Sugar tax to be imposed in UK
Options
Replies
-
goldthistime wrote: »I'm so happy they've done this have you seen the state of childrens teeth in this country ? The way children are obese these days is very bad for the country as a whole.
This is a good tax they also need to tax McDonald's kfc Burger King pizza places
Then use the taxes to lower the price of fresh food , milk is so expensive & the farmers get nothing.
We don't need sugar there's plenty in fruit.
Teach our children this is bad for our bodies.
See, this is the opposite side of the spectrum we are up against.
There is never a balance when it comes to things like this.
Nothing mentioned in this post is 'bad' when taken in the correct context and dosage. Pizza is not 'bad' when taken in the correct context and dosage. Sugar is not 'bad' when taken in the correct context and dosage.
We may not need added sugar, but sugary sweetness to many people is enjoyable and tasty, and completely fine when taken in the correct context and dosage.
People need to be educated on overall balance of nutrition and general healthy lifestyles. The majority of the population are never going to be outlying food and macro dictators who will never touch sugar or fast food again in their lives. I certainly won't be.
No one is talking about banning sugar, you can still enjoy it. Hopefully in moderation. And this tax IS a form of education.
I was referring to the anti-sugar post above. I'm not sure where banning sugar came from.
What educational purpose does a tax on sugar have to Mrs and Mrs over-consumption?
I gather you've not seen the state of childrens teeth
We DO NOT need sugary foods our forefathers didn't you found hardly any Obese people then.
Society these days is woe with me I can't eat X y z etc eat what you like of course these things won't be banned just feel that the tax idea is good. All because your not overweight doesn't mean your healthy on the inside.
I'm a mum of 4 Nan of 3 I'm super happy this has come in. I didn't spend my childhood eating rubbish & I rarely eat sugar laden foods as I don't need them they don't make me feel well & they don't stop hunger I fact it's proven to make you hungry consuming sugar products.The U.K has awful dental problems, which need addressing.
We are all allowed to like or dislike this I don't mind if you dislike it it doesn't bother me
I just am pleased it's happened 0 -
It would be interesting if the arguments against it didn't seem to all contradict each other
People are against the sugar tax because
1. It is government controlling people
2. It won't work because government can't change people's habits with taxes, i.e., it can't control people
3. Government can't create wealth, it has to take it from citizens
4. Nobody will change their spending habits in any way with a new tax, i.e., presumably everyone will just have more income somehow, meaning wealth is created? Otherwise spending habits will have to change.
5. Government has no purpose in telling people what to do, we need less government
6. Government should be telling people what to do instead of what not to do, so we should grow government by having them inspect everyone's medical records and reward the people that aren't gaining weight.
For that last point, I'd also like to know if there will be dispensations for bodybuilder, athletes, etc? I'm not a Brit, but if someone suggested this for US policy, I'd feel a little cheated by the guys who are normal weight, metabolically obese getting a reward while I'm under 20% body fat but classified overweight. Kind of makes muscle a luxury tax items, doesn't it?
I believe you could make a similar post with the arguments for the tax.
Problem being, you're getting arguments both for and against from people across the political spectrum. Of course the arguments are going to be contradictory even though they're arguing on the same side of this issue. By which I mean you've got right, middle and left arguing for, and right, middle and left arguing against.
It's made worse because many people don't actually know what their political position's principles are or why they are held. In real life, I find it amusing how often people's stated beliefs are a 180-degree contradiction with the political party they support so adamantly - with the person none the wiser.0 -
goldthistime wrote: »I'm so happy they've done this have you seen the state of childrens teeth in this country ? The way children are obese these days is very bad for the country as a whole.
This is a good tax they also need to tax McDonald's kfc Burger King pizza places
Then use the taxes to lower the price of fresh food , milk is so expensive & the farmers get nothing.
We don't need sugar there's plenty in fruit.
Teach our children this is bad for our bodies.
See, this is the opposite side of the spectrum we are up against.
There is never a balance when it comes to things like this.
Nothing mentioned in this post is 'bad' when taken in the correct context and dosage. Pizza is not 'bad' when taken in the correct context and dosage. Sugar is not 'bad' when taken in the correct context and dosage.
We may not need added sugar, but sugary sweetness to many people is enjoyable and tasty, and completely fine when taken in the correct context and dosage.
People need to be educated on overall balance of nutrition and general healthy lifestyles. The majority of the population are never going to be outlying food and macro dictators who will never touch sugar or fast food again in their lives. I certainly won't be.
No one is talking about banning sugar, you can still enjoy it. Hopefully in moderation. And this tax IS a form of education.
I was referring to the anti-sugar post above. I'm not sure where banning sugar came from.
What educational purpose does a tax on sugar have to Mrs and Mrs over-consumption?
I gather you've not seen the state of childrens teeth
We DO NOT need sugary foods our forefathers didn't you found hardly any Obese people then.
Society these days is woe with me I can't eat X y z etc eat what you like of course these things won't be banned just feel that the tax idea is good. All because your not overweight doesn't mean your healthy on the inside.
I'm a mum of 4 Nan of 3 I'm super happy this has come in. I didn't spend my childhood eating rubbish & I rarely eat sugar laden foods as I don't need them they don't make me feel well & they don't stop hunger I fact it's proven to make you hungry consuming sugar products.The U.K has awful dental problems, which need addressing.
We are all allowed to like or dislike this I don't mind if you dislike it it doesn't bother me I just am pleased it's happened
Are you incapable of teaching your children good habits?
Since you're so pleased with the legislation, I'm guessing you're not and are pleased that now someone can do your job for you.
I guess we all have our own parenting styles. I'll keep teaching mine and others will expect the government to do it for them.0 -
-
It works in countries where poverty is the law of the land. I guess it would work if it were imposed by governments.
After all, people are so incompetent that they need someone to do it for them, doesn't matter if some people have proven they can exist in a society with abundant, cheap food. Those people are just going to be forced to suffer along with everyone else because it just wouldnt be fair otherwise.
Everyone should be treated as equal incompetents and incapables.0 -
That's not what 'a tax on the poor' means in the context it was used. The poster meant it's a regressive tax - one that affects the poor more than the rich (i.e. the rich can afford it, the poor can't - or not as well). They did not mean that the rich aren't subject to the tax or don't drink/eat foods that would be taxed.
The research by Reading University says it won't affect the poor more. http://www.bmj.com/content/347/bmj.f6189
It's ageist, affecting the under-30s. The median consumption of sugary soft drinks in several sub-groups of the UK population is zero.0 -
May be a career limiting step for an elected politician.They should just make food scarce. That's how populations stayed thin in the past. Oh, they should tax people until they have very little money too. That has also always helped in the past.
Problem solved: make food scarce and difficult to afford
With so many in this thread STRONGLY supporting this tax for various apples to oranges reasons, I really don't think it would. Some people want other people to tell them how to live.
this thread/site may not be representative. The UK elected a Conservative Government last year which in general would be expected to mean less of this sort of thing, not more.0 -
For that last point, I'd also like to know if there will be dispensations for bodybuilder, athletes, etc?
No, nobody gives a **** about them and if they're any good they're rolling in money anyway.
Bodybuilders, LOL.
Fizzy drinks would be regarded generally as an unhealthy non-necessity and looked down upon by most in the UK.
0 -
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.
The OP referred to it as a luxury. Of course water is cheaper and healthier, but that treat once in a while will now be pricier for those already cash strapped.0 -
It would be interesting if the arguments against it didn't seem to all contradict each other
People are against the sugar tax because
1. It is government controlling people
2. It won't work because government can't change people's habits with taxes, i.e., it can't control people
3. Government can't create wealth, it has to take it from citizens
4. Nobody will change their spending habits in any way with a new tax, i.e., presumably everyone will just have more income somehow, meaning wealth is created? Otherwise spending habits will have to change.
5. Government has no purpose in telling people what to do, we need less government
6. Government should be telling people what to do instead of what not to do, so we should grow government by having them inspect everyone's medical records and reward the people that aren't gaining weight.
For that last point, I'd also like to know if there will be dispensations for bodybuilder, athletes, etc? I'm not a Brit, but if someone suggested this for US policy, I'd feel a little cheated by the guys who are normal weight, metabolically obese getting a reward while I'm under 20% body fat but classified overweight. Kind of makes muscle a luxury tax items, doesn't it?
I believe you could make a similar post with the arguments for the tax.
Problem being, you're getting arguments both for and against from people across the political spectrum. Of course the arguments are going to be contradictory even though they're arguing on the same side of this issue. By which I mean you've got right, middle and left arguing for, and right, middle and left arguing against.
It's made worse because many people don't actually know what their political position's principles are or why they are held. In real life, I find it amusing how often people's stated beliefs are a 180-degree contradiction with the political party they support so adamantly - with the person none the wiser.
Actually I think the opinions I enumerated all come out of a similar political spectrum. They all flow out of a belief that government can never accomplish what it intends to accomplish, that government is always inefficient and overbearing.0 -
Every child in the country? No.
I gather you've not seen the state of childrens teeth
My own, yes. And they're fine.
I should not necessarily be targeted with a tax increase due to poor parenting of others.
Why not charge at point-of-service? So when Little Timmy attends the dentist to have 34 fillings 6 extractions his parents are charged a surcharge for blatant disregard for Timmy's teeth? It could be called an 'idiot tax'.
We don't need cars or mobile phones, I'm sure you use both.We DO NOT need sugary foods our forefathers didn't you found hardly any Obese people then.
Anyway, our forefathers probably died of typhoid, syphilis or some other horrible disease in their 30's and by today's standards we're horrifically malnourished.
No idea what any of that means.Society these days is woe with me I can't eat X y z etc eat what you like of course these things won't be banned just feel that the tax idea is good. All because your not overweight doesn't mean your healthy on the inside.
Right. Great personal diatribe. Hope you remember all the birthdays.I'm a mum of 4 Nan of 3 I'm super happy this has come in. I didn't spend my childhood eating rubbish & I rarely eat sugar laden foods as I don't need them they don't make me feel well & they don't stop hunger I fact it's proven to make you hungry consuming sugar products.The U.K has awful dental problems, which need addressing.
But again, how will a small increase in the cost of a widely available product variety stop children, or anyone else over-consuming them?
How about parents taking some sort of responsibility for their children? or people taking responsibility for their own actions.
Again, if the increased revenue goes to primary grass roots sports and increased education then it's a good thing. But there is no chance that Little Timmy is going to stop buying his daily can of coke and mars bar from the shop just because there's a small price increase due to this tax.
0 -
That's not what 'a tax on the poor' means in the context it was used. The poster meant it's a regressive tax - one that affects the poor more than the rich (i.e. the rich can afford it, the poor can't - or not as well). They did not mean that the rich aren't subject to the tax or don't drink/eat foods that would be taxed.
The research by Reading University says it won't affect the poor more. http://www.bmj.com/content/347/bmj.f6189
It's ageist, affecting the under-30s. The median consumption of sugary soft drinks in several sub-groups of the UK population is zero.
Not sure if you thought I was saying the tax is regressive. I wasn't saying one way or the other, just trying to clear up a misunderstanding.
0 -
That's not what 'a tax on the poor' means in the context it was used. The poster meant it's a regressive tax - one that affects the poor more than the rich (i.e. the rich can afford it, the poor can't - or not as well). They did not mean that the rich aren't subject to the tax or don't drink/eat foods that would be taxed.
The research by Reading University says it won't affect the poor more. http://www.bmj.com/content/347/bmj.f6189
It's ageist, affecting the under-30s. The median consumption of sugary soft drinks in several sub-groups of the UK population is zero.
Not sure if you thought I was saying the tax is regressive. I wasn't saying one way or the other, just trying to clear up a misunderstanding.
Gotcha. Who know what will happen to retail pricing when it happens after a long consultation and lots of lobbying.0 -
For that last point, I'd also like to know if there will be dispensations for bodybuilder, athletes, etc?
No, nobody gives a **** about them and if they're any good they're rolling in money anyway.
Bodybuilders, LOL.
Fizzy drinks would be regarded generally as an unhealthy non-necessity and looked down upon by most in the UK.
Someone had proposed that instead of taxing sugar, they give everyone a health stipend for having a healthy weight, to incentive being healthy weight itself, instead of penalizing food that leads people towards less healthy weight.0 -
It would be interesting if the arguments against it didn't seem to all contradict each other
People are against the sugar tax because
1. It is government controlling people
2. It won't work because government can't change people's habits with taxes, i.e., it can't control people
3. Government can't create wealth, it has to take it from citizens
4. Nobody will change their spending habits in any way with a new tax, i.e., presumably everyone will just have more income somehow, meaning wealth is created? Otherwise spending habits will have to change.
5. Government has no purpose in telling people what to do, we need less government
6. Government should be telling people what to do instead of what not to do, so we should grow government by having them inspect everyone's medical records and reward the people that aren't gaining weight.
For that last point, I'd also like to know if there will be dispensations for bodybuilder, athletes, etc? I'm not a Brit, but if someone suggested this for US policy, I'd feel a little cheated by the guys who are normal weight, metabolically obese getting a reward while I'm under 20% body fat but classified overweight. Kind of makes muscle a luxury tax items, doesn't it?
I believe you could make a similar post with the arguments for the tax.
Problem being, you're getting arguments both for and against from people across the political spectrum. Of course the arguments are going to be contradictory even though they're arguing on the same side of this issue. By which I mean you've got right, middle and left arguing for, and right, middle and left arguing against.
It's made worse because many people don't actually know what their political position's principles are or why they are held. In real life, I find it amusing how often people's stated beliefs are a 180-degree contradiction with the political party they support so adamantly - with the person none the wiser.
Actually I think the opinions I enumerated all come out of a similar political spectrum. They all flow out of a belief that government can never accomplish what it intends to accomplish, that government is always inefficient and overbearing.
In regards to the American commenters, polls indicate those opinions are held by the vast majority and are common to left, right, and center.0 -
For that last point, I'd also like to know if there will be dispensations for bodybuilder, athletes, etc?
No, nobody gives a **** about them and if they're any good they're rolling in money anyway.
Bodybuilders, LOL.
Fizzy drinks would be regarded generally as an unhealthy non-necessity and looked down upon by most in the UK.
Someone had proposed that instead of taxing sugar, they give everyone a health stipend for having a healthy weight, to incentive being healthy weight itself, instead of penalizing food that leads people towards less healthy weight.
That sounds like a cashflow out of Government, rather than than a tax revenue. Not going to fly with a massive debt in the background. Not to mention the arguments with 27 BMI modybuilders arguing the toss with their GP about being overweight.0 -
For that last point, I'd also like to know if there will be dispensations for bodybuilder, athletes, etc?
No, nobody gives a **** about them and if they're any good they're rolling in money anyway.
Bodybuilders, LOL.
Fizzy drinks would be regarded generally as an unhealthy non-necessity and looked down upon by most in the UK.
Someone had proposed that instead of taxing sugar, they give everyone a health stipend for having a healthy weight, to incentive being healthy weight itself, instead of penalizing food that leads people towards less healthy weight.
That sounds like a cashflow out of Government, rather than than a tax revenue. Not going to fly with a massive debt in the background. Not to mention the arguments with 27 BMI modybuilders arguing the toss with their GP about being overweight.
Are you not following? Senecarr was not proposing such a tax, but responding to a suggestion that it would be a good idea and pointing to various flaws/difficulties with the concept.0 -
May be a career limiting step for an elected politician.They should just make food scarce. That's how populations stayed thin in the past. Oh, they should tax people until they have very little money too. That has also always helped in the past.
Problem solved: make food scarce and difficult to afford
With so many in this thread STRONGLY supporting this tax for various apples to oranges reasons, I really don't think it would. Some people want other people to tell them how to live.
this thread/site may not be representative. The UK elected a Conservative Government last year which in general would be expected to mean less of this sort of thing, not more.
Fairly conservative political parties enact nanniest policies all the time. The party doesn't matter.0 -
The U.K. needs a bunch of drunk guys to dress up as continental hooligans and dump the sugar in the Thames . . .0
-
oh dear, could be chocolate next:
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/mar/19/extend-sugar-tax-to-biscuits-and-cereals-says-government-adviser
we already pay 20% VAT on luxury foods, which includes chocolate.
We need to get over this 'sugar is evil' mindset, and focus on portion size.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 401 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 990 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions