Would anyone oppose a 20% tax on sugary drinks in the upcoming budget?

Deedsie

http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/doctors-call-for-20-tax-on-sugary-drinks-on-budget-to-curb-obesity-609257.html

Would anyone oppose a 20% tax on sugary drinks in the upcoming budget?

L1011

They're already taxed at 23%.

Ugo Monye spacecraft experience

I like the odd can of coke. Don't fancy paying 20 per cent more for it because some people use it as a water replacement

Wompa1

What would be the result for somebody who would want to be a designated driver in a pub now? Paying more for a glass of Coke than your friends pay for their pints?

imitation

I would rather our glorious government do some forward thinking for a change and do a combination of initatives and schemes to make healther foods more attractive & easier get & cook as well as forcing the cokes of the world to use less sugar, fat etc. As a single dude who has a bit of oven food, it seems like its a race to the bottom, each year the quality gets even worse and the price gets higher, clearly theres money in feeding crap to people and letting the government pick up the tab later

galwayrush

Better to cut the fat.

Richard Hillman

Let the fat people pay the fat tax

Cool_CM

No I wouldn't.
Ridiculous nanny state stuff.

Fukuyama

Schemes, info campaigns dont work.

People have unprecedented access to diet information, studies etc... thanks to the Internet. Yet here we are.

Food is not to blame. Idiocy is.

I know people who use coke and red bull as their main source of hydration.

When I was a kid (2000s) my ma would buy us Coca Cola on our birthdays/Christmas etc... Now it's the main drink for kids.

Fully grown adults who can't control their eating, make poor decisions and then blame their "condishun". :mad:

Most people live a sedated life. No exercise. Car/public transport everywhere. No outdoor activities.

Come home from work and veg out in front of the TV/laptop. :rolleyes:

Loosing weight is simple. Eat ACTUAL food. One hour of exercise/strenuous physical work per day. Simple.

Fukuyama

Wompa1 wrote: »

What would be the result for somebody who would want to be a designated driver in a pub now? Paying more for a glass of Coke than your friends pay for their pints?

That's a very good point actually.

And on top of that, can you imagine what a Jack & Coke would cost? We'd never need another bailout again with the revenues collected off one! :P

Taxes don't work.

All it will do is force hamplanets to drink the cheaper alternatives. So instead of a 2L bottle of Coca Cola (I know several people who'll plow through one by themselves no bother) they'll choose 2L of Tesco "Cola Soda" or whatever.... :rolleyes:

Deedsie

Richard Hillman wrote: »

Let the fat people pay the fat tax

That's what this is, fat people drink cans of wet flavoured sugar... Let them pay the tax that will eventually have to be spent to treat there diabetes, tooth decay etc

Nino Brown

Dean0088 wrote: »

Schemes, info campaigns dont work.

People have unprecedented access to diet information, studies etc... thanks to the Internet. Yet here we are.

Food is not to blame. Idiocy is.

I know people who use coke and red bull as their main source of hydration.

When I was a kid (2000s) my ma would buy us Coca Cola on our birthdays/Christmas etc... Now it's the main drink for kids.

Fully grown adults who can't control their eating, make poor decisions and then blame their "condishun". :mad:

Most people live a sedated life. No exercise. Car/public transport everywhere. No outdoor activities.

Come home from work and veg out in front of the TV/laptop. :rolleyes:

Loosing weight is simple. Eat ACTUAL food. One hour of exercise/strenuous physical work per day. Simple.

That's not it, it's a glandular problem!

snubbleste

Sugar should be re-labelled as a controlled drug!

Muise...

Dean0088 wrote: »

That's a very good point actually.

And on top of that, can you imagine what a Jack & Coke would cost? We'd never need another bailout again with the revenues collected off one! :P

Taxes don't work.

All it will do is force hamplanets to drink the cheaper alternatives. So instead of a 2L bottle of Coca Cola (I know several people who'll plow through one by themselves no bother) they'll choose 2L of Tesco "Cola Soda" or whatever.... :rolleyes:

hamplanets. :pac:

*weak from laughing

wazky

Yes because people cant make decisions for themselves and need a porky little Health minister to advise us if we can have a coke or not.

Tin Foil Hat

Deedsie wrote: »

http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/doctors-call-for-20-tax-on-sugary-drinks-on-budget-to-curb-obesity-609257.html

Would anyone oppose a 20% tax on sugary drinks in the upcoming budget?

Excise duties don't work. They don't work for ciggies. They don't work for alcohol. And they won't work for junk food. The only result of a tax like this will be a state addiction to monies earned from foods the government pretend they want us to stop consuming.

Days 298

Deedsie wrote: »

That's what this is, fat people drink cans of wet flavoured sugar... Let them pay the tax that will eventually have to be spent to treat there diabetes, tooth decay etc

I like to drink sugary drinks. I'm not obese I'm healthy. I pay 23% vat on it when I do. Why should I have to supplement treatments for those who can't moderate themselves.

turbot

Coca Cola (flavoured sugar water) costs a few cent per litre to make.

It is sold at a markup from cost of production to sale of 5000% to 100000%.

That markup funds disproportionate monopolistic style marketing.

It should be taxed at 100%+ because drinking this addictive, habit forming, blood sugar disrupting, obesity driving drink doesnt do anyone any favours.

Fighting Irish

Deedsie wrote: »

http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/doctors-call-for-20-tax-on-sugary-drinks-on-budget-to-curb-obesity-609257.html

Would anyone oppose a 20% tax on sugary drinks in the upcoming budget?

go way with breakingnews.ie

"Gardai have seized sugar with a street value of €500,000 in Dublin airport. Gardai believe the sugar was destined for the Athlone area "



True story.

Karl Stein

Absolutely I would. I'd also advocate that the EU stop subsidizing sugar production and slap big duties on its importation so we could make some money from highly subsidized American corn syrup.

I'd also advocate that the Chinese follow the example of the Americans' war on cocaine by sending their forces to the tobacco fields of the US to help destroy the tobacco crop. Far too many Chinese people die from consuming highly addictive American tobacco. Would anyone blame the Chinese government for trying to save its population from such a destructive drug?

snubbleste

'Army helicopters today defoliated hills in south carlow with a noxious agent to get rid of the burgeoning sugar threat to our children. More now from Charlie Bird'

mconigol

Install a small weighing scales in the floor at the checkout in all shops, if you're over a certain weight then more tax for you.

I think that would be fair.

wazky

Charlie Rock wrote: »

I'd also advocate that the Chinese follow the example of the Americans' war on cocaine by sending their forces to the tobacco fields of the US to help destroy the tobacco crop. Far too many Chinese people die from consuming highly addictive American tobacco. Would anyone blame the Chinese government for trying to save its population from such a destructive drug?

And the Belgians could come here and lay siege to the Guinness brewery at St.James gate because alcoholism is killing off so many of its citizens?

snubbleste

Just say No.

UCDVet

I'd oppose it.

I really don't understand why so many people have this burning desire to control all aspects of everyone's lives?

First - sugary drinks aren't inherently bad for you. Consuming *too much* sugar is probably bad. My Dad was a health nut, but grew up in a different time. He'd start the morning with a glass of Orange juice (as much sugar as a soft-drink) but he'd never eat a cookies, cakes, or candies. One glass of OJ before his daily run....let's tax him!

Second - if you want to argue about associated health costs, since we, as taxpayers, provide medical treatment for everyone - that's fine. That's a sound, rational argument. But only if it is true - and it isn't. Studies have shown a correlation between sugary drinks and obesity. And a correlation between obesity AND LOWER MEDICAL COSTS. That's right, healthy, non-smoking, non-obese people cost more in lifetime medical costs than obese people or smokers.

So, if you WANT to be rational and tax people in accordance with their medical costs....fine. But you need to do it intelligently, based on actual science. The tax should be on healthy people going to health clubs and gyms - not on smokers or fatties.

Beyond that, taken to the extreme - what you are describing is NO HEALTH COVERAGE. In that system, everyone pays exactly for the cost of their own treatment. Now, a very strong, logical, rational argument for not having medical treatment for everyone can be made, but it's pretty extreme. A tax on something that increases the likelihood of medical costs is just an ineffective half-measure that doesn't do anything beneficial.

In short - no.

1.) I value freedom
2.) If I'm going to give up a freedom, it needs to be for a reason. There is no rational reason to tax sugary drinks.

srsly78

wazky wrote: »

And the Belgians could come here and lay siege to the Guinness brewery at St.James gate because alcoholism is killing off so many of its citizens?

Sure, so long as we can siege their Trappist monasteries in return.

Deedsie

Fighting Irish wrote: »

go way with breakingnews.ie

Great contribution.

Two wraps of heroin and a pound of sugar please

UCDVet

turbot wrote: »

Coca Cola (flavoured sugar water) costs a few cent per litre to make.

It is sold at a markup from cost of production to sale of 5000% to 100000%.

That markup funds disproportionate monopolistic style marketing.

It should be taxed at 100%+ because drinking this addictive, habit forming, blood sugar disrupting, obesity driving drink doesnt do anyone any favours.

It does taxpayers a favor....as obese people have fewer medical bills.

srsly78

UCDVet wrote: »

It does taxpayers a favor....as obese people have fewer medical bills.

Is that like smokers? Cheaper because they are dead?

FouxDaFaFa

It woudn't affect me because I happen not to drink fizzy drinks. Just never got into the habit of it.

Lots of issues:

• it's a bit mammyish of the state to assume that people can't make their own decisions
• if you're going there, why not tax chocolate/butter/crisps/ice-cream?
• when will we address that it's often cheaper to buy a can of coke than a bottle of water or juice in a shop?

wazky

srsly78 wrote: »

Sure, so long as we can siege their Trappist monasteries in return.

Or maybe we could roll into Switzerland and burn down the chocolate factories there?

hatrickpatrick

Absolutely. I oppose all nanny state legislation which harms personal freedom,

UCDVet

srsly78 wrote: »

Is that like smokers? Cheaper because they are dead?

Presumably yes. Smokers and obese people do have shorter lives.

But in their lifetime, smokers and obese people have less medical bills. I don't know about smokers, but moderately obese people are looking at something like 3-4 years off their life. If someone decides they'd rather die at 64 instead of 68 and enjoy lots of sugary drinks - well, that sounds like a personal choice to me.

And, they're doing all tax payers a favor by costing less. So, it's actually a very selfless act.

EDIT:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2012/03/22/alcohol-obesity-and-smoking-do-not-cost-health-care-systems-money/

The lifetime costs were in Euros:
Healthy: 281,000
Obese: 250,000
Smokers: 220,000

FouxDaFaFa

FouxDaFaFa wrote: »

It woudn't affect me because I happen not to drink fizzy drinks. Just never got into the habit of it.

Lots of issues:

• it's a bit mammyish of the state to assume that people can't make their own decisions
• if you're going there, why not tax chocolate/butter/crisps/ice-cream?
• when will we address that it's often cheaper to buy a can of coke than a bottle of water or juice in a shop?

A sugar tax would effect all things with sugar I'd imagine.

Not many things that sugar isn't in really.

Karl Stein

wazky wrote: »

And the Belgians could come here and lay siege to the Guinness brewery at St.James gate because alcoholism is killing off so many of its citizens?

Yep. See how absurd the war on drugs people is?

kjl

Wompa1 wrote: »

What would be the result for somebody who would want to be a designated driver in a pub now? Paying more for a glass of Coke than your friends pay for their pints?

I don't drink and when I am in a club I drink water. Not paying €4 for waterdown coke and the hassle of queuing up for something I don't need.

RandomName2

I propose a substantial tax on thin people to discourage them from being anorexic.

I propose a substantial tax on fat people to discourage them from being obese.

Finally I propose a substantial tax on normal people to remind them to not take up bad habits in the first place.

tomdempsey200

http://www.enterprise-ireland.com/en/news/pressreleases/2012-press-releases/dawn-meats-secures-%E2%82%AC300-million-mcdonald-s-beef-contract.html

http://www.flickr.com/photos/jobsenterinnov/sets/72157632053813337/


they've got mcdonalds in their sights next by the look of things

mrmeindl

Could just take medical cards off the fat ****s who can't be bothered to take care of themselves and cost the state a fortune.

Karl Stein

FouxDaFaFa wrote: »

• it's a bit mammyish of the state to assume that people can't make their own decisions

People need to drop this 'wah, wah, wah, nanny state' reflex to government measures designed to protect the public from scumbag corporations who hoover money out of the economy at the expense of the health service among other services.

The state has a duty to protect its citizens. The state has done an excellent job of reducing the harm caused to the population by slapping harsh taxes on tobacco, banning advertising, making public buildings and work places smoke free etc.

Why shouldn't we follow this tried and tested example with sugar?

wretcheddomain

I'm fully in favour of taxing it as high as possible for reasons hitherto outlined in this thread.

As for the waffle on 'nanny states', you can still purchase the stuff should you want it, it's not as if sugary drinks are being banned ~ only then would you have even a ghost of a point.

And it's frankly irrelevant whether or not 'designated drivers' are affected and this would appear to be a weird way to base policy.

But whatever floats your boat...just not coke though, it's getting too expensive, right?

jester77

It would only create a black market for coke.

kjl

Dean0088 wrote: »

Schemes, info campaigns dont work.

People have unprecedented access to diet information, studies etc... thanks to the Internet. Yet here we are.

Food is not to blame. Idiocy is.

I know people who use coke and red bull as their main source of hydration.

When I was a kid (2000s) my ma would buy us Coca Cola on our birthdays/Christmas etc... Now it's the main drink for kids.

Fully grown adults who can't control their eating, make poor decisions and then blame their "condishun". :mad:

Most people live a sedated life. No exercise. Car/public transport everywhere. No outdoor activities.

Come home from work and veg out in front of the TV/laptop. :rolleyes:

Loosing weight is simple. Eat ACTUAL food. One hour of exercise/strenuous physical work per day. Simple.

In fairness it is very hard to eat healthy, you walk into a supermarket and it has 1 aisle of fruit and veg and 10 aisle of processed crap. I eat pretty healthy but do find it difficult cut out the junk.

People forget that these food contain additives to make the addictive. Doritos have actually made a chip that no matter how many you eat you never feel satisfied. The additives are made by people in white coats in a lab and people eat tons of it.

Realistically there should be legislation of the types of food that can be sold in this country.

http://nypost.com/2013/10/03/why-doritos-are-as-addictive-as-crack/

wazky

jester77 wrote: »

It would only create a black market for coke.

"Breaking news: A bad batch of Coke is on the streets at the moment, reportedly it has been cut with Fanta".

srsly78

wazky wrote: »

"Breaking news: A bad batch of Coke is on the streets at the moment, reportedly it has been cut with Fanta".

Fanta is muck, it was only invented because a world war cut off supplies of coke. A poor substitute! A real nazi drink.

Cody Pomeray

As someone who doesn't drink fizzy drinks or smoke cigarettes (smug face) it's easy for someone like me to say I'd favour this tax completely. And I would.

Nevertheless, as someone who drink alcohol, I think the point that cans of lager should not be cheaper than cans of coke is valid. It's less attractive for someone like me to say that a proportionate tax should be applied to alcohol; or a minimum price should be set on alcohol. But I would.

Karl Stein

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Absolutely. I oppose all nanny state legislation which harms personal freedom,

So allow tobacco companies target young people with their death drug?

Allow them to profit from addiction while the public picks up the bill for dying addicts?

Get a grip of yourself man.

hatrickpatrick

Charlie Rock wrote: »

So allow tobacco companies target young people with their death drug?

Allow them to profit from addiction while the public picks up the bill for dying addicts?

Get a grip of yourself man.

Did I advocate selling drugs to minors?
Is there any such thing as "second hand coke"?

Once I'm over 18 and what I'm doing harms nobody except possibly myself, it's nobody's business but my own.

Karl Stein

UCDVet wrote: »

And a correlation between obesity AND LOWER MEDICAL COSTS. That's right, healthy, non-smoking, non-obese people cost more in lifetime medical costs than obese people or smokers.

Can you provide a credible source for this reductive bullshit?