The tax on sugary drinks!?

[Doctor Carrot]

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.

No but it might help with type 2 diabetes as it has done in Mexico. The 'contempt for poor people' angle is a bit hand wringy IMO. What do you suggest doing instead, or as well as, in curtailing the problems caused by huge multinationals making massive profits peddling this shit?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

No but it might help with type 2 diabetes as it has done in Mexico. The 'contempt for poor people' angle is a bit hand wringy IMO. What do you suggest doing instead, or as well as, in curtailing the problems caused by huge multinationals making massive profits peddling this shit?

Big question. Stop subsidising factory farming. That would be a fine start. This is just the creation of a sin to raise money.

 

[Doctor Carrot]

Big question. Stop subsidising factory farming. That would be a fine start. This is just the creation of a sin to raise money.

I agree with that but I don't think it's creating a sin to raise money, and even so money should be raised if that product is shite and causes state expenditure to mop up the problems it causes. I think taxing things that cause damage to individual health and places heavy costs on health services and so on can be part of an effort to reduce the consumption of it. This is especially the case when some scum bag industry has done nothing but deflect, delay and deny their products cause these problems.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I agree with that but I don't think it's creating a sin to raise money, and even so money should be raised if that product is shite and causes state expenditure to mop up the problems it causes. I think taxing things that cause damage to individual health and places heavy costs on health services and so on can be part of an effort to reduce the consumption of it. This is especially the case when some scum bag industry has done nothing but deflect, delay and deny their products cause these problems.

I'm absolutely not defending the scumbag industry. But this is not the place to attack them. The place to attack them is at the point of production, not the point of retail, if that's what you want to do. This tax isn't even an attack on them - it's just a tax, a means of raising revenue, and a regressive one at that, which the medium to high earners won't even notice. It also has the potential for making alternatives such as sugar-free things filled with vile sweeteners relatively cheaper, which solves nothing. This is not a way of tackling obesity. It is a way of taking money out of the pockets of poor people.

It's also a way of personalising the obesity problem - it's your fault, stop it. (except we don't really think you'll stop it, in fact we've budgeted for you not stopping it)

Never mind that at the same time we're subsidising inefficient factory farming, which produces extra-fatty, low-nutrition meat, while degrading the soil and destroying the ecosystem.

 

[NoXion]

This kind of regressive taxation shite is the thin end of the wedge, mark my words. Taxes on fat and salt will be next. I'm sure that there won't be any unintended consequences from this sort of thing, like poorer people still suffering ill health, from crap diets consisting mostly of cheap carbs and little else due to decent protein being too expensive as well as anything else remotely "unhealthy" being taxed.

 

[Doctor Carrot]

I'm absolutely not defending the scumbag industry. But this is not the place to attack them. The place to attack them is at the point of production, not the point of retail, if that's what you want to do. This tax isn't even an attack on them - it's just a tax, a means of raising revenue, and a regressive one at that, which the medium to high earners won't even notice. It also has the potential for making alternatives such as sugar-free things filled with vile sweeteners relatively cheaper, which solves nothing. This is not a way of tackling obesity. It is a way of taking money out of the pockets of poor people.

It's also a way of personalising the obesity problem - it's your fault, stop it. (except we don't really think you'll stop it, in fact we've budgeted for you not stopping it)

Never mind that at the same time we're subsidising inefficient factory farming, which produces extra-fatty, low-nutrition meat, while degrading the soil and destroying the ecosystem.

We're not gonna find much disagreement but we live in a state capitalist society and all that entails. We're not likely to see these companies curtailed at the point of production and see their subsidies cut, in an ideal world I'd like to see that of course. So with that in mind what other options are there? It worked with smoking, I know plenty of people (yeah I know not all that scientific) who quit as a result of the ridiculous prices. I'm personally in favour of pricing fags to a ridiculous level but that's another discussion. I don't think people are suddenly going to stop drinking coke but it will reduce the level consumed and I think that's the best compromise that can happen in the type of society we live in, of course it needs to be coupled with other measures too though.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

We're not gonna find much disagreement but we live in a state capitalist society and all that entails. We're not likely to see these companies curtailed at the point of production and see their subsidies cut, in an ideal world I'd like to see that of course. So with that in mind what other options are there? It worked with smoking, I know plenty of people (yeah I know not all that scientific) who quit as a result of the ridiculous prices. I'm personally in favour of pricing fags to a ridiculous level but that's another discussion. I don't think people are suddenly going to stop drinking coke but it will reduce the level consumed and I think that's the best compromise that can happen in the type of society we live in, of course it needs to be coupled with other measures too though.

Smoking is a tricky one as addicts are the ultimate self-deluders. We can't trust the reasons smokers give for giving up - they may well, and often do, have poor insight into their own motivations. Such is the nature of addiction.

As I used to well know, given my contributions over the years to the Belgian exchequer, fag tax in Belgium is way lower than it is here. Yet fewer Belgians smoke than Brits.

 

[Cheesypoof]

i cant understand anyone drinking them anyway....im not a health freak but super aware of healthy food and i guess, a person who doesnt compute with this kind of discussion.

 

[Doctor Carrot]

Smoking is a tricky one as addicts are the ultimate self-deluders. We can't trust the reasons smokers give for giving up - they may well, and often do, have poor insight into their own motivations. Such is the nature of addiction.

As I used to well know, given my contributions over the years to the Belgian exchequer, fag tax in Belgium is way lower than it is here. Yet fewer Belgians smoke than Brits.

Not according to this they're not.

Tobacco atlas: country by country

I'm not saying tax is the only thing that will help but it can be part of a range of measures to help.

 

[Doctor Carrot]

i cant understand anyone drinking them anyway....im not a health freak but super aware of healthy food and i guess, a person who doesnt compute with this kind of discussion.

Addictive? Like the taste? Habbit? I can't understand people who guzzle two bottles of wine a night and are still able to get up and go to work the next day but I drink a lot of sweetened drinks, sweetened with sweetners and not even sugar.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Not according to this they're not.

Tobacco atlas: country by country

I'm not saying tax is the only thing that will help but it can be part of a range of measures to help.

This table has them at 19%, while the UK's usually quoted at just over 20%. Hey ho.

But as for your point, no, tax ought not to be among a range of measures to 'help'.

'Dear smoker, instead of £2, we're charging you £10.

No, really, don't mention it.'

Smoking in Europe is on the decline, whatever the level of tax. Which is great, btw, of course.

 

[Saul Goodman]

I'm a smoker and a drinker, and I have no problem with them taxing the fuck out of things that are putting a strain on the health service.

 

[Doctor Carrot]

This table has them at 19%, while the UK's usually quoted at just over 20%. Hey ho.

But as for your point, no, tax ought not to be among a range of measures to 'help'.

'Dear smoker, instead of £2, we're charging you £10.

No, really, don't mention it.'

Well we'll just have to differ on that because I'm of the view that if the price of something you do on a regular basis, something you know is extremely likey to contribute to an early death and cause a horrendous illness, something you can't do in public much anymore, something in your heart of hearts you know is shit and that you don't really enjoy or get any benefit from you'd probably be more likely to think '10 quid on fags? Fuck that'.

We are getting somewhat off the point of sugar.

Edit: I should say that only works if the price is massively whacked up in one go rather than the ridiculous 20p increases. I still think it's had an effect but I think it would've reduced smoking rates much quicker if it had been put up astronomically in one go.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Well we'll just have to differ on that because I'm of the view that if the price of something you do on a regular basis, something you know is extremely likey to contribute to an early death and cause a horrendous illness, something you can't do in public much anymore, something in your heart of hearts you know is shit and that you don't really enjoy or get any benefit from you'd probably be more likely to think '10 quid on fags? Fuck that'.

We are getting somewhat off the point of sugar.

It's linked. Because I think it's misunderstanding the reason for the tax and the way its level is worked out. Its level is worked out to maximise revenue. So smokers are squeezed in a way that may force a few out of the game but keeps the vast majority in it and paying well over the odds, cynically exploiting addiction. And sugar will be taxed in exactly the same way - an added extra to make everyone feel bad about themselves that little bit more.

 

[Doctor Carrot]

It's linked. Because I think it's misunderstanding the reason for the tax and the way its level is worked out. Its level is worked out to maximise revenue. So smokers are squeezed in a way that may force a few out of the game but keeps the vast majority in it and paying well over the odds, cynically exploiting addiction. And sugar will be taxed in exactly the same way - an added extra to make everyone feel bad about themselves that little bit more.

Yeah I agree with that and is why I made the edit I did. Of course it's a revenue boost but I think anything that curtails some people smoking is a good thing.

With regards to sugar I'd personally rather have seen bans on BOGOF offers for sugar rich food, minimum pricing perhaps, big curtailing of advertising (they sponsor the olympics ffs!) reduction of attractive packaging and of course the end to subsidy you talked about but anything, anything that curtails consuming the shit is a good thing in my book.

By the way I am considered obese and the type of food aren't what make me feel bad about it at the times I do feel bad about it. It's attitudes towards it that do and the enormous ignorance around weight loss, diets, their effectiveness and so on.

 

[Cheesypoof]

Addictive? Like the taste? Habbit? I can't understand people who guzzle two bottles of wine a night and are still able to get up and go to work the next day but I drink a lot of sweetened drinks, sweetened with sweetners and not even sugar.

well i dont do that! Maybe 10 years ago but no way today. i would think that pretty mad to be fair.

 

[Doctor Carrot]

Pretty interesting article here:

Will a sugar tax actually work?

Seems it's not as useful as I first thought it might be. I find the case in Berkely interesting with only 22% of the tax being passed to the consumer, I think that will happen here too.

 

[ricbake]

If sugar full fizzy drinks are more expensive than sugarfree aspartame loaded fizzy drinks any obesity reduced by the tax will be offset by the increase in cancers and brain tumours caused by the aspartame.

Has George Osborne got shares in Monsanto?

Donald Rumsfeld and the Strange History of Aspartame

 

[Doctor Carrot]

If sugar full fizzy drinks are more expensive than sugarfree aspartame loaded fizzy drinks any obesity reduced by the tax will be offset by the increase in cancers and brain tumours caused by the aspartame.

Has George Osborne got shares in Monsanto?

Donald Rumsfeld and the Strange History of Aspartame

Shite it may be but aspartame causing everything from MS to cancer is largely conspiraloon bollocks. If it did cause these things you'd have to consume about 1000 cans of diet coke a day for it to have that amount of negative consequences, literally.

 

[laptop]

Donald Rumsfeld and the Strange History of Aspartame

chemical additive aspartame is very potentially a cancer and brain tumor-causing substance

HuffPo free content, worth every penny...

 

[redsquirrel]

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..

And that intervention has to be in the form a regressive tax?

(And not all taxes are regressive, income tax isn't)

 

[Johnny Vodka]

you also believe all the drugs you like should be legal and untaxed Vodka. The hypocrisy here is mind blowing.

I think most drugs should be legal and TAXED. No hypocrisy whatsoever.

 

[Callie]

Do you want potatoes to cost less or mars bars to cost more?

I want chips!

 

[Johnny Vodka]

This will do fuck all about obesity.

If it doesn't, at least it could be used to prop up the nhs.

 

[NoXion]

If it doesn't, at least it could be used to prop up the nhs.

Could be, but it won't.

 

[fredfelt]

And that intervention has to be in the form a regressive tax?

(And not all taxes are regressive, income tax isn't)

I mentioned my post that it should be primarily policies on income (which includes non regressive taxation) which should be used to deal with income distribution. This was the first sentence.

On a general level In addition to policies regarding income I think the state has a place to intervene on the price of goods and services. Especially when corporations are exploiting the public, at the expense of the public purse.

 

[fredfelt]

...

Never mind that at the same time we're subsidising inefficient factory farming, which produces extra-fatty, low-nutrition meat, while degrading the soil and destroying the ecosystem.

There are parallels between filthy, factory farmed meat and sugar - in terms of 'efficiencies' in the industry, and subsidies the industry affords. The low prices of factory farmed meat is a reflection of how efficient this global industry is. Any attempt to tackle the issues you raise will inevitably raise the price - or in a global market put UK farmers out of business.

When I've argued on here for tighter controls in this industry here the main response seem to be along the lines of becuase the cheap price is worth it.

 

[redsquirrel]

I mentioned my post that it should be primarily policies on income (which includes non regressive taxation) which should be used to deal with income distribution. This was the first sentence.

On a general level In addition to policies regarding income I think the state has a place to intervene on the price of goods and services. Especially when corporations are exploiting the public, at the expense of the public purse.

That doesn't answer my question the gov could intervene to reduce the use of sugars in processed food without using a regressive tax that hurts the poorest in society.

 

[fredfelt]

That doesn't answer my question the gov could intervene to reduce the use of sugars in processed food without using a regressive tax that hurts the poorest in society.

How? What do you suggest?

 

[pesh]

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

Moral in so far as he is still opening American style diners in the West End selling enormous burgers and milkshakes.