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

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Costalo)
    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.

    It's not unfair on those companies at all.

    They are in business. Part of being in business is having the foresight to predict that if you deliberately make a product which contains an ingredient that causes people a great deal of harm then there is a risk of incurring a tax or some other cost.

    As for fruit juices etc the type of people who drink such things are likely to have all round better diets than the type of people who still drink sugary soft drinks.

    As for punishing the poor,give me a break.

    All they have to do is drink slightly less crap.

    And as for your final point.Yes it's main purpose is to raise money.


    Good.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by difeo)
    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.
    General taxes are a different matter. They do not follow from an involvement in people's lifestyle choices. This sugar tax does. That is why I have a problem with it.
    • TSR Community Team
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Community Team
    (Original post by chazwomaq)
    But as I said before, this is only a problem if you're micronutrient (and indeed fibre) deficient. Is that a big problem in this country? (Lack of fibre is I grant you.)
    That's not true. I think the majority of people in the UK are not getting good value nutrients and vitamins. Many are nutrient deficient. Given that the obesity rates and rates of chronic disease constantly are increasing this is largely to do with not eating fresh, natural food.

    (Original post by Kvothe the arcane)

    But once your needs are met, there is no advantage really in having your calories saturated with nutrients.
    But are people meeting their needs? Cereal with milk, sandwich with a bit of chicken and limp salad, pizza or spag bol for dinner. Where are the veggies and fruit? I think that is likely to be the average day - to - day diet here in the UK. If none of those meals are 'homemade' and all pre-prepared in a factory they will be full of sugar and preservatives.

    The thing that worries me the most is that we're so many of us are totally disconnected from what fuels our bodies healthily. At the same time, a lot of sugar, fast food and processed foods actually make us feel pretty terrible, but we're so used to it we don't even know. It's only when you cut it out that you realise how much more awesome you feel and how much more in tune with your body you are, both emotionally and physically.

    Personally I don't think the sugar tax will work. The money that will allegedly go into physical activity programmes for young people is all smoke and mirrors because obesity along with other health issues will still prevail - the NHS will still get squeezed for all its worth and the health of the nation will continue to decline.
    • TSR Support Team
    • Very Important Poster
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    Very Important Poster
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by TimmonaPortella)
    ....
    Do you feel similarly about taxes on cigarettes or alcohol?
    • Very Important Poster
    Online

    19
    Very Important Poster
    (Original post by Thomb)
    Fizzy drinks companies will have to lower the price of drinks they make meaning less profit sand therefore a loss of jobs.
    You got that the wong way round. they will have to increase the price or accpet lower profit margins.

    they cna ofc move people onto other drinks.
    • Very Important Poster
    Online

    19
    Very Important Poster
    [QUOTE=Kvothe the arcane;63597111]Do you feel similarly about taxes on cigarettes or alcohol?[/QUOTE}

    Absolutely.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DiddyDec)
    The idiocy of this statement is beyond me. You clearly don't understand how diabetes works.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    have you seen paul blart mall cop? hes hypoglycemic
    Offline

    20
    (Original post by firstofthestartz)
    like why is it bad for people to be healthy???
    It's bad because it is yet another illustration of the government's mentality concerning what the right thing is. Specifically, they seem to think that if something's bad, making it expensive will stop people doing it. Just like with smoking and drinking; they're both so much more expensive here than they are pretty much anywhere else in the world, and people do it more here.

    Basically the people in charge are all obsessed with money, and think all problems can be solved by either throwing money at them, or else snatching it away.
    • Very Important Poster
    Online

    19
    Very Important Poster
    (Original post by Tootles)
    It's bad because it is yet another illustration of the government's mentality concerning what the right thing is. Specifically, they seem to think that if something's bad, making it expensive will stop people doing it. Just like with smoking and drinking; they're both so much more expensive here than they are pretty much anywhere else in the world, and people do it more here.

    Basically the people in charge are all obsessed with money, and think all problems can be solved by either throwing money at them, or else snatching it away.
    Thats because they are in charge of the economy and government. Without taxes they cnat run the country and things would collapse.

    The healthier the workforce is then the more successful the economy can be and the longer people will be able to live to enjoy their lives.
    Offline

    20
    (Original post by 999tigger)
    Thats because they are in charge of the economy and government. Without taxes they cnat run the country and things would collapse.

    The healthier the workforce is then the more successful the economy can be and the longer people will be able to live to enjoy their lives.
    Are you joking?

    Taxes are very heavy, and the population sees very little benefit from that money. Everything gets cut, and the government's collective wage gets bigger. That's not running a country, it's milking it.

    Healthy people work well and live long, yes - but you don't make them healthy by taxing the hell out of everything they do and forcefully medicating them through the water and milk.
    • Very Important Poster
    Online

    19
    Very Important Poster
    (Original post by Tootles)
    Are you joking?

    Taxes are very heavy, and the population sees very little benefit from that money. Everything gets cut, and the government's collective wage gets bigger. That's not running a country, it's milking it.

    Healthy people work well and live long, yes - but you don't make them healthy by taxing the hell out of everything they do and forcefully medicating them through the water and milk.
    So if you want lower taxes, which services will you be cutting?
    Tax rates are on a par with most of the western world.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    'Nudging' people to not drink sugary drinks is very different to taxing people who want to. The latter sounds like unnecessary government involvement.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mkap)
    have you seen paul blart mall cop? hes hypoglycemic
    I can't say I have seen it.

    EDIT: hypoglycaemia is a symptom not a condition.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    20
    (Original post by 999tigger)
    So if you want lower taxes, which services will you be cutting?
    Tax rates are on a par with most of the western world.
    Here's what we do.

    We pay the MPs a living wage only. We put tax taken from certain things into relevant services, and we make the laws allowing large companies to get away with not paying gigantic sums so simple that paying becomes unavoidable.
    Online

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by She-Ra)
    That's not true. I think the majority of people in the UK are not getting good value nutrients and vitamins. Many are nutrient deficient. Given that the obesity rates and rates of chronic disease constantly are increasing this is largely to do with not eating fresh, natural food.
    Well, I phrased it as a question not a statement.

    What is the actual evidence on micronutrient deficiency though? In this report it says "On average, intakes of the majority of vitamins were adequate (excluding vitamin D, see below)", and I know iron deficiency can be a problem in women because of menstruation. But apart from that?

    I think the "fresh, natural" argument is bogus. You get fat when you eat too many calories, from whatever source. It is true though, that artificial foods like sweets, cakes and biscuits are energy dense and not satiating compared with things like meat, pulses and fruit and vegetables.
    • Very Important Poster
    Online

    19
    Very Important Poster
    (Original post by Tootles)
    Here's what we do.

    We pay the MPs a living wage only. We put tax taken from certain things into relevant services, and we make the laws allowing large companies to get away with not paying gigantic sums so simple that paying becomes unavoidable.
    Mps living wage only- then you attract only those mps who can fund themselves i.e the rich. the quality and diversity of your mps goes down and you ned up with poorer government, which costs billions for the sake of saving a few million.

    selective taxation doesnt work becayse peopleonly wnat the popilar things paid for and not the boring but importnat ones.

    Taxation is international. You cant amend the system without the co operation of other nations otherwise they just stuff all their money in a tax haven.
    Offline

    1
    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.
    Do you think we should do away with sectioning then?
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kvothe the arcane)
    Do you feel similarly about taxes on cigarettes or alcohol?
    I know this wasn't aimed at me, but cigarettes and alcohol are both luxury products. With cigarettes, the health impact is far worse, and it's not really possible to "smoke in moderation" given that nicotine is addictive.

    Sugar taxes, on the other hand, target a lot of regular everyday items that can be consumed in moderation without health impacts. So there is a difference to bear in mind.
    • TSR Support Team
    • Very Important Poster
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    Very Important Poster
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by RF_PineMarten)
    I know this wasn't aimed at me, but cigarettes and alcohol are both luxury products. With cigarettes, the health impact is far worse, and it's not really possible to "smoke in moderation" given that nicotine is addictive.

    Sugar taxes, on the other hand, target a lot of regular everyday items that can be consumed in moderation without health impacts. So there is a difference to bear in mind.
    Oh, I appreciate the distinction.

    I posed that question to the user because their object was the government intervening in the lifestyle choices of the population.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RF_PineMarten)
    I know this wasn't aimed at me, but cigarettes and alcohol are both luxury products. With cigarettes, the health impact is far worse, and it's not really possible to "smoke in moderation" given that nicotine is addictive.

    Sugar taxes, on the other hand, target a lot of regular everyday items that can be consumed in moderation without health impacts. So there is a difference to bear in mind.
    Is Coca-Cola not a luxury item?

    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
    Brexit voters: Do you stand by your vote?
  • 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

    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.