The tax on sugary drinks!?

[weltweit]

Apparently intended to reduce consumption of sugary drinks, does anyone think the tax on sugary drinks announced yesterday by Osbourne will do anything more than just generate tax revenue?

 

[laptop]

If he hadn't kept it secret as a political distraction, there'd have been a chance to properly organise some research to find out what the effect is.

 

[Pickman's model]

Apparently intended to reduce consumption of sugary drinks, does anyone think the tax on sugary drinks announced yesterday by Osbourne will do anything more than just generate tax revenue?

it affected the share prices of fizzy drink makers.

 

[weltweit]

it affected the share prices of fizzy drink makers.

Which ones?

 

[weltweit]

It makes me think of the first 20p tax to be put on a packet of 20 fags. It would have made zero impact on consumption, smokers would continue to smoke as fizzy drink drinkers will continue to drink. A soft tax target then!

 

[Pickman's model]

Which ones?

Osborne's sugar tax hits firms with £500m bill (mail link)

 

[Louis MacNeice]

It's old fashioned but remains true that taxes on income tend to be progressive, while taxes on expenditure tend to be regressive.

Of course this fits nicely with the notion that poor people need to be disciplined to behave, while the rich need encouragement. It's all about carrots and sticks; some people get all the carrots while the rest get a good hiding.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice

 

[Sprocket.]

When they sell off the NHS and we are paying through the nose for health care they will be giving gallons of fizzy, sugared drinks out for free outside school gates!

 

[Sprocket.]

Along with cigs!

 

[Sea Star]

It might make a difference to my partners consumption of sugary drinks because he drinks them but I buy them!!!

 

[Jon Dennis]

In preparation for the tax rise on sugary drinks ,I've heard George Osborne has put a big stash of Coke aside.

 

[LDC]

But taxing isn't the only issue, it's about a slow cultural shift away from certain things that are unhealthy. As with smoking higher taxes at point of purchase won't be the only thing that makes a difference to the levels of use/consumption, but they are a part of the bigger picture aimed at a long term reduction in the population.

But fuck arguing for them, or thinking they're progressive or have anything to do with radical politics in any way.

 

[StoneRoad]

as with the baccy tax, I'm not contributing to t'taxman as I don't drink / buy sugar-laden fizzy pop. I didn't before, and I'm not about to start with either.

 

[dessiato]

It'll not make any difference until the tax rate becomes, and the demonisation, of fizzy drinks becomes similar to that of cigarettes.

If, and it's a massive if, the money was to be spent on dietary education, and on health care, then, as someone who doesn't often drink high sugar drinks, I'd be OK with it. But the truth is that it will go to fund other things, many of which we could do without quite happily.

 

[Doctor Carrot]

I read somewhere it's a tax on production rather than consumption. Is that true? If so then surely manufacturers can choose whether or not to pass it on can't they? Therefore making it pretty much pointless in terms of public health. Not like tobacco where that's a tax on consumption. Anyway I'm not entirely against it, massive taxes on fags have helped people smoke less or quit. As far as I know there's good evidence it's had a positive effect in Mexico.

 

[Louis MacNeice]

I read somewhere it's a tax on production rather than consumption. Is that true? If so then surely manufacturers can choose whether or not to pass it on can't they? Therefore making it pretty much pointless in terms of public health. Not like tobacco where that's a tax on consumption. Anyway I'm not entirely against it, massive taxes on fags have helped people smoke less or quit. As far as I know there's good evidence it's had a positive effect in Mexico.

Where is the mechanism to prohibit the producers from recovering their loss from the consumer? If there isn't one then any notion of it being a tax on production is effectively a convenient fiction; convenient for both government and producers.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice

 

[Doctor Carrot]

Where is the mechanism to prohibit the producers from recovering their loss from the consumer? If there isn't one then any notion of it being a tax on production is effectively a convenient fiction; convenient for both government and producers.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice

Of course it's a fiction but what I'm saying is wouldn't producers have more control over how much they pass onto the consumer so they can compete with other manufacturers? I know fag companies have started doing tricks like selling packs of 17 fags or 8g of baccy to compete but I'm not sure if this is to get round taxes on consumption or production. As far as I know fags are taxed at consumption point as opposed to production. If drinks are taxed at production then I doubt prices will rise massively, not at first anyway because producers can take the hit elsewhere on the supplychain. Anyway, we'll probably see smaller sizes eventually like tobacco companies have done which, from a public health perspective, is no bad thing.

 

[weltweit]

twitter has been full of Jamie Oliver celebrating, it seems he wanted this sugar tax for whatever good it will bring!

 

[Fez909]

Nutrient-free Coke Zero and Pepsi max will be exempt, presumably, while high-sugar, but nutrient dense fresh orange juice will now be even more expensive.

I'd have rather had a sugar tax on food.

 

[gosub]

Nutrient-free Coke Zero and Pepsi max will be exempt, presumably, while high-sugar, but nutrient dense fresh orange juice will now be even more expensive.

I'd have rather had a sugar tax on food.

I thought it was a tax on added sugar, didn't think you add sugar to fresh juice.

 

[Fez909]

I thought it was a tax on added sugar, didn't think you add sugar to fresh juice.

It's total sugar, but I was wrong about fruit juices...there's an exemption:

Manufacturers will be taxed according to the quantity of the sugar-sweetened drinks they produce or import. There will be two categories of taxation: one for total sugar content above 5g per 100ml, and a second, higher band for drinks with more than 8g per 100ml.

This means a standard can of Coca-Cola - costing around 70 pence – would have an 8 pence tax placed on it, while a can of Sprite would have an additional levy of 6 pence, when the sugar tax is introduced in 2018.

Pure fruit juices and milk-based drinks will not be included, but with some brands of tonic water affected the tax could have an impact on the nation's enjoyment of G&T.

 

[laptop]

twitter has been full of Jamie Oliver celebrating, it seems he wanted this sugar tax for whatever good it will bring!

For him it's a Moral Crusade, isn't it?

 

[kebabking]

I thought it was a tax on added sugar, didn't think you add sugar to fresh juice.

thats what i've heard/read as - it refers to both manufactured and addd sugar drinks, so Orange juice isn't covered. nor the milkshake drinks my eldest would happily consume till the end of time.

if you want to wean people off them its dead simple - firstly put a tax on them that would make a 330ml can of coke cost £10, and make the sale of them licenced like the sale of alcohol: licenced premises, no sale to under 18's, and like in Scotland, no bulk-buy deals.

unless you do that, you don't really give a shit.

 

[weltweit]

.. if you want to wean people off them its dead simple - firstly put a tax on them that would make a 330ml can of coke cost £10, and make the sale of them licenced like the sale of alcohol: licenced premises, no sale to under 18's, and like in Scotland, no bulk-buy deals.

unless you do that, you don't really give a shit.

This is a demerit tax like fag tax, but not yet at the same level. Fags are taxed a lot but not enough to persuade the addicted to give up, it generates more and more revenue.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Anyway I'm not entirely against it, massive taxes on fags have helped people smoke less or quit. .

hmmm. Massively regressive tax on a highly addictive substance. When I was on the dole, the first thing I did with my cashed giro was buy baccy. Before food, bills, anything else. I'm sure most poor smokers are the same. If you have dependants, that takes away a big chunk of what you can spend on them. The poorest have the least motivation to give up, generally, and the most to lose from duty.

This isn't on the scale of tobacco duty, but it's a regressive tax nonetheless.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

This is a demerit tax like fag tax, but not yet at the same level. Fags are taxed a lot but not enough to persuade the addicted to give up, it generates more and more revenue.

Fag tax is so high precisely because it's so hard to give up. It's an easy target for revenue. The idea that smokers are taxed for their own good is laughable.

 

[weltweit]

Fag tax is so high precisely because it's so hard to give up. It's an easy target for revenue. The idea that smokers are taxed for their own good is laughable.

Yes, that was my point

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Yes, that was my point

The other thing, of course, is that if you have a 20-a-day habit, you have a 20-a-day habit whether you're on the dole or a millionaire. Same thing applies with a sugar tax.

 

[Doctor Carrot]

Fag tax is so high precisely because it's so hard to give up. It's an easy target for revenue. The idea that smokers are taxed for their own good is laughable.

This is an argument in favour of probably the most digusting industry in history, apart from the arms trade of course. Fags really aren't that hard to quit, they're highly addictive of course but that doesn't make it necessarily really hard to quit. I doubt it's for smokers own good but it's difficult to deny it's had an impact on smoking rates, alongside bans of course.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

This is an argument in favour of probably the most digusting industry in history, apart from the arms trade of course. Fags really aren't that hard to quit, they're highly addictive of course but that doesn't make it necessarily really hard to quit. I doubt it's for smokers own good but it's difficult to deny it's had an impact on smoking rates, alongside bans of course.

It's not an argument in favour of the tobacco companies. And fags are really fucking hard to quit for a lot of people. You need good motivation to quit, and those struggling financially are those who are least likely to have that motivation.