Sugar tax to be imposed in UK

Options
hamlet1222
hamlet1222 Posts: 459 Member
in Food and Nutrition
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.
«13456789

Replies

  • socajam
    socajam Posts: 2,530 Member
    Options
    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.
  • JoshuaMcAllister
    JoshuaMcAllister Posts: 500 Member
    Options
    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?
  • ninerbuff
    ninerbuff Posts: 48,562 Member
    Options
    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
    9285851.png

  • HStheBusyBee
    HStheBusyBee Posts: 1,366 Member
    Options
    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.
  • SarcasmIsMyLoveLanguage
    SarcasmIsMyLoveLanguage Posts: 2,671 Member
    Options
    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.
  • Witchdoctor58
    Witchdoctor58 Posts: 226 Member
    Options
    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.
  • concordancia
    concordancia Posts: 5,320 Member
    Options
    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!
  • singingflutelady
    singingflutelady Posts: 8,736 Member
    Options
    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 btw
  • SarcasmIsMyLoveLanguage
    SarcasmIsMyLoveLanguage Posts: 2,671 Member
    Options
    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.

  • senecarr
    senecarr Posts: 5,377 Member
    Options
    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.
    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.
  • rainbowbow
    rainbowbow Posts: 7,490 Member
    Options
    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.
  • SarcasmIsMyLoveLanguage
    SarcasmIsMyLoveLanguage Posts: 2,671 Member
    Options
    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 :blush:
  • stealthq
    stealthq Posts: 4,298 Member
    Options
    senecarr 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.
    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.

    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)?
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    Options
    senecarr 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.
    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.

    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).
  • rainbowbow
    rainbowbow Posts: 7,490 Member
    edited March 2016
    Options
    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 :blush:

    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.

  • LivingtheLeanDream
    LivingtheLeanDream Posts: 13,342 Member
    edited March 2016
    Options
    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.
  • JoshuaMcAllister
    JoshuaMcAllister Posts: 500 Member
    Options
    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.
  • VeryKatie
    VeryKatie Posts: 5,947 Member
    Options
    socajam wrote: »
    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.

    I don't know how much lemons cost where you live, but a can of sprite is cheaper than a lemon here.

Categories