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

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!

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

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?

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.

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.