Turn on thread page Beta

why is the sugar tax bad?? watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    like why is it bad for people to be healthy???
    • Very Important Poster
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    I have to admit I don't really get the issue either. But I think some people would argue that you're also punishing those of us who like the odd sugary treat now and again. Much better imo to actually do something (such as education and lowering the cost of healthy food) more beneficial than just a sugar tax, imo.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by firstofthestartz)
    like why is it bad for people to be healthy???
    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.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    If our goal is to get people to eat more healthily then the sugar tax (at least in its current form) only presents part of a solution. There are a number of factors that need to be dealt with. Firstly, unhealthy food is often cheaper than healthy food, so while a tax on unhealthy stuff is arguably a good thing, that needs to be coupled with subsidies on healthy food. Secondly, an issue is that an astounding number of people cannot cook which leads them to buy ready meals etc. that themselves contain lots of sugar and salt. We need people who know how to shop, cook and eat healthily.... at the moment we don't have that.

    Dealing with obesity is more complicated than just taxing sugary drinks. Odds are that all this will do is result in poorer people buying the exact same stuff they used to but being more out of pocket as a result.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    because I, a citizen, am now going to become poorer because of my government, for the sake of other people who can't take responsibility for their own faults and failures. I am a fit/healthy guy and I enjoy eating sugary foods/drinks here and there, but I am perhaps active enough and prudent enough (regarding my other diet choices) to not let these foods make me gain weight. however, other people are simply too stupid or lazy to be healthy, so the goernment says "well **** you, healthy guy, we care about the stupid lazy people more than the responsible, so we're going to lump you into this tax as well because we can't think of a better idea" - I can think of a better idea. either don't have any kind of penalties for people's own life choices and allow them to learn their own lessons, OR simply impose a personal "fat person tax" for people that are of a certain amount over a "normal" weight - that means you won't punish healthy people for being responsible. the government is idioticly correlating food choices with healthiness - well I have unhealthy food choices here and there, but this tax won't change my weight. It'll simply change my ****ing bank balance. the government should do something more intelligent than make an innocent party like me poorer for the sake of other people's idiocies. goddamn.
    Offline

    21
    Well you could be hypo diabetic which means you have to eat sugar to keep your sugar level at the optimum level so with the tax, you would have to pay extra just to keep yourself alive.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by firstofthestartz)
    like why is it bad for people to be healthy???
    Because all it does is put up the price of a drink.

    The best way would be to regulate the amount of sugar that can be in a product.

    It's very difficult to eat healthy if you don't cook from scratch


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Haha the government truely is evil, get a whole country hooked on sugar then implement a tax to rinse the peasants of their money.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mystery.)
    Well you could be hypo diabetic which means you have to eat sugar to keep your sugar level at the optimum level so with the tax, you would have to pay extra just to keep yourself alive.
    The idiocy of this statement is beyond me. You clearly don't understand how diabetes works.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    21
    (Original post by DiddyDec)
    The idiocy of this statement is beyond me. You clearly don't understand how diabetes works.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Eh ok?

    Almost everyone with type 1 diabetes encounters this at some point and although it is not severe in most cases, it still needs to be treated accordingly.
    People get hypoglycaemia when their blood glucose levels go low. If not treated, it's pretty damaging and I know because It has happened to someone I know who fainted because of it.
    If you think I'm stupid you can do a quick Google search and you'll find that I, in fact, know how diabetes works and hypoglycaemia is an actual condition.

    Here's some links for you if you can't find it yourself:

    https://www.diabetes.org.uk/Guide-to...---what-to-do/

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35831139
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mystery.)
    Well you could be hypo diabetic which means you have to eat sugar to keep your sugar level at the optimum level so with the tax, you would have to pay extra just to keep yourself alive.
    I'm sure there's other ways to have sugar without stuffing your face with 10 snickers bars
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mystery.)
    Eh ok?

    Almost everyone with type 1 diabetes encounters this at some point and although it is not severe in most cases, it still needs to be treated accordingly.
    People get hypoglycaemia when their blood glucose levels go low. If not treated, it's pretty damaging and I know because It has happened to someone I know who fainted because of it.
    If you think I'm stupid you can do a quick Google search and you'll find that I, in fact, know how diabetes works and hypoglycaemia is an actual condition.

    Here's some links for you if you can't find it yourself:

    https://www.diabetes.org.uk/Guide-to...---what-to-do/

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35831139
    I don't need to read your sources, my brother is type 1. They get provided with a gel called hypostop which is a high glucose solution to stop them having this issue, free on the NHS. Furthermore with good blood sugar management these episodes can be reduced severely.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    21
    (Original post by DiddyDec)
    I don't need to read your sources, my brother is type 1. They get provided with a gel called hypostop which is a high glucose solution to stop them having this issue, free on the NHS. Furthermore with good blood sugar management these episodes can be reduced severely.

    Posted from TSR Mobile

    Fair enough.
    The BBC agrees with me, just sayin'.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mystery.)
    Fair enough.
    The BBC agrees with me, just sayin'.
    It is incredibly detrimental to manage diabetes with sugary drinks, it is a sure sign of poor blood sugar and insulin management. A healthy diet containing plenty of complex carbohydrates is a much better solution.

    She says that she goes hypo a few times a week, that is a sign of terrible management and is probably not using her insulin correctly or not eating the right foods.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by firstofthestartz)
    like why is it bad for people to be healthy???
    The sugar tax is a good idea just like the tax on plastic bags, what I can't understand is why no tax on added salt in processed foods. They should stick a pound on added salt.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Because the sugar tax alone will not make a difference. Do you think that someone is going to walk away from a fizzy drink simply because it costs a few pennies more than it did yesterday? Nada.

    Invest in community centres. Encourage people to exercise. etc etc
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sleepysnooze)
    because I, a citizen, am now going to become poorer because of my government, for the sake of other people who can't take responsibility for their own faults and failures. I am a fit/healthy guy and I enjoy eating sugary foods/drinks here and there, but I am perhaps active enough and prudent enough (regarding my other diet choices) to not let these foods make me gain weight. however, other people are simply too stupid or lazy to be healthy, so the goernment says "well **** you, healthy guy, we care about the stupid lazy people more than the responsible, so we're going to lump you into this tax as well because we can't think of a better idea" - I can think of a better idea. either don't have any kind of penalties for people's own life choices and allow them to learn their own lessons, OR simply impose a personal "fat person tax" for people that are of a certain amount over a "normal" weight - that means you won't punish healthy people for being responsible. the government is idioticly correlating food choices with healthiness - well I have unhealthy food choices here and there, but this tax won't change my weight. It'll simply change my ****ing bank balance. the government should do something more intelligent than make an innocent party like me poorer for the sake of other people's idiocies. goddamn.
    Yet investing to reduce obesity would benefit you in the long run theoretically because it will lower Healthcare costs.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dozyrosie)
    The sugar tax is a good idea just like the tax on plastic bags, what I can't understand is why no tax on added salt in processed foods. They should stick a pound on added salt.
    The plastic bags has encouraged people to reuse bags.

    What difference will a sugar tax make?
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    I wholeheartedly back the sugar tax, it's a win win. Either it makes no difference and we generate revenue, or more likely we will force people who can't afford otherwise to choose to drink water instead. The casuals can afford paying an extra 20p a bottle. I agree with adding cookery classes and subsidising alternatives. The best solution would be to forcibly reduce salt, fat and sugar from ready meals, but the tax is a positive.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Very Important Poster
    Offline

    19
    Very Important Poster
    I dont think its bad, but it is uneven and just headline grabbing. Why not tax other products with sugar in. i was reading some starbucks contain 27 teaspoons of sugar.
 
 
 
The home of Results and Clearing

1,062

people online now

1,567,000

students helped last year
Poll
A-level students - how do you feel about your results?
Useful resources

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.