Sugar tax to be imposed in UK
Options
Replies
-
I might get flamed for this but I'll still say it.
Government works from tax payers money and the money gets re-circulated. New wealth creation happens rarely. How often do you get a raise? to justify paying additional taxes in the name of "healthy society".
It's not about taxing sugar or tobacco or anything else it's about government labeling it as such "for healthy society". Why can't it work in a different manner?
Why can't people who show up at doctors with a weight loss every 6 month get a spending bonus or a certain stipend or something instead of taxing everyone? If you earn 100$ a month and you used sugar wisely in whatever your limit is still your discretionary income will be getting less and less because you are paying all these taxes because few in society are skewing healthcare costs for the government.
Middle class is dying a slow death because in the name of "societal improvement" we don't mind paying the extra costs. If Vegans are right - about animals and all they boast about- then soon there will be a tax on eating steak, eggs, chicken and fish. What will you guys do then?
Some things vegans say are true which is that -animal husbandry industry is heavily subsidized (some products which are used to feed animals get a huge subsidy) once this ends and prices sky rocket then?
If it's about restricting kids from drinking sugar products- put an age limit like we did with tobacco and alcohol or better yet educate them. That's what responsibility is not making stuff un-affordable in the hope that it will deter kids from buying. What if it makes them think about shoplifting? the candy isn't a big item or drink at home when parents aren't at home.
Unless there is new wealth creation money is re-circulating and if even a single dollar is taken out of your income think of yourself getting poorer. Government should be working other way around- lose weight get money/rewards (good health is a reward in itself but it could be a further incentive). Instead of taxing every one who is responsible or not in the name of equality.
Help those who would like to help themselves not force things down their throat in the "name of greater good".
I know the law is already passed and whatever but I'm writing this -if any of you ever came in power -think of this from the other side.0 -
Viren19890 - very well said. I do think it would make much more sense to reward people for doing what is best for them, but I don't think that our governments really care what happens to us. Sad, but this is how I feel.
A government could invest in(just a couple of ideas):
-water fountains
-heavily subsidized if not free gyms
-cheap if not free public transport
Taxing sugar? How do people feel about this tax who never battled obesity and have no health issues?
Why do I have to pay for crazy manufacturers who put sugar in almost everything? Just take it out - I don't need sugar in bread or gravy and so many other savory dishes. I actually hate having to look and find products that have less or no sugar added.
So salt is not very healthy either in larger quantities... introduce higher tax?
Too many substances that are not that great for us to mention - my feeling is, in the end they might want to tax "clean air". Might sound ridiculous now, just wait 50 years.
0 -
viren19890 wrote: »I might get flamed for this but I'll still say it.
Why can't people who show up at doctors with a weight loss every 6 month get a spending bonus or a certain stipend or something instead of taxing everyone? If you earn 100$ a month and you used sugar wisely in whatever your limit is still your discretionary income will be getting less and less because you are paying all these taxes because few in society are skewing healthcare costs for the government.
1. The prohibitive cost to taxpayers to see a doctor every 6 months to get weighed;
2. The strain on the health system having 53 million people in England visit the doctor every 6 months to get weighed;
3. Privacy issues involved with the government having access to your medical records;
4. The cost of putting in place a system so that doctors can report your weight to the tax office, so they can then give you a refund;
5. The fact that the money has to come from somewhere, which means the government is going to tax you more just to give the money back to you; and
6. Because a blanket offer of money to lose weight is going to be unhealthy for that portion of the population that already has a healthy weight.
There is a link between sugary drinks and obesity (http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/sugary-drinks-fact-sheet/). This government is using taxation to attempt to change behaviors in order to reduce obesity and decrease a strain on the universal healthcare system. It is a very simple and cost efficient way for the government to achieve that aim.0 -
Taxing sugar? How do people feel about this tax who never battled obesity and have no health issues?
Why do I have to pay for crazy manufacturers who put sugar in almost everything? Just take it out - I don't need sugar in bread or gravy and so many other savory dishes. I actually hate having to look and find products that have less or no sugar added.
This is the government encouraging crazy manufacturers to reduce the sugar they put in drinks. If a manufacturer doesn't change and passes the tax onto the consumer, you can buy from a different manufacturer who does change and reduces the sugar in its drinks. It's basically making companies recognise the expense associated with the external cost of obesity.
I've never battled obesity and have no health issues. I think this is a good tax.0 -
Yes because taxing alcohol and tobacco have curbed use so significantly.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.
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 -
Hear hear senecarr!
0 -
The funny thing is, when they find revenues are down because people stop buying cigs, they panic & try to say that they have to tax MORE somewhere else!Christine_72 wrote: »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 $40. Definitely enough to make me quit!!
0 -
viren19890 wrote: »I might get flamed for this but I'll still say it.
Why can't people who show up at doctors with a weight loss every 6 month get a spending bonus or a certain stipend or something instead of taxing everyone? If you earn 100$ a month and you used sugar wisely in whatever your limit is still your discretionary income will be getting less and less because you are paying all these taxes because few in society are skewing healthcare costs for the government.
1. The prohibitive cost to taxpayers to see a doctor every 6 months to get weighed;
2. The strain on the health system having 53 million people in England visit the doctor every 6 months to get weighed;
3. Privacy issues involved with the government having access to your medical records;
4. The cost of putting in place a system so that doctors can report your weight to the tax office, so they can then give you a refund;
5. The fact that the money has to come from somewhere, which means the government is going to tax you more just to give the money back to you; and
6. Because a blanket offer of money to lose weight is going to be unhealthy for that portion of the population that already has a healthy weight.
There is a link between sugary drinks and obesity (http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/sugary-drinks-fact-sheet/). This government is using taxation to attempt to change behaviors in order to reduce obesity and decrease a strain on the universal healthcare system. It is a very simple and cost efficient way for the government to achieve that aim.
If you still think about taxing is good way to make sure people eat healthy, why not lower tax on vegetables and other healthy items? Since it's all done in the name of "health".
Why would 53 million people visit doctor? We are talking about obesity, your entire population is obese? (unhealthy to an extreme point) There can be a certain measuring criteria that can be put in place that who qualifies or not.
They already have all your info, once you are given a monetary reward, all they need to do is cut tax on it. It could be like when you are getting a pay cheque. (in Canada they deduct taxes before you get money in your hands) or they could simply pay so and so amount and it'll be clients responsibility to report it. (Not sure if in UK winnings are taxed or not) In Canada winnings are tax free and this will be tax free. UK could adopt a similar strategy.
Privacy ? are you kidding me- isn't England the only place in the world with more security cameras per square mile than anywhere else in the world. (Sorry that's off topic)
Doesn't doctor already have all your records?
England healthcare is free -so in general sense when overall population is getting healthy-less strain on public healthcare budget. Even better for future generation but yeah go ahead let's not think about them.
How long before certain group of individuals who we elected started telling us that we are going to start taxing amount of oxygen you inhale because -oh well umm green house /ozone layer/ not enough trees being planted bla bla. What if someone who hates carbs comes in power and says -we should tax carbs more because so and so study has linked it to obesity? what then?
Point is the problem should be tackled from positive standpoint. People who want to help themselves will go ahead and get themselves checked in at doctors to try the program out but some who are a lost cause will/cannot be deterred by whatever tax you imply.
Big corporations have a lot of pull in all the parliaments, they can have 10 lobbyists against government's 1 -if equality is what we want- and sugar is being taxed for causing obesity then vegetables and good foods should be taxed less -well cause it's helping in better health.
Being on this forum haven't we seen enough success stories about only thing that matters is CICO ?0 -
A government could invest in(just a couple of ideas):
-water fountains
I didn't know water fountains didn't exist -- we have them.
But beyond that, how does this help? Water is already something the gov't is involved in providing most places, although as the other poster said, it is not free. I am really skeptical that more highly subsidized water (which I can get out of the faucet at home and the cooler at work) would reduce the consumption of sugary beverages. Is water less available (outside of certain select places) than in, say, the '70s and '80s?-heavily subsidized if not free gyms
I suspect the issue is more time to use the gym or how it fits into people's schedule, than nowhere to exercise that's affordable (outside of specific areas where there's a problem with danger outside in public areas like playgrounds).-cheap if not free public transport
Public transport is quite subsidized. I wish it was better and more subsidized, but this gets at the problem with blaming "the government" or claiming it could easily do these things if it cared. The reason we have bad public transportation many places and difficulty affording it in places where we do have it is only a minority of the population uses it and the others resent paying for it. (I use it, btw. In fact, where I live lots of people with cars use it. Why? Well, one reason is that parking downtown is prohibitively expensive and one reason for that is that it is very highly taxed.)Taxing sugar? How do people feel about this tax who never battled obesity and have no health issues?
My former fatness had zero to do with sugary drinks, and I have never had any obesity-related health issues. But anyway, I don't care.Why do I have to pay for crazy manufacturers who put sugar in almost everything?
You don't. Don't buy the stuff if you don't want to.Too many substances that are not that great for us to mention - my feeling is, in the end they might want to tax "clean air". Might sound ridiculous now, just wait 50 years.
Taxing externalities (i.e, pollution) is a common idea, actually.0 -
-
viren19890 wrote: »I might get flamed for this but I'll still say it.
your words
The UK government already does tax vegetables and other healthy items at lower rates (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value-added_tax_(United_Kingdom)). There's no VAT on fruit and vegetables, while there is a 20%(?) VAT on biscuits, soft drinks etc.
The UK government uses tax policy to encourage good behaviors and deter bad behaviors. Both are effective and have their place. I understand that people don't like paying more tax on things they buy, but that's exactly why raising consumption taxes works to deter certain behaviours.
The reason the government doesn't implement some sort of taxation/bonus system around CICO is because it doesn't want to measure your CI or your CO. That would be horribly expensive, and an invasion of privacy.0 -
viren19890 wrote: »I might get flamed for this but I'll still say it.
your words
The UK government already does tax vegetables and other healthy items at lower rates (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value-added_tax_(United_Kingdom)). There's no VAT on fruit and vegetables, while there is a 20%(?) VAT on biscuits, soft drinks etc.
The UK government uses tax policy to encourage good behaviors and deter bad behaviors. Both are effective and have their place. I understand that people don't like paying more tax on things they buy, but that's exactly why raising consumption taxes works to deter certain behaviours.
The reason the government doesn't implement some sort of taxation/bonus system around CICO is because it doesn't want to measure your CI or your CO. That would be horribly expensive, and an invasion of privacy.
The only evidence out there that I'm aware of is that sugar taxes can result in less consumption of the products being taxed. There's no evidence that sugar taxes cause people to make healthier choices, given there's a limitless number of other foodstuffs that can be substituted for sugary treats that also are calorie-dense and low nutrition.
0 -
viren19890 wrote: »I might get flamed for this but I'll still say it.
your words
The UK government already does tax vegetables and other healthy items at lower rates (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value-added_tax_(United_Kingdom)). There's no VAT on fruit and vegetables, while there is a 20%(?) VAT on biscuits, soft drinks etc.
The UK government uses tax policy to encourage good behaviors and deter bad behaviors. Both are effective and have their place. I understand that people don't like paying more tax on things they buy, but that's exactly why raising consumption taxes works to deter certain behaviours.
The reason the government doesn't implement some sort of taxation/bonus system around CICO is because it doesn't want to measure your CI or your CO. That would be horribly expensive, and an invasion of privacy.
The only evidence out there is that sugar taxes can result in less consumption of the products being taxed. There's no evidence that sugar taxes cause people to make healthier choices, given there's a limitless number of other foodstuffs that can be substituted for sugary treats that also are calorie-dense and low nutrition.
So a large scale introduction of a sugar tax will provide some new research opportunities which may either prove or disprove the concept, what an exciting time to be alive.0 -
viren19890 wrote: »If you still think about taxing is good way to make sure people eat healthy, why not lower tax on vegetables and other healthy items? Since it's all done in the name of "health".
In the UK there's no tax on basic foods like vegetables, beyond the standard taxation of businesses etc.0 -
Jamie Oliver has been all over the news here tonight..
Thus far our government has foo fooed it saying "there's nothing wrong with a small amount of sugar", and that if they are going to tax soda then they should also tax lollies, chips etc.
They did however say that soft drinks make up the bulk of sugar consumed by kids and teenagers diets. Not sure how true this is..0 -
Christine_72 wrote: »Jamie Oliver has been all over the news here tonight..
Thus far our government has foo fooed it saying "there's nothing wrong with a small amount of sugar", and that if they are going to tax soda then they should also tax lollies, chips etc.
They did however say that soft drinks make up the bulk of sugar consumed by kids and teenagers diets. Not sure how true this is..
I'm sure there are kids whose calorie surplus could be eliminated just be changing what they drink, I know some people who never drink water or low calorie drinks, just fruit juice, milk shakes, and of course coca cola.
I'll reserve judgement on whether this tax will help at all. I suspect it'll come down to whether the manufacturers and retailers pass on this cost, so in the shop you see a can of pepsi max actually cheaper than a can of pepsi. And/or if the manufactures actually find ways to reduce sugar in order to get below the tax threshold.0 -
Does this open the door to the government choosing the citizens menu's by taxing whatever foods they deem unneccessary?
So next its canned food gets taxed
Or, I mean after taxing deserts, what if they start taxing the appetizers? Then they decide second course is just too much, and that we only really need one course, so second course is taxed. Leaving only the main course foods untaxed.
Then they start taxing all fun foods, like nuts and crisps and things for instance. Where will it all end?0 -
Does this open the door to the government choosing the citizens menu's by taxing whatever foods they deem unneccessary?
So next its canned food gets taxed
Or, I mean after taxing deserts, what if they start taxing the appetizers? Then they decide second course is just too much, and that we only really need one course, so second course is taxed. Leaving only the main course foods untaxed.
Then they start taxing all fun foods, like nuts and crisps and things for instance. Where will it all end?
I think its a stretch to propose that this evidence based taxation is a slippery slope towards taxing appetizers.0 -
hamlet1222 wrote: »I suspect it'll come down to whether the manufacturers and retailers pass on this cost, so in the shop you see a can of pepsi max actually cheaper than a can of pepsi.
funny thing is the diet versions are cheaper to make so could be cheaper already, but they go for the bigger profit margin instead.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.
The UK already does a lot for food security - I too am mixed about this - but the only way to see if it is effective is to pilot these things.
I was surprised by the results in lowering consumption in Mexico. We'll see.
The idea that people posted "but education" is nonsense. European governments have spent considerable effort to educate and reduce calorie consumption and the success rate has been mitigated. Having a tax doesn't mean they aren't trying other things.
I am concerned that it creates a simplified grok of "sugar always bad".
0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 388 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 917 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions