Discussion
I would advocate a fat tax instead.
Someone who eats sugar, then does enough exercise to burn it off should not be penalised like someone who eats the same sugar then sits on their arse, develops diabetes and costs the NHS billions.
There should be a box in your tax return for height and weight.
Someone who eats sugar, then does enough exercise to burn it off should not be penalised like someone who eats the same sugar then sits on their arse, develops diabetes and costs the NHS billions.
There should be a box in your tax return for height and weight.
Eric Mc said:
Hoofy said:
It won't work. The tax on cigarettes is hardly putting off teenagers from smoking. Where the hell they get that kind of cash to blow on packets of cigarettes is beyond me.
So charging 7p extra a can won't mean SFA.
"Twinkie diet".
It is putting off adults and the number of people smoking is tiny compared to 40 years ago.So charging 7p extra a can won't mean SFA.
"Twinkie diet".
wolves_wanderer said:
I would like a 105% windfall tax on thick-tongued, mockney t
ts.
ts. Yet kids still take up smoking.
Tax on booze is massive yet we have a binge culture problem.
It is not the solution.
Ayahuasca said:
I would advocate a fat tax instead.
Someone who eats sugar, then does enough exercise to burn it off should not be penalised like someone who eats the same sugar then sits on their arse, develops diabetes and costs the NHS billions.
There should be a box in your tax return for height and weight.
That's probably more sensible.Someone who eats sugar, then does enough exercise to burn it off should not be penalised like someone who eats the same sugar then sits on their arse, develops diabetes and costs the NHS billions.
There should be a box in your tax return for height and weight.
*looks at his tennis-related injury* Ahem.
legzr1 said:
Hoofy said:
Certainly, £56 a chocolate bar would affect things. Why not just ban them outright?
No ban - the risk takers and top rate tax payers of this fine land are entitled to a treat.If only they could afford to partake I guess the taste would be all the sweeter.
Perhaps...
XM5ER said:
Seriously, did you not look at then then look up when the indoor smoking ban came into effect, seriously?
Taxation on smoking was used as a demonstration of inelastic pricing vs demand in O'level economics in 1986 FFS.
Ok, you're right, taxation has had very little effect on the numbers of teenage smokers and it's all down to a ban on 'indoor smoking'. Taxation on smoking was used as a demonstration of inelastic pricing vs demand in O'level economics in 1986 FFS.
Tell me, how many teenagers used to light up in licensed premises or in front of parents/family?
At work maybe?
Seriously...
Ayahuasca said:
I would advocate a fat tax instead.
Someone who eats sugar, then does enough exercise to burn it off should not be penalised like someone who eats the same sugar then sits on their arse, develops diabetes and costs the NHS billions.
There should be a box in your tax return for height and weight.
And of course a percentage discount for every KG one can bench press, can't go penalising the powerfully built, muscular folks Someone who eats sugar, then does enough exercise to burn it off should not be penalised like someone who eats the same sugar then sits on their arse, develops diabetes and costs the NHS billions.
There should be a box in your tax return for height and weight.
Hoofy said:
You can't really make that conclusion as we have so many other oppressive related laws (eg no smoking indoors) plus education (eg videos in schools showing tar-filled lungs) and various ad campaigns over the last few decades (eg that old woman sucking on an oxygen tank saying "don't smoke").
Yet kids still take up smoking.
Tax on booze is massive yet we have a binge culture problem.
It is not the solution.
Using that logic, a massive cut in tax on cigarettes would result in no chqmge to the numbers of kids starting to smoke - you really believe that? Yet kids still take up smoking.
Tax on booze is massive yet we have a binge culture problem.
It is not the solution.
Hoofy said:
You can't really make that conclusion as we have so many other oppressive related laws (eg no smoking indoors) plus education (eg videos in schools showing tar-filled lungs) and various ad campaigns over the last few decades (eg that old woman sucking on an oxygen tank saying "don't smoke").
Yet kids still take up smoking.
Tax on booze is massive yet we have a binge culture problem.
It is not the solution.
I think the war on sugar is beginning to take off. It's where the war on smoking was in about 1965. The war will be fought on a number of fronts - as it has been fought in regards to tobacco and alcohol. Taxation policy is one weapon that is used in such a war. It has its place.Yet kids still take up smoking.
Tax on booze is massive yet we have a binge culture problem.
It is not the solution.
hornetrider said:
Is such a tax of any tangible benefit?
In reality it would be a negative. The biggest issue facing this country over the next 50 years is an ageing population and an expectation that you can work (or claim benefits) for 40 years and then spend 30+ years in retirement claiming a state funded pension and state funded health care.Costs to treating obesity are tiny in comparison with supporting old people. We should be encouraging people to enjoy their life and die early. Every beer, cigarette or iced bun you eat is helping the finances of future generations. I'm playing my part and expect others to join me
legzr1 said:
Hoofy said:
You can't really make that conclusion as we have so many other oppressive related laws (eg no smoking indoors) plus education (eg videos in schools showing tar-filled lungs) and various ad campaigns over the last few decades (eg that old woman sucking on an oxygen tank saying "don't smoke").
Yet kids still take up smoking.
Tax on booze is massive yet we have a binge culture problem.
It is not the solution.
Using that logic, a massive cut in tax on cigarettes would result in no chqmge to the numbers of kids starting to smoke - you really believe that? Yet kids still take up smoking.
Tax on booze is massive yet we have a binge culture problem.
It is not the solution.
Eric Mc said:
Hoofy said:
You can't really make that conclusion as we have so many other oppressive related laws (eg no smoking indoors) plus education (eg videos in schools showing tar-filled lungs) and various ad campaigns over the last few decades (eg that old woman sucking on an oxygen tank saying "don't smoke").
Yet kids still take up smoking.
Tax on booze is massive yet we have a binge culture problem.
It is not the solution.
I think the war on sugar is beginning to take off. It's where the war on smoking was in about 1965. The war will be fought on a number of fronts - as it has been fought in regards to tobacco and alcohol. Taxation policy is one weapon that is used in such a war. It has its place.Yet kids still take up smoking.
Tax on booze is massive yet we have a binge culture problem.
It is not the solution.
PS Jamie has a book to sell.
chris watton said:
Is there now more sugar in more products than there was 30-40 years ago, or is it a case of not burning off what we consume, like most did 20-30-40 years ago?
Processed foods have more sugar, I think the structure of the economy has flipped in the last 40 years too - in 1975 I imagine we were still mainly an industrial economy, whereas now the vast majority of workers sit on their arse much of the day.simoid said:
chris watton said:
Is there now more sugar in more products than there was 30-40 years ago, or is it a case of not burning off what we consume, like most did 20-30-40 years ago?
Processed foods have more sugar, I think the structure of the economy has flipped in the last 40 years too - in 1975 I imagine we were still mainly an industrial economy, whereas now the vast majority of workers sit on their arse much of the day.Hoofy said:
simoid said:
chris watton said:
Is there now more sugar in more products than there was 30-40 years ago, or is it a case of not burning off what we consume, like most did 20-30-40 years ago?
Processed foods have more sugar, I think the structure of the economy has flipped in the last 40 years too - in 1975 I imagine we were still mainly an industrial economy, whereas now the vast majority of workers sit on their arse much of the day.Works for me, and I'm sat at a PC most of the day...
People moved about in the past because its what they did in their jobs. No many people don't - so they have to make extra time in the day to "move about". It's not always that easy for everybody for all sorts of reasons - some genuine, some spurious. Some people just aren't interested in physical activity. That was always the case - but their jobs gave them the physical exercise anyway.
We have to tackle the problems that exist now - not wish for a world that has gone.
We have to tackle the problems that exist now - not wish for a world that has gone.
I like Jamie's initiative and he is geuine.If adults want to eat a certain way be it plenty of sugar or fast food that is their choice.But please don't force your children to go the same way.They depend on adults to show them the way.Jamie has the right approach.I doubt if Cameron would ever listen,not in his interest.
chris watton said:
Is there now more sugar in more products than there was 30-40 years ago, or is it a case of not burning off what we consume, like most did 20-30-40 years ago?
Yes. the increasing popularity of "Fat-Free" and low-fat product has increased the amount of 'hidden' sugar in stuff. Basically, they took the fat out and replaced it with sugar in a lot of things in an attempt to keep a semblance of flavour.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff