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

dublinbhoy88 · 06-10-2013 06:57PM

Just another excuse to rob the people of Ireland, no from me

Gummy Panda · 06-10-2013 07:03PM

I want free fillings if they are taxing sugary drinks like coke. At least then I see a benefit to the tax

ezra_pound · 06-10-2013 07:05PM

dublinbhoy88 wrote: »

Just another excuse to rob the people of Ireland, no from me

So tax is theft then. Used to fund the evil healthcare and education system. Maintaining our tyrannical law and order system. And preserving our oppressive social democracy. The evil empire.

Dempsey · 06-10-2013 07:29PM

A 20% tax isnt going to stop people getting fat. Its just another way to tax people. The likes of Coca Cola have been ahead of the curve on this by developing and selling products which has legal levels of Sodium Cyclamate as an artificial sweetener. Not much better for anyone's health. When this doesnt solve the obesity problem, what are they going to do, ramp up the sugar tax? Create an artificial sweetener tax?

06-10-2013 07:31PM

Tin Foil Hat wrote: »

Excise duties don't work. They don't work for ciggies. They don't work for alcohol. And they won't work for junk food. The only result of a tax like this will be a state addiction to monies earned from foods the government pretend they want us to stop consuming.

Sums it up

Cody Pomeray · 06-10-2013 07:34PM

srsly78 wrote: »

It's a simplistic analysis but... From a cold economic point of view the ideal tax paying citizen is the one that works hard all their lives but then drops dead at 65. The least ideal citizen is one that lives a long time drawing their pension but needing lots of medical care. Well... technically the worst is a citizen that doesn't work or contribute to society at all, and then proceeds to live long in retirement with massive medical bills.

So don't use money as the argument, use health instead.

Old people do lots of financially useful things, like child minding, provide financing for financial institutions, and voluntary work which saves the exchequer from having to directly provide for work which is currently done by charities.

Fit and healthy workers, in particular, are probably the least likely people to do nothing productive once they retire.

PickledLime · 06-10-2013 07:36PM

0ph0rce0 wrote: »

And that wont change just because a can of coke costs 20c extra.

You enjoy it so why not, if you become diabetic then so be it.

You could be killed tomorrow sure.

Healthy me hole.

Doubt you'd be saying that if you were actually diabetic.

srsly78 · 06-10-2013 07:37PM

@Code: Don't nitpick, it was a simplistic analysis. These people may be productive but they still draw pensions, which make up a huge chunk of our welfare spending.

irishgeo · 06-10-2013 07:40PM

why not a 1c text on text messages?

In the Republic of Ireland, a total of 1.5 billion messages are sent every quarter, on average 114 messages per person per month

shruikan2553 · 06-10-2013 07:49PM

Sure, tax them along with everything else that can be seen as unhealthy. The fatties are probably drinking full fat milk too so better tax that, get them onto the low fat milk. Eating only peppers is bad for you so we can tax those as well.

Paramite Pie · 06-10-2013 07:49PM

imitation wrote: »

I would rather our glorious government do some forward thinking for a change and do a combination of initatives and schemes to make healther foods more attractive & easier get & cook as well as forcing the cokes of the world to use less sugar, fat etc.

-The fact that it's healthy should be attractive enough!

-It's fairly easy to get in any supermarket. The fruit and veg is the first thing you see in a supermarket. You don't have to pass through any other aisle to get to it.

-It's easy to cook, in fact fruit requires no cooking at all! Cooking vegetables is optional too and stir frys are fairly quick. Veg can be oven roasted for great flavour or even blended to create a soup.

The best initiative would be to reduce the tax on healthy foods rather than just raising tax on junkfood. And make home Economics mandatory for all school kids.

Many parents buy what the kids demand. No point trying new foods if the kids won't eat it. But if the kids learn to cook at school and learn about nutrition (they're also more likely to eat something new if they made it), they might just ask the parents to buy healthier foods now that they've tasted them.

Cody Pomeray · 06-10-2013 07:54PM

srsly78 wrote: »

@Code: Don't nitpick, it was a simplistic analysis. These people may be productive but they still draw pensions, which make up a huge chunk of our welfare spending.

But that applies to the fat elderly population too.

With modern medicine, fat people live well past retirement, and into old age. If you're active, you should live just as long, but you may be more inclined (or physically able to) contribute to your community and family in a financially meaningful way.

Wompa1 · 06-10-2013 07:58PM

irishgeo wrote: »

why not a 1c text on text messages?

In the Republic of Ireland, a total of 1.5 billion messages are sent every quarter, on average 114 messages per person per month

While I agree with you, I would think a lot of those texts are sent from young people on ready to go phones with 'Free texts' bundles. If you impose a tax, I would think the number of texts would fall and the kiddos would just start using Facebook Messenger and the like (Which they likely will do in the future anyways)

srsly78 · 06-10-2013 08:04PM

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

But that applies to the fat elderly population too.

With modern medicine, fat people live well past retirement, and into old age. If you're active, you should live just as long, but you may be more inclined (or physically able to) contribute to your community and family in a financially meaningful way.

Yes sure. Ballpark figures seem to suggest that obesity can take 3-10 years off life expectancy. Maybe the economic stuff was true in the past (cheap dead people), but modern medicine may have skewed the maths now.

darkpagandeath · 06-10-2013 08:06PM

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

But that applies to the fat elderly population too.

With modern medicine, fat people live well past retirement, and into old age. If you're active, you should live just as long, but you may be more inclined (or physically able to) contribute to your community and family in a financially meaningful way.

What's that supposed to mean ? It really annoys me that People in this thread seem to think there entitled to say how other people live and if you don't live the way they live you must be stupid/lazy. How about you live they way you want to live and Butt out of how other people want to live. If someone does not contribute to society they should be euthanized? if you get Alzheimer's you cant contribute can you ? There is far to much bizzybodying going on these days. Yes people need to cut back on fatty sugary foods but lets not get all my way or the highway about it.

srsly78 · 06-10-2013 08:08PM

You can get annoyed all you want, things like actuarial science deal with aggregates over large populations. It's not personal, it's just cold hard economics.

hatrickpatrick · 06-10-2013 08:09PM

Charlie Rock wrote: »

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?

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?

Who's talking about marketing? Restricting marketing and actually making it harder for consumers to choose to buy a product by artificially inflating prices are completely separate things.
We are specifically talking about consumer level deterrent taxes here, which I disagree with. That's a totally separate issue from regulation of marketing or anything else - bottom line is that I as a consumer shouldn't have to pay more for a coke just because the government decides it's in my best interest. I'm an adult, I will decide what's in my best interest.

I find it quite bizarre that marketing has become mixed into this conversation. A 20% tax on sugary drinks has nothing to do with marketing, it's restricting consumer choice with artificial inflation because the government doesn't approve of something. The two issues literally aren't even in the same ballpark.

darkpagandeath · 06-10-2013 08:13PM

srsly78 wrote: »

You can get annoyed all you want, things like actuarial science deal with aggregates over large populations. It's not personal, it's just cold hard economics.

bizzybody 101 science says ...

Science says allot of things are bad for you if they say TV is bad for you are you going to ban all TV's you know for the greater good .. or cars or built up areas? (insert massive list) for the greater good people would have us all living in caves. it’s not about the greater good with most of them their just smug and want to tell people what they can and cant do.

srsly78 · 06-10-2013 08:18PM

So would you rather your taxes got spent by rolling dice?

constance tench · 06-10-2013 08:19PM

Paramite Pie wrote: »

-The fact that it's healthy should be attractive enough!

-It's fairly easy to get in any supermarket. The fruit and veg is the first thing you see in a supermarket. You don't have to pass through any other aisle to get to it.

-It's easy to cook, in fact fruit requires no cooking at all! Cooking vegetables is optional too and stir frys are fairly quick. Veg can be oven roasted for great flavour or even blended to create a soup.

The best initiative would be to reduce the tax on healthy foods rather than just raising tax on junkfood. And make home Economics mandatory for all school kids.

Many parents buy what the kids demand. No point trying new foods if the kids won't eat it. But if the kids learn to cook at school and learn about nutrition (they're also more likely to eat something new if they made it), they might just ask the parents to buy healthier foods now that they've tasted them.

There is no VAT on 'healthy foods'!...23 percent on soft drinks, fruit juices, bottled waters, Sweets, chocolates, ice cream, crisps and peanuts...

Standman · 06-10-2013 08:29PM

Charlie Rock wrote: »

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?

Do you really believe that people have such little responsibility over their own choices that it's the "scumbag corporations" who are at fault and not the people who ingest such a ridiculous amount of sugar that it harms their health?

COYVB · 06-10-2013 08:31PM

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 know this is a whole other argument, but designated drivers shouldn't have to pay anything for their soft drinks at the bar

armchair fusilier · 06-10-2013 08:33PM

This is just the typical response Irish Health Ministers come up with when the realisation hits them that they really are in the Irish political equivalent of Angola - go an noisy campaigns in a vain attempt to look busy and deflect attention away from they fact that they are completely out of their depth with job they have been handed.

No surprise that this story has come out the same day as news that James Reilly's department is likely to need a Budget-day bailout of up to €400m because of his failure to keep control of spending.

Karl Stein · 06-10-2013 08:36PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I find it quite bizarre that marketing has become mixed into this conversation. A 20% tax on sugary drinks has nothing to do with marketing, it's restricting consumer choice with artificial inflation because the government doesn't approve of something. The two issues literally aren't even in the same ballpark.

I don't think sugary drinks should be taxed I think sugar production should not be subsidized and refined sugar and sugar products should be taxed to increase the price. I also think that the advertising of sweets, sugary drinks, and other such useless foods should be banned from the public airwaves until a certain time of the day to protect young minds from marketing.

Karl Stein · 06-10-2013 08:44PM

Standman wrote: »

Do you really believe that people have such little responsibility over their own choices that it's the "scumbag corporations" who are at fault and not the people who ingest such a ridiculous amount of sugar that it harms their health?

Honestly, if you think marketing has no effect on the public consciousness you're living in an alternate universe. Scumbag corporations are notorious for deliberately targeting young people with their products through marketing on the public airwaves (think about that term 'public airwaves').

Tell me, do you think it would be wise to allow Philip Morris advertise cancer causing, life wrecking, highly addictive cigarettes on the public airwaves?

darkpagandeath · 06-10-2013 08:49PM

How about we deal with actual issues instead of just sticking a tax on something to make us feel good. Ireland consumes more chocolate per capita than anywhere in Europe Lets stop the association of Chocolate with religious festivals or holidays as baby Jesus most have loved the stuff. With his egg’s and selection boxes and advent calendars. As i bet the stop eating fatty people don't stuff there kids full of this stuff at them times of the year do they

Standman · 06-10-2013 08:56PM

Charlie Rock wrote: »

Honestly, if you think marketing has no effect on the public consciousness you're living in an alternate universe. Scumbag corporations are notorious for deliberately targeting young people with their products through marketing on the public airwaves (think about that term public airwaves).

Tell me, do you think it would be wise to allow Philip Morris advertise cancer causing, life wrecking, highly addictive cigarettes on the public airwaves?

Don't really want to be dragged into a debate about advertising, but of course I know it affects peoples choices.

I was just wondering how you seemed to have come to the conclusion that people are in no way responsible for their own choices.

Fukuyama · 06-10-2013 09:02PM

The amount of fat sympathisers in this thread is amazing.

We're rapidly on our way to being a society of morbidly obese people.

Look at the US. 1/3 overweight. 1/3 clinically obese. 1/3 of a 'healthy' weight. And how many of that healthy 1/3 would be physically capable? As in decent strength, endurance etc... But if you go back 40 years most adult men and women were physically fit and capable right into their 50s/60s.

In ten years we'll start seeing people who are 55 now, retiring. They'll be the lardiest pensioners ever and many will need state assistance to buy their rascal scooters to get to McDonalds. They'll live longer too with oxygen tanks, home doctor visits, all eating into the national budget. And it's not just the heavy setters we've to worry about. Diabetes is ready to explode in this country. All those kids being raised on a diet of Coke, crisps and chicken fillet rolls will hit 25, and then need state sponsored insulin, medical visits etc... for the rest of their lives.

In about 20 or 30 years there will be a genuine shortage of people with the physical ability to become gardaí / fire fighters / EMTs / army ect... Everyone will ask why our generation didn't consider each individuals health to be a national concern.

And then there'll be a flood.

RIP everyone.

banquo · 06-10-2013 09:06PM

I'd be against it. Pointless moralising, won't act as a disincentive just as every other excise doesn't (apart from generating public funds) and will hurt the local shopkeeper already competing against Tesco.

Bad idea.

Karl Stein · 06-10-2013 09:07PM

Standman wrote: »

I was just wondering how you seemed to have come to the conclusion that people are in no way responsible for their own choices.

People can only make choices based on good information. Can you imagine what a cigarette ad would be like if it was forced to be honest and give smokers good information? They simply wouldn't make them.

Take sugary drinks as another example. What would an advert that was truly honest sound like?

Drink Cuke! Please understand that each can of cuke has about 10 teaspoons of sugar in it, has effectively zero nutritional value, will rot teeth, over-consumption can lead to obesity and other quality of life diminishing conditions etc etc.

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

Comments