nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

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?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

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

[Deleted User]

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?

Fukuyama

UCDVet wrote: »

I'd oppose it.

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.

This has been known now for a while. It's a very 2D method of looking at things.

There are principles which need to be addressed. If there's on hospital bed and two patients. One of the patients ate/smoked their way to heart disease. The other lead a healthy lifestyle but gets ill. I'd give the bed to the healthy person.

Also, I can't back this up, but I'd argue that healthy people contribute more tax into the system.

Fat sacks of **** tend to stall their lives after their teens to a mediocre existence of XFACTOR and the couch. This explains why the lower socio-economic bracket has the highest percentage of chunkies.

Those who contribute more taxes (and are in higher socio-economic bracket as a result) tend to be healthier and have an ounce of self control/respect.

It's all well and good being a sensitive soul about things. But this problem is just begining. Babies born in 2007 will have an obesity rate of 90% by 2040 if things keep going.

What are the consequences of that? Who's going to staff vital positions such as gardaí/fire rescue/military/coast guard when all we have is a nation of moon people?

How will re respond to flooding? Natural disasters?

In a less dramatic approach serious questions still exist.

Do we start building different sized seats in schools/cinemas/airplanes? Will we have a nation where, like the US, an increasing portion of people could be declared disabled?

Who's going to work? Who's going to care for these people?

This is a problem that stems from selfishness and laziness.

Coca Cola are business that sell a product. They survived for decades selling one bottle of coke to every person once in a blue moon. They're responding to consumer demand (they may have created the demand, but they're not force feeding us the stuff).

If we all decide to start drinking water then they'll either adapt or die. That's business.

Honestly - look 20 years into the future. Being fit and healthy will no longer be a normal aspect of a person. As a society, we're killing our selves and anyone that denies it is enabling obesity to become a normality.

B.A._Baracus

Jesus, it's only coca cola. The way some people go on its akin to heroin.

Can't believe the poll is at 57% in favor. The government will gladly tax the holes off us but as long as there is a health issue slapped to mask things people are like seals clapping their hands for more fish.

How about if you don't like drinking sugary things just dont drink them and leave other people to enjoy them? ... just a mad thought that people could let other people live their lives.

Karl Stein

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

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

Alcohol and tobacco companies target young people. Do you think scumbag companies that make money from a horrible life-wrecking addiction should be allowed free reign to nurture new consumers?

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

See this is what I consider 'naive libertarianism'. What about freedom from being manipulated by the advertising industry on behalf of corporations whose bottom line is profit at any cost while the public foots the bill?

Fukuyama

Charlie Rock wrote: »

Can you provide a credible source for this reductive bullshit?

It's true. The idea is that a fat sack of 'human' will have a heart attack at 35 and die a quick death.

Healthy people tend to survive, and thus will cost more in the long run.

This ignore the fact that healthy people contribute more taxes, which over the years (due to investment of said taxes by govt.) will be worth more than their actual sum.

The idea that fat people cost the health system less is true on paper in a simplistic form. But, once analysed, it's nonsense. It also gives off the idea that it's acceptable to ruin you body in any way you see fit - despite the fact that you'll likely pass you habits on to children and/or be a general useless sack who spills into others seats on aeroplanes.

Richard Hillman

srsly78 wrote: »

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

Nazi's and Dublin's Heroin addiction community

Fukuyama

B.A._Baracus wrote: »

Jesus, it's only coca cola. The way some people go on its akin to heroin.

Can't believe the poll is at 57% in favor. The government will gladly tax the holes off us but as long as there is a health issue slapped to mask things people are like seals clapping their hands for more fish.

How about if you don't like drinking sugary things just dont drink them and leave other people to enjoy them? ... just a mad thought that people could let other people live their lives.

Having no self control = addiction :rolleyes:

We claim to hate the government interfering in our lives. But openly welcome the idea of fully grown adults being handled with kid gloves and moddycoddled into loosing weight.

Karl Stein

Dean0088 wrote: »

Healthy people tend to survive, and thus will cost more in the long run.

Source?

This ignore the fact that healthy people contribute more taxes, which over the years (due to investment of said taxes by govt.) will be worth more than their actual sum.

You're contradicting yourself here. So now healthy people are a nett gain to the exchequer?

The idea that fat people cost the health system less is true on paper in a simplistic form. But, once analysed, it's nonsense.

So its not true?

WTF?

darkpagandeath

There is One Word people have got correct in this Thread

TAX

B.A._Baracus

Dean0088 wrote: »

Having no self control = addiction :rolleyes:

We claim to hate the government interfering in our lives. But openly welcome the idea of fully grown adults being handled with kid gloves and moddycoddled into loosing weight.

It's cola, mate. ffs.

lets ban sweets, alcohol, fast food, cooking oils, chips, salt, eggs etc etc etc. Because it's all bad for you. Actually, better yet, lets not ban those things. Lets tax the hell outta them.

Fukuyama

Charlie Rock wrote: »

Source?

You're contradicting yourself here. So now healthy people are a nett gain to the exchequer?

So its not true?

WTF?

Google it. It's well known and raised during almost every discussion of the subject online.

I'm agreeing that in a simplistic manner, fat people cost less. This is because they'll die a quick death. Their cost to the HSE will be less because they'll only enter the system once for a heart attack and then die on their second heart attack.

Healthy people, when they go to hospital when they're older, will cost more as diseases are more complicated to treat beyond 65.

So, in theory, healthy people will have a bigger hospital bill over their (much longer) life time.

HOWEVER, they will also have worked more, been more likely to have a better job etc.. and because their taxes have been invested over a longer period, the state makes a net gain, despite them having higher health costs over the long term.

This also ignores the fact that healthy people are more likely to have private health insurance, so many healthy people will never even enter the HSE system.

Hope that clears up what I meant. It's a complex one to get your head around, but it's logical.