Sugar tax

[legzr1]

johnfm said:

Eh? I probably missed it, but where was the evidence of causation linking the reduction in children smoking to cigarette tax?

Edited by johnfm on Saturday 24th October 10:23

Edited by johnfm on Saturday 24th October 10:24

Read the links attached at the bottom - 18 and 19 mention studies done in Canada and the USA confirming what most people would consider common sense.

[Mr GrimNasty]

Doctor weighs you once a year, and your personal tax rate is set for that year according to your BMI, 25 and under 25%, 26 - 26%, 30 - 30% etc.

Can't fail.

[Smollet]

Mr GrimNasty said:

Doctor weighs you once a year, and your personal tax rate is set for that year according to your BMI, 25 and under 25%, 26 - 26%, 30 - 30% etc.

Can't fail.

That would screw up most rugby players.

[chris watton]

Mr GrimNasty said:

Doctor weighs you once a year, and your personal tax rate is set for that year according to your BMI, 25 and under 25%, 26 - 26%, 30 - 30% etc.

Can't fail.

Trouble with BMI is that it's crap!

Great if you're emaciated, not so great if you have a modicum of muscle and not much fat...

[turbobloke]

Mr GrimNasty said:

Doctor weighs you once a year, and your personal tax rate is set for that year according to your BMI, 25 and under 25%, 26 - 26%, 30 - 30% etc.

Can't fail.

BMI is Not a Good Measure of Healthy Body Weight Say Researchers:
http://www.livescience.com/39097-bmi-not-accurate-...

Why BMI Isn't The Best Measure for Weight or Health:
http://healthland.time.com/2013/08/26/why-bmi-isnt...

Pick of the snips "...several recent studies suggest that in some cases, a high BMI could actually protect a person from dying of heart failure, kidney failure and other chronic diseases..."

[Mr GrimNasty]

Smollet said:

That would screw up most rugby players.

Rugby players don't have a natural physique.

Anybody that has abused steroids will need heart surgery and and their moobs removed on the NHS, so it works out fair.

BMI is actually pretty good for ordinary people in the ordinary height range.

[Hoofy]

johnfm said:

Well, you'd hope it would. But more likely to reflect the insurers' next yacht/villa etc.

I am pro-insurance, but the US model doesn't work really. Too much corrupt profiteering pushing up premiums.

Haha, good point. Wouldn't be so bad if they let us use the yacht.

[otolith]

PH's libertarian bent can be remarkably selective.

[Einion Yrth]

otolith said:

PH's libertarian bent can be remarkably selective.

Not too many true libertarians here. I try to be, but fail dismally quite commonly.

[Halb]

Libertarianism, like any other ism works when used with practicalities of the subject and common sense, being a demagogue of any -ism leads to failure.

[Gecko1978]

VolvoT5 said:

If a can of coke or a mars bar was £3 they would become an occasional 'treat' again. Any money raised should be invested into the NHS and public health.

£3 Mars bar might also put a lot of small shops etc out of business not to mention the likes of Nestle and Mars and Cadburys in the UK. However you might be able to change habits for example Coke 1 can = £2 Diet Coke = 50p (thats about the cost of a can in a 6 pack). So people would switch to the sugar free option. I am not sure how it would work for chocolate etc but its a start.

[Hoofy]

Gecko1978 said:

VolvoT5 said:

If a can of coke or a mars bar was £3 they would become an occasional 'treat' again. Any money raised should be invested into the NHS and public health.

£3 Mars bar might also put a lot of small shops etc out of business not to mention the likes of Nestle and Mars and Cadburys in the UK. However you might be able to change habits for example Coke 1 can = £2 Diet Coke = 50p (thats about the cost of a can in a 6 pack). So people would switch to the sugar free option. I am not sure how it would work for chocolate etc but its a start.

Some expert who was more looking at the financial implications of 20p on a can of Coke (the real one) said people would just revert to the cheaper versions eg shop's own.

Thing is, sugar is in everything so most food (even "healthy food") (MOST!) would end up costing more. Even something like pasta and bread should have this tax as the carbs turn to sugar which leads to an insulin response, right?

[wolves_wanderer]

otolith said:

PH's libertarian bent can be remarkably selective.

I think the difference is whether or not the PH'er in question approves or disapproves of the activity in question and whether or not it has the potential to cost them money either directly or indirectly. Any impact on the other person is ignored generally. Of course nobody will admit this and invariably presents their point of view as principled and correct.

[Gecko1978]

Hoofy said:

Gecko1978 said:

VolvoT5 said:

If a can of coke or a mars bar was £3 they would become an occasional 'treat' again. Any money raised should be invested into the NHS and public health.

£3 Mars bar might also put a lot of small shops etc out of business not to mention the likes of Nestle and Mars and Cadburys in the UK. However you might be able to change habits for example Coke 1 can = £2 Diet Coke = 50p (thats about the cost of a can in a 6 pack). So people would switch to the sugar free option. I am not sure how it would work for chocolate etc but its a start.

Some expert who was more looking at the financial implications of 20p on a can of Coke (the real one) said people would just revert to the cheaper versions eg shop's own.

Thing is, sugar is in everything so most food (even "healthy food") (MOST!) would end up costing more. Even something like pasta and bread should have this tax as the carbs turn to sugar which leads to an insulin response, right?

Hence I suggest just tax on soft drinks etc. I suspect a lot of people do not know how much sugar is in one. Even I (who only drinks soft drinks and diet ones at that) did not know how much sugar was in a can of Monster (a drink I actually liked).

Also would we not have to add the tax to Beer due to the sugar content

[turbobloke]

wolves_wanderer said:

otolith said:

PH's libertarian bent can be remarkably selective.

I think the difference is whether or not the PH'er in question approves or disapproves of the activity in question and whether or not it has the potential to cost them money either directly or indirectly. Any impact on the other person is ignored generally.

Purely out of interest and self-knowledge grasshopper do you have any examples, particularly regarding the cost side?

Libertarianism is surely about principled autonomy and freedom of choice, supporing political freedoms while promoting self-reliance and individual responsibility. It's not clear how personal approval comes into it where the term libertarian applies, nor how cost to the libertarian is relevant.

The line can be narrow but still obvious, for example there's freedom of political association and freedom to make peaceful protest (i.e. shouting ban the bomb is OK but assault by spittle and criminal damage are not). These can be linked, obviously. The principled aspect is that this should be within the law i.e. peaceful and not something deliberately aimed at causing unnecessary loss of freedoms to others.

If a protest becomes violent or those involved set out to maximise losses in other people's freedoms which were avoidable, it seems reasonable that a libertarian would draw the line at supporting violence and a net loss of freedom even for a short timescale, whether or not they supported the cause that people were protesting about - 'support the protest not the violent protesters'.

Could you give an example where cost comes into it in a meaningful way? Within reason it's surely part of libertarianism to take individual responsibility for supporting the freedoms you advocate and there may be a financial cost to doing so e.g. marginally higher ticket prices to pay police overtime for policing a footy match to (hopefully) prevent violence rather than deal with it, while fans of both teams exercise freedom of association. Probably not profound enough as examples go, but then I'd prefer your example if you have one...or if you CBA, OK.

Still think the sugar 'tax' is a weak idea and CMD is correct to oppose it, and that has nothing to do with cost!

[otolith]

Too often it boils down to "the government should keep its nose out of my stuff, but everyone else is fair game". It's a bit like free speech, in that the real test of whether you believe in it is whether you are still in favour when you don't like the outcome.

Being enrolled in compulsory socialised health care does not give the state the right to nationalise your body. What you do with it is your own business. If you want to dictate the terms, make membership of the scheme optional.

[turbobloke]

otolith said:

Too often it boils down to "the government should keep its nose out of my stuff, but everyone else is fair game". It's a bit like free speech, in that the real test of whether you believe in it is whether you are still in favour when you don't like the outcome.

I can see that applying generally, but only on PH from non-libertarians i.e. the new form of illiberal 'liberal' lefty. Most PHers who are libertarian in their post content tend to remain of the detest-what-you-say-but-defend-your-right-to-say-it type...or has that missed a point somewhere?!

[wolves_wanderer]

woowahwoo said:

Yes, yes. PH posters are a homogeneous group who are all very silly and prejudiced. Of course you rise above it, because you are exempt from any direct conflict of interest, and at all times you exercise the most earnest, objective view possible.

I'm struggling to see where I said or even suggested that.

[otolith]

turbobloke said:

otolith said:

Too often it boils down to "the government should keep its nose out of my stuff, but everyone else is fair game". It's a bit like free speech, in that the real test of whether you believe in it is whether you are still in favour when you don't like the outcome.

I can see that applying generally, but only on PH from non-libertarians i.e. the new form of illiberal 'liberal' lefty. Most PHers who are libertarian in their post content tend to remain of the detest-what-you-say-but-defend-your-right-to-say-it type...or has that missed a point somewhere?!

Yes, what I mean is that there are many people who think they are libertarian in outlook, but actually, when push comes to shove, are authoritarian hypocrites. Tobacco control threads are another good place to smoke them out.

[Hoofy]

Gecko1978 said:

Hoofy said:

Gecko1978 said:

VolvoT5 said:

If a can of coke or a mars bar was £3 they would become an occasional 'treat' again. Any money raised should be invested into the NHS and public health.

£3 Mars bar might also put a lot of small shops etc out of business not to mention the likes of Nestle and Mars and Cadburys in the UK. However you might be able to change habits for example Coke 1 can = £2 Diet Coke = 50p (thats about the cost of a can in a 6 pack). So people would switch to the sugar free option. I am not sure how it would work for chocolate etc but its a start.

Some expert who was more looking at the financial implications of 20p on a can of Coke (the real one) said people would just revert to the cheaper versions eg shop's own.

Thing is, sugar is in everything so most food (even "healthy food") (MOST!) would end up costing more. Even something like pasta and bread should have this tax as the carbs turn to sugar which leads to an insulin response, right?

Hence I suggest just tax on soft drinks etc. I suspect a lot of people do not know how much sugar is in one. Even I (who only drinks soft drinks and diet ones at that) did not know how much sugar was in a can of Monster (a drink I actually liked).

Also would we not have to add the tax to Beer due to the sugar content

Yes, beer, bread, cornflakes, pasta, rice, carrots, peaches.

I still think education is the best way forward. I want to be able to drink a coke once a week without having to pay an extra 20p for it.