Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Sugar tax in next month's Budget

Options
12467

Comments

  • Options
    #92
    M cebee
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,431 ✭✭✭M cebee


    and new mcdonalds outlets are welcomed by government
    http://www.fingal-independent.ie/news/do-you-want-jobs-with-that-3289313.html
    how does that square up with this sugar tax


  • Options
    #93
    Run_to_da_hills
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,009 ✭✭✭✭Run_to_da_hills


    Very stupid and short sighted move by the Government which is nothing more than a health issue front and revenue scam.

    Jacking up the price of soft drinks will only encourage more to take up alcohol and highly toxic sugar replacement soft drinks.


  • Options
    #94
    StudentDad
    Registered Users Posts: 1,457 ✭✭✭StudentDad


    Amalia Rotten Wildcat wrote: »

    Why shouldn't aspartame be in the food chain? Any "evidence" saying its dangerous at the levels we consume it at have been rubbished.

    The most way this will effect me is make my nights out even more expensive as the only time I really consume non-diet soft drinks anymore is for mixers with drinks. For this reason alone I'm against it.

    Yeah and for years reports that the world was round were rubbished too.

    SD


  • Options
    #95
    gobnaitolunacy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,073 ✭✭✭gobnaitolunacy


    IvySlayer wrote: »
    I predicted this :P

    Good onya, Nostradamus.


  • Options
    #96
    snubbleste
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 31,117 ✭✭✭✭snubbleste


    Actually SocialJusticeIreland put forward the proposal on 1 October.
    A 2.0% tax on salt, alcohol, sugar and trans fats would yield €15m while a tax of 0.33% of 1 cent on each text message sent through mobile phones would yield €40m in revenue, according to SJI.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #97
    force eleven
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,039 ✭✭✭force eleven


    Food nazis. If people make that choice and eat the crap so be it. Its ironic how the governement will welcome fast food jobs and then slap a tax on thos who eat it. Just plain silly.


  • Options
    #98
    rubberdiddies
    Closed Accounts Posts: 717 ✭✭✭rubberdiddies


    my feeling on this, like with anything to do with the budget is to leak the info in advance and sound out the public reaction. then just go ahead and do the opposite of what the public want!

    IMO a sugar tax is a ridiculous idea.
    Soft drinks account for about 2% of my diet (and I'm being generous with that figure). this means that 98% of my calories don't come from sugary soft drinks. I'm sure I'm not untypical of the average person here.

    obesity needs to be controlled through education, diet and exercise, not by slapping a tax on a foodstuff that makes up such a small percentage of a persons diet.

    there is a chance that a tax such as this will cost jobs, in both the manufacturing and retail industries. In theory for this to happen, people will have to reduce their intake of sugary drinks, ie: doing exactly what the government wants, however for the reason above, I don't feel this will reduce obesity in any way.

    and as for the proposal to tax text messages, which has been ongoing for years now, you really gotta laugh! Text message volumes are decreasing anyway with the use of IM, imessage etc and most people who do use text, have it included as part of a bundle, thus not directly paying for it anyway.


  • Options
    #99
    force eleven
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,039 ✭✭✭force eleven


    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-20280863

    Danes abolishing it....:D


  • Options
    #100
    SafeSurfer
    Registered Users Posts: 6,421 ✭✭✭SafeSurfer


    A sugar tax proposed by a government that refused to introduce a financial transaction tax on an industry that has cost us €73 billion.

    Its the same old story tax the poor to pay for the rich.

    Multo autem ad rem magis pertinet quallis tibi vide aris quam allis



  • Options
    #101
    davet82
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,753 ✭✭✭davet82


    no more fanta on my coco pops in the morning then :(


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #102
    c_man
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,436 ✭✭✭c_man


    How about a tax on parents if their kid is a lard-arse?


  • Options
    #103
    PickledLime
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,061 ✭✭✭PickledLime


    Probably the first and last time I'll ever say this... I don't care as I'm diabetic :pac:


  • Options
    #104
    Sir Digby Chicken Caesar
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 23,556 ✭✭✭✭Sir Digby Chicken Caesar


    how about stop subsidising medical care for self inflicted diseases and conditions?

    if fatties wanna fat and smokers wanna smoke, let them but they can pay for their own care and everyone else can enjoy low-tax consumables.


  • Options
    #105
    Zillah
    Registered Users Posts: 17,371 ✭✭✭✭Zillah


    StudentDad wrote: »
    Whether or not you choose to class it as plastic or not is moot. The fact remains that aspartame and its ilk should not be in the food chain.

    I'll take naturally occurring sugars over synthetic crap that does god knows what to my body thanks.

    SD
    StudentDad wrote: »
    Yeah and for years reports that the world was round were rubbished too.

    SD


    Ok...
    A) There is nothing natural about consuming large amounts of refined sugar. In nature the only time we'd ever get such concentrated sugar is honey, which would be quite rare. Our bodies can't process it properly.
    b) Aspartame has been shown to be perfectly safe at the levels we consume it.
    C) The world being round was never debunked, it was, in fact, science that proved it to be the case.
    D) Sugar is well established as being really really bad for the body. It causes insulin resistance, excessive calorie consumption and fat production, and is bad for the liver, especially fructose, which is 50% of corn syrup and table sugar.
    E) You haven't a clue what you are talking about and your attitude screams desperately of someone that needs to read a real book instead of listening to your hairdresser or whatever half-baked source you've been listening to.


  • Options
    #106
    dizzywizlw
    Closed Accounts Posts: 584 ✭✭✭dizzywizlw


    SafeSurfer wrote: »
    A sugar tax proposed by a government that refused to introduce a financial transaction tax on an industry that has cost us €73 billion.

    Its the same old story tax the poor to pay for the rich.

    What is this, America?

    You can live quite cheaply on fresh fruit and veg and cheap healthy food,

    try chickpeas, lentils, rice etc.

    Bloody government propping up the banks and not useful things like TK


  • Options
    #107
    Barna77
    Registered Users Posts: 3,271 ✭✭✭Barna77


    recyclebin wrote: »
    Will this mean an end to the sugar daddy?
    James Reilly sugar daddy... :eek:
    Cienciano wrote: »
    So the prices of softdrinks in pubs will now be 3 times the price of beer.
    They are nearly as expensive anyway... :mad:


  • Options
    #108
    PickledLime
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,061 ✭✭✭PickledLime


    Sir Digby Chicken Caesar wrote: »
    how about stop subsidising medical care for self inflicted diseases and conditions?

    if fatties wanna fat and smokers wanna smoke, let them but they can pay for their own care and everyone else can enjoy low-tax consumables.

    I agree with the smoking bit (but we all know the government makes more money out of taxing fags than is spent on medical care anyway), but 'fatties' can often be so because of an underlying illness, not necessarily because of diet.

    And I'll also assume that the 'fatties' pay tax like the rest of us, so they're entitled to their health care just like you are.


  • Options
    #109
    wideangle
    Registered Users Posts: 925 ✭✭✭wideangle


    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2NhUFWQV_yU


  • Options
    #110
    Sir Digby Chicken Caesar
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 23,556 ✭✭✭✭Sir Digby Chicken Caesar


    PickledLime wrote: »
    I agree with the smoking bit (but we all know the government makes more money out of taxing fags than is spent on medical care anyway), but 'fatties' can often be so because of an underlying illness, not necessarily because of diet.

    And I'll also assume that the 'fatties' pay tax like the rest of us, so they're entitled to their health care just like you are.

    fatties can sometimes be fat because of an underlying illness but most of the time it's because we're just lazy, eat **** and eat too much ****.


  • Options
    #111
    steddyeddy
    Registered Users Posts: 27,564 ✭✭✭✭steddyeddy


    Theres possiblity of legal issues here. How are the government defining a sugar? As a sweetend food or as sucrose a disaccharide of fructose and glucose?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #112
    fishy fishy
    Registered Users Posts: 3,456 ✭✭✭fishy fishy


    Seaneh wrote: »
    How the hell can it store something with no claories as fat?

    You do realise that you haven't a clue what you are taking about, don't you?

    Who told you that nonsense? Slap them, immediately.

    counting calories is ridiculous.

    You need to check the CARBS - look at any nutritional value

    forget the calorie number

    look at the

    Carbohydrate
    (of which Sugars)

    line.

    surprised you don't know that seaneh, :o


  • Options
    #113
    RainMaker
    Closed Accounts Posts: 459 ✭✭RainMaker


    steddyeddy wrote: »
    Theres possiblity of legal issues here. How are the government defining a sugar? As a sweetend food or as sucrose a disaccharide of fructose and glucose?

    We will have to wait on the results of a report commissioned by an independent panel of vested interests. They will probably decide it only applies to fruit as applying a tax to manufactured products might put jobs at risk!


  • Options
    #114
    steddyeddy
    Registered Users Posts: 27,564 ✭✭✭✭steddyeddy


    RainMaker wrote: »
    We will have to wait on the results of a report commissioned by an independent panel of vested interests. They will probably decide it only applies to fruit as applying a tax to manufactured products might put jobs at risk!

    Well thats the possibility. A lot of these food companies are very powerful lobbyists.


  • Options
    #115
    Sir Digby Chicken Caesar
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 23,556 ✭✭✭✭Sir Digby Chicken Caesar


    fishy fishy wrote: »
    counting calories is ridiculous.

    You need to check the CARBS - look at any nutritional value

    forget the calorie number

    look at the

    Carbohydrate
    (of which Sugars)

    line.

    surprised you don't know that seaneh, :o


    congrats. that's the most wrong post i've seen on boards this month. early days yet of course but I don't think it'll be beat


  • Options
    #116
    1ZRed
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,293 ✭✭✭1ZRed


    Hah what a joke. All the more incentive for me to get off sugar and try to be a bit healthier for fitness I suppose.


  • Options
    #117
    fishy fishy
    Registered Users Posts: 3,456 ✭✭✭fishy fishy


    Sir Digby Chicken Caesar wrote: »
    congrats. that's the most wrong post i've seen on boards this month. early days yet of course but I don't think it'll be beat

    if you educate yourself a bit better you will realise that its a fact :rolleyes:


  • Options
    #118
    Greyian
    Registered Users Posts: 964 ✭✭✭Greyian


    fishy fishy wrote: »
    if you educate yourself a bit better you will realise that its a fact :rolleyes:

    Please stop digging.

    There are calories in carbohydrates (which means there are calories in sugar). If a drink (or food) contains no calories, it therefore cannot have any sugars (or proteins or fats for that matter). Now, diet drinks do have some calories, but really, really miniscule amounts. The artificial sweeteners do not contain calories. They do not have the same effect as sugar has (from a calorific standpoint, obviously they do sweeten the taste of the beverage as "normal" sugar does).


  • Options
    #119
    fishy fishy
    Registered Users Posts: 3,456 ✭✭✭fishy fishy


    Sir Digby Chicken Caesar wrote: »
    fatties can sometimes be fat because of an underlying illness but most of the time it's because we're just lazy, eat **** and eat too much ****.

    sir dig by, don't fret

    take my advice on my post above, you will be sorted in no time.


  • Options
    #120
    charlemont
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,725 ✭✭✭charlemont


    Run_to_da_hills wrote: »
    Very stupid and short sighted move by the Government which is nothing more than a health issue front and revenue scam.

    Jacking up the price of soft drinks will only encourage more to take up alcohol and highly toxic sugar replacement soft drinks.



    That's probably the plan.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #121
    steddyeddy
    Registered Users Posts: 27,564 ✭✭✭✭steddyeddy


    All these "self inflicted conidtions" are more or less likely in certain people because of genetic or epigenetic factors. It's not as black and white as smokers, drinkers and gluttons bring it all on themselves.


Advertisement