Sugar tax to be imposed in UK
Options
Replies
-
Pointless. Just more money for the government to waste and committed obesenoids will just shift their calorie intake to other calorie-dense, nutrition-poor food choices.
See. I tend to agree with this. I can't see how a 'sugar tax' itself will solve or make any inroads with obesity. The nutritionally poor and ill-informed will continue to be so. How is this going to stop Mr Bloggs from visiting Greggs everyday and making poor choices or stopping Mrs Bloggs from giving their kids pie and chips every night for dinner? (Obvs there is nothing wrong with the above in the context of a balanced dietary intake etc etc).
However, if the increased revenue is going towards things like primary grass roots sport and public health initiatives I can't see it being that bad of an idea.0 -
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.0 -
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!!
Well that's fantastic it's a good thing you'll quit0 -
Since my point is being dissected and broken out of context, let me say this. This isn't progress, it's regression as a society.
People should be educated instead of punished and that too unfairly. (people who aren't obese will be paying the price as well). If you are so hell bent on improving obese people health (under false pretend and justifying this tax) why not specifically target them? like Airlines do on people who are overweight and take two seats? Why not tax people who are medically considered obese straight up? tax their income so they can't even buy more food ergo making them starve and lower their Caloric intake.
If this is justified, keep in mind if a vegan comes in power he/she will tax meat eaters/buyers, if a keto follower comes in power they will tax Carbs and so forth. Sugar is like that good for some and bad for others depending on your life choices.
Don't compare sugar with alcohol and tobacco.
This is a gateway towards government intervention and it won't stop here until every month you are sent a list of items on "approved" eating items for a certain month and ration based on your family numbers.0 -
viren19890 wrote: »Since my point is being dissected and broken out of context, let me say this. This isn't progress, it's regression as a society.
People should be educated instead of punished and that too unfairly. (people who aren't obese will be paying the price as well). If you are so hell bent on improving obese people health (under false pretend and justifying this tax) why not specifically target them? like Airlines do on people who are overweight and take two seats? Why not tax people who are medically considered obese straight up? tax their income so they can't even buy more food ergo making them starve and lower their Caloric intake.
If this is justified, keep in mind if a vegan comes in power he/she will tax meat eaters/buyers, if a keto follower comes in power they will tax Carbs and so forth. Sugar is like that good for some and bad for others depending on your life choices.
Don't compare sugar with alcohol and tobacco.
This is a gateway towards government intervention and it won't stop here until every month you are sent a list of items on "approved" eating items for a certain month and ration based on your family numbers.
Given the position of organizations like WHO, a tax on bacon and sandwich meats could conceivably be next. Your examples of "meat" or "carbs" having potential to be taxed don't seem likely, no matter who comes into power. I like your thinking though that vegetables should get a tax break!
I think the sugar tax is a wise decision.
0 -
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.0 -
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.
0 -
I don't have a problem with the sugar tax. But here's a thought; why couldn't the UK Government simply legislate to set threshholds for suger content in drinks? That way, the producers would have to produce lower sugar products, thus assisting with the health of people, rather than simply taxing the public?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?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?
Well the money goes towards our next generations physical education, so there's that.
What does it show the average person who drinks a couple 2 liters of Pepsi a day? It shows them that if they want to damage their bodies and cost the healthcare system they have to literally put their money where their mouth is. Financial incentives are some of the most effective
Again though I stand by my initial assessment that it isn't sugar only that causes obesity. I don't mind paying a tax on it if it can be an effective tool to reduce overall consumption and the money is allocated properly.0 -
Ahhh, so in a time when Osborne's economic competence is in sharp focus he trots out some fluff policy to appease the "health" lobby and Jamie "yes, I am a millionaire so this won't make a blind bit of difference to my pocket but I am doing it for the kids, yo!" Oliver. How sweet.
We already have a 20% tax on sugary food as distinct from other foodstuffs - VAT. I note with some amusement that beverages with high sugar concentration, fruit juice, isn't included within the scope of this tax. Heaven forbid that Toby and India's affluent parents have to pay more for their Innocent drinks. I'm sure they will be happy that their sagging tennis nets might get a much needed lift funded out of the pockets of poorest parts of society though.
Oi. Osborne. Keep your hands off my Twirl!0 -
It is a way to impose their will on you as a society, while generating revenue that you will never see a benefit from.
Sure, they will tell you it's for the "children", and puppies will be saved, the flowers will bloom more, and a people without a sense of history (or current events) will blindly follow a nicely worded government like a trained dog, or a loyal peasant.
Kids are overweight because they sit in front of a TV all day long, they aren't pushed in Physical education in schools as they used to be because every child is a special snowflake and it would hurt their delicate self worth.
I, as an "American" (emphasis added for sarcasm of the previous posts) am 50 now, but 45 years ago, we had every single one of the same greasy fast food chain restaurants nearby, it was affordable, we had access to everything they have today, but we only went occasionally. It was a special treat to go on the weekend, or when the parents worked too late.
None of this is new, none of the sugar content is new. Sugar isn't suddenly found to be bad, where all of us were just stupid and the new generation is so much smarter...A Pepsi then, was just as bad for you as it was today. What changed?
We as kids were outside playing every day, rain or shine. We rode our bikes everywhere. We were never trapped in front of a TV that offered 270 channels of mindless entertainment, (OK we had PONG for the rainy days) but we never sat still longer than 20 minutes before a friend came over and wanted to do something.
We learned during the school hours and we weren't inundated with parental homework all night long, we ran wild on occasion, but the rule was to be home before the street lights went on.
Parents are lazier and refuse to cook for their children and the family dinner table is a thing of the past. It still costs less to make dinner than it is to buy dinner today. Single parents, longer working hours, instant gratification, or lack of personal responsibility, are all more important than the raising and education of their children. This tax isn't for the children, it disgusts me when they say that to promote another power grab, to control the people.
There are a million reasons why, and for a government to impose a consumption tax, just means you as the "peasant" will be subjected to another tax for their benefit, not the children, or the puppies, or the next trigger word for you to hang your mental hat on.
Yeah, just another old dude on his porch shaking his cane at the young kids going by, but I am just spewing the same preaching that the old dudes of my day stated when we rode by on our bikes.
Your freedoms are slowly being stolen from you, in the name of something you will never see, by people who really don't care.0 -
rainbowbow wrote: »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?
Well the money goes towards our next generations physical education, so there's that.
What does it show the average person who drinks a couple 2 liters of Pepsi a day? It shows them that if they want to damage their bodies and cost the healthcare system they have to literally put their money where their mouth is. Financial incentives are some of the most effective
Again though I stand by my initial assessment that it isn't sugar only that causes obesity. I don't mind paying a tax on it if it can be an effective tool to reduce overall consumption and the money is allocated properly.
I completely agree and I think we're singing from the same hymn sheet, I've already stated that any increased revenue that filters to primary grass roots sports and public health initiatives is a good thing.
I have no faith whatever that taxing sugar will stop someone who is currently drinking 2l of Pepsi a day to change that habit. As a Dr in front line healthcare within the NHS who sees the effects of poor choices daily I would put my mortgage on this. I do not believe that overall consumption by over-consumers will be changed by a SUGAR IS BAD GAAARRR DEATH SUGAR tax alone. It needs to be coupled with proper balanced dietary and nutritional education. Not just 'sugar = death'.
Anyway, its all a smoke screen so we ignore the probe into exchange rate rigging by Osborne's banker chums that's been quietly dropped.0 -
Anything that Jamie Oliver supports I will object to on principle.
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.
Same in many parts of the US. Our sales taxes vary state to state, though (in many states there are taxes on prepared foods, including veg, or, of course, restaurant meals).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..
It's the largest single source, as I recall from when I pulled the stats for another thread--36% for soda, sports drinks, and energy drinks. I'm sure it's higher for younger people, and since many people drink none or little and those who drink it tend to drink a lot (according to Salt, Sugar, Fat), it's going to vary a lot.0 -
hamlet1222 wrote: »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.
I don't see it as punishing the poor, but punishing those who consume sugar in moderation, because some people lack personal discipline.0 -
TechOutside wrote: »It is a way to impose their will on you as a society, while generating revenue that you will never see a benefit from.
Sure, they will tell you it's for the "children", and puppies will be saved, the flowers will bloom more, and a people without a sense of history (or current events) will blindly follow a nicely worded government like a trained dog, or a loyal peasant.
Kids are overweight because they sit in front of a TV all day long, they aren't pushed in Physical education in schools as they used to be because every child is a special snowflake and it would hurt their delicate self worth.
I, as an "American" (emphasis added for sarcasm of the previous posts) am 50 now, but 45 years ago, we had every single one of the same greasy fast food chain restaurants nearby, it was affordable, we had access to everything they have today, but we only went occasionally. It was a special treat to go on the weekend, or when the parents worked too late.
None of this is new, none of the sugar content is new. Sugar isn't suddenly found to be bad, where all of us were just stupid and the new generation is so much smarter...A Pepsi then, was just as bad for you as it was today. What changed?
We as kids were outside playing every day, rain or shine. We rode our bikes everywhere. We were never trapped in front of a TV that offered 270 channels of mindless entertainment, (OK we had PONG for the rainy days) but we never sat still longer than 20 minutes before a friend came over and wanted to do something.
We learned during the school hours and we weren't inundated with parental homework all night long, we ran wild on occasion, but the rule was to be home before the street lights went on.
Parents are lazier and refuse to cook for their children and the family dinner table is a thing of the past.
Most homes have two parents that both work fulltime. Laziness isn't the issue with cooking dinner. It's being tired.
Kids aren't outside riding their bikes because kids can't be out alone now. You send your 10 year old to a park without you and people call the police. Many kids are in childcare situations because both parents work. They are not at home where their bike is.
When I went to school we had PE every day. Now it's once a week and in high school they only require you take it two semesters in 4 years. PE teachers were cut from the budget years ago.
I don't know about the tax. Part of me wants to say that it's good something is being done. I don't know how the UK works with taxes. In my state we have very steep taxes on cigarettes. The tax is supposed to go to local school budgets. The state stopped giving the money to towns so it can be used elsewhere. I wonder if the same thing could happen with the sugar tax.0 -
TechOutside wrote: »
We as kids were outside playing every day, rain or shine. We rode our bikes everywhere. We were never trapped in front of a TV that offered 270 channels of mindless entertainment, (OK we had PONG for the rainy days) but we never sat still longer than 20 minutes before a friend came over and wanted to do something.
Parents are lazier and refuse to cook for their children and the family dinner table is a thing of the past.
Most homes have two parents that both work fulltime. Laziness isn't the issue with cooking dinner. It's being tired.
Kids aren't outside riding their bikes because kids can't be out alone now. You send your 10 year old to a park without you and people call the police. Many kids are in childcare situations because both parents work. They are not at home where their bike is.
When I went to school we had PE every day. Now it's once a week and in high school they only require you take it two semesters in 4 years. PE teachers were cut from the budget years ago.
I don't know about the tax. Part of me wants to say that it's good something is being done. I don't know how the UK works with taxes. In my state we have very steep taxes on cigarettes. The tax is supposed to go to local school budgets. The state stopped giving the money to towns so it can be used elsewhere. I wonder if the same thing could happen with the sugar tax.
My mom always worked, I guess we were free range, latch key kids.
You are right, they are tired but people used to do it, and the same people who call the police on the unattended kids are the same ones that vote to impose a tax on everyone to change behavior. On Tobacco, salt, soda, sugar, and anything else that they deem to be unacceptable in their self imposed "superior" minds.
Choice is the only thing we have left of freedom. Choose your school, choose your job, choose your spouse. When our choices go away, so does our freedom.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 would not be surprised by this. However, I think it may also have been true when I was a teenager (late 80's, early 90's). I remember most often having CapriSun 'juices' at home and being offered regular sodas, fruit punch, sweetened iced tea or instant lemonade (CountryTime) at friends' houses and at camp.
I drank Gatorade when playing sports. School was always either milk or juice.
I don't really ever remember drinking just water on a regular basis. I mean, I did drink water. It was just not the usual thing.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.7K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 394 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
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 945 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions