Taxing sugar

whiteonion

I have been hanging out on boards for a bit but now I decided to get myself an account and post threads.

I think we should put punitive taxes on sugar for health reasons. Sugar promotes bad teeth, obesity, diabetes(with all associated problems that comes with this illness).

Human beings don't need a single gram of sugar and because it is so unhealthy it should be heavily taxed. It is absurd that good food like meat and veg should be expensive while soft drinks and candy bars cost next to nothing.

Owen

Stupid idea for 2 reasons. One - taxing things has never stopped people taking them to excess, examples being alcohol, cigarettes, plastic bags ... and on and on and on. Two - why should people who don't have dental/obesity/diabetes problems pay a surcharge for those that do as a result of potential sugar related problems?

I'm tired of people constantly telling me what's good and bad for me. I'll make my own decisions thanks.

whiteonion

PaintDoctor wrote: »

Stupid idea for 2 reasons. One - taxing things has never stopped people taking them to excess, examples being alcohol, cigarettes, plastic bags ... and on and on and on. Two - why should people who don't have dental/obesity/diabetes problems pay a surcharge for those that do as a result of potential sugar related problems?

I'm tired of people constantly telling me what's good and bad for me. I'll make my own decisions thanks.

People will consume less sugar if they are unable to afford it. We already have taxes on ciggs and alcohol, I think sugar is almost as dangerous as these products.

This tax could be used to fund tax cuts for healthier food such as locally produced meat rich in protein and natural fats.

Owen

whiteonion wrote: »

People will consume less sugar if they are unable to afford it.

You really haven't thought this through at alll. Sugar is Tesco is aobut €1.20 a bag. Even if they taxed it at 100%, it would be €2.40 a bag, which lasts at least a fortnight in our house - hardly off putting.

BTW - Cigarettes are nearly 3 times what they were when I was a kid as a result of taxes. I don't smoke, but my sister does, and she smokes more now than she did then. Kinda makes your argument moot.

Either which way, bugger off. I've enough taxes in my life without having to pay for the stupidity of people who don't know when to stop eating, or how to choose the right food.

PaintDoctor

PaintDoctor wrote: »

You really haven't thought this through at alll. Sugar is Tesco is aobut €1.20 a bag. Even if they taxed it at 100%, it would be €2.40 a bag, which lasts at least a fortnight in our house - hardly off putting.
.

I had to laugh, our sugar lasts nearly a year, except for baking
Go through honey though

whiteonion

PaintDoctor wrote: »

You really haven't thought this through at alll. Sugar is Tesco is aobut €1.20 a bag. Even if they taxed it at 100%, it would be €2.40 a bag, which lasts at least a fortnight in our house - hardly off putting.

BTW - Cigarettes are nearly 3 times what they were when I was a kid as a result of taxes. I don't smoke, but my sister does, and she smokes more now than she did then. Kinda makes your argument moot.

Either which way, bugger off. I've enough taxes in my life without having to pay for the stupidity of people who don't know when to stop eating, or how to choose the right food.

I said that we should have PUNITIVE taxes, perhaps €8 per bag.

sligopark

whiteonion wrote: »

I have been hanging out on boards for a bit but now I decided to get myself an account and post threads.

and create a thread about taxing sugar?

whiteonion

sligopark wrote: »

and create a thread about taxing sugar?

Public health issues is something that I take a great interest in.

Owen

whiteonion wrote: »

I said that we should have PUNITIVE taxes, perhaps €8 per bag.

Even if it's 20 Euro a bag, people will still buy it. BTW, you talk about using the money to offset taxes on meat and other 'healthy' products. What taxes do you think are on meat?

Yeah, about a fornight to a month here. We drink a lot of tea! Mmmmm. Early Grey. Think I''ll go get an unhealthy cup now.

whiteonion

PaintDoctor wrote: »

Even if it's 20 Euro a bag, people will still buy it. BTW, you talk about using the money to offset taxes on meat and other 'healthy' products. What taxes do you think are on meat?

Yeah, about a fornight to a month here. We drink a lot of tea! Mmmmm. Early Grey. Think I''ll go get an unhealthy cup now.

The taxes on meat and veg are VAT I suppose. We could reduce the taxes on these and help promote local meat produce.

Owen

So we increase Sugar to 8 Euro a bag, and drop the price of meat by 21.5% - and you genuinely think that's going to sort out the health of people?

As opposed to say ... doing something realistic like nutrional education in school? Or something I've suggested over the years - reducing the size and placement of sweet counters? Only Ireland and the UK have huge sweet counters, you won't see them on the continent. If they were reduced down to a section in the store, our Obesity and Health problems would dilute down to a manageable size over a a decade, and not one red cent would have to be taxed in order to do it.

whiteonion

PaintDoctor wrote: »

So we increase Sugar to 8 Euro a bag, and drop the price of meat by 21.5% - and you genuinely think that's going to sort out the health of people?

As opposed to say ... doing something realistic like nutrional education in school? Or something I've suggested over the years - reducing the size and placement of sweet counters? Only Ireland and the UK have huge sweet counters, you won't see them on the continent. If they were reduced down to a section in the store, our Obesity and Health problems would dilute down to a manageable size over a a decade, and not one red cent would have to be taxed in order to do it.

You don't want to pay higher taxes but you think it's ok to tell shopkeepers how they should stock up their shelves?

Owen

Seems like a better overall solution - there's already rules about how they sell alcohol and hours of sale, so there's a premise for it.

Taxing something bad for humanity has never ever EVER reduced the number of people partaking in it. It's a flawed plan, and only punishes everyone - offenders, and people who aren't offenders alike.

And that's what's wrong with this country. People thinking that they can speak for the the whole country and turning an already miserable hell hole into a nanny state miserable corrupt hell hole.

whiteonion

PaintDoctor wrote: »

Seems like a better overall solution - there's already rules about how they sell alcohol and hours of sale, so there's a premise for it.

Taxing something bad for humanity has never ever EVER reduced the number of people partaking in it. It's a flawed plan, and only punishes everyone - offenders, and people who aren't offenders alike.

And that's what's wrong with this country. People thinking that they can speak for the the whole country and turning an already miserable hell hole into a nanny state miserable corrupt hell hole.

Would you prefer living i a country where they are allowed to market Redbull as a vitamin drink and fooling gullible people into thinking it's healthy?

Sierra Oscar

You would be driving up the costs of basic foodstuffs. Sugar is a basic ingredient in a lot of foodstuffs . . . unlike cigarettes or alcohol.

Owen

If someone's stupid enough to drink RedBull thinking it's a vitamin drink, then they deserve to be removed from the gene pool. Natural selection at its best.

This debate's going nowhere, because you're incapable of seeing the flaws in your argument. A good discussion would be for you to present a suggestion, flaws be suggested, you refine the suggestion, and it comes to a better overall plan and conclusion. However - seeing as you're steadfast in your ridiculous and unworkable plan, there's little point in discussing it with you anymore.

Needless to say, I think it's safe to say that Sugar will never be taxed in Ireland (Or any other rational country) no matter how much you think you know whats best for the population.

whiteonion

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

You would be driving up the costs of basic foodstuffs. Sugar is a basic ingredient in a lot of foodstuffs . . . unlike cigarettes or alcohol.

You don't need to add sugar in basic foodstuffs.
The obesity epidemic in the United States can be blamed on the High Fructose Corn Syrup which is added into a very wide variety of staple foods, sauces, drinks etc.

whiteonion

PaintDoctor wrote: »

If someone's stupid enough to drink RedBull thinking it's a vitamin drink, then they deserve to be removed from the gene pool. Natural selection at its best.

This debate's going nowhere, because you're incapable of seeing the flaws in your argument. A good discussion would be for you to present a suggestion, flaws be suggested, you refine the suggestion, and it comes to a better overall plan and conclusion. However - seeing as you're steadfast in your ridiculous and unworkable plan, there's little point in discussing it with you anymore.

Needless to say, I think it's safe to say that Sugar will never be taxed in Ireland (Or any other rational country) no matter how much you think you know whats best for the population.

How are people in third world countries supposed to know about proper nutrition when they are barely able to read? This example I mentioned earlier is something I have seen with my own eyes in a poor country.

Owen

whiteonion wrote: »

You don't need to add sugar in basic foodstuffs.
The obesity epidemic in the United States can be blamed on the High Fructose Corn Syrup which is added into a very wide variety of staple foods, sauces, drinks etc.

No, the obesity epidemic in the US is caused by people who eat too much. Don't you get that point? You can't blame sugar for people being fat. People get fat by eating incorrectly. People in the Middle Ages got fat by eating too much meat and vegetables - seen a photo of Henry the eighth? They didn't have processed food then either.

Gluttony is the real target you should be aiming for - not sugar. Education is the cure - not taxes.

slimjimmc

whiteonion wrote: »

The taxes on meat and veg are VAT I suppose. We could reduce the taxes on these and help promote local meat produce.

How do you propose to reduce something from zero, give cash back?

http://www.revenue.ie/en/tax/vat/leaflets/food-and-drink.html

1 General

1.1 This Information Leaflet sets out the rates of VAT on supplies of food and drink.

1.2 ]Most food and drink sold by retail shops is chargeable to VAT at the zero-rate. This includes most basic foodstuffs, for example, bread, butter, tea, sugar, meat, milk, vegetables etc. Certain items of food and drink are specifically excluded from the scope of the zero-rate. These are taxable at the standard and reduced rates of VAT. Food liable at the reduced rate includes flour or egg based bakery products e.g. cakes, crackers, certain wafers and biscuits. Food and drink liable at the standard rate includes sweets, chocolates, confectionery, crisps, ice-cream and soft drinks.

In addition food and drink liable at the standard rate includes:-

frozen desserts, frozen yogurts and similar frozen products, and prepared mixes and powders for making any such product or similar products;
uncooked confectionery;
savoury snack products made from cereal or grain, fried bread segments, pork scratchings, and similar products and
soft drinks and alcohol.

Sugar, even refined, is not unhealthy, excessive consumption is but the same can be said of any food, try eating 50 apples a day and see how your body reacts.

Sugar is only one factor in the cause of obesity, which is primarily due to not burning off the energy consumed (from all food sources). Inadequate exercise is a major contributor to obesity, should we apply punitive taxes to anything that assists in a sedentary lifestyle ,e.g. cars, sofa, tv, internet access or on all high energy foods such as take-aways?

I hope you do realise that there are many other 'healthy foods' which contain high levels of sugar which if taken to excess can contribute to health problems. Take a look at how much sugar naturally occurs in fruit juices.

whiteonion

PaintDoctor wrote: »

No, the obesity epidemic in the US is caused by people who eat too much. Don't you get that point? You can't blame sugar for people being fat. People get fat by eating incorrectly. People in the Middle Ages got fat by eating too much meat and vegetables - seen a photo of Henry the eighth? They didn't have processed food then either.

Gluttony is the real target you should be aiming for - not sugar. Education is the cure - not taxes.

Have you ever tried overeating on a meat only diet. To overeat on a meat only diet requires alot of willpower. A diet rich in sugar makes you more hungry. There is no reason for us to eat any sugar whatsoever. If they banned processed sugars all together it would be great for public health.

whiteonion

slimjimmc wrote: »

How do you propose to reduce something from zero, give cash back?

http://www.revenue.ie/en/tax/vat/leaflets/food-and-drink.html



Sugar, even refined, is not unhealthy, excessive consumption is but the same can be said of any food, try eating 50 apples a day and see how your body reacts.

Sugar is only one factor in the cause of obesity, which is primarily due to not burning off the energy consumed (from all food sources). Inadequate exercise is a major contributor to obesity, should we apply punitive taxes to anything that assists in a sedentary lifestyle ,e.g. cars, sofa, tv, internet access or on all high energy foods such as take-aways?

I hope you do realise that there are many other 'healthy foods' which contain high levels of sugar which if taken to excess can contribute to health problems. Take a look at how much sugar naturally occurs in fruit juices.

This tax would apply to fruit juice and fruit as well. Fruit is not very healthy, anyone who ever went to the dentist knows this.

starbelgrade

Sugar is the common name for sucrose and it's obvious that too much sucrose is bad for you.

But too much of anything is bad for you. You can't legislate for what people consume & it never works when you try to do so. You can only educate & let people decide.

On top of that, sucrose is a necessary part of our diet, but only in the right forms & the right amounts. There are many other sugars that are both necessary and healthy.

whiteonion

starbelgrade wrote: »

Sugar is the common name for sucrose and it's obvious that too much sucrose is bad for you.

But too much of anything is bad for you. You can't legislate for what people consume & it never works when you try to do so. You can only educate & let people decide.

On top of that, sucrose is a necessary part of our diet, but only in the right forms & the right amounts. There are many other sugars that are both necessary and healthy.

Sugar is not necessary. Starch is not necessary. The body needs protein and fat, it does not need a single gram of carbohydrates.

cynder

Sugar is a life saver for my daughter, she is diabetic and needs sugar (or something that contains sugar) to bring her blood sugar levels up so she wont go into a coma.


Sugar does not cause diabetes........

Diabetics need sugar.

Our bodies needs sugar for engergy.

Even fruit has sugar (fructose) and fruit containing acid (lemons, lime, oranges) are also bad for enamel on teeth. (my daughter got chronic tooth decay at 2 years of age and she was still being breast fed, the dentist would not allow her to have fruit on its own as it was damaging her teeth.

slimjimmc

whiteonion wrote: »

This tax would apply to fruit juice and fruit as well. Fruit is not very healthy, anyone who ever went to the dentist knows this.

Fruit is not very healthy?????? The body needs a lot more than protein and fat*, it needs various types of sugar, minerals and anti-oxidants.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/health/treatments/healthy_living/nutrition/healthy_fruitveg.shtml

* some fats, i.e. saturated fat & trans fat, are big contributors to high cholesterol which is not particularly healthy.

whiteonion

If you don't want to introduce a tax on sugar can we at least agree that people who recieve unemployment assistance and such things should not be allowed to spend tax payers money on unhealthy products?

We can introduce a system of food stamps where all unhealthy products are excluded and cannot be bought with food stamps.

Bottle_of_Smoke

no taxing sugar or fat would be unfair on sportspeople who need calories to build muscle.

Also weight gain/obesity is often genetic so taxing sugar for everyone would make little difference to the overall problem.

We need to get through to those who are genetically prone to weight gain that the onus is on them to make more effort with their diets and exercise.

slimjimmc

whiteonion wrote: »

If you don't want to introduce a tax on sugar can we at least agree that people who recieve unemployment assistance and such things should not be allowed to spend tax payers money on unhealthy products?

We can introduce a system of food stamps where all unhealthy products are excluded and cannot be bought with food stamps.

So you want people who receive unemployment assistance to buy only high protein and fatty foods and ban them from buying anything healthy that contains sugar such as fruit and certain processed foods?

And you want control what people eat using food stamps?

Ever hear of a black market?

I hope you won't be offended when I say I really do think your notions are daft.

mikemac

whiteonion wrote: »

Have you ever tried overeating on a meat only diet. To overeat on a meat only diet requires alot of willpower.

Sounds like a one way trip to gout if it's nothing but red meat

Byron85

whiteonion wrote: »

If you don't want to introduce a tax on sugar can we at least agree that people who recieve unemployment assistance and such things should not be allowed to spend tax payers money on unhealthy products?

We can introduce a system of food stamps where all unhealthy products are excluded and cannot be bought with food stamps.

The most ridiculous thing i've read on here in a while and that says something. So what next? People on unemployment assistance can only vote for the government in power at the time they're receiving unemployment assistance?? You are free to do as we tell you.

As mentioned, gluttony and eating the wrong things are large part of the problem. People aren't educated enough in proper diet and I say that as someone who eats generally what he wants but the difference being I know what i'm eating.

On the other hand, the food companies, especially in the U.S, also have a lot to answer for. Loading everything up with sugar, including milk, is absurd. Even the size of the food portions you get over there are monstrous compared to Europe in general.

At the end of the day it's down to personal choice. Now if you'll excuse me, i've got a Cadbury's Creme Egg with my name all over it.

bcmf

How about instead of taxing the living sh1te outta everything we re-open the sugar beet factories that were closed.
The we get some jobs, both direct and indirect, and start to stimulate local communites.

JOSman

Why don't we just tax everything? Another problem solved.

bcmf

we do.

chucken1

whiteonion wrote: »

If you don't want to introduce a tax on sugar can we at least agree that people who recieve unemployment assistance and such things should not be allowed to spend tax payers money on unhealthy products?

We can introduce a system of food stamps where all unhealthy products are excluded and cannot be bought with food stamps.

What kind of absolute twaddle is that?

the groutch

it should be a tax on anything with more than 10% saturated fat

ei.sdraob

I propose removing tax credits from anyone who proposes more taxes.

the groutch

I propose double-taxing anyone who moans about taxes

whiteonion

the groutch wrote: »

it should be a tax on anything with more than 10% saturated fat

Saturated fat is good for you. Why should we tax saturated fat?
Now industrial made TRANSFATS are bad.

Bottle_of_Smoke

the groutch wrote: »

it should be a tax on anything with more than 10% saturated fat

nah there's healthy stuff like nuts that would affect

tenchi-fan

If sugar is taxed, it will drive up prices for people or encourage manufacturers to use more artificial sweetners and emulsifiers. yum yum

Bottle_of_Smoke

tenchi-fan wrote: »

If sugar is taxed, it will drive up prices for people or encourage manufacturers to use more artificial sweetners and emulsifiers. yum yum

Yes. And it will work really well because as we all know everyone who drinks diet coke is slim

deise go deo

whiteonion wrote: »

Would you prefer living i a country where they are allowed to market Redbull as a vitamin drink and fooling gullible people into thinking it's healthy?

No one thinks red bull is healthy, If they do then sugar is the least of their problems.

later12

No offence to the OP at all, but this seems like the sort of taxation solution a dietician would probably come up with.

I would tentatively suggest that it would be useless from a health point of view, since most of the sugar that people consume is probably stealth sugar in manufactured food products. And from a taxation point of view it wouldn't be much of a revenue boost. However it could contribute to a rise in inflation.

johngalway

bcmf wrote: »

How about instead of taxing the living sh1te outta everything we re-open the sugar beet factories that were closed.
The we get some jobs, both direct and indirect, and start to stimulate local communites.

Yep, just the point I was going to make!

RichieC

Ah how I love nanny state advocates! :pac:

pajor

After reading through this thread, I feel like I'm going to soon expire.

Just back form tesco having bought an 89c bag of sugar

Absurdum

Since my other post here was deleted by someone who obviously has no sense of humour and/or who completely missed the point, banning/mega-taxation of sugar or any everyday product creates a vacuum which is quickly filled by the black market.

yermanoffthetv

whiteonion wrote: »

If you don't want to introduce a tax on sugar can we at least agree that people who recieve unemployment assistance and such things should not be allowed to spend tax payers money on unhealthy products?

We can introduce a system of food stamps where all unhealthy products are excluded and cannot be bought with food stamps.

Ok now thats just trolling for a reaction :rolleyes: You can toddle on back to the soviet union if you are being serious comrade. I would argue that they should teach all kids how to cook decent food/healthy diet etc in schools. I know they have home-ec but that has 1950's houswife connotations for most boys in secondary. Relable it "life skills" or something. The ammount of people who go through college not haveing a clue even how to boil a spud and live off takeaways a readymeals is frightening. That would go alot further in lowering obesety than your draconian "solutions".

Bottle_of_Smoke

I think a possible (if radical) way of reducing overweight/obesity would be to offer a % tax refund(or bonus if on the dole/student/low earner) for people who can squat/deadlift their own weight for 8 reps. Free health insurance too

If you are a healthy bodyweight this can easily be achieved after a few weeks of resistance training. Maybe a lower percentage of bodyweight for women and people over 55.

If it worked and people took part to save money there could be savings made on drug costs for type 2 diabetics/heart problem related drugs. Plus a lot of freed up hospital beds/frontline medical staff.

State gyms would have to be set up for people who can't afford it of course. Though these places could double as testing centres. You'd register and then be told - ''at some point in the coming year you will have to come in and lift the weight with perfect form under supervision of a fitness instructor''

chucken1

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

I think a possible (if radical) way of reducing overweight/obesity would be to offer a % tax refund(or bonus if on the dole/student/low earner) for people who can squat/deadlift their own weight for 8 reps. Free health insurance too

If you are a healthy bodyweight this can easily be achieved after a few weeks of resistance training. Maybe a lower percentage of bodyweight for women and people over 55.

If it worked and people took part to save money there could be savings made on drug costs for type 2 diabetics/heart problem related drugs. Plus a lot of freed up hospital beds/frontline medical staff.

State gyms would have to be set up for people who can't afford it of course. Though these places could double as testing centres. You'd register and then be told - ''at some point in the coming year you will have to come in and lift the weight with perfect form under supervision of a fitness instructor''

Do you know that a heart patient should never lift anything they cant move with their foot?