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

TSR MHoC Budget Report 2016 Watch

Announcements
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Saracen's Fez)
    That's the point, most people don't. You'll be amazed how much you can carry in your hands if it will save you having to pay for a bag.
    Yeah I once did £50 quid shop at local Tesco ( about 10 minute walk), I didn't buy any bags i took the trolley home and then returned it , I should of sold it to the scrap man who offered me £2 for it
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lime-man)
    The point of the charge isn't to raise money, but to stop people wasting plastic. By using your own bag you're literally fulfilling the entire point of the charge.
    Yes or No question for you then. Do you think the corporations would have agreed with the customer who wanted no bag charge ( or the government who wanted the bag charge) if it didn't end in legal implications
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheHelpfulMan)
    Yes or No question for you then. Do you think the corporations would have agreed with the customer who wanted no bag charge ( or the government who wanted the bag charge) if it didn't end in legal implications
    They would have said no to the charge, which is why I'm glad we have a strong government (could be stronger but at least it wasn't miliband)
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheHelpfulMan)
    Yeah I once did £50 quid shop at local Tesco ( about 10 minute walk), I didn't buy any bags i took the trolley home and then returned it , I should of sold it to the scrap man who offered me £2 for it
    I'm not condoning that, but just to make sure we're on the same page here, by "success" I mean reducing the number of bags used, not raising more money for the Government.

    In Wales the Government don't to my knowledge get a cut of the money, whereas England has carrier bag charges lite, where paper bags are free and small shops don't have to charge. In Wales you have to pay for all paper and plastic bags, no exceptions.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Saracen's Fez)
    I'm not condoning that, but just to make sure we're on the same page here, by "success" I mean reducing the number of bags used, not raising more money for the Government.

    In Wales the Government don't to my knowledge get a cut of the money, whereas England has carrier bag charges lite, where paper bags are free and small shops don't have to charge. In Wales you have to pay for all paper and plastic bags, no exceptions.
    Does it go to charity in wales or to the £300Million wales is underfunded by CG
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lime-man)
    They would have said no to the charge, which is why I'm glad we have a strong government (could be stronger but at least it wasn't miliband)
    ???
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheHelpfulMan)
    ???
    The Government could do more to hold corporations to account, yes, but we do have quite a strong government. IT could be stronger, as I said, but I'm at least semi contented at the moment. Now I just wish they'd get back to proper One-nationism.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheHelpfulMan)
    Does it go to charity in wales or to the £300Million wales is underfunded by CG
    Charity I think, though I can't remember if that's by requirement or if companies can hang on to the money themselves.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Saracen's Fez)
    I'm not condoning that, but just to make sure we're on the same page here, by "success" I mean reducing the number of bags used, not raising more money for the Government.
    Are you implying that the state slowly sucking up all the money can't be classed as success?
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    Are you implying that the state slowly sucking up all the money can't be classed as success?
    That's not the job of the state, the job of the state is a paternal one, to instil values and uphold the constitution and conventions as well as ensure prosperity among all.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lime-man)
    That's not the job of the state, the job of the state is a paternal one, to instil values and uphold the constitution and conventions as well as ensure prosperity among all.
    The job of the state is to do everything it possibly can to maximise social (I'd argue global but that's not a point I'm going to get into now) utility.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    The job of the state is to do everything it possibly can to maximise social (I'd argue global but that's not a point I'm going to get into now) utility.
    Nothing really to do with sucking money wherever it can though.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lime-man)
    Nothing really to do with sucking money wherever it can though.
    Yes, it is. If we assume GDP remains constant (which we can through certain policies), then optimum social utility is achieved by perfectly equal wealth distribution, and through the state making peoples' choices for them where it is more likely to choose well.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    Are you implying that the state slowly sucking up all the money can't be classed as success?
    In this particular case I am suggesting exactly that.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    Yes, it is. If we assume GDP remains constant (which we can through certain policies), then optimum social utility is achieved by perfectly equal wealth distribution, and through the state making peoples' choices for them where it is more likely to choose well.
    I'd have to disagree with you there.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheHelpfulMan)
    The Chancellor is a Jeremy Lite- Also the sugar tax would be revised down as many companies would put sweetners in their products opposed to sugar. I read a news paper article which said Coca Cola was planning on dodging the sugar tax through use of sweeteners - All it will cause is a backlash and less products would be sold meaning the £1bn target may be a bit far fetched
    I can assure you that I'm not a Jeremy lite. And Coca Cola using sweeteners instead of Sugar would be regarded as a success of the Sugar Tax.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Saracen's Fez)
    In this particular case I am suggesting exactly that.
    The Blairite in you comes through once more.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by James Milibanter)
    I can assure you that I'm not a Jeremy lite. And Coca Cola using sweeteners instead of Sugar would be regarded as a success of the Sugar Tax.
    Using sweeteners cannot be considered a success, it is a worry: sugar has been used for hundreds of years, its long-term effects are known, but artificial chemicals are new, consumable substances whose long-term effects are not fully known on the human body because not enough time has passed since their discovery. Pushing to replace sugar with unknown chemicals is a dangerous step that has not been considered properly; sweeteners could be more dangerous than sugar.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nigel Farage MEP)
    Using sweeteners cannot be considered a success, it is a worry: sugar has been used for hundreds of years, its long-term effects are known, but artificial chemicals are new, consumable substances whose long-term effects are not fully known on the human body because not enough time has passed since their discovery. Pushing to replace sugar with unknown chemicals is a dangerous step that has not been considered properly; sweeteners could be more dangerous than sugar.
    Unknown chemicals?

    “Like sugar, sweeteners provide a sweet taste to foods and drinks, but what sets them apart is that, after consumption, sweeteners don’t increase blood sugar levels,” she says. “While more research is needed, sweeteners continue to have a useful role in offering a sweet taste without adding extra calories,"

    http://www.nhs.uk/Livewell/Goodfood/...weeteners.aspx
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by James Milibanter)
    Unknown chemicals?

    “Like sugar, sweeteners provide a sweet taste to foods and drinks, but what sets them apart is that, after consumption, sweeteners don’t increase blood sugar levels,” she says. “While more research is needed, sweeteners continue to have a useful role in offering a sweet taste without adding extra calories,"

    http://www.nhs.uk/Livewell/Goodfood/...weeteners.aspx
    And that does not address the point beyond reinforcing the idea that we just don't know. For a start most a synthesised chemicals that have only been around for a few decades, which really is no time at all

    Posted from TSR Mobile
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Break up or unrequited love?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • 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

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