Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by That Bearded Man)
    Surely a consumer tax will trail back to hit the producers anyway? So it will still be a financial hit to producers and will still motivate action. Plus a lot of sweeteners like aspartame have shown to cause increase appetite, so there is no obvious substitute.

    I agree with all your bullet points, but still back the tax too.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Why tax junk food? Warn people against it, and give obese people support to lose weight, but it should ultimately be the individual's choice.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by EbonyTre)
    Why tax junk food? Warn people against it, and give obese people support to lose weight, but it should ultimately be the individual's choice.
    Libertarianism isn't widely practiced here, that's why.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Libertarianism isn't widely practiced here, that's why.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    K den.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by That Bearded Man)
    Surely a consumer tax will trail back to hit the producers anyway? So it will still be a financial hit to producers and will still motivate action. Plus a lot of sweeteners like aspartame have shown to cause increase appetite, so there is no obvious substitute.

    I agree with all your bullet points, but still back the tax too.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    I like the idea that it's the firm rather than the state that's directly culpable for the consumer burden. People shouldn't see fast food producers as their friends.

    Agree on the issue about substitutes. It's a tricky one.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by That Bearded Man)
    Surely a consumer tax will trail back to hit the producers anyway? So it will still be a financial hit to producers and will still motivate action. Plus a lot of sweeteners like aspartame have shown to cause increase appetite, so there is no obvious substitute.

    I agree with all your bullet points, but still back the tax too.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Of course however it's a less efficient way to do it since it depends on the exact degree of consumer response to the tax. If you tax production instead then it imposes a direct cost in the short term that the firm will wish to avoid.

    (Original post by Nigel Farage MEP)
    It does not matter where the tax is because the burden share for a producer tax is the same as the burden share for a consumption tax; I agree with the rest but do think taxing food penalises the responsible individuals who can control their intake.
    Again, the main difference is that the effect is direct rather than indirect. It may make the firm more motivated.

    (Original post by That Bearded Man)
    Because they're not comparable. The sheer scale in this instance.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Can it be proven that it materially affect the election outcome though?
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by EbonyTre)
    Why tax junk food? Warn people against it, and give obese people support to lose weight, but it should ultimately be the individual's choice.
    Because it doesn't work, trusting peoples "judgement" doesn't actually work. Its a libertarian standard but won't actually improve health or lower expenditure on healthcare. Either consumers pay more and gov collects tax revenue or people are forced to eat healthier.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    I guess I'll have to trawl through my sources and find the labour and SNP cases (ukip, lib dems, NI etc are irrelevant really) and see what tally I can reach to combat your assumed Tory case which, unless there is new news nobody has seen, is but 8 seats, one in 41.25

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    There's like 20 seats being investigated.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by That Bearded Man)
    Because it doesn't work, trusting peoples "judgement" doesn't actually work. Its a libertarian standard but won't actually improve health or lower expenditure on healthcare. Either consumers pay more and gov collects tax revenue or people are forced to eat healthier.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    It's all about raising money, though. Our economy is OK at the moment and doesn't require increases in tax at the moment. Forcing people to do things isn't usually the answer.
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    The Sun also unsubtly asking for "Conservative voters" to contribute an article about how much they've enjoyed right to buy etc.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    I like the idea that it's the firm rather than the state that's directly culpable for the consumer burden. People shouldn't see fast food producers as their friends.

    Agree on the issue about substitutes. It's a tricky one.
    That's a good point actually. No objection from me on that.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by EbonyTre)
    It's all about raising money, though. Our economy is OK at the moment and doesn't require increases in tax at the moment. Forcing people to do things isn't usually the answer.
    Our economy is OK so we don't need to raise revenue, cut taxes, fund our health service (millions in debt) build council housing........?

    And yes it is, because most people support or understand it. They said the same about the cigarette tax and the ban on outdoor smoking. They suggested "asking" people to cut down which failed miserably, hit them in the pocket, where it hurts.



    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by EbonyTre)
    Why tax junk food? Warn people against it, and give obese people support to lose weight, but it should ultimately be the individual's choice.
    And I'll extend individual choice because ultimately my tax money will end up paying for that additional diabetic therapy, so no.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by That Bearded Man)
    And I'll extend individual choice because ultimately my tax money will end up paying for that additional diabetic therapy, so no.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    If someone makes the concious decision to eat unhealthily, after learning the risks of their diet, then I'd be generally opposed to providing them therapy on the NHS.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    B977 has been withdrawn and thus I don't get the satisfaction of actively voting against it.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Libertarianism isn't widely practiced here, that's why.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Good its silly.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lime-man)
    Good its silly.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    You are the Tory I agree with most, which is why it hurts so much when you vote against all my sound market regulations.
    • Very Important Poster
    • Study Helper
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    Study Helper
    Welcome Squad
    On the sugar tax, it probably won't surprise people that I'm very much against it. I don't think it's really going to decrease the amount consumed in the forms of items it's going to be taxed in, and just be a revenue booster for the government. I'd much rather see changes to the way these people are treated, for example, making them pay for certain amount of treatment they may need from being obese, etc...!
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Forcing payment for treatment is terrible and regressive because you're targeting the poor even more than a sugar tax.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    Forcing payment for treatment is terrible and regressive because you're targeting the poor even more than a sugar tax.
    It also goes against the founding principle of the NHS, that the healthcare is universal. I feel like people take that for granted when it comes to themselves but want to take it away from others a lot. Like there are non smokers who say that smokers should pay for treatment if they get lung cancer, well no because i pay my tax towards the NHS as everyone else does so that no matter what i have healthcare. And i dont care how right wing anyone is, thats a ****ing beautiful thing and it should be protected at all costs.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lime-man)
    It also goes against the founding principle of the NHS, that the healthcare is universal. I feel like people take that for granted when it comes to themselves but want to take it away from others a lot. Like there are non smokers who say that smokers should pay for treatment if they get lung cancer, well no because i pay my tax towards the NHS as everyone else does so that no matter what i have healthcare. And i dont care how right wing anyone is, thats a ****ing beautiful thing and it should be protected at all costs.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Absolutely. Plus, smokers are already paying high tax levels on their cigarettes (which I wouldn't be averse to increasing, but then again I'm not against a tax on anything which creates an externality).
 
 
 
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: August 15, 2016
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.