Survey finds majority support tax on sugary drinks

yawhat!

Why should I pay more for people who like to over indulge? Next thing it will be fast food. Fizzy drinks do not cause people to get fat!

Its people who are constantly eating or over eating is the reason. Just eat less and exercise FFS.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2014/0623/625800-sugar-tax/

whiskeyman

Image is nothing...

Tefral

Nanny state poking fingers into business that really should be left to the individual.

Are they going to reduce the VAT on my GYM membership in the same vein, or my runners or bicycles or weights? Some how I doubt it

Dan_Solo

Maybe we should have mandatory health insurance with premiums based on a comprehensive annual health assessment...

_Kaiser_

We already pay tax (VAT) on sugary drinks, plus there's usually a sizeable mark-up if buying in smaller shops - the pub is even worse!

More nanny state shyte. Let's penalise everyone because of the small percentage with no self-control

AnonoBoy

Survey says give us a link.....

Celticfire

Is this like one of those shampoo surveys??? 72% of 81 people agree....

Captain Chaos

yawhat! wrote: »

. Fizzy drinks do not cause people to get fat!
.

They do if you drink about 2l of the stuff a day like used to. Year ago I gave it up and kept my diet the exact same for 3 weeks and the weight fell off me from giving up fizzies alone, they are just full of sugar even the diet versions is full of crap too.

yawhat!

Captain Chaos wrote: »

They do if you drink about 2l of the stuff a day like used to. Year ago I gave it up and kept my diet the exact same for 3 weeks and the weight fell off me from giving up fizzies alone, they are just full of sugar even the diet versions is full of crap too.

Why would you drink that much of it in the first place? Over indulging!

FutureGuy

Captain Chaos wrote: »

They do if you drink about 2l of the stuff a day like used to. Year ago I gave it up and kept my diet the exact same for 3 weeks and the weight fell off me from giving up fizzies alone, they are just full of sugar even the diet versions is full of crap too.

Diet versions increase appetite.

I'd be all on for more tax on fast food, alcohol and cigarettes/tobacco so long as the money goes to the healthcare system.

If you want to smoke 20 a day or drink 20 pints a week or eat **** food, you'll be paying for your hospital stays later in life when your lungs/liver/heart packs it in.

How many people did they poll, 10?

Load of rubbish

MRnotlob606

could we not somehow develop some sort of national exercise system free to everybody to try tackle obesity, sounds crazy , but governments provide healthcare, education, so what about gym classes or something ?

jackofalltrades

cronin_j wrote: »

Nanny state poking fingers into business that really should be left to the individual.

If the state is ultimately responsible for the health effects of these sugary drinks, then they have every right to try and combat the problem.

I would only agree to a tax like this, if the money was ring-fenced towards fighting obesity.

Captain Chaos

yawhat! wrote: »

Why would you drink that much of it in the first place? Over indulging!

Just like/liked the taste of it. Don't like tea or coffee so I don't drink the stuff. Tap water tasted like crap in my house growing up and still does but now all I drink is bottled water for the past while.

Is drinking 2l of water a day over indulging? Or 2l of tea or coffee a day over indulging because thousands of people drink that and it ain't exactly good for you either, that amount from a dental point of view just like fizzies.

catallus

This is just another step taken by our overlords to plunge us deeper into a dismal downward spiral into a Judge Dredd-esque dystopia where they will outlaw the very things we need to survive. Down with this sort of thing!

twowheelsgood

FutureGuy wrote: »

If you want to smoke 20 a day or drink 20 pints a week or eat **** food, you'll be paying for your hospital stays later in life when your lungs/liver/heart packs it in.

Thing is, in many cases it will be the public who will be paying, which is why there is an economic utility in encouraging people to make healthier life style choices.

Also, this is not a government proposal, it is an opinion of the public so I'm not clear on why there are shouts of nanny state?

Cookie_Monster

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

More nanny state shyte. Let's penalise everyone because of the small percentage with no self-control

that small percentage is getting pretty big (:)), 40% of the adult population are overweight, 18% are obese. At what point does it become an issue that the state needs to intervene in to reduce future medical costs to society as a whole?

If it's not sugary drinks, it'll just be general tax or more mandatory health insurance costs...
It's proven to work for fags, why shouldn't it be tried for fizzy drinks?

Cookie_Monster

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

that small percentage is getting pretty big (:)), 40% of the adult population are overweight, 18% are obese. At what point does it become an issue that the state needs to intervene in to reduce future medical costs to society as a whole?

If it's not sugary drinks, it'll just be general tax or more mandatory health insurance costs...
It's proven to work for fags, why shouldn't it be tried for fizzy drinks?

If the state STOPPED intervening by telling people to eat more bread and eat more pasta we might even get somewhere.

_Kaiser_

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

that small percentage is getting pretty big (:)), 40% of the adult population are overweight, 18% are obese. At what point does it become an issue that the state needs to intervene in to reduce future medical costs to society as a whole?

If it's not sugary drinks, it'll just be general tax or more mandatory health insurance costs...
It's proven to work for fags, why shouldn't it be tried for fizzy drinks?

We're already paying 23% tax on these drinks plus the generally excessive mark-ups I mentioned

If FG have their way we'll all be paying mandatory health insurance too regardless

Still failing to see why this needs to be singled out

AnonoBoy

bluewolf wrote: »

If the state STOPPED intervening by telling people to eat more bread and eat more pasta we might even get somewhere.

Minister Old Mr. Brennan said he was going to send that legislation through to the Dolmio committee but that was the last we heard about it.

yawhat!

FutureGuy wrote: »

Diet versions increase appetite.

I'd be all on for more tax on fast food, alcohol and cigarettes/tobacco so long as the money goes to the healthcare system.

If you want to smoke 20 a day or drink 20 pints a week or eat **** food, you'll be paying for your hospital stays later in life when your lungs/liver/heart packs it in.

Cigarettes is basically all tax so 7 euro a day for a week is 56 euro which is 3,000 euro a year and if your a smoker for 40 years thats 120,000 and around 90,000 in tax. I think you've covered your hospital bills!

overexcitedaj

cronin_j wrote: »

Nanny state poking fingers into business that really should be left to the individual.

Are they going to reduce the VAT on my GYM membership in the same vein, or my runners or bicycles or weights? Some how I doubt it

Good point. Why not just promote healthy living? It is a much more positive outlook than punishing an unhealthy lifestyle. However, that would cost the government and we would not want that now would we :rolleyes:

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo

The money wouldn't be ring fenced so it would just be another tax.

Food education and cooking skills should be a full subject in all schools. In our school the only things they ever sold in the shop were different forms of sugar; coke, bars, jellies ect, that was literally all they sold. They also wouldn't let us leave the grounds at lunchtime to go to the supermarket or wherever, rock/hard place springs to mind.

If we teach every child about nutrition and how to cook a few healthy and tasty meals you would certainly reduce the amount of obesity that's so prevalent right now.

imitation

Its a load of bolloxolgy, the problem is the food industry is a race to the bottom now, cheaper crappier ingredients. Good luck trying to get a snack in a shop that isn't fat or sugar laden. In the days of yore people ate at home and the shop had a few treats. Now though people are so busy they go for gungy convience stuff Whats the government solution Mandatory nutrition and cooking in school, incentives for healtier food ? Nah more taxes !

Iwannahurl

cronin_j wrote: »

Nanny state poking fingers into business that really should be left to the individual.

Are they going to reduce the VAT on my GYM membership in the same vein, or my runners or bicycles or weights? Some how I doubt it

There's already a tax break for cycling to work.

Exercise opportunities are also freely available to anyone willing and able to avail of them -- eg walking, running, swimming, calisthenics, -- so why would the State want to subsidise a lifestyle choice such as gym membership?

There are very good public health reasons to use tax policy as a means of curbing the consumption of sugary drinks, just as there are with other products such as alcohol and tobacco.

"Nanny State" accusations are just the usual reactionary huffing and puffing.

alleystar

I think it's a good idea...if they used the money towards educating children on healthy food choices/ lifestyle then it would be a win-win. Junk food isn't a necessity, it's a waste of money and of absolutely no nutritional value.

Dan_Solo

catallus wrote: »

This is just another step taken by our overlords to plunge us deeper into a dismal downward spiral into a Judge Dredd-esque dystopia where they will outlaw the very things we need to survive. Down with this sort of thing!

Didn't Mega City One have a population of 800 million? Looks like they were doing OK!

catallus

Yes it did, but they outlawed sugar and sweeteners!

I for one will fight to the death against this anarcho-atheist plot!

_Kaiser_

alleystar wrote: »

I think it's a good idea...if they used the money towards educating children on healthy food choices/ lifestyle then it would be a win-win. Junk food isn't a necessity, it's a waste of money and of absolutely no nutritional value.

But unless we're formally admitting this is a dictatorship we live in, who are you to decide that for everyone?

If people want to spend their money on gallons of Coke and boxes of Mars bars that's their choice - stupid yes, but it's their life.

If they get sick as a result they'll have to deal with the results of that and seeing as we all already pay for a public health service (even if the money is pissed away for the most part), AND private health insurance in many cases then they'll pay for it that way too.

I'm sick to death of this PC, do-goodery, interfering nanny state, pandering to the lowest common denominator shyte that is only getting worse. By all means educate people about the damage they're doing and the alternative options they should consider, but beyond that worry about your own life and leave others to theirs. As long as they're not out thieving or assaulting people or whatever then it's no-one's business what they do.

catallus

Will this apply to coke zero?

alleystar

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

But unless we're formally admitting this is a dictatorship we live in, who are you to decide that for everyone?

If people want to spend their money on gallons of Coke and boxes of Mars bars that's their choice - stupid yes, but it's their life.

If they get sick as a result they'll have to deal with the results of that and seeing as we all already pay for a public health service (even if the money is pissed away for the most part), AND private health insurance in many cases then they'll pay for it that way too.

I'm sick to death of this PC, do-goodery, interfering nanny state shyte that is only getting worse. Worry about your own life and leave others to theirs. As long as they're not out thieving or assaulting people or whatever then it's no-one's business what they do.

I'm not, it's an opinion and no, I'm not apart of the do-gooder, PC brigade. :rolleyes:

I couldn't give two sh!tes what adults stuff into their gob with their money, it's children..with pocket money loading themselves with sugary crap. If they up the cost of junk food then they might not be able to afford as much of it as before.

suicide_circus

Iwannahurl wrote: »

There's already a tax break for cycling to work.

Exercise opportunities are also freely available to anyone willing and able to avail of them -- eg walking, running, swimming, calisthenics, -- so why would the State want to subsidise a lifestyle choice such as gym membership?

There are very good public health reasons to use tax policy as a means of curbing the consumption of sugary drinks, just as there are with other products such as alcohol and tobacco.

"Nanny State" accusations are just the usual reactionary huffing and puffing.

Yeah, sure the sky high alcohol duty in this country works wonders...
http://www.rte.ie/news/2014/0623/625828-alcohol/

_Kaiser_

alleystar wrote: »

I'm not, it's an opinion and no, I'm not apart of the do-gooder, PC brigade. :rolleyes:

I couldn't give two sh!tes what adults stuff into their gob with their money, it's children..with pocket money loading themselves with sugary crap. If they up the cost of junk food then they might not be able to afford as much of it as before.

Again that's down to education and adults taking responsibility for their children.

Nothing to do with tax.

suicide_circus

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

Again that's down to education and adults taking responsibility for their children.

Nothing to do with tax.

More tax is the solution to pretty much every problem in this country. Personal responsibility? No thanks.

Iwannahurl

alleystar wrote: »

I'm not, it's an opinion and no, I'm not apart of the do-gooder, PC brigade. :rolleyes:

I couldn't give two sh!tes what adults stuff into their gob with their money, it's children..with pocket money loading themselves with sugary crap. If they up the cost of junk food then they might not be able to afford as much of it as before.

A tax of this kind works by primarily affecting those who consume most of the 'target' product.

I have no idea how much a fizzy drink costs, but let's say a 'sugar tax' adds €1 to the price of a standard can or bottle. If I regularly buy one or two sugary drinks in a week then the extra burden is only €2. On the other hand, if I'm having two of them every day then I have to fork out an extra €14 every week or €60 per month.

suicide_circus wrote: »

Yeah, sure the sky high alcohol duty in this country works wonders...
http://www.rte.ie/news/2014/0623/625828-alcohol/

Ireland's boozing culture might be a lot worse if the tax was lower. In any case, the Irish government's approach to alcohol tax (for political and fiscal reasons) has always been to tax it enough to keep the revenue coming in but not so much as to kill the golden goose.

.

gctest50

yawhat! wrote: »

Cigarettes is basically all tax so 7 euro a day for a week is 56 euro which is 3,000 euro a year and if your a smoker for 40 years thats 120,000 and around 90,000 in tax. I think you've covered your hospital bills!

nope

Gannicus

yawhat! wrote: »

Why should I pay more for people who like to over indulge? Next thing it will be fast food. Fizzy drinks do not cause people to get fat!

Its people who are constantly eating or over eating is the reason. Just eat less and exercise FFS.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2014/0623/625800-sugar-tax/

I would wholeheartedly support it once they are willing to cut the tax on fruit and veg to promote healthy eating.

Iwannahurl

suicide_circus wrote: »

More tax is the solution to pretty much every problem in this country. Personal responsibility? No thanks.

Can you give a few example of situations in different sectors where public policy is not needed because "personal responsibility" is doing a fine job on its own?

Myrddin

I won't even call this a nanny-state thing, because 'nannying' to me implies over protection though ultimately with care being the focus. This is just plain 'how can we generate more revenue & dress it up as a positive measure' type thing. Given the health system likely won't see much of the revenue this will generate, I'm surprised anyone supports it. When it comes to childhood obesity, it's basically a bad/lazy parenting tax being forced on everyone.

kylith

gctest50 wrote: »

nope

Got one of those not from the USA?

Backstreet Moyes

Sexual Education classes and cooking classes explaining what foods are good and bad would be far more helpful than Religion and Irish. Courses for adults on nutrition and diet would be far more helpful than most of those FAS courses.

The fact is most parents have no idea about nutrition or portion sizes and then tell their kids the family are big boned or have a slow metabolism. The majority of overweight kids i see have overweight parents and the cycle just keeps continuing.

Iwannahurl

Myrddin wrote: »

When it comes to childhood obesity, it's basically a bad/lazy parenting tax being forced on everyone.

Why does Boards have moderators?

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo

gctest50 wrote: »

nope

Smokers definitely save the tax payer money over all. Do we want people dying off in their 60's from lung cancer or do we want people living into their 90's collecting a pension, medical card benefits and needing home help?

Purely from an accounting perspective, the states coffers are without question better served by smokers.

jackofalltrades

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

If people want to spend their money on gallons of Coke and boxes of Mars bars that's their choice - stupid yes, but it's their life.

If they get sick as a result they'll have to deal with the results of that and seeing as we all already pay for a public health service ...

And this is the problem, they have the right to make bad choices and ruin their health, but ultimately it's everyone else who has to pay for it.

Our health care system is overstretched and overbudget.
The money that's being spent on dealing with obesity/poor diet related health issues could be better spent elsewhere.

Arthur Beesley

Another bloody fitness / health related thread in After Hours.

rawn

MRnotlob606 wrote: »

could we not somehow develop some sort of national exercise system free to everybody to try tackle obesity, sounds crazy , but governments provide healthcare, education, so what about gym classes or something ?

National exercise system?! What's wrong with going for a jog in the park and doing some sit ups? Don't need a gym for that

Hande hoche!

catallus wrote: »

Will this apply to coke zero?

Presumably not but you can never be too sure.

_Kaiser_

jackofalltrades wrote: »

And this is the problem, they have the right to make bad choices and ruin their health, but ultimately it's everyone else who has to pay for it.

Our health care system is overstretched and overbudget.
The money that's being spent on dealing with obesity/poor diet related health issues could be better spent elsewhere.

Our health service is overstretched and overbudget because the model is:

unproductive overpaid staff who can't be fired > front-line staff and services

Those who are choosing (as is their right!) to eat unhealthy sugary crap to excess are already paying into the health service they'll likely later need to avail of and may have private health insurance on top of that - ergo they've already paid!

As for the "think of the children" argument that was mentioned.. who's giving these kids that money to buy crap with? Who has probably been stuffing them with chocolate and sweets since they could crawl? Who hasn't taken the time to teach them about better choices and maybe y'know lead by example themselves? That's right... the parents!

I'm sick of having my personal freedoms restricted or taxed because we need to hand-hold a load of lazy, responsibility-shirking "adults" who insist that "someone else" do it all for them.

darkpagandeath

Hmmm Can't but wonder, This is being thought about by the Uk. Cant we come up with ideas of our own ?

Seaneh

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Maybe we should have mandatory health insurance with premiums based on a comprehensive annual health assessment...

So punish sick people for being sick?

ffs.

Hande hoche!

Wonder will it effect orange juice?