weltweit
Well-Known Member
A bigger percentage of those trying to give up heroin, succeed compared to those trying to give up fags. [1]
[1] I read in a piece of research some time ago.
The tax on sugary drinks!?
- Thread starter weltweit
- Start date
[1] I read in a piece of research some time ago.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Giving up smoking's dead easy. I've done it loads of times.
Doctor Carrot
Marxist Henchman
I managed to quit a 17 year habit pretty easily but that's only because I found the right support I grant you. Yeah I've been there on the dole and in the situation you describe so I get what you're saying though.
weltweit
Well-Known Member
It might be interesting to calculate how much tax you paid in those 17 years.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Problem created - what about the 6 billion a year in tax revenues?
Fez909
toilet expert
Savings on the NHS?
I reckon they make more from fags than it costs on the NHS though. I think I remember reading that most smokers die before the really expensive old-age treatment kicks in.
weltweit
Well-Known Member
Milk the sugary drinks drinkers! problem solved
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Yep, working out how much smokers cost is tricky. Really, smokers ought to get cheaper pensions!
But that's a long-term thing. Govts don't tend to think long-term.
weltweit
Well-Known Member
Some years ago I researched this, back when the figures were available in the budget and other statements.
At that time smoking taxes brought in about 8 billion and the cost of smoking related illnesses to the NHS was about 1.6 billion. So on that basic measure smoking made a lot of money even after NHS costs were taken into account.
But then there were a few hundred thousand smokers who died young because of smoking related illnesses and they obviously didn't collect their old age pensions, another saving to the taxpayer. I was unable to calculate the saving involved but it would have been another pretty sum.
In short, smoking pays, a lot!
fredfelt
Mostly unknown member
Sugar is a global commodity, the price of which is artificially low due to subsidies - both from the EU and other trading blocks. It's addictive and despite offering a cheap way to bulk out food offers little or no nutritional benefit - at least when consumed in soft drink.
It's hard to resist, especially when corporations pump loads of cash into advertising sugar based products. As with other low cost products there's plenty of opportunity to create strong brands which are sold at high margins. Often directly advertised to kids.
When you tax something it's always going to be regressive - it should be policies on income that tackle this. Despite tax on expenditure being regressive in nature I think that there's often 'market failures' where the price of a product cannot reflect its true cost. I don't think there's anything wrong with the state getting involved in markets in this way. The state's role shouldn't be that of dealing with marking failures - the state should intervene.
Currently with sugar being cheap the state is left to mop up the costs of overconsumption. Rather than these costs having to be paid by general taxation I think costs of this nature are more appropriate in being paid for by the corporation.
Anyway, sugar tax - okay.
It's hard to resist, especially when corporations pump loads of cash into advertising sugar based products. As with other low cost products there's plenty of opportunity to create strong brands which are sold at high margins. Often directly advertised to kids.
When you tax something it's always going to be regressive - it should be policies on income that tackle this. Despite tax on expenditure being regressive in nature I think that there's often 'market failures' where the price of a product cannot reflect its true cost. I don't think there's anything wrong with the state getting involved in markets in this way. The state's role shouldn't be that of dealing with marking failures - the state should intervene.
Currently with sugar being cheap the state is left to mop up the costs of overconsumption. Rather than these costs having to be paid by general taxation I think costs of this nature are more appropriate in being paid for by the corporation.
Anyway, sugar tax - okay.
Greasy Boiler
Active Member
Since the tax will be levied per litre more sugary drinks will actually be taxed less per gram of sugar:
http://www.ifs.org.uk/uploads/budgets/budget2016/budget2016_ks.pdf
http://www.ifs.org.uk/uploads/budgets/budget2016/budget2016_ks.pdf
Sasaferrato
Super Refuser!
I was saddened by this. In ASDA last night, four Mars bars were cheaper than 2Kg of Charlotte potatoes. The tax should have been on every product containing ridiculous levels of sugar. The fucking Americans are to blame, corn syrup, a product of their county sized maize fields is the main sweetening ingredient.
If a Mars bar was a pound, you would think twice, at 25p you don't.
If a Mars bar was a pound, you would think twice, at 25p you don't.
Sasaferrato
Super Refuser!
I concur. My source was the doctor with the biggest number of heroin addicts on his books in Edinburgh. He said that with the slightest bit of motivation, you can get people off heroin, fags are a different matter.
sealion
Conformity is the last refuge of the unimaginitive
If there was a Tax on hypocrites Jamie would go bankrupt. I suppose he has to keep his "man of the people" image going.
Jamie's Comfort Food | Treat Yourself | Jamie Oliver
sealion
Conformity is the last refuge of the unimaginitive
Hence the sugar tax,One door closes another one opens.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
sealion
Conformity is the last refuge of the unimaginitive
Yes, he will get his knighthood for sure.
Arise sir fat cunt of sugarshire.
DotCommunist
So many particulars. So many questions.
sooner or later he'll pass that nebulous, ill defined point where he ceases to be 'that tv chef' and gains the sttus of National Treasure tm
SpackleFrog
Smash showy bell-bottom pants and sporty haircuts
SpackleFrog
Smash showy bell-bottom pants and sporty haircuts
Do you want potatoes to cost less or mars bars to cost more?
UnderOpenSky
baseline neural therapy
I guess that depends how much sugar you normally eat. Cheap chocolate doesn't encourage me to eat more.
Sasaferrato
Super Refuser!
Both.
UnderOpenSky
baseline neural therapy
Think of the farmers! They are pushed enough as it is.
Johnny Vodka
The Abominable Scotsman
It's about time IMO. Obesity will be more of a pressure on the NHS than booze, fags and other drugs. Why should these items by taxed (or banned) and not junk food? I'd hope the money is poured back into the NHS or used to subsidise healthy foods.
The strangest thing is that a drink needs at least 5g of sugar per 100ml to be eligible. That's a fuck load of sugar already. The tax should hit drinks with less sugar than that.
The strangest thing is that a drink needs at least 5g of sugar per 100ml to be eligible. That's a fuck load of sugar already. The tax should hit drinks with less sugar than that.
Doctor Carrot
Marxist Henchman
FUCK OFF
Don't worry it gets easier after the second day.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
I read posts like this and marvel at several things. The naivety wrt the motive behind the tax. The idea that it will even dent obesity. The contempt for poor people that it implies.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Oh and the ignorance about the causes of obesity.
weltweit
Well-Known Member
This will do fuck all about obesity.I read posts like this and marvel at several things. The naivety wrt the motive behind the tax. The idea that it will even dent obesity. The contempt for poor people that it implies.
DotCommunist
So many particulars. So many questions.
you also believe all the drugs you like should be legal and untaxed Vodka. The hypocrisy here is mind blowing.
Similar threads
