Discussion
Type R Tom said:
I'm not a fan of taxing everything but I do think something needs to be done about those huge monster energy drinks, the amount of kids you see drinking them is unreal. Sometimes wonder if a can of lager wouldn't be better for them!
In my opinion these drinks will eventually either be banned outright or be restricted to adults only. I always cringe when I see kids drink these. Massive caffeine content. Massive sugar content and loaded with chemicals to boot.jjlynn27 said:
Hoofy said:
In moderation, it's fine. There are a lot articles online about diet drinks doing stuff like causing cancer but there's a lot of stuff that suggests it's nonsense.
The only thing diet coke makes me do is want to drink more diet coke and then want to visit the gents a lot.
Moderation = 2 cans a day. I know, I know The only thing diet coke makes me do is want to drink more diet coke and then want to visit the gents a lot.
It does look like chemtrails-lite type of thing. Is water still ok?
Water... filled with fluoride and nanobots?
272BHP said:
Type R Tom said:
I'm not a fan of taxing everything but I do think something needs to be done about those huge monster energy drinks, the amount of kids you see drinking them is unreal. Sometimes wonder if a can of lager wouldn't be better for them!
In my opinion these drinks will eventually either be banned outright or be restricted to adults only. I always cringe when I see kids drink these. Massive caffeine content. Massive sugar content and loaded with chemicals to boot.legzr1 said:
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'. 
Tell me, how many teenagers used to light up in licensed premises or in front of parents/family?
At work maybe?
Seriously...
It's there in the data you posted, read it and work it out for yourself. Fags have been prohibitively expensive since the nineties. Tell me, how many teenagers used to light up in licensed premises or in front of parents/family?
At work maybe?
Seriously...
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?
Eh? I probably missed it, but where was the evidence of causation linking the reduction in children smoking to cigarette tax?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?
Edited by johnfm on Saturday 24th October 10:23
Edited by johnfm on Saturday 24th October 10:24
technodup said:
roachcoach said:
Whatever happened to personal responsibility?
This. Charge fat f
kers to use the NHS. Charge them for their diabetes pills and their operations. That way the problem folk pay and the rest of us aren't punished with them.That would maybe make a few more folk think about that extra poke of crisps than another 10p on the price.
Then we'd need to start questioning the lifestyle choices of all those attending God treatment.
Why should I fund somebody's sporting injury treatment?
Or where they fallen off a ladder doing DIY?
I don't like intrusive govt or excessive taxation.
But I like consistency.
If you tax the st out of petrol and cigarettes to modify behaviour I can't see how they won't tax sugar.
I don't see any downside at all - other than it is another area where the sensible majority would suffer due to the minority who lack self control.
£3 can of coke would be fine for me - but you'd then create the 'council estate grey market' for Coke and sweets!!
And then govt would waste the tax revenue on some other anti CO2 initiative.
But I like consistency.
If you tax the s
t out of petrol and cigarettes to modify behaviour I can't see how they won't tax sugar. I don't see any downside at all - other than it is another area where the sensible majority would suffer due to the minority who lack self control.
£3 can of coke would be fine for me - but you'd then create the 'council estate grey market' for Coke and sweets!!
And then govt would waste the tax revenue on some other anti CO2 initiative.
hornetrider said:
Really?!
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/oct/22/ja...
Is (say) a 20% levy on sugar based products really going to stop or discourage people buying them? I don't think so. They'll just face higher shopping bills.
A bag of sugar is a quid in the shops. Frankly I wouldn't bat an eyelid if it was £2, it's just a kitchen staple that gets put in the trolley along with everything else.
Is such a tax workable or of any tangible benefit?
I guess I'm in a minority here, because I would support a tax on sugar. I think it needs to become expensive and socially unacceptable to pump kids full of junk food. There is too much sugar in virtually all processed foods which adds nothing nutritionally bar 'empty' calories. I also think there needs to be stronger rules on how sugar in food is labelled - often it is disguised as glucose, fructose, corn syrup, etc. http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/oct/22/ja...
Is (say) a 20% levy on sugar based products really going to stop or discourage people buying them? I don't think so. They'll just face higher shopping bills.
A bag of sugar is a quid in the shops. Frankly I wouldn't bat an eyelid if it was £2, it's just a kitchen staple that gets put in the trolley along with everything else.
Is such a tax workable or of any tangible benefit?
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.
Hoofy said:
272BHP said:
Type R Tom said:
I'm not a fan of taxing everything but I do think something needs to be done about those huge monster energy drinks, the amount of kids you see drinking them is unreal. Sometimes wonder if a can of lager wouldn't be better for them!
In my opinion these drinks will eventually either be banned outright or be restricted to adults only. I always cringe when I see kids drink these. Massive caffeine content. Massive sugar content and loaded with chemicals to boot.Don't want the drinks banned, though; cherry flavour Relentless is delicious!
johnfm said:
technodup said:
roachcoach said:
Whatever happened to personal responsibility?
This. Charge fat fkers to use the NHS. Charge them for their diabetes pills and their operations. That way the problem folk pay and the rest of us aren't punished with them.That would maybe make a few more folk think about that extra poke of crisps than another 10p on the price.
Then we'd need to start questioning the lifestyle choices of all those attending God treatment.
Why should I fund somebody's sporting injury treatment?
Or where they fallen off a ladder doing DIY?
Jonny_ said:
Hoofy said:
272BHP said:
Type R Tom said:
I'm not a fan of taxing everything but I do think something needs to be done about those huge monster energy drinks, the amount of kids you see drinking them is unreal. Sometimes wonder if a can of lager wouldn't be better for them!
In my opinion these drinks will eventually either be banned outright or be restricted to adults only. I always cringe when I see kids drink these. Massive caffeine content. Massive sugar content and loaded with chemicals to boot.Don't want the drinks banned, though; cherry flavour Relentless is delicious!
Hoofy said:
johnfm said:
technodup said:
roachcoach said:
Whatever happened to personal responsibility?
This. Charge fat fkers to use the NHS. Charge them for their diabetes pills and their operations. That way the problem folk pay and the rest of us aren't punished with them.That would maybe make a few more folk think about that extra poke of crisps than another 10p on the price.
Then we'd need to start questioning the lifestyle choices of all those attending God treatment.
Why should I fund somebody's sporting injury treatment?
Or where they fallen off a ladder doing DIY?
I am pro-insurance, but the US model doesn't work really. Too much corrupt profiteering pushing up premiums.
johnfm said:
Agree - except where the parent's choices start to negatively impact the rest of society.
Sadly, government often has to step in because of the feckless minority.
When around a third of children are either overweight or obese I don't think you can blame the issue on a 'feckless minority'. Of course personal choice / parental responsibility come into it but the problem is widespread and does require government level intervention to address the causes. Sadly, government often has to step in because of the feckless minority.
Edited by VolvoT5 on Saturday 24th October 12:38
So. It is just the sugar in fizzy drinks that is the reason that the feckless have obese kids?
Nothing to do with the endless chain of massively processed ready meals prepared by lazy parents, or fat laden burgers, chips, pizza and takeaways bought in for them to fuel themselves with?
Nothing to do with the sedentary lifestyle promoted by today's electronic entertainment age, and lazy parents being part of it and providing no encouragement for kids to undertake healthy activities?
How much improvement will a Jamie tax on fizzy drinks actually have on kids obesity? Surely the quantity of excessive fizzy drinks necessary to be the sole contributory factor would show in other symptoms, like a mouthful of missing and rotted teeth?
Some say he has a book out. I am inclined to agree, but also would suggest that he has not really thought this through.
He may as well have said "fine parents with fat kids annually until their kids are thin again", which would probably be just as (un)likely to improve the situation. He loves the spotlight given by his half baked ideas (flooded in olive oil of course).
Nothing to do with the endless chain of massively processed ready meals prepared by lazy parents, or fat laden burgers, chips, pizza and takeaways bought in for them to fuel themselves with?
Nothing to do with the sedentary lifestyle promoted by today's electronic entertainment age, and lazy parents being part of it and providing no encouragement for kids to undertake healthy activities?
How much improvement will a Jamie tax on fizzy drinks actually have on kids obesity? Surely the quantity of excessive fizzy drinks necessary to be the sole contributory factor would show in other symptoms, like a mouthful of missing and rotted teeth?
Some say he has a book out. I am inclined to agree, but also would suggest that he has not really thought this through.
He may as well have said "fine parents with fat kids annually until their kids are thin again", which would probably be just as (un)likely to improve the situation. He loves the spotlight given by his half baked ideas (flooded in olive oil of course).
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff