Sugar tax to be imposed in UK
Options
Replies
-
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.0 -
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
May be a career limiting step for an elected politician.
So would a lot of the things some seem to think are imminent, which is the problem with the slippery slope argument here.
Granted, not to such an extreme.0 -
I'm British, and I think it's a great idea.
Our kids are fat. There is a town in my county where around half of the kids are obese! Half of them. They're all wandering into town on their lunch buying sugary drinks like cola, fanta and sprite and not even knowing whats going into their body. We have a sugar smart app as well, and the sugars in some things are appalling.
Even without that side of it, yay for the dental side of things. The fizzy drinks are horrific for your teeth, and if the money goes into providing sports, I see no negative. Tax is tax regardless yes it raises money for the government, it comes from the consumer, but if we funnel taxes into arguably a better cause, who cares. You're going to pay it somehow anyway.
[Oh and with regard to it being a tax on the 'poor'... Really? I know fat rich people- a lot of them! Where I am from lemon and water IS cheaper than a can or bottle of sprite. An entire bag of lemons costs me 39p, water comes from my water rates/a two large bottle pack of water is 2l for £1. A bottle of 500ml sprite is £1.29]
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.
Right -- technically all sales tax/VAT are regressive in this way. This is why in the US states tend to exempt food (other than prepared foods/restaurant) from them or have a much lower rate on those items.
Here there's also the fact that soda usage tends to be higher in lower income brackets, I believe, but I'll have to try to remember where I saw that.0 -
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/01/how-america-drinks-water-and-wine-surge-cheap-beer-and-soda-crash/267153/
This says US consumption per capita of soda peaked in '98.
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db71.pdf
This shows that soda consumption in the US is higher in lower income groups (and minorities) and also younger people.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23846088
This indicates that sugar consumption is higher in lower income groups in the UK, although is not soda-specific.
Don't have a point, just putting it out there.0 -
I read that this would apply to sodas and other sugary drinks. I am not in the UK, but the states I have lived in have charged full sales tax on soda even though I could go and buy juice with much more sugar in it tax free. It has a lot more sugar in it because I only buy diet soda, but still am taxed anyway for reasons. I have no idea why fruit juice is exempted in the US or as going to be the case in the UK. They are chocked full of unnecessary sugar with none of the fiber. You should be eating actual fruit as opposed to drinking the juice.
As for THE CHILDREN argument, my daughter doesn't drink anything but water and skim milk. She has far better teeth than either my husband and I did growing up on supposedly healthy juice. And before you start with the well it is easy to control them at 2, my daughter is 10. She is welcome to drink juice (at other peoples houses, I don't buy it period) and soda, but can't stand either one. She says juice is meh and she doesn't like the carbonation of soda. That's fine by me.
I read in the OPs article that soda consumption has dropped in the US regardless of if and when it was taxed. I think that is because people are just now getting their sugar laden drinks at places like Starbucks instead from the can. I think those kind of drinks need to be taxed as well if anyone is going to go there.
I pay outrageous taxes on liquor. I think it is the highest in the nation, bar none. However, I still buy it anyway. I can't believe how much it costs to smoke here as a non-smoker, but yet, there are still a lot of people at my work who smoke. Weed is heavily taxed, but it is a booming business anyway. People going to vice, taxes be dam-ned.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.
Good, wish the US would do something similar. $ raised should go to treating obesity related heath problems and research.
Also a tax will automatically force manufacturers to taper-down the quantity as demand for high sugar items declines.0 -
Every time I see a kid at a gas station with a big gulp or some other sugar laden beverage, my heart sinks. I think this sugar tax is a step in the right direction. Smoking rates have decreased with imposition of cigarette taxes so I see no reason why the same won't happen with this.
If only we could do something across the pond.0 -
Most of the time you can get 2L bottles for $.99 so a 70% increase might help.Christine_72 wrote: »They said it is going to add an extra 46 cents AUD to a 1L bottle of coke, is this really much of a deterrent??
That's about 35 cents in US dollars. Wouldn't deter many here.
0 -
CrabNebula wrote: »I read that this would apply to sodas and other sugary drinks. I am not in the UK, but the states I have lived in have charged full sales tax on soda even though I could go and buy juice with much more sugar in it tax free. It has a lot more sugar in it because I only buy diet soda, but still am taxed anyway for reasons. I have no idea why fruit juice is exempted in the US or as going to be the case in the UK. They are chocked full of unnecessary sugar with none of the fiber. You should be eating actual fruit as opposed to drinking the juice.
As for THE CHILDREN argument, my daughter doesn't drink anything but water and skim milk. She has far better teeth than either my husband and I did growing up on supposedly healthy juice. And before you start with the well it is easy to control them at 2, my daughter is 10. She is welcome to drink juice (at other peoples houses, I don't buy it period) and soda, but can't stand either one. She says juice is meh and she doesn't like the carbonation of soda. That's fine by me.
I read in the OPs article that soda consumption has dropped in the US regardless of if and when it was taxed. I think that is because people are just now getting their sugar laden drinks at places like Starbucks instead from the can. I think those kind of drinks need to be taxed as well if anyone is going to go there.
I pay outrageous taxes on liquor. I think it is the highest in the nation, bar none. However, I still buy it anyway. I can't believe how much it costs to smoke here as a non-smoker, but yet, there are still a lot of people at my work who smoke. Weed is heavily taxed, but it is a booming business anyway. People going to vice, taxes be dam-ned.
In that case your children are clearly the exception to the rule. I see plenty of children in small groups on their way to school in the morning, spending whatever dinner (or breakfast???) money they were given buying crisps, pop or even stuff like Red Bull on their way to school. Of course at that stage there is zero parental supervision... I wonder how many parents are aware that their kids have necked a couple of cans of Red Bull before their first lesson in the morning. And they wonder why there are problems with kids conduct and ability to focus in schools.
YOUR kids teeth might be perfect, but my best friend, who is a senior registrar dentist at a large dental hospital in Cardiff, is regularly forced to extract numerous teeth from very young children due to extreme caries. She is very clear that what leads to these awful situations, where some children end up with ALL their first teeth removed, so they don't start to pre-rot the permanent teeth, is because of unrestricted access to sweets and pop without appropriate dental hygiene.
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.
In the US, government pays more than 50% of healthcare costs (that are rising). I didn't look, but with the national healthcare in England, I would guess that would be a higher %.
The government has a need to take a stand to reduce these expenditures.0 -
Packerjohn wrote: »
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.
In the US, government pays more than 50% of healthcare costs (that are rising). I didn't look, but with the national healthcare in England, I would guess that would be a higher %.
The government has a need to take a stand to reduce these expenditures.
Do they?
There are other options.
That's as far as I'm willing to go on that topic to avoid getting into murky waters in regards to the TOS.0 -
Since you consume sugar responsibly I would think you would not see too much of any change. Over time people who knowingly consume things that are harmful will end up with the health consequences of those things. We know that sugar in excess is very harmful. If the tax is being used as a deterent and going towards the treatment of the diseases sugar causes/aggravates to eliviate the burden on the rest of society then I'm all for it. However I would want to know exactly where that money is going, we all know that tax dollars do not end up where they should be much of the time.0
-
If you're 'penny pinching' as we call it here in the UK- tightening the purse strings a bit- then you'd choose the non sugary option over the sugary option with less tax ergo costing you less money. It moves you to make a better choice. I don't see that penalising a demographic. I think its a smart move. One that may make little difference, but a move to a better choice.0
-
It's just an excuse for the government to collect more money. The article stated the funds would be allocated toward combating childhood obesity. The tax will not fix the root issue.
1) how will the funds be limited to only it's intended purpose? What's to prevent the government from using those funds to make up budget shortfalls in other areas in leaner tax revenue years?
The law underestimates the ingenuity of capitalism and human will. It won't generate the estimated revenue they project.
2)Already, companies will be dusting off plans to use sweeteners that are not mentioned in the law (both natural and artificial)
3) it will create a "black market" for sugary drinks to avoid the tax. they will be smuggled in from elsewhere. A similar situation happened in the US with New York state increasing the tax on cigarettes. http://dailycaller.com/2015/12/28/new-york-loses-400-million-after-imposing-the-nations-highest-cigarette-tax/
A smarter approach would be to encourage ways of lowering the cost on more healthy consumables. When given the choice, people want to eat healthier but healthier items often cost more.0 -
If you're 'penny pinching' as we call it here in the UK- tightening the purse strings a bit- then you'd choose the non sugary option over the sugary option with less tax ergo costing you less money. It moves you to make a better choice. I don't see that penalising a demographic. I think its a smart move. One that may make little difference, but a move to a better choice.
Or alternatively the rational consumer may simply opt for a cheaper non-branded sugary drink. The alternative may actually have more sugar than the original version you switched from but, due to lower advertising / branding / ingredient quality costs or so on, may still be cheaper even factoring in the additional tax for greater sugar content.
Result: more sugar consumption.
This is an ill thought out, regressive tax proposal to obtain cheap public approval from a failing Chancellor which probably won't see the light of day.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 agree. If you have been living under a rock somewhere and haven't gotten the memo about excess sugar being bad maybe paying more for it will get you to rethink your behavior. Then you can choose to either continue or discontinue your excess sugar consumption.0 -
A far, far better solution would be to eliminate farm supports and subsidy programs that effectively subsidize any number of calorie-dense, nutrition-poor food sources (this is why corn syrup is used in everything).
That would serve the same overall purpose as the sugar tax. Of course, this will never happen because the corporate interests have lawmakers in their pockets, and such an approach would reduce government revenues (which they don't want).
So, our tax money will continue to subsidize agribusinesses as always, and now we have to contend with them reaching into our pockets for yet more tax money "for our own good" (ironically to arguably solve the problems that their policies helped cause in the first place)!
Notwithstanding the fact I enjoy candy and sweets responsibly and there's no reason for me to be paying more for it. And, notwithstanding the fact that this won't accomplish anything due to "substitution effects" (Google it).
We need to stop worshipping government like it's some sort of religion.
I could not agree more about farm subsidies, amen for bringing that up! Although since I avoid HFCS like the plague it at least eliminates quite a bit of junk food from my diet right off the bat
Unfortunately we can't go back in time and undo those stupid subsidies and misguided policies. We can only try to undo the damage a little at a time. 0 -
hamlet1222 wrote: »
Hahahahahaha! Sugar is sugar...he is kind of a tool. Somehow all his "helping" just comes off with a bad stink around it. I'm getting way off topic but sometimes I wish celebrities would just stick to being celebrities. I'm more offended by them telling me what's good or bad for me than the government. Any way you slice it unfortunately we are all kind of on our own to educate ourselves and make the right choices.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?0 -
Packerjohn wrote: »
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.
In the US, government pays more than 50% of healthcare costs (that are rising). I didn't look, but with the national healthcare in England, I would guess that would be a higher %.
The government has a need to take a stand to reduce these expenditures.
Sure, if they were doing something that would actually have an effect instead of feel good, bandaid but ultimately useless legislation.
Let's not learn to live in this new world where food is plentiful, instead lets just toss a bandaid in it by ruling out only one of the thousands of things that cause people to become overweight when over eaten. It's people and a general lack of education that is the cause of the problem, not the food.
There are people in these forums that don't know what a calorie deficit is. But sugary drinks are the problem? If all sugary foods disappeared right now, the obesity problem in rich countries would not.
It's delusional, short sighted legislation, just like its supporters.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.6K 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
- 393 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
- 934 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions