Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by democracyforum)
    should be banned on the name alone

    but yes, it's toxic and bad for you,
    It is a great name, don't you love the smell of rape in the morning?
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DiddyDec)
    It is a great name, don't you love the smell of rape in the morning?
    I wouldn't know what it smells like


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by paul514)
    I wouldn't know what it smells like


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    I actually feel sorry for you.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DiddyDec)
    And children from bad parenting.
    And if it were a restriction on children only I'd be fine with that. This tax interferes with the discretion of adults.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by firstofthestartz)
    like why is it bad for people to be healthy???
    Without reading the 6 pages of posts, here is my take on why the Sugar Tax is bad:

    - There is little evidence that it actually works
    - Fizzy drinks only represent between 15-20% of sugar consumption; what about the other 80%?
    - It disproportionately affects poor people; it's a regressive tax in that sense
    - The rationale is a bit questionable; as a government we don't want you to consume something, so we will tax you more in hope that you are no longer part of the equation. Of course, this logic is only effective on the poorest in society - after all, if you're affluent, paying an extra few pence for a fizzy drink is no problem
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pjm600)
    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.
    (Original post by pjm600)
    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.
    (Original post by Legendary Quest)
    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
    Wrong.
    "Most studies found that raising cigarette prices through increased taxes is a highly effective measure for reducing smoking among youth, young adults, and persons of low socioeconomic status."


    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3228562/

    Imagine thinking the price elasticity of demand for sugary drinks is 0
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Burridge)
    Without reading the 6 pages of posts, here is my take on why the Sugar Tax is bad:

    - There is little evidence that it actually works
    - Fizzy drinks only represent between 15-20% of sugar consumption; what about the other 80%?
    - It disproportionately affects poor people; it's a regressive tax in that sense
    - The rationale is a bit questionable; as a government we don't want you to consume something, so we will tax you more in hope that you are no longer part of the equation. Of course, this logic is only effective on the poorest in society - after all, if you're affluent, paying an extra few pence for a fizzy drink is no problem
    - There's plenty of evidence, a simple google of 'sin tax' shows you that
    - How does it not fully solving the problem mean it's actually bad?
    - Good, poor people are the ones that most need help with their health
    - Seems like a repeat of previous points
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TimmonaPortella)
    The plastic bag charge is about protecting the environment for everyone.

    The sugar tax is about protecting adult citizens from their own decisions.
    Their own decisions which make then unhealthy and therefore impact on everyone else.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by difeo)
    Their own decisions which make then unhealthy and therefore impact on everyone else.
    Their health is none of everyone else's concern. Providing government funded healthcare does not give everyone else the right to get involved in individuals' lifestyle choices.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TimmonaPortella)
    Their health is none of everyone else's concern. Providing government funded healthcare does not give everyone else the right to get involved in individuals' lifestyle choices.
    Of course it is, a country benefits in many ways when its citizens are healthy. It's not everyone else getting involved, it's the government getting involved.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by difeo)
    Of course it is, a country benefits in many ways when its citizens are healthy. It's not everyone else getting involved, it's the government getting involved.
    The government has no business getting involved in this sphere. A country benefits when its citizens are free and able to govern their own lifestyles.

    Our difference is rooted in the fact that you appear to see individual citizens purely as a means to some abstract collective end, whereas I see the preservation of their autonomy and freedom from outside interference into their lives as an end in itself.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TimmonaPortella)
    The government has no business getting involved in this sphere. A country benefits when its citizens are free and able to govern their own lifestyles.

    Our difference is rooted in the fact that you appear to see individual citizens purely as a means to some abstract collective end, whereas I see the preservation of their autonomy and freedom from outside interference into their lives as an end in itself.
    The government not getting involved in serious health issues would be a pretty worrying situation. Citizens are awful at governing their own lifestyles in this sphere. They've got themselves into a position where two thirds of them are overweight, they've failed.

    Presumably if it was down to you we'd have no tax on alcohol or cigarettes, and there'd be a whole lot more people dying from liver cirrhosis, lung cancer and drunk driving.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by difeo)
    The government not getting involved in serious health issues would be a pretty worrying situation. Citizens are awful at governing their own lifestyles in this sphere. They've got themselves into a position where two thirds of them are overweight, they've failed.

    Presumably if it was down to you we'd have no tax on alcohol or cigarettes, and there'd be a whole lot more people dying from liver cirrhosis, lung cancer and drunk driving.
    'Failure' requires an objective reference frame. As far as an individual's lifestyle goes, there isn't one. There are simply choices, which are the individual's to make.

    I've made quite clear that I do not consider government 'protection' of an adult from his own decisions justified or desirable. So far as drink driving goes, that is illegal and should continue to be so. This is because it poses a risk to others.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TimmonaPortella)
    'Failure' requires an objective reference frame. As far as an individual's lifestyle goes, there isn't one. There are simply choices, which are the individual's to make.

    I've made quite clear that I do not consider government 'protection' of an adult from his own decisions justified or desirable. So far as drink driving goes, that is illegal and should continue to be so. This is because it poses a risk to others.
    They're not just choices though, they're choices that cost the government huge amounts of money, so there's nothing wrong with being charged some of that money through tax.

    I wasn't saying anything about drink driving being made legal? But anyway, the poor state of people's health does pose a risk for others, it takes resources away from them, leading to more deaths.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Fizzy drinks companies will have to lower the price of drinks they make meaning less profit sand therefore a loss of jobs.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Legendary Quest)
    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
    I thought the kind of taxes that make no difference were the best kind?
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by difeo)
    They're not just choices though, they're choices that cost the government huge amounts of money, so there's nothing wrong with being charged some of that money through tax.

    I wasn't saying anything about drink driving being made legal? But anyway, the poor state of people's health does pose a risk for others, it takes resources away from them, leading to more deaths.
    It doesn't necessarily cost government anything. I return to my original point: the government's decision to act in providing taxpayer funded healthcare cannot justify its intrusion into the private lives of private citizens. It does not make sense to justify the extension of the government's remit by reference to the government's own policy.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    It's unfair on the soft drink companies that are affected. What about fruit juices, protein drinks and milk shakes?, some of Tesco's own fruit juices contain the same amount of refined sugar (if not more), as Coke!. Why are they exempt from paying sugar tax?. Coca Cola even introduced the 'Life' version of Coke which already contains a reduced amount of sugar - which is the same price as a can of Coke.

    It also punishes the poor. It means that (active) people such as myself who enjoy the occasional soft drink once a week, are now going to have to splash out more money simply because the government thinks I need to be 'heathier'.

    The real reason behind the sugar tax is to generate more money from the tax payer, not to make the nation healthier. Your health is the least of their concerns.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Apparently there's nearly 18 spoons of sugar in tomato soup.

    Luckily I prefer mushroom.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TimmonaPortella)
    It doesn't necessarily cost government anything. I return to my original point: the government's decision to act in providing taxpayer funded healthcare cannot justify its intrusion into the private lives of private citizens. It does not make sense to justify the extension of the government's remit by reference to the government's own policy.
    I suppose that's technically true, but it's somewhat bizarre logic that can be applied to every type of tax: "the government's decision to offer education, police and roads doesn't give them the right to take 20% of my wages off me". That's just how a country works, you get some stuff and have to pay taxes for it, and it's a pretty good deal really. People are going to be offered treatment when they eat themselves into hospital and they're going to take it, let's not pretend otherwise.
 
 
 
The home of Results and Clearing

3,632

people online now

1,567,000

students helped last year
Poll
Will you be tempted to trade up and get out of your firm offer on results day?
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.