Proposed sugar tax: Nanny state to the rescue

FinnLizzy

http://www.irishcentral.com/story/news/danny_boy/ireland-considers-sugar-tax-in-move-to-quell-obesity-130660168.html

Irish Health Minister Dr James O'Reilly has concocted a new austerity measure for Ireland: this time taxing consumers for purchasing sugar laden soft beverages (soda), in a bid to stem rising rates of obesity and diabetes in Ireland.

The proposals are similar to ones currently in effect in New York, which have apparently had a marked effect on reducing consumption of trans-fat containing fast-foods, as well as other unhealthy items.

The New York laws follow a raft of legislation introduced by Albany lawmakers intended to curb soaring levels of obesity and diseases directly linked to diet, according to the Irish Independent, though the Irish health minister O'Reilly may have a harder time convincing the Irish to adopt the measures given the dozens of other new taxes currently doing the rounds.

By all reports the plans are serious, though. The Minister and his team are reported to have made contact with Mayor Bloomberg's office to see how the New York lessons could be best transplanted to Ireland, and a spokesperson for the minister today confirmed that: "The introduction of a sugar tax on sugar-sweetened drinks was identified as a strategy for consideration and the feasibility of introducing such a measure is being examined."

The moves are actually part of a broader tackle the health ministry is making on unhealthy food items.

Labeling in particular is also being given a thorough investigation. Putting it rather bluntly, the Minister said of mis-labelers that they: “need to get their act together or we will be coming”.

The sugar move, in particular, though, has already drawn its critics.

Contributors on the ever-popular George Hook chat show this afternoon pointed out that such a tax would have a disproportionately negative effect on lower income earners - hardly the prescription Ireland was looking for given that many of that category are barely managing to survive from day to day. The rationale, apparently, being that lower socio-economic groups consume unhealthier, and more sugar-loaded, products. Whether this is actually true or not I have no idea.

My personal take on the whole thing: it strikes me not only as a largely punitive tax, but also as a totally unnecessary one.

Healthy living is preached as dogma in modern society, and there's a strong enough emphasis in Ireland on choosing healthy foods and drinking water rather than sugary beverages.

It's true that there are still plenty of Coca Cola chuggers to go around (this blogger is a reformed one), but perhaps the link between sugar consumption, diabetes and cancer is less clear cut than is being made out?

There are plenty of other reasons why modern Ireland is unhealthier, and getting, to put it crudely, fatter, than previous ones: sedentary lifestyles, greater use of cars, etc: sugar alone is probably not the major player in all of this, and to imagine that it is, as a disingenuous way of seemingly raising tax for the 'benefit' of the population, is trickery and mind-playing at best.

Vices that are commonly taxed to discourage over-consumption include tobacco and alcohol: surely it's going to far to say that fizzy sodas fall into that same bracket?

One contributor on the George Hook show put the argument against the tax best though with the following rhetorical : should we start taxing Playstations now?

Read more: http://www.irishcentral.com/story/news/danny_boy/ireland-considers-sugar-tax-in-move-to-quell-obesity-130660168.html#ixzz1ZdDDyiJu

I'm starting to get sick of the unrealistic expectation that if there is a problem in our country, we have to tax it through the roof.

From a 'not giving a **** about the fat children' point of view, it's just re assuring the public that we're not trusted to take things in moderation and have to spend a little extra on our commodities.

From an economic point of view: Anyone fancy going to Enniskillen and Newry to get our sweets?

Any feedback on this? Do you think that taxing the fat arses and punishing the moderate is a good idea?

Micky Dolenz

If we can't look after our own kids, I suppose someone has too.

Dotrel

To the bee-mobile!

Stupid idea
more education required

phasers

Sure I'll just stop buying vegetables to make up the extra cost :cool:

Micky Dolenz

bluewolf wrote: »

Stupid idea
more education required

Education for parents though. There are a lot of fat kids mooching about.

cowzerp

Obesity causes the state serious money and I'd rather see lower taxes for health food and higher for unhealthy foods-then those who are not costing the state will benefit and naturally poorer people can eat healthier than they can now, let's look after those who choose to look after themselves

UDP

bluewolf wrote: »

Stupid idea
more education required

I dont think edumacation will really make a difference. Everyone knows lots of sweets etc are bad for you.

I think just like how smokers pay for the extra burden on the health system as a result of their bad habit so too should those who eat a bad diet since from my understanding more people die from a bad diet than from smoking each year.

I like cowzerp's idea of decreasing the tax levels on goods that are actually healthy for you.

OutlawPete

Think I'll dust off my Soda Stream and start selling Pete's Cola Pop on O'Connell Bridge at 75c a bottle so.

Riamfada

first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women.

Herrick

In Ireland, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women.

Edit: Damn you Riamfada

FinnLizzy

Micky Dolenz wrote: »

If we can't look after our own kids, I suppose someone has too.

More outdoor GYMS and PE will sort the little fatties out. And a good smack and an apple from their parents.

ItsAWindUp

No tax on meat? Nah, thought not.

phasers

ItsAWindUp wrote: »

No tax on meat? Nah, thought not.

Why would they tax meat?

Freakin' hippies

revell

Micky Dolenz wrote: »

If we can't look after our own kids, I suppose someone has too no one can.

FYP

UDP

UDP wrote: »

I dont think edumacation will really make a difference. Everyone knows lots of sweets etc are bad for you.
.

Right but that's food. I doubt it's quite so well known about sugar drinks, which is the target here. 2L of coke and you've half your calories for the day gone if you're an adult female.
More education, less "i need to drop my children right to the door in my car", and we don't need to mess about with a stupid tax

ItsAWindUp

phasers wrote: »

Why would they tax meat?

Freakin' hippies

Well I'd have thought it'd make sense considering the new tax is under the premise of combating obesity.

ItsAWindUp

ItsAWindUp wrote: »

Well I'd have thought it'd make sense considering the new tax is under the premise of combating obesity.

What on earth has meat to do with it

Andrew33

Effin' marvelous, first off, the govt (on orders from Brussels) shuts down our indigenous sugar industry to make 3rd world sugar more commercially attractive and now they want to impose a tax on sugar???
My f**kin head hurts from all this tomfoolery, will it ever stop?

cowzerp

ItsAWindUp wrote: »

Well I'd have thought it'd make sense considering the new tax is under the premise of combating obesity.

Meat does not make you fat, sugar and starch does.
Whenever I need to lose weight my diet is mainly meat and veg, no sugar or starch, and it works

Pherekydes

If kids were stupid at Maths they'd have to go to the learning support teacher for extra Maths.

Why can't these kids go to extra 'exercise support' classes?

And none of this Golf or tiddlywinks sh!te. Proper exercise, like circuits and shuttle sprints. Get them sweating and puffy...

Ostrom

This rock keeps tigers away

AlmightyCushion

I think it's a good idea and I'm not exactly Mr healthy. If they tax the crap out of it then it would reduce the temptation and impulse purchases. Also, it would reduce the cost difference between healthy and unhealthy food.

UDP

bluewolf wrote: »

Right but that's food. I doubt it's quite so well known about sugar drinks, which is the target here. 2L of coke and you've half your calories for the day gone if you're an adult female.
More education, less "i need to drop my children right to the door in my car", and we don't need to mess about with a stupid tax

I agree that education is always good but I dont think it will make a huge amount of difference. We could use the extra tax generated to pay for more education (but I doubt that will happen - instead it will go into the big black hole).

Taxation can change behaviour if the levels are set right - take the bag tax for instance which was a roaring success. If a person does not consume a lot of sugary foods (the healthy way to be) then they won't be affected much by the tax.

I would like to see this introduced on other unhealthy foods but I can imagine it may be hard to do with some foods.

ItsAWindUp

cowzerp wrote: »

Meat does not make you fat, sugar and starch does.
Whenever I need to lose weight my diet is mainly meat and veg, no sugar or starch, and it works

Yes it does http://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-food/obesity.aspx

syklops

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

I think it's a good idea and I'm not exactly Mr healthy. If they tax the crap out of it then it would reduce the temptation and impulse purchases. Also, it would reduce the cost difference between healthy and unhealthy food.

Im in the same boat. Used to drink a lot of coke, cutting it back now, but in the vending machine in work, a bottle of coke cost the same as a bottle of water. Thats wrong.

ItsAWindUp

syklops wrote: »

Im in the same boat. Used to drink a lot of coke, cutting it back now, but in the vending machine in work, a bottle of coke cost the same as a bottle of water. Thats wrong.

Could you not just bring a bottle with you from home?

Micky Dolenz

I rarely eat sweet stuff but the other day I had a 3pm slump and decided to have a can of club orange and a snickers. It was nearly 500 calories, I was :eek:

That is a 1/5 of my recommended daily intake.

Pherekydes

ItsAWindUp wrote: »

Yes it does http://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-food/obesity.aspx

No it doesn't. Excess sugar and lack of exercise do.

PETA stands for the ethical treatment of animals, so they're promoting a specific agenda.

ItsAWindUp

Pherekydes wrote: »

No it doesn't. Excess sugar and lack of exercise do.

PETA stands for the ethical treatment of animals, so they're promoting a specific agenda.

It's by an independent doctor. And it's one of many reports that states the same thing.

busyliving

Would it not be better idea to have fruit and veg tax free and have a super tax on these sugar rich food...

It would certainly be easier to sell to the public from a government stand point

UDP

ItsAWindUp wrote: »

Yes it does http://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-food/obesity.aspx

Anything you eat has the potential to cause someone to gain weight. Sugar has many more calories than meat and is a bigger issue right now than meat (although many people do eat too much meat).

FinnLizzy

Pherekydes wrote: »

No it doesn't. Excess sugar and lack of exercise do.

PETA stands for the ethical treatment of animals, so they're promoting a specific delicious agenda.

FYP

Pherekydes

ItsAWindUp wrote: »

It's by an independent doctor. And it's one of many reports that states the same thing.

If you think that website is not peddling their own agenda then fine:

Order PETA's free vegetarian/vegan starter kit and start on the path to a healthier and slimmer you today.

UDP

busyliving wrote: »

Would it not be better idea to have fruit and veg tax free

Done and Done

busyliving wrote: »

and have a super tax on these sugar rich food...

I think thats the proposal.

ItsAWindUp

Pherekydes wrote: »

If you think that website is not peddling their own agenda then fine:

I never said that they weren't! It just so happens to be an agenda I agree with.

BluesBerry

Its just another tax to fcuk people over :mad:

Pherekydes

ItsAWindUp wrote: »

I never said that they weren't! It just so happens to be an agenda I agree with.

She's not independent, either. She's an animal rights' activist and a vegan. Of course she's going to say veganism is healthier.

Americans are getting fatter because they eat far too much. (meat included)

Dionysus

FinnLizzy wrote: »

...Nanny state....

Nate--IRL--

Pherekydes wrote: »

No it doesn't. Excess sugar and lack of exercise do.

Wrong, excess calories make you fat. Doesn't matter one bit if these are gotten from Meat or sugar.

Nate

Dionysus

UDP wrote: »

Anything you eat has the potential to cause someone to gain weight. Sugar has many more calories than meat and is a bigger issue right now than meat (although many people do eat too much meat).

Raw celery doesn't:

'While celery does not have negative calories, the amount of effort required to chew celery consumes more calories then the number of calories in celery.'

amacachi

Dionysus wrote: »

Raw celery doesn't:

'While celery does not have negative calories, the amount of effort required to chew celery consumes more calories then the number of calories in celery.'

Water is heated up in the body therefore uses calories as it passes through the body. Why then are the government going to start charging for it when it is the ultimate weightloss tool?

westendgirlie

They can feck off with another stupid tax. Don't believe for a minute it is for the purpose of combating obesity. It's just another money making scam!

Tayla

Personally I agree with this tax, not for the revenue it will create but for health reasons. Fizzy drinks are one of the worst things you can consume and yet so many people do so on a daily basis.

It is crazy how many adults in Ireland are actually addicted to Coca Cola, I realise that this tax isn't going to stop them from buying it but it's a big issue in this country.

I used to smoke and I was charged an absolute fortune in tax, I don't anymore so I don't have to pay the tax, I drink fizzy drinks only if i'm at the cinema.


The government say it's a step to tackle obesity....great but their next step should be to completely revise the food pyramid because it is completely wrong.

Duke Leonal Felmet

FinnLizzy wrote: »

From an economic point of view: Anyone fancy going to Enniskillen and Newry to get our sweets?

UK are looking into the same thing.

Temptamperu

But I like Coca Cola

4leto

Brilliant idea

I hardly eat sugary things, so let the fay cats pay this tax'

kowloon

A little less government interference in people's lives would be nice. You should be allowed to choose what you eat when your mammy stops making the decisions for you.
James Reilly isn't exactly on the slim side himself.
If lard-ass knows what's best why isn't he leading by example?

Tayla

kowloon wrote: »

A little less government interference in people's lives would be nice. You should be allowed to choose what you eat when your mammy stops making the decisions for you.
James Reilly isn't exactly on the slim side himself.
If lard-ass knows what's best why isn't he leading by example?

So do you think the tax on cigarettes should be reduced too?

4leto

I don't mind revenue generating taxes on things we can control.

The truth is we eat to much of this shyte, so if you want to pay less taxes on "sugar" eat less of these types of food.

phasers

syklops wrote: »

Im in the same boat. Used to drink a lot of coke, cutting it back now, but in the vending machine in work, a bottle of coke cost the same as a bottle of water. Thats wrong.

Well then the price of healthy food should be lowered! You don't think it's strange that you have to pay so much money for something you get for free from the ground?

Honestly, the backwards thinking in this country astounds me.


Shops need to start looking into still lemonade to avoid this tax. I freakin' love still lemonade.