Sugar tax to be imposed in UK
hamlet1222
Posts: 459 Member
Arggh, just been announced today:
http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2016/mar/16/will-a-sugar-tax-actually-work-budget
So now poor me who consumes sugar responsibly is going to have to pay more in tax :-(
Seriously though I think it'll be punishing the poor unfairly. When I've been poor a can of sprite was one of the few 'luxuries' I could afford.
It's be much better to force the manufactures to taper-down the quantity in food products.
http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2016/mar/16/will-a-sugar-tax-actually-work-budget
So now poor me who consumes sugar responsibly is going to have to pay more in tax :-(
Seriously though I think it'll be punishing the poor unfairly. When I've been poor a can of sprite was one of the few 'luxuries' I could afford.
It's be much better to force the manufactures to taper-down the quantity in food products.
0
Replies
-
If you are that poor, drink plain water or make homemade lemonade: sugar, lemons and water and a lot more healthy than a can of sprite and cheaper too.0
-
I don't think its an issue of punishing those who consume reasonably like yourself. The issue is kids etc going to the £ store on school lunch or whatever spending £2 and walking out the store with 4 bottles of Lucozade and 4 packs of surgery snacks, then consuming it the same day when it probably equates to 4 days worth of sugar allowance. I have no problem with paying a little extra for the occasional can of pop if it puts and end to childhood obesity in the country.
That being said, I'd rather the dangers be taught in school from early years rather than what you call a tax on the poor, as I have to agree it does seem as if the vulnerable/poor will be effected more than affluent families but what more do you expect from this government?0 -
Lol, they tax booze and cigarettes to make more money. Taxing something isn't necessarily going to stop people from purchasing it. It make cause them to make adjustments on HOW and WHERE they spend their money. Let's see, buy that Harry Potter book or get me sugary snacks for the next couple of months. You're going to ask a kid this? You'd love to think that the book will be the ONLY correct answer.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
0 -
It won't directly affect consumers unless the makers of the drinks chooses to increase their prices to cover the cost of the extra tax they will get charged if they do not find a way to reduce the sugar.0
-
I think it's ridiculous. It's being imposed under a guise that the purpose is to deal with the obesity epidemic, when in fact it's just another grab. I would much rather see additional money made available to educate people on healthy eating rather than eliminating a particular food. It won't solve anything at all.0
-
You don't want to look like an American, do you? (I get to say this since I was born and bred in the states, and refuse to look that way). Sugar is a drug for many, and it's not a bad idea to make a bit of cash the same way they tax alcohol and tobacco. The NHS could use always some funds.0
-
SarcasmIsMyLoveLanguage wrote: »I think it's ridiculous. It's being imposed under a guise that the purpose is to deal with the obesity epidemic, when in fact it's just another grab. I would much rather see additional money made available to educate people on healthy eating rather than eliminating a particular food. It won't solve anything at all.
That is precisely what the money raised is earmarked for!0 -
Witchdoctor58 wrote: »You don't want to look like an American, do you? (I get to say this since I was born and bred in the states, and refuse to look that way). Sugar is a drug for many, and it's not a bad idea to make a bit of cash the same way they tax alcohol and tobacco. The NHS could use always some funds.
Sugar isn't a drug btw0 -
Witchdoctor58 wrote: »You don't want to look like an American, do you? (I get to say this since I was born and bred in the states, and refuse to look that way). Sugar is a drug for many, and it's not a bad idea to make a bit of cash the same way they tax alcohol and tobacco. The NHS could use always some funds.
The obesity epidemic is not due to over-consumption of sugar. Taxing alcohol and tobacco have done nothing to curb their use.
0 -
Actually, there is decent evidence that every time states (United States side at least) raise tobacco taxes , demand goes down. Laws that attempt to ban things outright don't tend to stop the things from ever happening, but that doesn't mean taxes can't alter supply and demand curves.SarcasmIsMyLoveLanguage wrote: »Witchdoctor58 wrote: »You don't want to look like an American, do you? (I get to say this since I was born and bred in the states, and refuse to look that way). Sugar is a drug for many, and it's not a bad idea to make a bit of cash the same way they tax alcohol and tobacco. The NHS could use always some funds.
The obesity epidemic is not due to over-consumption of sugar. Taxing alcohol and tobacco have done nothing to curb their use.
0 -
SarcasmIsMyLoveLanguage wrote: »Witchdoctor58 wrote: »You don't want to look like an American, do you? (I get to say this since I was born and bred in the states, and refuse to look that way). Sugar is a drug for many, and it's not a bad idea to make a bit of cash the same way they tax alcohol and tobacco. The NHS could use always some funds.
The obesity epidemic is not due to over-consumption of sugar. Taxing alcohol and tobacco have done nothing to curb their use.
I'm sorry, that's simply not true.
You can read some statistics, but the higher these items are taxed the less they are consumed. Period.
https://www.tobaccofreekids.org/research/factsheets/pdf/0146.pdf
http://fjc.people.uic.edu/Presentations/Papers/taxes_consump_rev.pdf
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3735171/
http://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/arh26-1/22-34.htm
I know it's nice to think that "well i still know people who drink and smoke and they do it regardless" the facts are facts here.
In my opinion, i see nothing wrong with increasing taxes on sugary products. Yes, it is not really "sugar" that is causing the obesity epidemic, but a range of factors from lack of education, decreased physical demands, overconsumption on total calories, etc. I think we all know that it is overeating on total calorie, NOT sugar which causes obesity, but the fact of the matter remains that a diet high in sugar is also generally higher in total calories, correlated with obesity, and correlated with other health problems such as diabetes and heart disease.
So... do i really care? no. Go ahead, i will continue to purchase the products i want as i see fit. I will pay any applicable taxes on these items. If it means that a total reduction in calories are consumed and a reduction is seen in the number of cases of obesity, i'm all for it. Having a fat, unhealthy, and unproductive society is not worth me b**ching about a few extra cents or dollars.0 -
rainbowbow wrote: »SarcasmIsMyLoveLanguage wrote: »Witchdoctor58 wrote: »You don't want to look like an American, do you? (I get to say this since I was born and bred in the states, and refuse to look that way). Sugar is a drug for many, and it's not a bad idea to make a bit of cash the same way they tax alcohol and tobacco. The NHS could use always some funds.
The obesity epidemic is not due to over-consumption of sugar. Taxing alcohol and tobacco have done nothing to curb their use.
I'm sorry, that's simply not true.
You can read some statistics, but the higher these items are taxed the less they are consumed. Period.
https://www.tobaccofreekids.org/research/factsheets/pdf/0146.pdf
http://fjc.people.uic.edu/Presentations/Papers/taxes_consump_rev.pdf
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3735171/
http://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/arh26-1/22-34.htm
I know it's nice to think that "well i still know people who drink and smoke and they do it regardless" the facts are facts here.
In my opinion, i see nothing wrong with increasing taxes on sugary products. Yes, it is not really "sugar" that is causing the obesity epidemic, but a range of factors from lack of education, decreased physical demands, overconsumption on total calories, etc. I think we all know that it is overeating on total calorie, NOT sugar which causes obesity, but the fact of the matter remains that a diet high in sugar is also generally higher in total calories, correlated with obesity, and correlated with other health problems such as diabetes and heart disease.
So... do i really care? no. Go ahead, i will continue to purchase the products i want as i see fit. I will pay any applicable taxes on these items. If it means that a total reduction in calories are consumed and a reduction is seen in the number of cases of obesity, i'm all for it. Having a fat, unhealthy, and unproductive society is not worth me b**ching about a few extra cents or dollars.
All valid points. And thanks for the links.
I suppose my frustration stems from the general attitude of making excuses for obesity rather than educating people to just consume less overall. I see this tax as an extension of that.
I blurted out my opinion before educating myself. Rookie mistake. I am ashamed
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
This content has been removed.
-
Actually, there is decent evidence that every time states (United States side at least) raise tobacco taxes , demand goes down. Laws that attempt to ban things outright don't tend to stop the things from ever happening, but that doesn't mean taxes can't alter supply and demand curves.SarcasmIsMyLoveLanguage wrote: »Witchdoctor58 wrote: »You don't want to look like an American, do you? (I get to say this since I was born and bred in the states, and refuse to look that way). Sugar is a drug for many, and it's not a bad idea to make a bit of cash the same way they tax alcohol and tobacco. The NHS could use always some funds.
The obesity epidemic is not due to over-consumption of sugar. Taxing alcohol and tobacco have done nothing to curb their use.
True.
However, then people turn to the next best alternative which isn't necessarily any better for the social agenda. Wonder what the alternative for purchased sweet snacks and drinks will be. Salty/fatty ones? Or just homemade ones (and will homemade be reasonable under the specifics of the tax)?0 -
Actually, there is decent evidence that every time states (United States side at least) raise tobacco taxes , demand goes down. Laws that attempt to ban things outright don't tend to stop the things from ever happening, but that doesn't mean taxes can't alter supply and demand curves.SarcasmIsMyLoveLanguage wrote: »Witchdoctor58 wrote: »You don't want to look like an American, do you? (I get to say this since I was born and bred in the states, and refuse to look that way). Sugar is a drug for many, and it's not a bad idea to make a bit of cash the same way they tax alcohol and tobacco. The NHS could use always some funds.
The obesity epidemic is not due to over-consumption of sugar. Taxing alcohol and tobacco have done nothing to curb their use.
I was thinking the same thing. And many of the same arguments were made about cigarette taxes (they are regressive, they are in part to make money). I'm always kind of torn on this issue (without actually caring that much either way).0 -
SarcasmIsMyLoveLanguage wrote: »rainbowbow wrote: »SarcasmIsMyLoveLanguage wrote: »Witchdoctor58 wrote: »You don't want to look like an American, do you? (I get to say this since I was born and bred in the states, and refuse to look that way). Sugar is a drug for many, and it's not a bad idea to make a bit of cash the same way they tax alcohol and tobacco. The NHS could use always some funds.
The obesity epidemic is not due to over-consumption of sugar. Taxing alcohol and tobacco have done nothing to curb their use.
I'm sorry, that's simply not true.
You can read some statistics, but the higher these items are taxed the less they are consumed. Period.
https://www.tobaccofreekids.org/research/factsheets/pdf/0146.pdf
http://fjc.people.uic.edu/Presentations/Papers/taxes_consump_rev.pdf
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3735171/
http://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/arh26-1/22-34.htm
I know it's nice to think that "well i still know people who drink and smoke and they do it regardless" the facts are facts here.
In my opinion, i see nothing wrong with increasing taxes on sugary products. Yes, it is not really "sugar" that is causing the obesity epidemic, but a range of factors from lack of education, decreased physical demands, overconsumption on total calories, etc. I think we all know that it is overeating on total calorie, NOT sugar which causes obesity, but the fact of the matter remains that a diet high in sugar is also generally higher in total calories, correlated with obesity, and correlated with other health problems such as diabetes and heart disease.
So... do i really care? no. Go ahead, i will continue to purchase the products i want as i see fit. I will pay any applicable taxes on these items. If it means that a total reduction in calories are consumed and a reduction is seen in the number of cases of obesity, i'm all for it. Having a fat, unhealthy, and unproductive society is not worth me b**ching about a few extra cents or dollars.
All valid points. And thanks for the links.
I suppose my frustration stems from the general attitude of making excuses for obesity rather than educating people to just consume less overall. I see this tax as an extension of that.
I blurted out my opinion before educating myself. Rookie mistake. I am ashamed
I agree that education is key, and you should continue to express your concerns regarding this. You should look into performing some activism in your local area as i think this is really going to be key in snowballing legislation for more education in this field.
luckily though, "The cash raised - an estimated £520 million a year - will be spent on doubling funding for sport in primary schools, the Chancellor said."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/12195786/Budget-2016-Sugar-tax-on-soft-drinks.html
So atleast it isn't just going into some corporation's pocket. I know in some area, (especially south america and mexico) it is cheaper to drink coca cola than water! It's unregulation like this that is really not helping.
0 -
It's good news, it'll maybe cut back on people buying sugary drinks - water is free, no cals and good for us...
And the good news is they have a plan for where the tax from it will go.
0 -
RunRutheeRun wrote: »It's good news, it'll maybe cut back on people buying sugary drinks - water is free, no cals and good for us...
And the good news is they have a plan for where the tax from it will go.
Technically not true, all purified drinking water has a cost. As does most spring water, unless you're isolated enough to get the supply from source.0 -
-
...i think thats the problem... LOL0 -
JoshuaMcAllister wrote: »RunRutheeRun wrote: »It's good news, it'll maybe cut back on people buying sugary drinks - water is free, no cals and good for us...
And the good news is they have a plan for where the tax from it will go.
Technically not true, all purified drinking water has a cost. As does most spring water, unless you're isolated enough to get the supply from source.
And even then you probably spent money digging the well
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »
Actually, there is decent evidence that every time states (United States side at least) raise tobacco taxes , demand goes down. Laws that attempt to ban things outright don't tend to stop the things from ever happening, but that doesn't mean taxes can't alter supply and demand curves.SarcasmIsMyLoveLanguage wrote: »Witchdoctor58 wrote: »You don't want to look like an American, do you? (I get to say this since I was born and bred in the states, and refuse to look that way). Sugar is a drug for many, and it's not a bad idea to make a bit of cash the same way they tax alcohol and tobacco. The NHS could use always some funds.
The obesity epidemic is not due to over-consumption of sugar. Taxing alcohol and tobacco have done nothing to curb their use.
I was thinking the same thing. And many of the same arguments were made about cigarette taxes (they are regressive, they are in part to make money). I'm always kind of torn on this issue (without actually caring that much either way).
I'm a bit torn too, I just don't like misinformation. I think sugar tax is a lot more regressive than a tobacco tax as there is no healthy level of tobacco consumption, where as sugar can be fine in moderation, and the tax tends to hit low income.
I'd feel better if any such law explicitly earmarked funds raised towards food security for low income individuals.0 -
rainbowbow wrote: »
...i think thats the problem... LOL
I think it's the cost of the lemon that's the problem lol! They're more expensive than avocados and are less yummy. And even avocados at like $2 each (except for one month a year when they at a joyful $0.89 each) are a sometimes treat.
But using sugar, lemons, and water would be more expensive than a can of Sprite - which was my point to the original quote. Not cheaper lol.
Also I'm bitter that the two avos I "spurged" on were both rotten. Stupid grocery store.0 -
RunRutheeRun wrote: »It's good news, it'll maybe cut back on people buying sugary drinks - water is free, no cals and good for us...
And the good news is they have a plan for where the tax from it will go.
Insert dig at Flint, Michigan's problems.0 -
hamlet1222 wrote: »It's be much better to force the manufactures to taper-down the quantity in food products.
"Force" ? Bit of a challenge in the EU single market. The levy is designed to do this, as it has two levels for >8 and >5% sugar. The budget foresees a decline in revenue year on year after it is implemented.
At 18 p/litre (25 US cents) the levy is about 4 times the cost of the sugar, I don't know how price sensitive consumers are as a 330 ml can varies in retail price over a 3:1 range. I guess half the population don't consume these drinks at all.
0 -
It will mainly hurt retailers, restaurants and people in the beverage industry - and yes, the poor. Funny that no one ever asks, "Why should I be taxed on ANYTHING I consume?" instead of haggling over the amount & the target.0
-
MonaLisaLianne wrote: »It will mainly hurt retailers, restaurants and people in the beverage industry - and yes, the poor. Funny that no one ever asks, "Why should I be taxed on ANYTHING I consume?" instead of haggling over the amount & the target.
hmm, i can't possibly wonder why taxes are necessary....
0 -
huh! They just announced the upping cigarettes by 12% for "the health of the nation" ppfftt. No mention of the 14 Billion extra $$$ they're making.
So now a pack of 35's will cost $40. Definitely enough to make me quit!!0 -
rainbowbow wrote: »MonaLisaLianne wrote: »It will mainly hurt retailers, restaurants and people in the beverage industry - and yes, the poor. Funny that no one ever asks, "Why should I be taxed on ANYTHING I consume?" instead of haggling over the amount & the target.
hmm, i can't possibly wonder why taxes are necessary....
The statement wasn't on being taxed, it was on being taxed on consumables. Almost all taxes on goods are regressive, there are plenty of other taxes that don't tax the poor more as a percentage than the wealthy.
That said, if taxes are necessary to fund government is debatable, if one is talking about a government that controls its own monetary supply. Modern Monetary Theory holds that a self-issuing country only taxes as a form of policy, or to enforce the value of the currency.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 424 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions