate wrote:Pepsi max contains no sugar and would be exempt from any sugar tax I presume.
I am no biochemist but this article, if accurate, may cloud the issue a bit.
http://www.dietdoctor.com/is-pepsi-max- ... our-weight
the what does this mean section of that doesn't fill me with confidence in that experiment. Seems to just be based on guess work and suppositionswww.conjunctivitis.com - a site for sore eyes0 -
As I said, I am no biochemist and it may well be guess work and supposition. But replacing sugar with artificial substitutes may not turn out to be the panacea to cure the obesity crisis. Perhaps these sweeteners may have unforeseen effects on our enzyme production and give unexpected results.
I do not support a sugar tax on drinks because I don't think it would work due to the extortionate level it would have to be levied at to alter people's buying power. People need to wean themselves off their sugar fix.
An anecdote from around 16 years back:-
I was sat having breakfast at a Ponderosa/Sizzler cafe on International Drive, Orlando. There was an American family opposite, Mom, Dad and Junior. In front of Junior was a large beaker of Cola, into which he emptied 4 or 5 sugar sachets from the table. No surprise that all three members of said family looked like eggs on legs.
People have to change their dietary habits themselves.0 -
Ballysmate wrote:As I said, I am no biochemist and it may well be guess work and supposition. But replacing sugar with artificial substitutes may not turn out to be the panacea to cure the obesity crisis. Perhaps these sweeteners may have unforeseen effects on our enzyme production and give unexpected results.
I do not support a sugar tax on drinks because I don't think it would work due to the extortionate level it would have to be levied at to alter people's buying power. People need to wean themselves off their sugar fix.
An anecdote from around 16 years back:-
I was sat having breakfast at a Ponderosa/Sizzler cafe on International Drive, Orlando. There was an American family opposite, Mom, Dad and Junior. In front of Junior was a large beaker of Cola, into which he emptied 4 or 5 sugar sachets from the table. No surprise that all three members of said family looked like eggs on legs.
People have to change their dietary habits themselves.
the experience of other countries suggest it does work
http://www.economist.com/news/finance-a ... g-slurping0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:Makes sense in theory, but broadly speaking there's a reason sugary food is more popular with those on lower income - it's cheap, so a tax on sugar would be very regressive, and pump up inflation rather a lot.
It's not so much a laziness as being time poor. People at the lower end tend to have less free time, work difficult hours (which makes cooking fresh meals more difficult), worry about money, etc etc.
Absolute tosh and a damn poor excuse. I work stupid hours, commute on a bike to and from work and so have to also schedule shopping trips. Partner commutes to London so 2 hours each way.
Food is cooked FRESH every day from scratch and a good healthy meal can be knocked up in < 30 mins easy and these meals for 3 cost me < £10 a day !! I much rather have that than ready meals of stodge. We are talking Asian (Thai, Chinese), curries, pastas so a good varied selection.
Having no time and healthy is expensive is a poor excuse for I can't be arsed !!0 -
Surrey Commuter wrote:Ballysmate wrote:As I said, I am no biochemist and it may well be guess work and supposition. But replacing sugar with artificial substitutes may not turn out to be the panacea to cure the obesity crisis. Perhaps these sweeteners may have unforeseen effects on our enzyme production and give unexpected results.
I do not support a sugar tax on drinks because I don't think it would work due to the extortionate level it would have to be levied at to alter people's buying power. People need to wean themselves off their sugar fix.
An anecdote from around 16 years back:-
I was sat having breakfast at a Ponderosa/Sizzler cafe on International Drive, Orlando. There was an American family opposite, Mom, Dad and Junior. In front of Junior was a large beaker of Cola, into which he emptied 4 or 5 sugar sachets from the table. No surprise that all three members of said family looked like eggs on legs.
People have to change their dietary habits themselves.
the experience of other countries suggest it does work
http://www.economist.com/news/finance-a ... g-slurping
The article seems to give a mixed bag of results.
Although the academic evidence suggests that taxes on sugary drinks are working as intended, it also indicates that bad design can undermine much of the benefit. For one thing, relatively high taxes are needed to change consumer behaviour. Various states in America have had extra sales taxes on fizzy drinks, of 3-7%. This has helped to raise revenue, but the impact on consumption has been marginal.
In the example I gave earlier a can of COKE can be had for 23p. What level of tax would price such an item out of reach?
From the article, the French and Mexicans have levied about 5p/litre. Pah!!0 -
Ballysmate wrote:Surrey Commuter wrote:Ballysmate wrote:As I said, I am no biochemist and it may well be guess work and supposition. But replacing sugar with artificial substitutes may not turn out to be the panacea to cure the obesity crisis. Perhaps these sweeteners may have unforeseen effects on our enzyme production and give unexpected results.
I do not support a sugar tax on drinks because I don't think it would work due to the extortionate level it would have to be levied at to alter people's buying power. People need to wean themselves off their sugar fix.
An anecdote from around 16 years back:-
I was sat having breakfast at a Ponderosa/Sizzler cafe on International Drive, Orlando. There was an American family opposite, Mom, Dad and Junior. In front of Junior was a large beaker of Cola, into which he emptied 4 or 5 sugar sachets from the table. No surprise that all three members of said family looked like eggs on legs.
People have to change their dietary habits themselves.
the experience of other countries suggest it does work
http://www.economist.com/news/finance-a ... g-slurping
The article seems to give a mixed bag of results.
Although the academic evidence suggests that taxes on sugary drinks are working as intended, it also indicates that bad design can undermine much of the benefit. For one thing, relatively high taxes are needed to change consumer behaviour. Various states in America have had extra sales taxes on fizzy drinks, of 3-7%. This has helped to raise revenue, but the impact on consumption has been marginal.
In the example I gave earlier a can of COKE can be had for 23p. What level of tax would price such an item out of reach?
From the article, the French and Mexicans have levied about 5p/litre. Pah!!
The biggest success was in Mexico which supports your theory. Still the evidence suggests that taxing fizzy drinks does cut consumption. Now we just need to find the level that works.0 -
they should sell the drinks without sugar and then have a sachet of sugar stuck to the side (like the crisps you used to add your own salt to) let the people decide how much sugar they want!www.conjunctivitis.com - a site for sore eyes0
-
+1WeezySwiss wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:Makes sense in theory, but broadly speaking there's a reason sugary food is more popular with those on lower income - it's cheap, so a tax on sugar would be very regressive, and pump up inflation rather a lot.
It's not so much a laziness as being time poor. People at the lower end tend to have less free time, work difficult hours (which makes cooking fresh meals more difficult), worry about money, etc etc.
Absolute tosh and a damn poor excuse. I work stupid hours, commute on a bike to and from work and so have to also schedule shopping trips. Partner commutes to London so 2 hours each way.
Food is cooked FRESH every day from scratch and a good healthy meal can be knocked up in < 30 mins easy and these meals for 3 cost me < £10 a day !! I much rather have that than ready meals of stodge. We are talking Asian (Thai, Chinese), curries, pastas so a good varied selection.
Having no time and healthy is expensive is a poor excuse for I can't be arsed !!
As with other things in life, the primary responsibility lies with individuals and families to be aware of the issues and make an effort. In the end the sugar tax will at least help fund medical treatment for people who are too stupid and/or lazy to do so."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Not read the whole post yet, but will do.
I'd agree with the tax if it went to helping fund the NHS.0
