'Sugar tax' on fizzy drinks raises €32m, but none of it goes on tackling obesity

Tabnabs

Proof, if we even needed it, that politicians don't give a fcuk about the people they are elected to serve. You think the carbon taxes are going to be any different?

Once again, the people of Ireland dance to the tune of a political agenda and get not one bit of benefit from it.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/health/sugar-tax-on-fizzy-drinks-raises-32m-but-none-of-it-goes-on-tackling-obesity-38291019.html

Wanderer78

Tabnabs wrote:

Proof, if we even needed it, that politicians don't give a fcuk about the people they are elected to serve. You think the carbon taxes are going to be any different?

Taxes to try prevent irrational addictive human behavior, can't see a problem with this plan!

NIMAN

Are you saying the Gov in Ireland has spent nothing tackling obesity?

Of course they do. In that case, general taxation is being used, so for me its 6 of one. ...

Franz Von Peppercorn II

It’s a stupid headline as all taxes go into a general pot (license fee excepted).

Anyway the idea is to change behaviour. Revenue would be zero if it really worked.

FunLover18

How much of the VAT on cigarettes goes towards tackling smoking?

Is the point not that the tax is a deterrent, like the plastic bag tax?

Franz Von Peppercorn II

FunLover18 wrote: »

How much of the VAT on cigarettes goes towards tackling smoking?

Is the point not that the tax is a deterrent, like the plastic bag tax?

Yes, of course.

Autecher

In what way could money be spent to tackle obesity?

Sonny noggs

We need to start smuggling sugar in from abroad.

Sonny noggs

Autecher wrote: »

In what way could money be spent to tackle obesity?

Gastric bands for all!!

FunLover18

Autecher wrote: »

In what way could money be spent to tackle obesity?

Spanx for everyone??

EDIT: Sonny beat me to it

johnmcdnl

Tabnabs wrote: »

Proof, if we even needed it, that politicians don't give a fcuk about the people they are elected to serve. You think the carbon taxes are going to be any different?

"Some products, such as Lucozade, Fanta, Sprite and Vimto, changed their recipes so they contain less than 5g of sugar and avoid the tax."

The tax is literally doing exactly what it was intended to do - reduce the amount of sugar we consume due to these tye of drinks. The industry is adjusting and reducing sugary content due to the tax, so at the end of the day people are consuming less sugary drinks.
Should the energy industry adapt and invovate to avoid taxes that penalise carbon production, then the carbon taxes will have been successful.

Would I love if the money got spent on health initiatives, sure, yes I would. But would you mind to explain what you think the intention of carbon taxes is, if not to force us, and the energy sector to adjust our current approach.

osarusan

Seems like a fairly stupid and misleading headline to me.


The article even explains that Ireland pools all the tax it collects. So you could make up the same headline about anything you wanted - not a cent of tax on alcohol going directly towards dealing with alcohol abuse, not a cent of tax on sports events being put directly back into sport, etc.

NIMAN

To be fair, it was the Indo, so that explains the stupid/misleading headline.

Wanderer78

johnmcdnl wrote:

"Some products, such as Lucozade, Fanta, Sprite and Vimto, changed their recipes so they contain less than 5g of sugar and avoid the tax."

Do the alternative sweeteners added have any negative health affects?

kippy

Wanderer78 wrote: »

Do the alternative sweeteners added have any negative health affects?

This is the biggest issue if you were to ask me.
Whatever about Sugar, the stuff in general (not just sweetners) that go into these types of drinks CANNOT be good for you over a prolonged period.

In relation to the article - nonsense stuff.

d00mk1n

johnmcdnl wrote: »

"Some products, such as Lucozade, Fanta, Sprite and Vimto, changed their recipes so they contain less than 5g of sugar and avoid the tax."

but new lucozade is ****e :pac:

johnmcdnl

johnmcdnl wrote: »

"Some products, such as Lucozade, Fanta, Sprite and Vimto, changed their recipes so they contain less than 5g of sugar and avoid the tax."

The tax is literally doing exactly what it was intended to do - reduce the amount of sugar we consume due to these tye of drinks.

I am curious if you know - as I am totally ignorant - did the same thing happen in the US at all? I know they implemented sugar taxes on "soda" in some areas - sometimes as a % tax and sometimes as a fixed price per litre tax - and I am not sure if it motivated manufacturers to change their recipes. If it did not - why not? What was the difference?

Last time I read up on the issue there in the US - I remember reading that the sugar tax did instigate some levels of weight loss - but interestingly only in the middle class. The lower and upper classes were almost unaffected by it entirely. Which in retrospect kinda makes sense.

Autecher wrote: »

In what way could money be spent to tackle obesity?

I am no economist but the first things that jumped into my head when I read your question was health initiatives - sport initiatives - and maybe tax reductions on healthier food stuffs to offset the profits made by the tax increases on the unhealthier food stuffs?

As I said I am no economist so no idea if _any_ of that would work. But thats simply what my sugar addled brain spewed out

Harvey Weinstein

johnmcdnl wrote: »

"Some products, such as Lucozade, Fanta, Sprite and Vimto, changed their recipes so they contain less than 5g of sugar and avoid the tax."

The tax is literally doing exactly what it was intended to do - reduce the amount of sugar we consume due to these tye of drinks. The industry is adjusting and reducing sugary content due to the tax, so at the end of the day people are consuming less sugary drinks.
Should the energy industry adapt and invovate to avoid taxes that penalise carbon production, then the carbon taxes will have been successful.

Would I love if the money got spent on health initiatives, sure, yes I would. But would you mind to explain what you think the intention of carbon taxes is, if not to force us, and the energy sector to adjust our current approach.

Cured me of my addiction to Lucozade at least..the new stuff is rotten. Haven't had a drop since they changed it up.

mikhail

Wanderer78 wrote: »

Do the alternative sweeteners added have any negative health affects?

Drank to excess, probably. Most things do.

Wanderer78

mikhail wrote:

Drank to excess, probably. Most things do.

Oh give it time, and we ll start seeing what this ****e does

ceadaoin.

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I am curious if you know - as I am totally ignorant - did the same thing happen in the US at all? I know they implemented sugar taxes on "soda" in some areas - sometimes as a % tax and sometimes as a fixed price per litre tax - and I am not sure if it motivated manufacturers to change their recipes. If it did not - why not? What was the difference?

In the US, unless a soda is advertised as diet, then it generally doesn't contain artificial sweeteners so it doesn't seem that a sugar tax, if there is one, made any difference to recipes. Maybe that's because more people here aren't very keen on sweeteners? There are loads of flavoured sparkling waters that specifically advertise themselves as not containing either sweeteners or sugar and they're very popular.


I notice when I'm home that pretty much everything in Ireland besides normal coke contains sweeteners now and tastes disgusting.

El_Duderino 09

Why would a tax be used to pay for something 1-1 like that? There isn't a Garda tax, or a court service tax or a prison tax or a health service tax, or schools tax.

X tax isn't spend on X. is just something that people who like to get annoyed, like to give out about.

Beechwoodspark

Is the tax on Coke Zero does anyone know

El_Duderino 09

Wanderer78 wrote: »

Taxes to try prevent irrational addictive human behavior, can't see a problem with this plan!

It isn't supposed to prevent people buying sugar, it's supposed to deter people by placing an impediment to buying it. It's supposed to give people pause for thought before buying it.

Autecher wrote: »

In what way could money be spent to tackle obesity?

Education is always a lever to changing attitudes and behaviour. Listening to the radio where this was discussed the other day because Boris johnson proposed a review of this type of tax. They had practitioners who deal with people who genuinely said things like "i didn't know cake/crisps/bread would make me fat".

Bottom line is: don't assume other people know what you know.
education is always a good option and it can be targeted to different groups with different levels of knowledge.

Dravokivich

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

Is the tax on Coke Zero does anyone know

Shouldn't be, but some retailers still bump the prices of less obvious ones that dont have the tax applied.

c.p.w.g.w

johnmcdnl wrote: »

"Some products, such as Lucozade, Fanta, Sprite and Vimto, changed their recipes so they contain less than 5g of sugar and avoid the tax."

The tax is literally doing exactly what it was intended to do - reduce the amount of sugar we consume due to these tye of drinks. The industry is adjusting and reducing sugary content due to the tax, so at the end of the day people are consuming less sugary drinks.
Should the energy industry adapt and invovate to avoid taxes that penalise carbon production, then the carbon taxes will have been successful.

Would I love if the money got spent on health initiatives, sure, yes I would. But would you mind to explain what you think the intention of carbon taxes is, if not to force us, and the energy sector to adjust our current approach.

But some of those sweeteners have s similar affect on insulin and hormonal response in the body

El_Duderino 09

c.p.w.g.w wrote: »

But some of those sweeteners have s similar affect on insulin and hormonal response in the body

Yeah I'm not an expert but that's what I hear. So the solution is to apply the tax to other equally harmful ingredients.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Isn’t the idea that people buy and consume less sugary crap - tackling obesity in a head-on way - rather than the increased revenue going towards tackling obesity?

Dravokivich

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Isn’t the idea that people buy and consume less sugary crap - tackling obesity in a head-on way - rather than the increased revenue going towards tackling obesity?

People just spend less money on other stuff. Or else when taxed excessively obtain it through the black market.

Wanderer78

El_Duderino 09 wrote:

It isn't supposed to prevent people buying sugar, it's supposed to deter people by placing an impediment to buying it. It's supposed to give people pause for thought before buying it.

Pause for thought! How many are gonna truly do that? I suspect very few, if any, humans generally do not behave like this, when it comes addictive substances. I'd say there's a good chance it ll do very little to deal with our obesity issues

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Wanderer78 wrote: »

Pause for thought! How many are gonna truly do that? I suspect very few, if any, humans generally do not behave like this, when it comes addictive substances. I'd say there's a good chance it ll do very little to deal with our obesity issues

Aye. People always find the money for their vices. I remember once as a student agonising over whether to buy a box of Special K as a treat. Before anyone says, I know Special K is crappy enough but it was less than a fiver and would have provided a full week’s breakfasts. Then I realised that I thought nothing of handing over that fiver for a pint.