Would you support a tax on fizzy/ high sugar drinks if it meant no water charges?

Irishchick

I was watching a documentary recently called Fed Up and it got me thinking about taxing high salt/sugar/fat foods

I know a lot of people are against it because it gives the impression of a nanny state however other countries have done it and it has worked.

However would you support a tax on sugary drinks if it meant no water charges?

I only drink fizzy drinks about twice a month so it wouldn't bother me to have to pay more especially if it meant reducing/ditching other charges.

AnonoBoy

It'd suit me as I don't drink fizzy drinks much. Except for champagne of course which I have every morning.

What sort of savage doesn't start the day with a Bucks Fizz eh?

salamanca22

I just finished a bottle of lucozade and feel like crap. I knew I would when I bought it and yet I keep drinking fizzy drinks. I would 100% support a higher tax if it would mean I stopped buying the goop! and yeah I know. Self control bla bla bla. It's easier in hindsight.

I do drink a lot more water these days too though. Usually drink at least 2 litres a day.

dgt

Nanny state vs bend you over and bum you silly for loose change state

I'll take neither thanks

NomadicGray

I think a tax on sugary drinks is fine but I don't see why it should affect the water charges so had to say no on your vote.

recylingbin

Oh when the tax
Oh when the tax
Oh wehn the tax on fizzy/high sugar drinks goes marching in

Irishchick

NomadicGray wrote: »

I think a tax on sugary drinks is fine but I don't see why it should affect the water charges so had to say no on your vote.

The idea was to many replace a tax with a charge on something that could possibly be positive for health

TheDoc

Really good idea. Put a tax on something that doesn't effect you, but does others, so you don't have to pay.

There is a big difference between Irish Water supply and fizzy drinks. irish water is a service provided by the state, and shock to many, this costs money.

I'm not going into the discussion of how this was paid for previously, because you have to be incredibly stupid to not comprahend why this isn't "another water tax already there on income tax".

The point being, fizy drinks are a consumer choice not provided by the state. Why should there be a tax on it? Not everoyne who drinks fizz is obese, and to be honest I'm getting sick of this nanny state adoptation whereby people who we elect, feel that they need to make basic life choices for us, because we can't do it ourselves.

The larger problem at play is that people expect services that cost tens of millions, hundreds of millions, to magically pay for themselves, and when they do have to be paid for, want to find every excuse or alternative, as to not pay for them.

There is always the comparison between our system and scandanavian countries, and what commentary fails to grasp is that the basic principal why this won't work here, is that we simply don't grasp the concept of taxation, and are specialists at playing poor mouth.

end of the road

Irishchick wrote: »

I know a lot of people are against it because it gives the impression of a nanny state however other countries have done it and it has worked.

how has it worked. from what i can see it hasn't.

Irishchick wrote: »

would you support a tax on sugary drinks if it meant no water charges?

i'm not getting this at all. how would a tax on suggary drinks mean less water charges? it wouldn't, but would just be another tax.

Irishchick wrote: »

I only drink fizzy drinks about twice a month so it wouldn't bother me to have to pay more especially if it meant reducing/ditching other charges.

but you wouldn't be ditching other charges. its not going to happen. i don't drink fizzy drinks anymore myself because they get worse as the years go on but a tax on them would just be another tax and nothing would get reduced.

end of the road

Irishchick wrote: »

The idea was to many replace a tax with a charge on something that could possibly be positive for health

but it wouldn't be positive for health as it wouldn't get spent on health. and not everyone drinks fizzy drinks so it would be less revenue (all though i'm against the water charges anyway myself)

Mrs Garth Brooks

salamanca22 wrote: »

I just finished a bottle of lucozade and feel like crap. I knew I would when I bought it and yet I keep drinking fizzy drinks. I would 100% support a higher tax if it would mean I stopped buying the goop! and yeah I know. Self control bla bla bla. It's easier in hindsight.

I do drink a lot more water these days too though. Usually drink at least 2 litres a day.

Shire, aren't they taxing water too. You can't win.

Laois_Man

It's probably not realistic that tax on sugary drink would replace the the amount of money generated by water charges.

But putting this tax on is a good idea regardless.

recylingbin

Irishchick wrote: »

The idea was to many replace a tax with a charge on something that could possibly be positive for health

Fizzy drinks aren't negative to your health. being a glutton is.
if you're the parent of a fat kid, you tax your fat kid.
Don't tax the people who aren't gannets.

*I don't mean you personally.

Shenshen

Now, before I decide :

Do you mean sugary drinks? Such as 7up and all that?
Or all fizzy drink?
Because I hate drinking flat water, I only drink the fizzy stuff, and I'm not sure why that should have an extra tax slapped on.

As for sugary drinks, yes, do tax them. But not only the fizzy stuff, things like Ribena are just as bad nutrition-wise.

And I honestly don't mind the water charges. They'd have to come in sooner or later anyway.

Pompous

dgt wrote: »

I'll take neither thanks

So you're not living in Ireland then?

_Brian

Would have been good to have an option to support both...

Water needs paying for !!

recylingbin

_Brian wrote: »

Would have been good to have an option to support both...

Water needs paying for !!

Water was already paid for through tax.

jimgoose

Hell yeah. In fact, you can replace my electricity and gas bills with taxes on pasta and cod-liver-oil as well. I hate dat shiz-nit. :cool:

GreeBo

Does that include beer, sparkling wine, alco pops, Soda Stream?

Gannicus

I would whole heartedly be in favour of a decent enough sized tax of what could be classed as luxury foods and drinks (fizzy drinks, fast food or fatty sugary foods) if it meant a good sized tax reduction on anything classed as a healthy/necessary food.

I know it seems like a very nanny state thing to do and I have thought so too. Recently I realised that it (and I'm not taking a stab at people I come from a working class background) people from more affluent areas TEND to have a healthier diet than people from less well off backgrounds.

I consider the main reason being that they have a better financial situation to pay for healthier and better foods and a better work-personal life balance means they are less inclined to get the basic fast food as frequently (ie. Macky D's or BK or the local chipper.)

If something like this made it easier for more families and school canteens to afford and make healthier foods for kids then I'd be completely for it.

jimgoose

TheDoc wrote: »

...we simply don't grasp the concept of taxation, and are specialists at playing poor mouth.

Paddy grasps the concept of taxation perfectly well, and has no issue with it as long as he pays less than the next bollix. Allow me to demonstrate on this hapless individual here:

GreeBo wrote: »

Does that include beer, sparkling wine, alco pops, Soda Stream?

Hah! I drink stout and fruit-juice, only not at the same time. Lookitdatlangerderelah, paying tax!! Ha-HAA!!

end of the road

_Brian wrote: »

Would have been good to have an option to support both...

Water needs paying for !!

no it doesn't. the infrastructure does, which could have been done via higher income tax, that way people wouldn't miss it as such.

Guy:Incognito

recylingbin wrote: »

Water was already paid for through tax.

For a while the country was taking in enough in tax to pay for everything. Now its taking in a lot less tax, but stuff still needs paying for. Either the money is raised to pay for stuff from the people or its borrowed and the people can pay for it, plus interest.

Do you go to the credit union every friday and get a loan over 6 months to pay for your shopping for the week?

end of the road

TheDoc wrote: »

Really good idea. Put a tax on something that doesn't effect you, but does others, so you don't have to pay.

well yeah. thats the point. i understand where she is coming from.

TheDoc wrote: »

There is a big difference between Irish Water supply and fizzy drinks. irish water is a service provided by the state, and shock to many, this costs money.

which was and could still be taken from income taxes.

TheDoc wrote: »

I'm not going into the discussion of how this was paid for previously, because you have to be incredibly stupid to not comprahend why this isn't "another water tax already there on income tax".

it is another tax. part of the income tax will no doubt head to water as well as the water charges.

TheDoc wrote: »

The point being, fizy drinks are a consumer choice not provided by the state. Why should there be a tax on it? Not everoyne who drinks fizz is obese, and to be honest I'm getting sick of this nanny state adoptation whereby people who we elect, feel that they need to make basic life choices for us, because we can't do it ourselves.

your right on this

TheDoc wrote: »

The larger problem at play is that people expect services that cost tens of millions, hundreds of millions, to magically pay for themselves

wrong. they expect the taxes they pay to be spent on these services. thats the point of taxes. all these seperate charges are extra taxes that many people just can't afford to pay. water isn't something one can do without.

TheDoc wrote: »

when they do have to be paid for, want to find every excuse or alternative, as to not pay for them.

good. fair play to them. they are right. why should they pay more for something as vital as water.

TheDoc wrote: »

we simply don't grasp the concept of taxation, and are specialists at playing poor mouth.

what bull. we are all well aware of the concept of taxation. however when our taxes get spent on all the wrong things, its "well" understandable why people wouldn't want to pay more, specially as vested interests and politics will decide what they get spent on and who. nobody is playing "the poor mouth" there are many who just cannot afford to pay any more charges.

Mrs Garth Brooks

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

For a while the country was taking in enough in tax to pay for everything. Now its taking in a lot less tax, but stuff still needs paying for. Either the money is raised to pay for stuff from the people or its borrowed and the people can pay for it, plus interest.

Do you go to the credit union every friday and get a loan over 6 months to pay for your shopping for the week?

Yet they can afford to pay Phil hogan over 300,000 a year. That's far too much. But its the ordinary person paying for it.

Shenshen

Gannicus wrote: »

I would whole heartedly be in favour of a decent enough sized tax of what could be classed as luxury foods and drinks (fizzy drinks, fast food or fatty sugary foods) if it meant a good sized tax reduction on anything classed as a healthy/necessary food.

I know it seems like a very nanny state thing to do and I have thought so too. Recently I realised that it (and I'm not taking a stab at people I come from a working class background) people from more affluent areas TEND to have a healthier diet than people from less well off backgrounds.

I consider the main reason being that they have a better financial situation to pay for healthier and better foods and a better work-personal life balance means they are less inclined to get the basic fast food as frequently (ie. Macky D's or BK or the local chipper.)

If something like this made it easier for more families and school canteens to afford and make healthier foods for kids then I'd be completely for it.

I'm not too sure - I believe it's more down to general knowledge about nutrition than the cost of healthy food.
The cheapest way to feed yourself here is to cook yourself, with as many unprocessed ingredients as possible, and with as little meat and fish as possible.
Vegetables, pulses, fruit and the like are still the cheapest items on any shopping list.
Whereas any prepared food, especially takeaways and any type of fast food, are extortionately expensive.

ardmacha

Since the average After Hours is about 15, you probably don't recall that we've been here before in the Mineral Water duty

recylingbin

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

For a while the country was taking in enough in tax to pay for everything. Now its taking in a lot less tax, but stuff still needs paying for. Either the money is raised to pay for stuff from the people or its borrowed and the people can pay for it, plus interest.

Do you go to the credit union every friday and get a loan over 6 months to pay for your shopping for the week?

Retarded analogy.
If i pay for my groceries, I expect to get my groceries.
I don't expect to pay for them, then be told that my gtoceries haven't been paid for and then to have to pay for them again. But, hey, here's a free ice pop.

Gannicus

Shenshen wrote: »

I'm not too sure - I believe it's more down to general knowledge about nutrition than the cost of healthy food.
The cheapest way to feed yourself here is to cook yourself, with as many unprocessed ingredients as possible, and with as little meat and fish as possible.
Vegetables, pulses, fruit and the like are still the cheapest items on any shopping list.
Whereas any prepared food, especially takeaways and any type of fast food, are extortionately expensive.

This can be very true but when you're buying enough veg and fruit to feed a family of five its often cheaper to by a Makky D's Eurosaver for the kids and you. Also if you're working a 12 hour shift or shift work (which my parents did when I was a sprog) sometimes its easier to pick up a collection a chipper.

Also it depends on the chipper. Most places do ridiculous deals nowadays for family and individual meal deals

ancapailldorcha

I'd support it in conjunction with the water tax.

Bog Standard User

sure they should just introduce a fat tax. the fatter you are the more tax you pay. :rolleyes: