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

Femme_Fatale · 06-10-2013 09:08PM

Dean0088 wrote: »

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...

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.

Why are you so sure "Everyone" will ask why our generation didn't consider each individual's health to be a national concern? Plenty of people make lifestyle their concern - dietitians, personal trainers, gym instructors, exercise teachers. Maybe... obese people should be taking responsibility for themselves instead of e.g. me or you being assigned such a project? If someone is obese, I don't think it's a good thing, but it's their concern - I'm not going to be able to change them, they need to do that themselves. And yes there should be public health campaigns, but there are, and I'm not qualified to set another one up.

Food companies should reduce portion sizes too. Yes I have said this calls for personal responsibility, but if the gargantuan portions weren't available, it would be a major help. When I was a kid in the 80s/early 90s, we ate some total crap - cheap yellow-pack Quinnsworth bread, processed meats and frozen ready-meals galore, and crisps, biscuits, chocolate... yet obesity, even chunkiness, were extremely rare. Derek Davis was the only well-known overweight person in Ireland, as far as I recall. But portion sizes were tiny - there was none of this supersized malarkey. That was for Amerikay only.

Karl Stein · 06-10-2013 09:10PM

banquo wrote: »

won't act as a disincentive just as every other excise doesn't

This is demonstrably false - it's axiomatic that the high price of cigarettes is a great incentive for cutting down or quitting.

Paramite Pie · 06-10-2013 09:11PM

constance tench wrote: »

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

I assumed there was VAT on all foods...:p oh well at least that's a good thing.

Anyways increasing tax did nothing for drink or cigarette consumption. Soon there'll be diabetes warnings on soft drinks, then plain labels to curb marketing and ultimately soft drinks will be kept behind the counter....:rolleyes:

Luckily I rarely touch the stuff myself...

Days 298 · 06-10-2013 09:15PM

Dean0088 wrote: »

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...

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.

So rising a can of coke from a euro to 1.20 will solve our problems. I love the continent €1.20 would by you a 1.5l bottle in a local shop. Here your looking at €1.60 for 500ml and people don't think its enough.

God I miss the days when I used be able to get a can of coke and then get the bus and still have change from a €2 coin. Living here ain't cheap. And in a few days the government will lightly lift another couple of euro from our pockets. Maybe that could be our coca cola money?

Maybe free gymnasiums in every town would help but that would cost money

The state would only intervene when it can make a quick buck. Waste it and then still have no money to solve the future problem when it arises. Not one red cent of a future tax would stop the cutbacks in healthcare we are having now or the future.

Fukuyama · 06-10-2013 09:16PM

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

Why are you so sure "Everyone" will ask why our generation didn't consider each individual's health to be a national concern? Plenty of people make lifestyle their concern - dietitians, personal trainers, gym instructors, exercise teachers. Maybe... obese people should be taking responsibility for themselves instead of e.g. me or you being assigned such a project? If someone is obese, I don't think it's a good thing, but it's their concern - I'm not going to be able to change them, they need to do that themselves. And yes there should be public health campaigns, but there are, and I'm not qualified to set another one up.

I completely agree with most of your argument and it'd be true if

1. The size of other people never affected anyone else
2. The population wasn't forecasted to be majority obese within a couple of decades.

This is a democracy. So all those obese people will easy have laws passed in their favour such as guaranteed state health assistance, disability welfare etc...

I remember watching the flooding after Katrina in the US.

Army helicopters were pulling huge people out of houses because they couldn't escape like the rest. I'm not even taking the worst hit areas here. Like 2ft of water and they're unable to walk for 10mins through it.

Which is fine because it was only a few thousand in a large city. But what about when 70% of people can't help themselves in such situations? I'm not taking the pis5 here. This is a genuine concern for disaster response experts.

Look at concert halls and stadiums now having to be redesigned with wider seats, which thus pushes up the cost of seating for everyone.

100 years ago, less than 1% of people were obese. And it was fine. Society as a whole ticked over.

But there is a tipping point. And we're approaching it at an alarming rate.

Fukuyama · 06-10-2013 09:19PM

Days 298 wrote: »

So rising a can of coke from a euro to 1.20 will solve our problems. I love the continent €1.20 would by you a 1.5l bottle in a local shop. Here your looking at €1.60 for 500ml and people don't think its enough.

No. I don't think it will.

I'd be more for increased PE in schools, free GAA / football teams for kids and a genuine attitude in society that sitting on the couch during all your spare time is lazy and not a good thing.

GreeBo · 06-10-2013 09:21PM

How about lowering the tax on things that arent "bad" for you?
Part of the problem today is that people perceive crap food to be much cheaper than proper food (and yes I know its because they probably cook!)
If everything natural/unprocessed was on a lower tax bracket it would make eating healthy cheaper and also encourage more manufacturers to aim for less processed junk.

Fukuyama · 06-10-2013 09:23PM

GreeBo wrote: »

How about lowering the tax on things that arent "bad" for you?
Part of the problem today is that people perceive crap food to be much cheaper than proper food (and yes I know its because they probably cook!)
If everything natural/unprocessed was on a lower tax bracket it would make eating healthy cheaper and also encourage more manufacturers to aim for less processed junk.

AFAIK, fruit/veg/milk/eggs etc... have no VAT.

MEat might. Unsure.

If anyone wants to loose weight the best thing they can do is to only buy what's one step away from the source.

For example. Milk. Came from a cow and got bottled fine.

Chocolate milk. Nope. Processed.

Fruit. Fell off a tree. Picked up and sold. Fine.

Frozen pizza in a box. NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

Diemos · 06-10-2013 09:24PM

Why not apply tax on clothes with a 36+inch waist for men and the equivalent for women. Therefore only the ultra nourished get charged (mostly).

Cody Pomeray · 06-10-2013 09:26PM

Days 298 wrote: »

So rising a can of coke from a euro to 1.20 will solve our problems. I love the continent €1.20 would by you a 1.5l bottle in a local shop.

Wages are lower in many continental countries than they are in Ireland. The Single European Currency didn't bring price parity with it.

Maybe free gymnasiums in every town would help

I don't think so.

Look around you the next time you're in a gym. Lots of people carrying maximuscle flasks and bottles of Ballygowan, but how many walk around with cans of fizzy drinks like Fanta, or Coca Cola? Nobody that I've ever seen. Why is this?

The reality is that it isn't practical (nor true) to say that it's ok to consume whatever you want, so long as you're using a gym. The nutritional and energy imbalances that are associated with bad dieting also have ramifications for concentration, and decision making, and the consistency of an individual's personal energy levels for the day.

If you live on a diet low in essential vitamins and high in fast burning energy, you're not going to have the will to visit a gym every morning.

There has to be a way of singling out harmful food options, and incentivise healthy eating in the population. To ignore the addictive and nutritional complications of these foods is to stand by and watch really serious harm be perpetrated, most especially in the case of children.

RandomName2 · 06-10-2013 09:26PM

Charlie Rock wrote: »

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.

Cuke? Can't work out if you are talking about orange juice, which has between 9- 11% or Coke which also has an 11% sugar content.

Ah... better tax 'em both. Let them drink water or whatever.

ixoy · 06-10-2013 09:28PM

Not at all - I happen to like my soft drinks and they help give me a little sugar / caffeine kick in the afternoons. My weight and health are also perfectly fine because I can enjoy a can a few times a week but I also barely drink and, largely, eat home-cooked meals, made with fresh ingredients, each night. The notion that those people who drink coke are on the way to obesity doesn't always ring true.

Karl Stein · 06-10-2013 09:29PM

GreeBo wrote: »

If everything natural/unprocessed was on a lower tax bracket...

Afaia fruit and veg has no VAT on it already so a tax on sugar would leave them essentially cheaper still comparatively.

RonanM123 · 06-10-2013 09:34PM

Didn't expect the poll to be so close, clearly all the fat pigs are apposing it!

RandomName2 · 06-10-2013 09:34PM

Charlie Rock wrote: »

You've me all wrong. I believe in freedom. I think weed should be legalised along with other drugs. I also believe in freedom from having corporations push harmful products. Allowing the profit motive to dictate public policy when it comes to harmful products is truly truly ****ing stupid.

Okay.... but the food industry is already exceptionally highly legislated. The thread's just talking about sticking punitive taxes on stuff for lolz*

*by lolz I mean nanny-state nonsense and money making

Legalise marijuana! Then ban the adverts for it! Introduce lots of red tape, slap huge taxes on it, and then look disapprovingly at anyone who uses it! Whoo!

Fukuyama · 06-10-2013 09:37PM

ixoy wrote: »

Not at all - I happen to like my soft drinks and they help give me a little sugar / caffeine kick in the afternoons. My weight and health are also perfectly fine because I can enjoy a can a few times a week but I also barely drink and, largely, eat home-cooked meals, made with fresh ingredients, each night. The notion that those people who drink coke are on the way to obesity doesn't always ring true.

Three cans of coke a week are hardly going to make much of a difference if you live an otherwise healthy life.

I know several people who'll go though a 2L a day. On top of fast food / crisps / processed food etc....

One of my closest friends will regularly sip over three cans of that Monster energy drink all day.

The Big Smoke · 06-10-2013 09:37PM

I am a huge believer in teaching kids how to cook in schools and colleges, the money you can save from cooking a big pot of stew and freezing it to eat over the week is phenomenal. Just wish I could put it into practice for once. :rolleyes:

Fukuyama · 06-10-2013 09:39PM

In case anyone thinks that obesity will never affect them.

http://www.naccho.org/topics/emergency/AHPIP/loader.cfm?csModule=security/getfile&pageid=150910

Nattyyyy · 06-10-2013 09:49PM

As I always say the want to keep the rich richer and the poor poorer...
You don't see half of them putting there hands in there pockets to pay half of these ridiculous taxes why should we if they want us to be healthy bring the prices down and don't say they can't cause they can just take a look at the specials that go on in supermarkets take lidls as a example they can reduce there prices dramatically but can't cause of taxes laws and try help any Irish business instead of bringing in foreigner company's to help

Standman · 06-10-2013 09:53PM

Charlie Rock wrote: »

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.

The nutritional information of coke or any other soft drink is freely available - it's right there on the side of the bottle/can as it should be.

Even if it wasn't available, if anybody were to think that coke is healthy or has nutritional value it would be a result of bad parenting, little to no education, or a mix of the two.

I'm all for education on and promotion of healthy living, advice/warnings on over use of unhealthy products etc. It's definitely needed.

Anyway, this thread is about tax, not advertising.

I think penalizing all users of a certain product because of negative health effects of over use treats the symptom, not the cause. If people buy less soft drinks it will be because they can't afford to buy more, not because they have learned anything or have made a decision to improve their health. An economic decision not a healthy one.

On top of that, I think it is counter productive because it makes a lot of people believe that the government is responsible for their health and not them, which naturally leads them to making irresponsible decisions.

up for anything · 06-10-2013 09:54PM

_Redzer_ wrote: »

Why not just feck off with all the taxes? Let anyone who can't regulate their intake suffer the consequences themselves.

I was just defending my Coke habit.

Cody Pomeray · 06-10-2013 09:59PM

Standman wrote: »

On top of that, I think it is counter productive because it makes a lot of people believe that the government is responsible for their health and not them, which naturally leads them to making irresponsible decisions.

What a ridiculous argument.

As if anyone approaches a harmful substance or toxin on which a tax is levied and thinks "ah it's grand, there's a tax on this here arsenic, I can chomp away on it so".

That has to be the most illogical argument put forward in this thread.

RandomName2 · 06-10-2013 10:10PM

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

What a ridiculous argument.

As if anyone approaches a harmful substance or toxin on which a tax is levied and thinks "ah it's grand, there's a tax on this here arsenic, I can chomp away on it so".

That has to be the most illogical argument put forward in this thread.

No, it's actually quite a sensible argument.

Such a tax would be a money making racket, dressed up whatever way you like (e.g. chewing gum tax is to pay for road cleaning).

If I saw a product called "arsenic" and had been thoroughly inspected by government agents, was been taxed as a foodstuff and labelled as such I'd say "why did that food company give their product such an unappetising name?". If you actually believed that a substance was toxic (which sugar isn't, of course) then you would ban it, wouldn't you? You wouldn't raise taxes on it to raise a few bob, ffs.

Standman · 06-10-2013 10:13PM

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

What a ridiculous argument.

As if anyone approaches a harmful substance or toxin on which a tax is levied and thinks "ah it's grand, there's a tax on this here arsenic, I can chomp away on it so".

That has to be the most illogical argument put forward in this thread.

No, I didn't suggest that "tax on product =green light for ingestion!".

When I talked about irresponsible decisions I was talking about it in the context of this debate (namely soft drinks/ unhealthy foods). Thought that would be obvious, apologies if it wasn't clear.

hatrickpatrick · 06-10-2013 10:15PM

Charlie Rock wrote: »

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.

Fair enough, but you must admit that they are all separate issues - subsidy, marketing restrictions, and deterrent taxes. The former target production while the latter targets consumers, and I am simply morally opposed to the targeting of consumers by the government. I don't believe it's their place to tell us how to live our lives, as a matter of principle. I apply the same criteria to any example of 'victimless crime' you care to cite.
Free citizens over 18 years of age should not be restricted in any capacity as long as their behavior has no directly negative effects on people who haven't consented to it.
If I want health advice I'll get a personal trainer and hire a nutritionist - it's not for the government to decide what I should or should not do with my own body.

Muise... · 06-10-2013 10:16PM

The Big Smoke wrote: »

I am a huge believer in teaching kids how to cook in schools and colleges, the money you can save from cooking a big pot of stew and freezing it to eat over the week is phenomenal. Just wish I could put it into practice for once. :rolleyes:

I've always been a good old-school cook, so a tax on sugary stuff wouldn't bother me. Though I admit I wouldn't have any academic credentials if it wasn't for Jolt Cola and Drum tobacco.

Karl Stein · 06-10-2013 10:17PM

RandomName2 wrote: »

Legalise marijuana! Then ban the adverts for it! Introduce lots of red tape, slap huge taxes on it, and then look disapprovingly at anyone who uses it! Whoo!

It's working well for consumption of a far worse product called tobacco.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I don't believe it's their place to tell us how to live our lives, as a matter of principle.

So you're against seat-belt and helmet laws? Each new legal instrument or tax increase/decrease should be taken on its merit and not dismissed because of some reflex, pseudo-libertarian, whining about the so-called 'Nanny State'

Kintarō Hattori · 06-10-2013 10:26PM

Crap like this just irritates me on a level it really shouldn't. I don't drink fizzy drinks all that often but when I do I don't like to pay more than €1.50 for a 500ml bottle from the freezer. Taxing the crap out of everything and anything is not the answer to solving your problems. Education is.

There is a generation of young people, and I know plenty who have never cooked a proper meal. There are varying reasons for this but partially it'd be done to a lack of food education. As a young man I was never thought anything practical when it came to food, be it in school or at home. When I was in my early 20s I asked my mother to teach me how to cook some meals as it was inevitable that I would leave home at some point- she refused to allow me in the kitchen.

When I did leave home after a few months of Kooka noodles and Campbells meatballs I decided it was time to do something and scoured the bookshops for a simple, easy to follow cookbook. I started from there and never looked back. Currently my freezer is full of homemade meals I can have during the week.

I got off my butt and educated myself in regards to food. A lot of people don't and thus consume levels of sugary, processed food which are unsafe. Taxing them for their choices isn't the solution. Start to teach them early about the value of food and we'd have less of an obesity problem.

viclemronny · 06-10-2013 10:26PM

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?

Underlined as this is the bit I'm addressing.

That is indeed a perfectly valid point. Large corporations do engage in manipulative behaviour in order to get people to buy their products. And, if they didn't, there would be a greater level of overall liberty as people would have a freer choice to decide what products to purchase.

The problem is that it sets a dangerous precedent of having to protect people form themselves and also leaves the companies free to continue to engage in manipulative behaviour.

So, what's the solution? We address the problem that you highlighted; the manipulative behaviour. Laws regulate what can and cannot be put into food/drink products. This should be kept up to date to include addictive substances, whether or not they are harmful in and of themselves.

Further, greater regulation around advertising would help. It's all well and good to not directly claim that one soft drink is healthier than another but if it is strongly implied, then the behaviour is manipulative. This is, of course, a difficult balance to strike but I think regulating claims made in advertisements is an easier balance to strike than when the Government and Legislature is overstepping the mark in protecting us from ourselves and our own (possibly) poor/shortsighted/uninformed decisions.

hatrickpatrick · 06-10-2013 10:31PM

Charlie Rock wrote: »

So you're against seat-belt and helmet laws?

Seat belts affect more than the person wearing them. If I'm not wearing a seat belt while in a car and it crashes, I could go flying out of my seat and hit somebody else in the car - several TV ads over the last number of years have directly cited this as the reason people need to wear seat belts.

Each new legal instrument or tax increase/decrease should be taken on its merit and not dismissed because of some reflex, pseudo-libertarian, whining about the so-called 'Nanny State'

In my opinion it's the government telling supposedly free citizens how to life their lives. That is not a reflex reaction but an opinion formed over many years. How is it pseudo libertarian by the way, as opposed to real libertarian? I'm a social libertarian and always have been (as opposed to simply "libertarian" which requires approval of anarcho-capitalism, whereas economically I'm more centre-left).

I hardly see how that's "pseudo" libertarian, care to explain?

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

Comments