The Student Room Group

Would a 20% tax put you off buying sugary drinks?

Scroll to see replies

Original post by TimmonaPortella
Gee, do you think compulsion might be more effective than education?

It's not a question of what's 'effective' in reducing consumption. It's a question of what's appropriate. If properly informed adults choose to consume certain products that is completely up to them.

I for one am utterly sick of the medical establishment trying to socialise my life choices.

edit: to answer the actual question, I rarely drink them anyway, but I very much doubt that this would ever affect my choice if I were buying lunch or something and wanted a coke with it.


What's your problem? The OP made a comment suggesting that education was a 'better' option; I explained that education alone doesn't work. 'Better' is quite clearly an ambiguous term; I took it to mean 'more effective than', while perhaps you took it to mean 'more appropriate than'. I deliberately didn't talk about appropriateness, because I think that the majority of posters here will disagree with my viewpoint and I sadly have neither the time nor the energy to get into a debate about it. Which is why I just chose to answer the suggestion (as I read it) that education would be more effective anyway.
Original post by *pitseleh*
What's your problem?


The state creeping into too many aspects of our lives. I'd have thought that evident.
Original post by TimmonaPortella
The state creeping into too many aspects of our lives. I'd have thought that evident.


Not really, when (I previously pointed out), I purposefully didn't make any mention of whether this was acceptable or not. I get your viewpoint; I'm just not sure why you used my post to make it.
Original post by *pitseleh*
Not really, when (I previously pointed out), I purposefully didn't make any mention of whether this was acceptable or not. I get your viewpoint; I'm just not sure why you used my post to make it.


I just often see the argument made that we have to do something more than education because education is ineffective. In my view that's missing the point. I concede that you may have been dealing with a different one :dontknow:
Coke is already massively over-priced in the UK.

I saw that recently the size of the 2L bottle was cut to 1.75L while the price remained high. ****ing ridiculous.
just slapping a tax on isn't going to work, people are quite insensitive to the price of fizzy drinks.

for evidence just look in a supermarket

2L bottle of pepsi £1.98 (special offer buy 2x2L bottles for £2)
0.5L bottle of pepsi £1.29

the 0.5L bottle of pepsi still sells like the proverbial and would continue to do so even if they cost £1.49
This would only work if the extra money gained via the tax goes towards making healthy food cheaper, making the drinks more expensive by 20% will still make them cheaper than the alternative. Companies aren't stupid, they will just re-work the prices so the sugary drinks are still the cheaper option because they are the more addictive out of the two.
Reply 47
As long as they don't tax pure fruit juice and sugar-free drinks, I am fine with it.
I'm happy so long as they don't change the price of my sugar free Pepsi Max. Selfish, yes but I love my Pepsi!
It makes me want to buy loads of fizzy drinks so I can sell on the black market later.
I rarely drink fizzy drinks unless it's at the pub paired with some Captain Morgans, and I know plenty of others like me that rarely drink them so think it's slightly unfair to us. However, I do believe if you're going to tax sugary drinks surely you should tax all sugary items like chocolate? Or here is a thought, how about concentrating on the amount of unnecessary salt/sugar that goes into ready meals and other items like pasta sauces rather than taxing sugary drinks which people will probably still buy.
Hmm so is this just drinks with sugar artificially added? Or would it include fruit juices?

I don't think fizzy drinks or artificially sweetened stuff bar occasionally a lucozade sport at the cinema (albeit I'd hope that's not sweetened to the same extent as coke et al), but it would annoy me if Copella/Tropicana etc were upped by 20%,

If I did drink coke and such I don't think it would be enough to put me off, so a 3ltr bottle of coke is now 3 for £6 instead of 3 for £5, 2ltr bottle of pepsi is £1.20 not £1,,,really not enough to stop you tbh.
Original post by cosmicluma
Likely to be a positive thing long-term helping to prevent obesity

This study finds higher prices are associated with a lower demand: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24225016


That paper is based on studies conducted in the US and Mexico, and certainly in the US the price of soft drinks is far, far lower than in the UK. If I recall correctly multipack cans of Coke generally work out about 60p/can, but in the US 15-20p/can is common. That suggests to me that an additional tax on soft drinks would have limited impact, as they already sell in high volumes despite being relatively expensive.

Also in the US a large cup in a fast food restaurant is more akin to a small bucket... I think in Panda Express it's something like 1.1L
Original post by TomatoLounge
Doctors are demanding a 20% tax on sugary drinks, apparently:
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/jul/13/doctors-tax-sugar-drinks-uk-obesity-bma-children

But is it the right thing to do? Would it put you off? I think education is probably a better option.


Education is a staring point, but so is a financial penalty.

On top of that the 20% tax helps fund the health care issues associated with sugary drinks.
Original post by MatureStudent36
Education is a staring point, but so is a financial penalty.

On top of that the 20% tax helps fund the health care issues associated with sugary drinks.


Why should people who consume sugary drinks moderately pay for those who over indulge?
Reply 55
Original post by Ollie714
Why should people who consume sugary drinks moderately pay for those who over indulge?


Why should people who consume alcohol moderately pay for those who over indulge?
Original post by Ollie714
Why should people who consume sugary drinks moderately pay for those who over indulge?


Because they moderately indulge in something that has health take and additional risks . It's a bit like saying peole shouldn't pay tax if they smoke under 5 a day.

The quickest, easiest and efficient way to tax is to tax at source. Not go around saying 'sorry porky' we need to tax you more.
Most of the time I see this discussed there's usually a component put forward where after taxing sugary food and drink they would subsidise healthy things, in which case people who moderately consume are completely unaffected, people following a v healthy lifestyle benefit economically and those that are following an unhealthy lifestyle are pressured into changing.

That said, I've got no idea about the Tory plans, just putting that out there.
Original post by Ollie714
Why should people who consume sugary drinks moderately pay for those who over indulge?


Why should those who 'over indulge' pay anything more? It's up to them what they consume.

As for universal healthcare, they really have no choice in that matter, so it can't be used as a justification to pry into their lives.

Quick Reply

Latest