The Student Room Group
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>

why is the sugar tax bad??

Scroll to see replies

Original post by RF_PineMarten
"First world problems" is not a legitimate argument in this case. Loads of problems and political issues in this country could be dismissed as insignificant according to the logic you're using. It's not an argument, it's a distraction.

The existence of bigger problems in other countries does not make things like sugar tax any less of an issue in this country.


I'm not talking about the sugar tax, I'm talking about this person complaining about having to pay more for an unhealthy drink.
Original post by Frank Underwood
I'm not talking about the sugar tax, I'm talking about this person complaining about having to pay more for an unhealthy drink.


And so he should. Why should those who consume these "unhealthy" drinks in healthy amounts without becoming overweight and encountering related health problems have to pay more because of other peoples' lack of self control?

For me, it's the principle involved. Though it won't affect me too much because it's "just" on sugary drinks. I would be considerably more annoyed if it extended to sugary foods, or if there was a "fat tax".
The thing I'm not quite sure on is why sugar? At the moment it's just sugary drinks but then why not all sugary foods?

Back in my youth it was all "fat is bad" (we know think differently, except trans fat).

Ultimately it's calories not specifically sugar that make you fat. So logically you should tax calories. But then, you're just making food more expensive which won't be easily swallowed by the public.
Original post by RF_PineMarten
And so he should. Why should those who consume these "unhealthy" drinks in healthy amounts without becoming overweight and encountering related health problems have to pay more because of other peoples' lack of self control?

For me, it's the principle involved. Though it won't affect me too much because it's "just" on sugary drinks. I would be considerably more annoyed if it extended to sugary foods, or if there was a "fat tax".


This is a stupid statement because the main aim of the 'sugar tax' is to get money and Osbourne probably doesn't give a crap about our health, its just a way of digging up extra money while appearing to care about us.

The reason for this is because the ban is limited to sugary drinks. There are literally dozens of other food types which cause obesity, so it's not an attempt to reduce obesity, its just a way of getting more money.
Original post by Frank Underwood
I suppose if you say "wow thats desperate" enough it becomes desperate in your eyes.

But you can't deny the truth, you're complaining about having to pay 20p extra for unhealthy drinks when some people can't even get healthy drinks, and 'your liberty is being violated' lmao.


except it's not a mere 20p is it.
how much more in my life time am I going to be paying extra? hundreds of pounds? probably. why should I have to do that when I am a person who is healthy?!
and if I am being charged by the government on top of a consumer good not for the sake of my security then how is that *not* a violation of liberty" in an objective sense?
Original post by firstofthestartz
like why is it bad for people to be healthy???


It's bad in the fact that most people cannot distinguish between refined sugars and sugars naturally found in fruits in the form of fructose.

As a result people shun eating too much fruit due to the sugar astigmatism
Original post by sleepysnooze
except it's not a mere 20p is it.
how much more in my life time am I going to be paying extra? hundreds of pounds? probably. why should I have to do that when I am a person who is healthy?!
and if I am being charged by the government on top of a consumer good not for the sake of my security then how is that *not* a violation of liberty" in an objective sense?


Because you are still free to do it.

Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by DiddyDec
Because you are still free to do it.

Posted from TSR Mobile


well you may have incredibly low standards of what liberty means
what if the tax was 95% - would that still be free even though it would effectively deter all incentives to purchase the sugary products? if they've prevented me from buying it not out of logic but out of compulsion (as taxes are forced) then surely that's a measurable violation of liberty? if I said "you're free to vote but you have to pay £100" or "you can run for political office, but you have to change your name" would that also be "free"? should liberty have such unnecessary state conditionalities? I thought liberty was about independence
Original post by kalclash
It's bad in the fact that most people cannot distinguish between refined sugars and sugars naturally found in fruits in the form of fructose.

As a result people shun eating too much fruit due to the sugar astigmatism


I guess you mean stigmatism. What are the health differences between refined and unrefined sugars? It's all calories isn't it?
Original post by sleepysnooze
well you may have incredibly low standards of what liberty means
what if the tax was 95% - would that still be free even though it would effectively deter all incentives to purchase the sugary products? if they've prevented me from buying it not out of logic but out of compulsion (as taxes are forced) then surely that's a measurable violation of liberty? if I said "you're free to vote but you have to pay £100" or "you can run for political office, but you have to change your name" would that also be "free"? should liberty have such unnecessary state conditionalities? I thought liberty was about independence


You are massively blowing it out of proportion.

Do you do this speech when you are asked to pay for plastic bags?

Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Frank Underwood
No, it's idiotic because you misread it and twisted it into your own words.

This person is complaining that he is going to become poor on 20p extra from sugary drinks, talk about first world problems.


Yes, so your argument is literally 'they have it worse in Africa, so it's fine', which could apply to anything.
Original post by firstofthestartz
like why is it bad for people to be healthy???


Here's the problem.

Margarine, sunflower oil, corn oil etc cause obesity and tooth decay.

Not sugar.

Phytic acid from grains causes tooth decay.

We need to ban and tax sunflower oil and margarine.
Original post by chazwomaq
The thing I'm not quite sure on is why sugar? At the moment it's just sugary drinks but then why not all sugary foods?

Back in my youth it was all "fat is bad" (we know think differently, except trans fat).

Ultimately it's calories not specifically sugar that make you fat. So logically you should tax calories. But then, you're just making food more expensive which won't be easily swallowed by the public.


I suppose the two reasons for singling out sugar:

1. The increase in the average calories consumed since around 1980 is predominately down to us consuming more sugar, not fat.

2. The implication that sugar consumption plays a role in causing type II diabetes.
Original post by chazwomaq
I guess you mean stigmatism. What are the health differences between refined and unrefined sugars? It's all calories isn't it?


The difference between refined sugar (Mars bar) and unrefined sugar (banana) is that the unrefined sugar is found naturally occurring in fruits and vegetables and are full of vitamins and minerals.

We have a trillion cells in our bodies and they are powered by sugar. I honestly despair at the notion that a calorie is a calorie. It highlights my original point that you think 100 doughnut calories are equal to 100 banana calories for example.
Original post by kalclash
The difference between refined sugar (Mars bar) and unrefined sugar (banana) is that the unrefined sugar is found naturally occurring in fruits and vegetables and are full of vitamins and minerals.


OK, but that's not really a problem unless you're micronutrient deficient. This is a major problem in the developing world. Here, not so much.

It highlights my original point that you think 100 doughnut calories are equal to 100 banana calories for example.


Well, in terms of energy (and hence obesity), they are equal.
its bad because they will put other sweeteners and other bad chemicals and they will try to avoid the tax and find "loopholes"
Original post by chazwomaq
OK, but that's not really a problem unless you're micronutrient deficient. This is a major problem in the developing world. Here, not so much.

Well, in terms of energy (and hence obesity), they are equal.


Not all calories are born equal. A banana is full of calories that are nutritionally dense in comparison. A mars bar is not full of vital nutrients and minerals which the body needs.

Food is fuel. A mars bar is ok for a treat every now and then. Although the sugar will convert to energy and "fuel" it won't nourish the body and feed our cells with vital nutrients.
Original post by chazwomaq
OK, but that's not really a problem unless you're micronutrient deficient. This is a major problem in the developing world. Here, not so much.



Well, in terms of energy (and hence obesity), they are equal.


No, just no. The energy from a healthy, low fat high sugar banana is not comparable to that of a doughnut, or a burger or any deep fried or refined sugary, processed food. I know of no cases whereby someone has become obese from eating too much fruit and veg. The same cannot be said for eating too much junk food. A calorie is not a calorie, this should be very obvious - the fact that to most people it isn't is very sad.
Original post by Quantex
I suppose the two reasons for singling out sugar:

2. The implication that sugar consumption plays a role in causing type II diabetes.


I thought it was obesity that caused type II diabetes rather than sugar per se: https://www.diabetes.org.uk/Guide-to-diabetes/Enjoy-food/Eating-with-diabetes/Diabetes-food-myths/Myth-sugar-causes-diabetes/
Original post by kalclash
No, just no. The energy from a healthy, low fat high sugar banana is not comparable to that of a doughnut, or a burger or any deep fried or refined sugary, processed food. I know of no cases whereby someone has become obese from eating too much fruit and veg. The same cannot be said for eating too much junk food. A calorie is not a calorie, this should be very obvious - the fact that to most people it isn't is very sad.


Could you be more specific in what way it's not the same?

The important variable is satiety. Sugary foods tend not to be satiating so it's easy to eat too much of them. Fruits and vegetables are much more satiating. But eat too many calories from ANY source and you'll get fat.

A big problem is that people like to view certain foods and healthy and others as unhealthy. This isn't useful*. It a whole diet and lifestyle that's healthy or not.

*There are a few exceptions such as salt and trans fat.
(edited 8 years ago)

Quick Reply

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you