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

Those doctors can **** off in a time machine back to Germany 1930 ~ 1945 and live in the sort of paradise they envision for themselves.

Doctors have no business discussing taxes anyway. They're doctors, stick to doctoring. And yes, that means fixing my ass regardless of my lifestyle.

****ing hate this fad of calling for taxes and bans and all this **** just because some people can't ****ing control themselves.

I wholeheartedly support any tax on cigarettes, alcohol, or in this case, fizzy drinks. People who drink alot of fizzy drinks know the risk, but do it anyway. The only way to limit it is by making these drinks healthier and increasing the cost.

I do not smoke tobacco, I drink alcohol about once a year my one major vice is soft drinks(though changing to sugar free ones a lot recent months)

I am overweight but in excellent health, I walk a lot, low cholesterol, normal blood sugar, liver function great, iron levels fine etc.

So I have a lot but am still healthy, why should I be punished when I dont put any pressure on the NHS? In fact I put less on than if I drank or smoked.

I wholeheartedly support any tax on cigarettes, alcohol, or in this case, fizzy drinks. People who drink alot of fizzy drinks know the risk, but do it anyway. The only way to limit it is by making these drinks healthier and increasing the cost.

So consider that a 2l bottle of Pepsi is a quid on sale at Tesco, the tax would mean I'd have to pay £1.20 instead. Aye, bud. I'd tap that.

They'd sell a significant amount less at £1.20 to be fair.

Well yes, you would be the "victim" in this case, a casual drinker, healthy, would suffer because of it. I would first of all say that as a casual drinker, you won't be that severely affected. Say one bottle a week, 20p extra, you spend £10 extra a year more. Realistically that wouldn't affect how much you drink. Also, if we have unaffected drinks side by side with affected ones (coke beside diet coke, untaxed) then it will encourage them to pick the healthy option. You did it for personal gain, but not everyone would be able to.

This will force heavy drinkers to reduce their consumption, which to me is the ultimate goal of health care, prevent. By targetting the population, you have a far more cost-effective and successful way to reduce diabetes, alcoholism, lung cancer etc.

So yes, in your case you would marginally lose out, but on a population level (and eventually, as healthcare costs go down) we benefit.

We supposedly live in a free society where individuals make their own choices yet we are subject to taxes on cigarettes (non smoker) and soon anyway sugar. People should be allowed to muck their lungs up if they so chose to or get diabetes if they want without being dis incentivised by the Government