Do you agree with the sugar tax?
Poll
What is your opinion about sugar tax?
I found out the other day that Brighton are planning to launch a sugar tax... as a regular consumer and huge fan of sugar I am not impressed with this.
What's your stance on the idea of a sugar tax?
What's your stance on the idea of a sugar tax?
Scroll to see replies
I think it's a sweet idea.
Quite frankly, it's ludicrous! Just more squashing of a consumer's choice of what they want to buy - I get that sugar causes costs to the NHS, however, so do a lot of things... A lot of products we consume today have sugar in and so honestly, I can't see this sugar tax actually doing much in terms of reducing sugar consumption, rather just a money making scheme.
it isn't a tax - the council doesn't have the power to tax sugar. The truth is that the council has asked its traders simply to increase prices by 10p per can of soft drink.
It won't be implemented by the traders and cannot work.
It won't be implemented by the traders and cannot work.
I think it's a Splenda idea.
Original post by Queen Cersei
I found out the other day that Brighton are planning to launch a sugar tax... as a regular consumer and huge fan of sugar I am not impressed with this.
What's your stance on the idea of a sugar tax?
What's your stance on the idea of a sugar tax?
i love your posts they are so thought provoking and interesting
btw i love the colour compostition of your avatar, the russet tones and the backlight make it really dramatic and empasises the figure
Original post by Queen Cersei
I found out the other day that Brighton are planning to launch a sugar tax... as a regular consumer and huge fan of sugar I am not impressed with this.
What's your stance on the idea of a sugar tax?
What's your stance on the idea of a sugar tax?
The evidence does appear to point towards a sugary drink tax being a good thing.
* According to a number of studies, a tax on sugar drinks does decrease their consumption and thus on health prospects. For example, a 2013 study published in the British Medical Journal concluded: “A 20% tax on sugar sweetened drinks would lead to a reduction in the prevalence of obesity in the UK of 1.3% (around 180 000 people). The greatest effects may occur in young people, with no significant differences between income groups… Taxation of sugar sweetened drinks is a promising population measure to target population obesity, particularly among younger adults.”
* A 2013 meta-analysis of nine studies found that “all showed negative own-price elasticity, which means that higher prices are associated with a lower demand for SSBs.”
* Similarly, a meta-analysis of 160 studies found that “a 10% increase in soft drink prices should reduce consumption by 8% to 10%.”
* In Mexico, where a 10% additional tax on sugary drinks has been implemented, a 6% reduction in consumption of sugar drinks over the course of the first year of the tax was observed, with greater reductions being observed in the later months, in line with evidence from taxes on tobacco demonstrating that there is a lag effect.
There are potential downsides to a sugar drink tax, however. Firstly, the increase in price of sugar drinks could lead to cross-border trading, whereby consumers buy sugary drinks at a cheaper price in other countries. A report published in July 2014 by the European Commission found that such effects were limited, however,.
Secondly, the increase in the price could disadvantage those on low-incomes. Nevertheless, the evidence on this is mixed, with the 2013 BMJ study finding that a 20% tax on sugary drinks would have no significant differential effect on different income groups.
Therefore, overall, I would say that a sugary drinks tax is a net positive, and should be implemented across the whole of the UK as the British Medical Association has called for. If anyone has any more evidence (for or against) pertaining to whether the tax would decrease consumption and/or have a particularly negative effect on low-income groups, I would be happy to see it.
(edited 8 years ago)
No, I'm against. I don't see the evidence pointing to the fairly obvious conclusion that it would decrease consumption as particularly relevant because whether I consume more or less sugar is fundamentally none of anyone else's business.
The evidence relating to any given policy is important, but one should be careful not to neglect analysis of whether the ends and means to which the evidence relates are really desirable or legitimate.
Actually the evidence points towards it being a -- to some degree -- effective policy in achieving the end you've stated.
It really doesn't say anything about what is 'good'.
The BMA also wants to ban boxing. They'd regiment our lives for us entirely if we let them.
The evidence relating to any given policy is important, but one should be careful not to neglect analysis of whether the ends and means to which the evidence relates are really desirable or legitimate.
Original post by viddy9
The evidence does appear to point towards a sugary drink tax being a good thing.
It really doesn't say anything about what is 'good'.
The BMA also wants to ban boxing. They'd regiment our lives for us entirely if we let them.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by Queen Cersei
I found out the other day that Brighton are planning to launch a sugar tax... as a regular consumer and huge fan of sugar I am not impressed with this.
What's your stance on the idea of a sugar tax?
What's your stance on the idea of a sugar tax?
I think it's a terrible idea. As someone who has suffered with anorexia, the idea of taxing food seems horrible as it reinforces the idea that food is the enemy and that we shouldn't enjoy treats.
Besides won't a sugar tax just increase consumption of crisps and Doritos?
Original post by TimmonaPortella
Actually the evidence points towards it being a -- to some degree -- effective policy in achieving the end you've stated. It really doesn't say anything about what is 'good'. The BMA also wants to ban boxing. They'd regiment our lives for us entirely if we let them.
Thank you for the reply. Yes, you're correct, the weight of the evidence suggests that it may be an effective policy in achieving my stated ends. The ends, I think, are justifiable: we should be reducing obesity rates to improve the health of people, particularly young people, and this will in turn reduce the burden on the NHS.
Banning something is also fairly different from making something a bit more expensive.
Original post by Fizzel
This is the problem with the NHS though, mandatory socialised healthcare effectively makes people's individual health the nations collective business.
In private systems, it's the case that your insurance premiums will go up if people's health is worse off. So, in any system, individual health is the nation's collective business; or at least keeping people healthy is in everyone's interests.
Original post by Hannahmay01
Besides won't a sugar tax just increase consumption of crisps and Doritos?
It may do, but even crisps are better for your health than sugary drinks.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by Fizzel
This is the problem with the NHS though, mandatory socialised healthcare effectively makes people's individual health the nations collective business.
Also props for the sig.
Also props for the sig.
I think that is if anything an argument against socialised medicine rather than for the socialisation of people's lifestyles. I personally think we should be able to manage to run a collective healthcare system without having the state interfere too much in private citizens' lives, but if that isn't possible I know which part of that I'd rather abandon.
lol thanks, it's a great show
Regressive tax.
Just like I still buy alcohol I'm still gonna by cookies.
Why lefties get so exited about inflicted regressive taxes is one of lifes mysteries
Just like I still buy alcohol I'm still gonna by cookies.
Why lefties get so exited about inflicted regressive taxes is one of lifes mysteries
Original post by viddy9
Thank you for the reply. Yes, you're correct, the weight of the evidence suggests that it may be an effective policy in achieving my stated ends. The ends, I think, are justifiable: we should be reducing obesity rates to improve the health of people, particularly young people, and this will in turn reduce the burden on the NHS.
Banning something is also fairly different from making something a bit more expensive.
Banning something is also fairly different from making something a bit more expensive.
I often see it cited as a truism that reducing the incidence or certain diseases of health issues as a good thing. My own view is that that statement itself needs some reasoning behind it. Personally I think that, if an adverse consequence to an individual comes of a choice they have made fully informed and with eyes open, so far as the state is, or at least ought to be, concerned, that outcome is neutral rather than negative.
The NHS point on the other hand is an actual argument. This is really a question of one's premises. Since I begin from the point that I think the state should protect and, so far as possible, not interfere with citizens' control over their own bodies and lives, I don't think that collectivisation of one thing, namely medicine, can sensibly justify collectivisation of another, namely life choices. Not, at least, without further explanation.
I've heard it argued that it is simply rational to attach taxes to cost-inducing behaviours rather than to spread the cost of certain citizens' choices over the whole of society. I thought that was quite strong. So, despite the fact that I'm speaking quite strongly here, I'm not entirely sure where I stand. I think it's mainly the 'let's change people's behaviour for their own good' attitude that gets under my skin a little. If the argument were put principally in terms of the cost to other people I'd be more sympathetic.
Banning something and making it more expensive are indeed different things, but if one comes to the conclusion that the end isn't justified in the first place both lack justification. On the other hand, if one's problem is with the means in issue, that would be a good answer. I certainly prefer this approach to the approach of banning things, though.
Original post by TimmonaPortella
I often see it cited as a truism that reducing the incidence or certain diseases of health issues as a good thing. My own view is that that statement itself needs some reasoning behind it. Personally I think that, if an adverse consequence to an individual comes of a choice they have made fully informed and with eyes open, so far as the state is, or at least ought to be, concerned, that outcome is neutral rather than negative.
Do you agree or disagree with the existence of the NHS? If you agree, then I think that the end does justify the means in this case: as you say, the cost of individual behaviour should not be spread over society. If you disagree, it's still the case that, in a private healthcare system, insurance premiums would go up as the health of the population decreases. So, again, the cost of individual behaviour would be spread over society.
On the point of individual liberty, people will not even be aware that their choices have been altered due to the tax. This may still seem fairly paternalistic, but if you're a libertarian capitalist (I'm more sympathetic to libertarian socialism, personally, although I'm a utilitarian above all), it's noteworthy that the modern public relations and advertising industry, on behalf of businesses, does exactly that: subconsciously alter people's choices.
Original post by ChaoticButterfly
Regressive tax. Just like I still buy alcohol I'm still gonna by cookies. Why lefties get so exited about inflicted regressive taxes is one of lifes mysteries
I did consider this point, but as I stated earlier, one of the major studies conducted on the effects of the sugary drinks tax, published in the British Medical Journal, concluded: "the greatest effects may occur in young people, with no significant differences between income groups".
I'm not sure how many people on the Left do get excited about taxes they believe are regressive, but one explanation could be that they believe there are better ways to reduce inequality whilst still obtaining the benefit of whatever the regressive tax is. In this case, people would be healthier and the burden on the NHS would be reduced and this, for them, would outweigh the costs of the regressivity. Nonetheless, in this case, the claim that the tax would be regressive is in doubt.
(edited 8 years ago)
Yes, I'm JUST about on the pro side of it. Its sad that people cant self regulate what they consume or producers can't voluntarily reduce the levels of sugar, if these could happen then we wouldn't need it. But unfortunately it seems to be a necessary evil
Original post by Fizzel
The point being that is your business. Its your business if you want to get fat, and its your business if you want to make healthcare unaffordable for yourself. Your financial input to the system is tied to your health as an individual.
I don't think this is even the case in a private healthcare system. There is "overwhelming evidence that individuals with unhealthy habits pay only a fraction of the costs associated with their behaviors; most of the expense is borne by the rest of society in the form of higher insurance premiums..."
Original post by gwagon
More taxes, just what the working class needs!
Once again, it's actually doubtful that a sugary drinks tax would disproportionately affect those on lower incomes. A major study on the effects of a sugary drinks tax, published in the British Medical Journal in 2013, found that "the greatest effects may occur in young people, with no significant differences between income groups."
(edited 8 years ago)
Quick Reply
Latest
Trending
Last reply 3 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 3 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
