Sugar tax

[Otispunkmeyer]

RemyMartin said:

What genuinely annoys me is that some things will have a recipe change now...so we lose out because some people cant control themselves.

God I love a dark chocolate bounty every now and again...and irn bru

IRN BRU is lush. Had one for the first time in absolutely ages the other day. Still tastes good, but I couldn't finish it, got to half way and then just left it. Don't know why.

[WestyCarl]

Einion Yrth said:

WestyCarl said:

Einion Yrth said:

WestyCarl said:

wiggy001 said:

The problem for me is that it is the nanny state telling (or trying to tell) us what we can and can't do.

Why do parents need to government to "encourage" them to be good parents?

But it's the "nanny state" that will (and currently is) picking up the tab for peoples obesity. I'm all for people having a free choice but when that choice affects or costs society there needs to be some impact for the choice.

And right there is the downside of a socialised health service; all of a sudden, since nanny has a financial stake, nanny can almost legitimately start ordering people about.

Or people can take responsibility at both ends. Either live healthily or make provision for the potential downsides if you choose not too.

Except that the point that wiggy001 was making was that nanny won't let you do that.

But nobody is taking responsibility, see the massive rise in obesity costs to the NHS.
Actually I don't think it will work, it's just a "popular tax", however if it starts further discussion about it, that alone is worth the tax.

[Halb]

Otispunkmeyer said:

Indeed. In fact I watched a program about this kind of thing... Sugar on its own, your body basically knows when its had enough. Fat on its own illicits the same response. But mixed together sugar and fat seems to switch something off in our heads and we can't get enough of it. I for one will own up to buying a 200 g bar of Dairy Milk the other day and once I opened it it was long before I'd scoffed the lot! Yesterday I came back from the shop with a packet of Choco Leibniz (dark), all gone today. fking delicious.
Sugary drinks should be the start, as you say, its basically a direct shot of processed sugar to the body. But processed sugar is in all sorts of other stuff, including supposedly healthy cereals and other "healthy" options.

I think I watched the same one. The twin doctors? To create the bliss point. Companies want people to buy more, to consume more, and sugar helps. Free soda top ups! D Fat switches on leptin.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17212793

ash73 said:

I bet Mars bars shrank by 10% in the same period

Probably. The choccy companies started making smaller bars to get round regulation a while. back.

Putting aside silly tag of nanny-state, the best documentary I think for this is, the three part The Men Who Made Us Fat.

[Dr Jekyll]

http://www.conservativehome.com/platform/2016/03/d...

[Hoofy]

Well, I've not had any sugar fizzy drinks today.

I am about to have a second dinner of a lasagne (first dinner was cottage pie).#wontgetfatnosugarinnit

[wiggy001]

WestyCarl said:

Einion Yrth said:

WestyCarl said:

Einion Yrth said:

WestyCarl said:

wiggy001 said:

The problem for me is that it is the nanny state telling (or trying to tell) us what we can and can't do.

Why do parents need to government to "encourage" them to be good parents?

But it's the "nanny state" that will (and currently is) picking up the tab for peoples obesity. I'm all for people having a free choice but when that choice affects or costs society there needs to be some impact for the choice.

And right there is the downside of a socialised health service; all of a sudden, since nanny has a financial stake, nanny can almost legitimately start ordering people about.

Or people can take responsibility at both ends. Either live healthily or make provision for the potential downsides if you choose not too.

Except that the point that wiggy001 was making was that nanny won't let you do that.

But nobody is taking responsibility, see the massive rise in obesity costs to the NHS.
Actually I don't think it will work, it's just a "popular tax", however if it starts further discussion about it, that alone is worth the tax.

That was kind of my point, and things like this tax make the situation worse, not better. It takes the responsibility away from the adult which is why we have a situation where certain parts of society (the part this legislation is targeting) don't feel the need to take responsibility for anything they do - nanny is looking out for them.

It's why we have the "benefits culture" where several generations of a family never work: they don't need to, nanny pays them.

It's why we have people that don't feel any responsibility when they have an accident: they don't need to, nanny will compensate them.

It's why their kids aren't misbehaving little sts: nanny says they have ADHD.

It's why we have people that eat what they like and do no exercise: nanny stops me eating bad stuff and nanny has told me I'm disabled, not obese.

Nanny tells you your rights but no-one tells you your responsibilities.

[cat with a hat]

legzr1 said:

Contrary to a post above, taxation has had a great affect on children taking to smoking:


http://www.ash.org.uk/files/documents/ASH_108.pdf

From 1982-2014 the number of 15 year olds smoking has dropped from 24% to 8%.


Why wouldn't a sugar tax have a similar outcome?


£56 for a Mars Bar anyone?

You just forgot to mention the smoking ban, age increase to purchase cigarettes, change in social attitudes, increase of anti smoking campaigns and the rising popularity of vaping?

[chris watton]

Over the years on here, I have lost count of the times where someone has posted the words 'that alone is worth the tax'. Perhaps hundreds! All of these new laws/taxes accumulate, until that same person who wrote 'that alone is worth the tax' suddenly realises that they have less disposable income and seem to be less free than they perhaps were a decade or so ago, because some of those new laws, increased taxes, slipped them by..

But 'that alone is worth the tax'......

[Crush]

Hoofy said:

Well, I've not had any sugar fizzy drinks today.

I am about to have a second dinner of a lasagne (first dinner was cottage pie).#wontgetfatnosugarinnit

I like the IIFYM diet (if it fits your mouth )

[Hoofy]

Crush said:

Hoofy said:

Well, I've not had any sugar fizzy drinks today.

I am about to have a second dinner of a lasagne (first dinner was cottage pie).#wontgetfatnosugarinnit

I like the IIFYM diet (if it fits your mouth )

"if it fits your mouth"

[otolith]

Einion Yrth said:

And right there is the downside of a socialised health service; all of a sudden, since nanny has a financial stake, nanny can almost legitimately start ordering people about.

Spot on. Tail begins to wag dog.

[otolith]

grumbledoak said:

Though we use beet and corn now, sugar in it's original raw form is a stick! Most people would not recognise it,let alone chew it.

Our secondary school geography teacher (a West Indian guy) once brought sugar cane into class for us to try. I'd have bought it!

[skyrover]

I fail to see how this discriminates against "poor people"?

[FredClogs]

skyrover said:

I fail to see how this discriminates against "poor people"?

The reality is that any sales tax, vat or duty hits those on the lowest incomes disproportionately more than those on the highest incomes as a % of their available expenditure.

[skyrover]

surely that goes for any tax?

Would it be fairer to say that tax in general discriminates against poor people?

Of all taxes... you could probably argue that fuel/energy tax does the most damage to poorer incomes.

[otolith]

FredClogs said:

The reality is that any sales tax, vat or duty hits those on the lowest incomes disproportionately more than those on the highest incomes as a % of their available expenditure.

Depends what you levy it on. Fuel duty, yes. A sales tax on superyachts, maybe not so much. It's arguable that we tax the sales of too many basic commodities.

[FredClogs]

skyrover said:

surely that goes for any tax?

Would it be fairer to say that tax in general discriminates against poor people?

Of all taxes... you could probably argue that fuel/energy tax does the most damage to poorer incomes.

Indeed, that is argued.

It's also true that the quickest way to get high calorie, tasty but cheap food is to bung sugar into it but I terms of fizzy drinks, as long as the fancy elderflower presses are taxed on their sugar content I don't really see how taxing tango is particularly regressive. I think its just a lot of prejudice talking.

[Alex]

FredClogs said:

Indeed, that is argued.

It's also true that the quickest way to get high calorie, tasty but cheap food is to bung sugar into it but I terms of fizzy drinks, as long as the fancy elderflower presses are taxed on their sugar content I don't really see how taxing tango is particularly regressive. I think its just a lot of prejudice talking.

Orange and Apple Tango will be zero rated as they have less than 5mg sugar per 100ml (surprisingly!)

[KrissKross]

[BlackLabel]

telegraph said:

Research published in BMJ Open shows that fruit juices and smoothies - which will be exempt from a new sugar tax - contain far more sugar than many products which will be taxed

The average fruit juices and smoothies contains at least twice as much sugar as drinks which will be subject to new Government taxes, a BMJ study reveals.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/12202091/Smoothies-have-twice-as-much-sugar-as-other-fruit-drinks.-study-finds.html