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

    3
    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.
    But I need salt.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    18
    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 tax on plastic bags didn't work just because it was a tax, it worked because it made something that was previously free, and therefore disposable, cost a token amount of money, giving it value. This is a fundamental change in the nature of the item, which changes the way people thing about it.

    The sugar tax will not do this.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Legendary Quest)
    The plastic bags has encouraged people to reuse bags.

    What difference will a sugar tax make?
    I was recently diagnosed with slightly high blood sugar levels, it seems that this is becoming far more common and diabetes and obesity are increasing. I suppose every little helps, so even if it just focuses peoples awareness it is a benefit.
    • TSR Support Team
    • Clearing and Applications Advisor
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    Clearing and Applications Advisor
    I think it's probably a good idea. There is good evidence that it'll work and whilst nobody's arguing it's going to be a panacea for obesity, it's a step in the right direction. The best thing would be if the profits from this tax went directly into subsidies for healthier foods, e.g. fresh vegetables.

    (Original post by pjm600)
    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.
    Sorry, but that's not true. There is good evidence that a tax on sugary drinks does reduce obesity, as this meta-analysis shows.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tiger Rag)
    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.
    YESSSSS I totally agree
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DiddyDec)
    But I need salt.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    If you have a medical condition that requires you to have salt it would be better to get your salt from a better source, processed foods contain ridiculous amounts of salt, cornflakes contain more salt than sea water.
    Online

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dozyrosie)
    I was recently diagnosed with slightly high blood sugar levels, it seems that this is becoming far more common and diabetes and obesity are increasing. I suppose every little helps, so even if it just focuses peoples awareness it is a benefit.
    Do you not think that we need more than just a sugar tax to make a significant difference? I would support it more if they actually cared about making a difference. Community centres are shutting down, councils are struggling, but oh wait... Let's throw in a sugar tax so we can encourage people to be healthier. I think more needs to be done if we really want to tackle things like obesity.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Legendary Quest)
    Do you not think that we need more than just a sugar tax to make a significant difference? I would support it more if they actually cared about making a difference. Community centres are shutting down, councils are struggling, but oh wait... Let's throw in a sugar tax so we can encourage people to be healthier. I think more needs to be done if we really want to tackle things like obesity.
    I don't think mixing different political problems is reasonable. I can afford to eat sugary things and most people can, but the makers are going to heed the message once the government gets involved. I have had a complete change of diet, the message is getting through. People can make a choice to eat healthy or not, I cannot see what harm the sugar tax is doing, scrapping it will not help councils or services.
    Online

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dozyrosie)
    I don't think mixing different political problems is reasonable. I can afford to eat sugary things and most people can, but the makers are going to heed the message once the government gets involved. I have had a complete change of diet, the message is getting through. People can make a choice to eat healthy or not, I cannot see what harm the sugar tax is doing, scrapping it will not help councils or services.
    I think you misunderstood. Community centres are great tools that can be used to encourage healthy eating and exercise. It's one (of many) methods that could've been used to show that eating unhealthily is bad but many have been shut down. Encourage people within a community to meet up, encourage them to exercise together.. etc. Now, we have this sugar tax. And no, it isn't a tax on 'sugary things'. It is tax on soft drinks and soft drinks only. Your chocolates won't be affected. So in the grander scheme of things, what effect, if any, will it have? The point I was trying to make (which I did poorly, sorry) was that a sugar tax by itself isn't good enough. We need more if we really want to change things.
    Offline

    2
    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.
    Or you could just drink healthily.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    It's fundamentally none of the state's business how much sugar any private individual consumes, that's why.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Legendary Quest)
    I think you misunderstood. Community centres are great tools that can be used to encourage healthy eating and exercise. It's one (of many) methods that could've been used to show that eating unhealthily is bad but many have been shut down. Encourage people within a community to meet up, encourage them to exercise together.. etc. Now, we have this sugar tax. And no, it isn't a tax on 'sugary things'. It is tax on soft drinks and soft drinks only. Your chocolates won't be affected. So in the grander scheme of things, what effect, if any, will it have? The point I was trying to make (which I did poorly, sorry) was that a sugar tax by itself isn't good enough. We need more if we really want to change things.
    I stand corrected, I did not realise it was only a tax on soft drinks, so I agree it is a poor method of fighting obesity, the government should look at the problem again.
    • Very Important Poster
    Online

    19
    Very Important Poster
    (Original post by TimmonaPortella)
    It's fundamentally none of the state's business how much sugar any private individual consumes, that's why.
    Disagree, when we are facing an obesity epidemic, then public health is very much the states concern as the state has to puck up the tab for it.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 999tigger)
    Disagree, when we are facing an obesity epidemic, then public health is very much the states concern as the state has to puck up the tab for it.
    It doesn't have to pick up the tab for anything. We have chosen to provide healthcare at the taxpayer's expense. That choice is not an excuse to interfere in people's lives. Socialising medicine is not a justification for socialising lifestyles.
    • Very Important Poster
    Online

    19
    Very Important Poster
    (Original post by TimmonaPortella)
    It doesn't have to pick up the tab for anything. We have chosen to provide healthcare at the taxpayer's expense. That choice is not an excuse to interfere in people's lives. Socialising medicine is not a justification for socialising lifestyles.
    Public health has always been an issue for government for hundreds of years.

    It picks up the tab becayse the cost of dealing with obesity is going to plunge the health service into crisis. It should pay for itself or people should accpet more tax rises.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DiddyDec)
    But I need salt.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Just post something positive about the government or Katie Hopkins on here. You'll get more salt than you can handle.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    It's not going to discourage people from consuming sugary soft drinks. The government just want to make money off people drinking their way towards diabetes and obesity.

    If they really "cared" about the nation's health, they wouldn't allow products like a 1 litre bottle of Lucozade loaded with 44 teaspoons of sugar to be on sale in the first place.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Normally I'd be against tax hikes. But when a country's government pays for is citizen's healthcare, I can see the justification in wanting to increase revenue to help treat the nation's health problems associated with excessive sugar consumption. Personally, I'd go higher than 20p, or keep going until the point it would start to harm the suppliers (which would hurt business and possibly lower tax revenue).
    • Very Important Poster
    Online

    19
    Very Important Poster
    (Original post by RivalPlayer)
    It's not going to discourage people from consuming sugary soft drinks. The government just want to make money off people drinking their way towards diabetes and obesity.

    If they really "cared" about the nation's health, they wouldn't allow products like a 1 litre bottle of Lucozade loaded with 44 teaspoons of sugar to be on sale in the first place.
    Not what the research shows apparently.

    http://www.theguardian.com/society/2...-charities-say

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/heal...overnment.html
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by That Bearded Man)
    Yet investing to reduce obesity would benefit you in the long run theoretically because it will lower Healthcare costs.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    that statement assumes that people who become obese by their own choies deserve health care. I disagree. I think only (basically) unpreventable diseases should be given free treatment. I mean, why should a society subsidise the stupidity of people via the NHS? that isn't something worth investing in
 
 
 
  • 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
    Would you like to hibernate through the winter months?
  • 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.