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

06-10-2013 10:34PM

Minimum pricing on alcohol, raised taxes on alcohol, tax on soft drinks, who knows what will be suggested next.

They might as well just put a big tax on any form of fun or pleasurable activity. People are idiots to be agreeing with these suggestions. Decisions should be left up to the individual not dictated by the government.

Karl Stein · 06-10-2013 10:38PM

viclemronny wrote: »

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.

If only our resident pseudo-libertarians would understand this. Also, the airwaves belong to the public so it's in the public's interests for the government to see to it that they are used responsibly by corporations who sell potentially harmful products.

boobar · 06-10-2013 10:42PM

Tommy from Love/Hate....very partial to a fizzy orange

Karl Stein · 06-10-2013 10:45PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

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.

So you think sole occupant drivers should be exempt? You avoided the helmet question I see.

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).

See what I've written above. There's freedom from as well as freedom to. The smoking ban in pubs (freedom from). Being allowed to smoke weed freedom to.

Pseudo libertarians will whinge at all new regulations and laws without considering if their creating more freedom rather than suppressing it. It's usually right-wing pro-corporate propaganda that's created these pseudo-libertarian views.

RandomName2 · 06-10-2013 10:45PM

Charlie Rock wrote: »

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

You're using the government's attempts to make tobacco illegal as an analogy for your support of making marijuana legal? :pac:

Karl Stein · 06-10-2013 10:48PM

RandomName2 wrote: »

You're using the government's attempts to make tobacco illegal as an analogy for your support of making marijuana legal? :pac:

Either you're being deliberately dishonest or your reading comprehension is letting you down.

RandomName2 · 06-10-2013 10:52PM

Charlie Rock wrote: »

If only our resident pseudo-libertarians would understand this. Also, the airwaves belong to the public so it's in the public's interests for the government to see to it that they are used responsibly by corporations who sell potentially harmful products.

Censorship is freedom for the public to think clearly?

That must be pseudo-pseudo-libertarianism!

Or are you talking about honest advertising - which companies are currently obliged to observe.

Charlie Rock wrote: »

Either you're being deliberately dishonest or your reading comprehension is letting you down.

In that case you might have to define "working".

Incidentally I'm against helmet laws. If the government bring it in, I'll likely stop cycling and drive instead.

Also "freedom from" is an oxymoron in the sense that you mean it ("liberty through absence") as opposed to its usual meaning of "a state of being free from something"

Diemos · 06-10-2013 10:56PM

RandomName2 wrote: »

Incidentally I'm against helmet laws. If the government bring it in, I'll likely stop cycling and drive instead.

Off topic - but why would you be against cycling with a helmet?

Seaneh · 06-10-2013 11:03PM

Diemos wrote: »

Off topic - but why would you be against cycling with a helmet?

Helmet laws were introduced in Australia several years ago, the numbers of people cycling to work and school nosedived almost instantly and still hasn't recovered.

Plus, the studies on the benefits or lack there of when wearing a helmet while cycling are extremely conflicting.

Most people cycling in urban environments have no tangible need for a helmet.
Sports cyclists hitting upwards of 60kph on decents are a totally separate issue, but they tend to, in the cast majority, wear helmets anyway.

I'd never wear a helmet cycling in the city, but I'd never leave home without one when heading on a 2 hour cycle out of the city where I'm going to be averaging 30kph on the flat and regularly hitting 50 going down hill.

sdanseo · 06-10-2013 11:06PM

Seaneh wrote: »

Most people cycling in urban environments have no tangible need for a helmet.

Do you make up all your facts or just this one? Cyclists regularly overtake me at ~50kmh in the city. Not to mention the fact that they seem to think red is just another shade of green.

Karl Stein · 06-10-2013 11:07PM

RandomName2 wrote: »

Censorship is freedom for the public to think clearly?

So you'd call the banning of tobacco advertising censorship? Okey-doke.

Or are you talking about honest advertising - which companies are currently obliged to observe.

I've never once seen an ad from any alcohol company that, instead of pushing alcohol consumption as a virtue, is set in a hospital A&E on a Saturday night.

Incidentally I'm against helmet laws. If the government bring it in, I'll likely stop cycling and drive instead.

I said helmet laws not proposed helmet laws.

Also "freedom from" is an oxymoron in the sense that you mean it ("liberty through absence") as opposed to its usual meaning of "a state of being free from something"

So the absence of a police state dictatorship is not freedom from tyranny?

Seaneh · 06-10-2013 11:08PM

sdeire wrote: »

Do you make up all your facts or just this one? Cyclists regularly overtake me at ~50kmh in the city. Not to mention the fact that they seem to think red is just another shade of green.

Dud you miss the word most at the start of the line you quoted or are just being selective because it suits your George Hook like rabble rabble bullsh!t anti-cyclist agenda?

Cody Pomeray · 06-10-2013 11:09PM

RandomName2 wrote: »

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.

The USA's FDA permit arsenic concentrations below a certain limit.

Are you telling me that if a US state thereafter levied a tax on foods with high arsenic concentrations within the limit, grown adults would consume more of it?

This kind of sh1t really underlines the cognitive quality of the anti-fat-tax argument.

Fighting Irish · 06-10-2013 11:14PM

Deedsie wrote: »

Great contribution.

It's one step above tmz

thejournal and breakingnews are muck

Seaneh · 06-10-2013 11:14PM

sdeire wrote: »

Do you make up all your facts or just this one? Cyclists regularly overtake me at ~50kmh in the city. Not to mention the fact that they seem to think red is just another shade of green.

And by the way, if you are being overtaken at 50kph by cyclists on the flat in dublin city centre, let cycling Ireland know because it seems we have some potentially international standard track cyclist in our commuter population. Bodes well for the next Olympics.

You're full of ****e by the way.

Gran Hermano · 06-10-2013 11:15PM

First they came for the cigarettes,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a smoker.

Then they came for the soft drinks,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't obese.

Then they came for ...

Seaneh · 06-10-2013 11:16PM

Gran Hermano wrote: »

First they came for the cigarettes,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a smoker.

Then they came for the soft drinks,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't obese.

Then they came for ...

You managed to Godwin the thread.

Well played.

Carlos Orange · 06-10-2013 11:22PM

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...

Bottled water isn't healthy?

sdanseo · 06-10-2013 11:28PM

Seaneh wrote: »

Dud you miss the word most at the start of the line you quoted or are just being selective because it suits your George Hook like rabble rabble bullsh!t anti-cyclist agenda?

I'm conscious of derailing the thread further but just to rebut - you said most cyclists. I said "regularly". That's hardly selective.

I'm not anti-cyclist, I'm all for two-wheelers who obey the rules and keep the hell out of my way don't unduly obstruct traffic.

Now, back to coke-binges. :cool:

Retrovertigo · 06-10-2013 11:29PM

sdeire wrote: »

Cyclists regularly overtake me at ~50kmh in the city.

What city is this? Olympus?

sdanseo · 06-10-2013 11:39PM

Retrovertigo wrote: »

What city is this? Olympus?

Well, I should have said undertake, usually dangerously - albeit because of the pathetic excuse for cycle lanes, not necessarily because of a bad cyclist. And maybe slower, I'm talking about in slow moving traffic heading into the city. Dublin city, that is It does be hard to judge the speed of a bicycle approaching your wing mirror while you're trying to avoid maiming them.

constance tench · 06-10-2013 11:49PM

Charlie Rock wrote: »

If only our resident pseudo-libertarians would understand this. Also, the airwaves belong to the public so it's in the public's interests for the government to see to it that they are used responsibly by corporations who sell potentially harmful products.

Schools, and who they affiliate with included...

We have the National Parents Council, orginising the largest school table quiz in the country...[12,000 participants annually] and they are quite happy to be sponsored by... Cadbury [NPC, who get 90 percent funding from the State!]

Then we have 'Tayto Park' choosen as an acceptable 'school tour' destination for younger children!...education is key but, what an uphill battle we have!...interestingly enough those crisps and that chocolate are in the top 10 biggest selling brands in Irish stores...guess what's No.1...

http://www.thejournal.ie/irish-groceries-biggest-selling-brands-574764-Aug2012/#slide-slideshow1

stumfit · 06-10-2013 11:49PM

First of all I agree with people that say education is the thing we need to be focusing on to improve the long term healthy eating of the nation. However look at this simple example.

-Diabetes is becoming an increasing problem in our society
-This puts a huge cost on the health service (more than you can imagine)
-There is a direct correlation between fizzy drinks consumed and likelihood of developing the disease.

Is it not fair that the people who are most likly to develop the disease contribute the most to the healthcare budget i.e. they drink the most fizzy drinks they pay a lot more in tax than the person who just has an odd can of coke here or there.

I'll put it another way - its better they do it this way where you can avoid the tax by not buying fizzy drinks rather than in a couple of years realising that they need more money for healthcare so need to hit everyone universally by going after your income tax?

Just something to bear in mind

wretcheddomain · 06-10-2013 11:51PM

Kintarō Hattori wrote: »

Taxing the crap out of everything and anything is not the answer to solving your problems. Education is.

Whether you like it or not, prices do help to control and influence behaviour. Look at how Ryanair has managed to control the behaviour of check-in bags by raising the costs massively ~ Ryanair managed to succeed based on these hikes in costs and people act accordingly. So the issue is much more grey than the black and white certainty with which you've made that non-existent point in the quote above.

D1stant · 06-10-2013 11:57PM

sdeire wrote: »

Well, I should have said undertake, usually dangerously - albeit because of the pathetic excuse for cycle lanes, not necessarily because of a bad cyclist. And maybe slower, I'm talking about in slow moving traffic heading into the city. Dublin city, that is It does be hard to judge the speed of a bicycle approaching your wing mirror while you're trying to avoid maiming them.

Undertake?

I does be laughing me arse off at da

RandomName2 · 07-10-2013 12:05AM

Charlie Rock wrote: »

So you'd call the banning of tobacco advertising censorship? Okey-doke.

Well it demonstrably is. Now you just chose tobacco as an edge case because it contains a drug, and the process of smoking it is harmful. But, playing devil's advocate for a moment, I don't see why you couldn't have adverts for it, with large disclaimers saying "smoking is very bad for your health". Kind of what you currently get on cigarette packets now that I think of it.

Charlie Rock wrote: »

I've never once seen an ad from any alcohol company that, instead of pushing alcohol consumption as a virtue, is set in a hospital A&E on a Saturday night.

Have you ever seen an advert for mobile phones that show them being used by criminals planning robberies? Car adverts showing crashes?

What sort of question is that? Why would an alcohol company show people who drink irresponsibly like that? Perhaps, though, they could be forced to have disclaimers telling people they should drink responsibly. Oh wait - they are.

Charlie Rock wrote: »

I said helmet laws not proposed helmet laws.

I don't follow. Are there current laws against cycling without helmets that are currently unenforced?

Charlie Rock wrote: »

So the absence of a police state dictatorship is not freedom from tyranny?

It is insofar that it is an absence of tyranny. Your semantic thing of "freedom to" and "freedom from" is neat, but inaccurate though.

Free hat! Free hat!

Karl Stein · 07-10-2013 12:55AM

RandomName2 wrote: »

playing devil's advocate for a moment, I don't see why you couldn't have adverts for it, with large disclaimers saying "smoking is very bad for your health". Kind of what you currently get on cigarette packets now that I think of it.

If cigarette companies were forced to make adverts that were entirely about supplying people with good information they wouldn't bother.

Why would an alcohol company show people who drink irresponsibly like that? Perhaps, though, they could be forced to have disclaimers telling people they should drink responsibly. Oh wait - they are.

Have you ever actually watched an ad for booze and though about the messages in it? They're inevitably pushing alcohol consumption as a positive lifestyle choice. In reality alcohol has the potential to wreck people's lives. Now imagine if alcohol companies were forced to be honest about the dangers of alcohol and the damage it does to society. Would they bother making ads? Doubtful.

I don't follow. Are there current laws against cycling without helmets that are currently unenforced?

Go back and read what I said. I didn't say a thing about proposed cycle helmet laws.

Your semantic thing of "freedom to" and "freedom from" is neat, but inaccurate though.

Na, just neat.

hatrickpatrick · 07-10-2013 01:20AM

wretcheddomain wrote: »

Whether you like it or not, prices do help to control and influence behaviour. Look at how Ryanair has managed to control the behaviour of check-in bags by raising the costs massively ~ Ryanair managed to succeed based on these hikes in costs and people act accordingly. So the issue is much more grey than the black and white certainty with which you've made that non-existent point in the quote above.

That's what makes it black and white for me - the government's job isn't to control our behavior unless it involves protecting somebody else's rights. So with regard to the smoking ban for instance, I support that on the grounds of second hand smoke being dangerous for people who haven't freely consented to the damage smoke does to them.
Is there such a thing as second hand coke? :rolleyes:

wretcheddomain · 07-10-2013 01:26AM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

That's what makes it black and white for me - the government's job isn't to control our behavior unless it involves protecting somebody else's rights. So with regard to the smoking ban for instance, I support that on the grounds of second hand smoke being dangerous for people who haven't freely consented to the damage smoke does to them.
Is there such a thing as second hand coke? :rolleyes:

It's a false analogy because coke isn't being banned here; it's only a very marginal rise in the cost.

Karl Stein · 07-10-2013 01:29AM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

the government's job isn't to control our behavior unless it involves protecting somebody else's rights.

So sole occupants in cars should be exempted from wearing their seatbelts?

Motorcyclists shouldn't have to wear a helmet?

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

Comments