why is the sugar tax bad??

- Googling "sin tax" doesn't give me evidence; I want to see evidence that a Sugar Tax - or something similar - actually works in reducing fizzy drink consumption or tackles obesity. As far as I'm aware, the Mexico case hasn't done anything for sugar - they put a 10% tax on fizzy drinks, and after decreasing during the first 12 months, consumption has risen to near pre-tax levels. It hasn't solved anything, just increased prices.
- It's not a case of not "fully solving" the problem, rather, it only focuses on one-fifth of the problem. This - coined with the first point (that it won't even tackle the 20% of sugar consumption) - means that it would be a bad move to implement the tax. At best ineffective, at worst, bad.
- If they need help with their teeth then give them help, don't tax them out of the equation. Try and solve the problem in a different way. The philosophy behind the move is questionable - if you're middle class then it's fine, but if you're poor then we're going to try and increase prices so as to discourage you from consuming this.

But, again, the sugar tax applies to everyone, not just people who fall into the bracket of people who are eating in such a manner that they can plausibly be described as mentally ill.

I think there are many reasons why obese people continue to eat. A sense of abandon deriving from low self-esteem would be one. A general lack of willpower may also feature. I would be very slow to categorise any such trait as a 'mental illness' justifying forcible outside intervention.

Disproportionately affects the poor. Is a blunt instrument, no one would contest that tonic water is damaging peoples' health. Milk based drinks are exempt, so milkshakes escape. Targets only drinks, not fast food etc.

Everybody outside politics knows that adding a tax is not effective in changing behavior, but it will just generate revenue from those who drink sugary drinks the most, who might happen not to be the political class. Adding 20p on to the price of a litre of coke will not stop people buying it. For various reasons, humans cannot be treated rational economic actors which this measure attempts to do.

Aside from generating revenue, it will not work.

but a tax wouldn't be my way of doing it. This is because you'll still have the poor spending whatever money they have on sugary foods/drinks but it'll cost them more (same as has happened with cigarettes) so they'll just get poorer, it probably won't change their behaviour and because they're poor they'll need all the sugar (and cigarettes) they can get to keep them happy (if that's the association that they make).

I agree, as i said the sugar tax is ridiculous. It may slightly reduce consumption of sugary drinks, but it's not the same as tobacco, it won't have anything like the same impact on our health, Personally i'm dreading it, i fear it will lead to us only being able to buy drinks full of artificial sweeteners like is already the case in certain supermarkets. Artificial sweeteners absolutely destroy me, leaving me stuck on the toilet for hours followed by a day in bed with a migraine. It's yet another divisive policy, another reason to despise fatties as if we didn't have enough already and will do sod all to tackle the problem.

So mental health then. We're not so slow to categorise the underweight as mentally ill.

Well, as I said, I don't think that falls under mental health, or at least not under any kind of mental health that requires intervention.

I think with people who are underweight the difference is that they're actually delusional, but I'm not an expert.

But cigarette consumption has fallen hugely over the decades. Taxes have well established effects on consumption.

So instead we should have thousands of children suffer from obesity because it makes you feel 2% more liberal.

it's hilarious that you're downplaying liberty (and personal responsibility) when you're not downplaying the role of this tax in its economic impacts. you claim it's going to prevent thousands of children from suffering, yet you're representing it as nothing in terms of its harms to individuals. if it's nothing regarding money, how will it possibly make any difference?

What's more hilarious is that you're complaining about having to pay roughly 20p extra for an unhealthy drinks bottle, when the Tories are making students pay thousands of pounds in tuition fees.

if you're equating my 20p, which I rightfully own, with student tuition, which students don't inherently or objectively own (or rather "deserve", then I think it's no wonder that you don't grasp the concepts of importance here; you clearly don't understand the meaning of ownership, property, entitlement, theft, etc. all you understand is utility. utility =/= a claim to ownership. my 20p is my 20p. not the government's, irrespective of subjective utility. child obesity isn't my responsibility nor my role in society to regulate vis-a-vis my loss of human liberty. that's their parents'. if parents fail their kids, *they* should be held responsible. not me. if you steal from me to give to them (via results), that's still theft. it's "nice theft" in its results, but I could steal from you to give to homeless people - you wouldn't want that though.

This idiot thinks that a drink that will eventually kill you is more important than education.

^THIS idiot (I wouldn't be calling you that if you hadn't flamed me first) thinks that a ****ing sugary drink, which everybody in society drinks, will inherently "kill" you, and is erroneously concluding things about education regarding my statements which I made no reference to.

So are you refuting that drinking unhealthy drinks will eventually kill you through obesity, if taken enough?

1) too much of pretty much anything will kill you. too much water can kill you. too much exercise will kill you. too much coffee can kill you. it's about personal self-control, not taxation. you should promote prudence o life choices, not deference to authority via ignorant laziness. results are less important than such principles. we could stop crime by imposing punishments on criminals that violate human rights - but human rights trump results, right? it's the same thing here. you must first begin with basic principles and *then* worry about *your own* results. not society's. society is not some high school science project to tinker with and control.

So are you refuting that drinking unhealthy drinks will eventually kill you through obesity, if taken enough?

Saying

"coke will kill you"

is not equivalent to saying

"it is possible to die from drinking coke eventually if you drink it enough"

Drinking coke responsibly will not kill you or make you obese. Many millions of people are able to drink soft drinks responsibly, without becoming obese and dying.