Discussion
Hoofy said:
Dunno why.
I don't even know why I'm against the tax. I think they're proposing a 2% increase in the price? Even if it were 20% more, it'd not make a difference to my pocket. In fact, 100% is also fine, too. I last drank a pint of coke about 2 weeks ago. Heck, make it 1000%. I've never been fitter, anyway.
I don't understand why if something is deemed to be bad why do they tax it, Cigarettes, alcohol, etc. etc. if it is so bad ban it, make it illegal, stop shops selling it, ok there would be a Black market and the government wouldn't get their cut, but it would show true commitment rather than just another income opportunity. I don't even know why I'm against the tax. I think they're proposing a 2% increase in the price? Even if it were 20% more, it'd not make a difference to my pocket. In fact, 100% is also fine, too. I last drank a pint of coke about 2 weeks ago. Heck, make it 1000%. I've never been fitter, anyway.
Adrian W said:
I don't understand why if something is deemed to be bad why do they tax it, Cigarettes, alcohol, etc. etc. if it is so bad ban it, make it illegal, stop shops selling it, ok there would be a Black market and the government wouldn't get their cut, but it would show true commitment rather than just another income opportunity.
When an industry is so powerful, MPs have conflicted interests. 
Adrian W said:
I don't understand why if something is deemed to be bad why do they tax it, Cigarettes, alcohol, etc. etc. if it is so bad ban it, make it illegal, stop shops selling it, ok there would be a Black market and the government wouldn't get their cut, but it would show true commitment rather than just another income opportunity.
Indeed. But life is never so simple as that. Perhaps we could tax beating people who park badly. Speaking of which *trundles off to the other thread*
Adam Ansel said:
Adding sugar to any food should be made illegal, the average mong in our society is incapable of being educated, just look how many still smoke or how few get any exercise. If we can't ban it then we should tax it, for two good reasons. Firstly the tax would reduce consumption because of price elasticity of demand. Secondly it would give money to government to compensate them for the huge amount that sugar costs society.
I also believe in a tax on idiots, and you sir qualify. Can I suggest you look at the research. There are no medical studies which link sugar in normal quantities to any medical disorder, there are some dodgy epidemiological studies which link weigh to ill health but that's it.
There are also no studies that show salt causes any health risk but we still have a Salt Awareness council.
Adam Ansel said:
Secondly it would give money to government to compensate them for the huge amount that sugar costs society.
Maybe not. Most sugary food (soft drinks, chocolate etc) is subject to VAT. If this 'sugar tax' has the desired effect and reduces consumption - you have to factor in the loss of VAT on these foods - especially if people switch to zero rated alternatves like fruit.
These 'discouragement' taxes are often levied on things the government know people will find it diffucult to give up (e.g. Alcohol, tobacco, fuel ect). I'd even go as far as to say they rely on the fact that people will grin and bear the increased cost - just as they do with those other taxes mentioned.
Moonhawk said:
Maybe not. Most sugary food (soft drinks, chocolate etc) is subject to VAT.
If this 'sugar tax' has the desired effect and reduces consumption - you have to factor in the loss of VAT on these foods - especially if people switch to zero rated alternatves like fruit.
These 'discouragement' taxes are often levied on things the government know people will find it diffucult to give up (e.g. Alcohol, tobacco, fuel ect). I'd even go as far as to say they rely on the fact that people will grin and bear the increased cost - just as they do with those other taxes mentioned.
Most sugary food is not subject to VAT.If this 'sugar tax' has the desired effect and reduces consumption - you have to factor in the loss of VAT on these foods - especially if people switch to zero rated alternatves like fruit.
These 'discouragement' taxes are often levied on things the government know people will find it diffucult to give up (e.g. Alcohol, tobacco, fuel ect). I'd even go as far as to say they rely on the fact that people will grin and bear the increased cost - just as they do with those other taxes mentioned.
Most food does not attract VAT and sugar is added to everything.
The average Briton consumes 238 teaspoons of sugar each week - often without knowing it. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/foodanddrink/healthyeat...
Edited by Adam Ansel on Tuesday 9th February 17:51
Mrr T said:
I also believe in a tax on idiots, and you sir qualify.
Can I suggest you look at the research. There are no medical studies which link sugar in normal quantities to any medical disorder, there are some dodgy epidemiological studies which link weigh to ill health but that's it.
There are also no studies that show salt causes any health risk but we still have a Salt Awareness council.
Calling people names as a debating tactic means you have no argument.Can I suggest you look at the research. There are no medical studies which link sugar in normal quantities to any medical disorder, there are some dodgy epidemiological studies which link weigh to ill health but that's it.
There are also no studies that show salt causes any health risk but we still have a Salt Awareness council.
The first return on Google gives 10 mechanics by which sugar causes medical harm:
http://authoritynutrition.com/10-disturbing-reason...
And lots of facts and science in this Telegraph article which makes you seem to be utterly wrong:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/foodanddrink/healthyeat...
Fully referenced article from The Lancet. And guess what? You are wrong yet again:
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/langlo/article/P...
Edited by Adam Ansel on Tuesday 9th February 17:43
Edited by Adam Ansel on Tuesday 9th February 17:50
Simblade said:
food companies spend millions using research scientists and psychologists to make 20 different versions of their product with varying amounts of salt, fat and sugar and test with large groups of people to see which one gets people to eat the most of.
Scientifically making people unhealthy. It's disgusting.
Food companies testing which products taste the best, shocking. We'll have car companies trying to make cars people want to buy next. Scientifically making people unhealthy. It's disgusting.
Adam Ansel said:
Most sugary food is not subject to VAT.
The foodstuffs that seem to be identified most where children are concerned are all standard rated:Fizzy drinks (which by some estimates account for around 30% of all sugar intake for 11-18 year olds)
Cordials
Confectionary and chocolate
Icecream and lollies
Chocolate covered biscuits
Fast food and takeaway food (e.g. McDonalds)
Yes there is 'hidden' sugar in foods that are zero rated - but surely this tax is primarily about reducing the consumption of obvious sources of sugar (e.g Coca Cola etc). If it was about hidden sugar - the government could simply apply limits on what is acceptable that would apply to processed food manufacturers.
Adrian W said:
His parents pub is ok, but recently I have eaten in his restaurant in Edinburgh, it was expensive and s
t, then his place at Gatwick airport, it was expensive and st, there is a theme there.
Funny that. When he opened one in our town I was going to give it a try. But so many people said it was awful that I never bothered. Marco Pierre White opened one which I did try. Indescribably awful too. What's wrong with these people?t, then his place at Gatwick airport, it was expensive and st, there is a theme there. Adam Ansel said:
Mrr T said:
I also believe in a tax on idiots, and you sir qualify.
Can I suggest you look at the research. There are no medical studies which link sugar in normal quantities to any medical disorder, there are some dodgy epidemiological studies which link weigh to ill health but that's it.
There are also no studies that show salt causes any health risk but we still have a Salt Awareness council.
Calling people names as a debating tactic means you have no argument.Can I suggest you look at the research. There are no medical studies which link sugar in normal quantities to any medical disorder, there are some dodgy epidemiological studies which link weigh to ill health but that's it.
There are also no studies that show salt causes any health risk but we still have a Salt Awareness council.
The first return on Google gives 10 mechanics by which sugar causes medical harm:
http://authoritynutrition.com/10-disturbing-reason...
And lots of facts and science in this Telegraph article which makes you seem to be utterly wrong:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/foodanddrink/healthyeat...
Fully referenced article from The Lancet. And guess what? You are wrong yet again:
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/langlo/article/P...
Edited by Adam Ansel on Tuesday 9th February 17:43
Edited by Adam Ansel on Tuesday 9th February 17:50
The first is clearly an advocacy site and since it says sugar causes cancer, it probably shouldn't be relied on as impartial.
The second is an opinion piece and isn't, as you suggest, full of science, it appears to be full of anecdote about how people gave up sugar and felt better / lost 6 stone in a year.
The third is from two medical students asking for reduced sugar recommended daily allowances. It contains no research itself.
I bet there are loads of good quality links and papers discussing sugar intake etc, but the ones you quote aren't them.
Claiming sugar causes autism is both wrong and pretty offensive.
The research that does exist linking diet and symptoms is more along the lines that certain behaviours can be aggravated, and the mechanisms are much the same as they would be for any child eg. extra sugar can trigger hyperactivity.
IF you want to make an argument at least make a proper one.
The research that does exist linking diet and symptoms is more along the lines that certain behaviours can be aggravated, and the mechanisms are much the same as they would be for any child eg. extra sugar can trigger hyperactivity.
IF you want to make an argument at least make a proper one.
Adam Ansel said:
Adding sugar to any food should be made illegal, the average mong in our society is incapable of being educated, just look how many still smoke or how few get any exercise. If we can't ban it then we should tax it,
Idiots who want to ban or tax things, should be taxed. Then banned. Jonesy23 said:
Claiming sugar causes autism is both wrong and pretty offensive.
The research that does exist linking diet and symptoms is more along the lines that certain behaviours can be aggravated, and the mechanisms are much the same as they would be for any child eg. extra sugar can trigger hyperactivity.
IF you want to make an argument at least make a proper one.
This referenced article seems to be somewhat at odds with your assertions: http://drhyman.com/blog/2010/12/09/breakthrough-di...The research that does exist linking diet and symptoms is more along the lines that certain behaviours can be aggravated, and the mechanisms are much the same as they would be for any child eg. extra sugar can trigger hyperactivity.
IF you want to make an argument at least make a proper one.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff