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

hatrickpatrick · 07-10-2013 01:30AM

Charlie Rock wrote: »

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

I wouldn't support legislation regarding helmets for people over 18 years of age. I'd support RSA advertising blitzes and everything else though.
Sole occupant drivers? Again I don't see why it should be a legal requirement. If you're not going to harm another person with your behavior, the government shouldn't be banning you from engaging in it.
HOWEVER, on the helmet front, if I don't wear a helmet and somebody else crashes into me, they may be liable for having harmed me on both a legal and a psychological level, so that's one argument I can see for a helmet requirement. There is no such argument when it comes to adults choosing to consume dangerous substances.

This is a straw man argument though on one major front: There's not much to be gained from riding around without a helmet, but some fizzy drinks are tasty and give an energy boost, so there's a definite reason people would want to drink them.

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.

Exactly. Smoking ban involves protecting the safety of others in the pub. That, I support. In terms of weed, I fully support legalisation for adults. Substitute any currently banned mind altering substance and my answer would probably still be yes.

Pseudo libertarians will whinge at all new regulations and laws without considering if their creating more freedom rather than suppressing it.

Ok, so how does trying to prevent me from consuming certain substances create freedom, exactly? It's my body, I can do whatever I want with it.
I would call myself a social libertarian for that exact reason: The only things which should be banned are those which have direct consequences for somebody who hasn't consented to those consequences.

It's usually right-wing pro-corporate propaganda that's created these pseudo-libertarian views.

Anyone who knows me knows I'm not right wing and I'm definitely not pro corporation, I am simply pro personal freedom on every level and I don't believe anything should be illegal unless it has a tangible negative impact on somebody who hasn't freely chosen it. It has nothing to do with corporate profits, it's about the moral principle of body ownership. A person's body belongs wholly to that person, and it should be 100% their decision what to do with it.

darkpagandeath · 07-10-2013 01:30AM

wretcheddomain wrote: »

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

ok so can i increase the tax on your wages by 20% as it's only a marginal increase ?

Karl Stein · 07-10-2013 01:43AM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Sole occupant drivers? Again I don't see why it should be a legal requirement.

Because sometimes people are dumb and need to be protected from themselves.

If you're not going to harm another person with your behavior, the government shouldn't be banning you from engaging in it.

I haven't read one person calling for a ban on fizzy drinks. What's being suggested is a tax to try to reduce consumption and thus harm.

some fizzy drinks are tasty and give an energy boost, so there's a definite reason people would want to drink them.

I enjoy a Coke with my pizza or Kebab as much as the next person. I'd say I drink approx one fizzy drink a week. So a price increase will not really affect me. People who drink them in moderation won't be all that bothered. People who drink gallons of the stuff and give it to their kids by the quart will find it more expensive and might cut down.

In terms of weed, I fully support legalisation for adults. Substitute any currently banned mind altering substance and my answer would probably still be yes.

I'm all for relaxed drug laws too btw. Prohibition is a nasty business and makes criminals out of peaceful people. Having said that I would be very supportive of an iron clad ban on the advertising of all drugs. Corporations shouldn't be allowed to use the public airwaves to push drugs on people (alcohol too fwiw).

Ok, so how does trying to prevent me from consuming certain substances create freedom, exactly? It's my body, I can do whatever I want with it.
I would call myself a social libertarian for that exact reason: The only things which should be banned are those which have direct consequences for somebody who hasn't consented to those consequences.

You're going down the ban route again. I'm not for banning - I'm for reducing harm.

07-10-2013 02:53AM

Deedsie wrote: »

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?

Definatly opposed to
They are already taxed pretty heavily as it is.

Secondly, A nanny state that dictates what we drink will next be dictating how we should think, they are already telling us.

Results from Hungary, that has already tried similar foolishness, on salt, sugar and energy drinks, appears to be having the opposite effect. They are just buying and consuming cheaper junk foods, rather than switching to healthier products.

Lets just call it what it really is...... Another tax grab!

jank · 07-10-2013 04:01AM

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?

If that is the case why not get the state to ban all things that are bad for people. Tabaco, alcohol, pronography, unprotected sex etc.
Maybe the state can compel us to only watch 1 hour of tv a day (non-violent of course) and maybe half an hour on the internet (safe sites only).

jank · 07-10-2013 04:03AM

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.

Ah but see in my view one can do as much harm to themselves as they want but the tax payer should not pick up the tab. That is the problem with socialism. We reward people who are irresponsible.

jank · 07-10-2013 04:10AM

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.

You believe in freedom but you don't believe in a free people making free decisions of their own choosing. You don't believe in a business advertising their product? A strange interpretation of freedom you have.

"Let be more free by banning/taxing $hit"!

jank · 07-10-2013 04:17AM

Seaneh wrote: »

Massive strawman there.

There is a difference between naturally occurring sugars and added, refined sugars. Also, a whole Orange has neutrients, fibre, it has dietary benefits, a can of coke has no benefit, it's literally just 330ml of ****e.

What about Orange Juice, apple juice and those juice shake things that are popular at the moment. Did you every look at the amount of sugar and calories in those things. People think they are 'healthy' yet usually contain the same about of sugar and calories in coca-cola. Should they be taxed or banned?

A Rogue Hobo · 07-10-2013 04:33AM

jank wrote: »

What about Orange Juice, apple juice and those juice shake things that are popular at the moment. Did you every look at the amount of sugar and calories in those things. People think they are 'healthy' yet usually contain the same about of sugar and calories in coca-cola. Should they be taxed or banned?

None of them should be taxed, healthy or not. Those who agree with this idea thinking it's a great step towards the "health of our nation" aren't seeing the reality of the situation. The government needs money, recognises that Coke etc sell a lot and want a bigger piece of the pie and can pull the wool over the foolish whilst doing it and in turn give themselves a pat on the back. If Smoothies and orange juices and the like sold anywhere near the units that these fizzy drinks sell then they would be taxed too, but they don't so frankly it'd be mroe effort than it's worth to introduce a tax on them too. Fizzy drinks is just easier to justify to the public. The point is, all this is about is greed and pulling a little more change out of the public because they know they can get away with it.

Gitb1 · 07-10-2013 04:37AM

We should add peoples body fat % to the amount of VAT they pay

rustedtrumpet · 07-10-2013 05:06AM

Oh dear. Sugary drinks haha, laughed at. Sugary drinks? Wait, what... Sugary drinks? Absolute aul one talk PFFFT.

Seaneh · 07-10-2013 06:32AM

jank wrote: »

What about Orange Juice, apple juice and those juice shake things that are popular at the moment. Did you every look at the amount of sugar and calories in those things. People think they are 'healthy' yet usually contain the same about of sugar and calories in coca-cola. Should they be taxed or banned?

Orange juice is, pretty much ****e and people really shouldn't be drinking it anyway.

Most people wouldn't sit down and eat 6-7 oranges, why, because the solid mass of the oranges would cause them to feel full, there is quite a lot of dietary fibre in an Orange (same for an apple or a mango, etc) but people regularly drink 6-7 oranges worth of juice, which means they are getting all of the sugar and none of the fibre, which means they are consuming massive amounts of sugar without realising it, because people have no ****ing clue that fruit juices, in reality, aren't ****ing good for you beyond a 110ml serving.

This all leads back to proper education and stopping companies selling things as positive lifestyle choices or misleading people to believe that they are "good for you" when they are neither.

Also, you seem to be unaware of the difference between naturally occurring sugars and refined, added sugars, but given your form, that's hardly surprising.

Rabble rabble rabble, no actual imput, several posts with no actual content, yup, Jank has showed up.

Seaneh · 07-10-2013 06:53AM

Gitb1 wrote: »

We should add peoples body fat % to the amount of VAT they pay

Would be an extremely sexist law, wouldn't it?

Gaspode · 07-10-2013 07:14AM

Utterly pointless to try to use a tax to change people's habits - look at the tax on cigarettes and alcohol yet people still buy and over-indulge in them. Personally I believe there is no genuine attempt to seek a tax on sugary drinks, more an attempt to use the suggestion to start debate on the role of such drinks in obesity. No sane medical body would believe tax is the answer.

IvySlayer · 07-10-2013 07:44AM

Will they cut taxes on healthy drinks/food?

As long as water is free...oh wait....

Denmark tried this, but stopped it as people were going to other countries to buy the stuff in bulk.

Seaneh · 07-10-2013 08:02AM

IvySlayer wrote: »

Will they cut taxes on healthy drinks/food?

As long as water is free...oh wait....

Denmark tried this, but stopped it as people were going to other countries to buy the stuff in bulk.

there is no vat on fresh fruit or vegetables,rte agri sector is also heavily subsidised, so they can't really reduce non-existent taxes, can they?

jank · 07-10-2013 08:17AM

Seaneh wrote: »

Orange juice is, pretty much ****e and people really shouldn't be drinking it anyway.

Most people wouldn't sit down and eat 6-7 oranges, why, because the solid mass of the oranges would cause them to feel full, there is quite a lot of dietary fibre in an Orange (same for an apple or a mango, etc) but people regularly drink 6-7 oranges worth of juice, which means they are getting all of the sugar and none of the fibre, which means they are consuming massive amounts of sugar without realising it, because people have no ****ing clue that fruit juices, in reality, aren't ****ing good for you beyond a 110ml serving.

This all leads back to proper education and stopping companies selling things as positive lifestyle choices or misleading people to believe that they are "good for you" when they are neither.

Also, you seem to be unaware of the difference between naturally occurring sugars and refined, added sugars, but given your form, that's hardly surprising.

Rabble rabble rabble, no actual imput, several posts with no actual content, yup, Jank has showed up.

Maybe save the ad hominn attacks for your Israel-Palestine malarkey.

My question was not answered. Would you favour such a ban or tax increase on juices that I mentioned and smoothies you buy at a cafe? Or is it fizzy drinks and corporations you have issue with?

Seaneh · 07-10-2013 08:23AM

jank wrote: »

Maybe save the ad hominn attacks for your Israel-Palestine malarkey.

My question was not answered. Would you favour such a ban or tax increase on juices that I mentioned and smoothies you buy at a cafe? Or is it fizzy drinks and corporations you have issue with?

A sugary drink is s sugary drink, whether its cola or juice or chocolate milk makes no odds, they should all be treated equally, because they all have the same problem.

oldyouth · 07-10-2013 08:29AM

Can't believe the number of people who would support more taxes, no matter what the reason.

jank · 07-10-2013 08:30AM

So therefore one would have to tax fruit as well seeing as one can make sugary drinks that are bad for you from them. Don't forget cakes, biscuits and so on.

You do know this proposal by the enlightened left will actually raise the cost of living for the poorest sections of society, those they claim they are trying to 'guide' and protect from big bad corporations. Amazing how little faith they show for the people they purport to represent.

jank · 07-10-2013 08:32AM

oldyouth wrote: »

Can't believe the number of people who would support more taxes, no matter what the reason.

Too much of the Internet is bad for you, let's tax that! It's for your own good honest!

ezra_pound · 07-10-2013 08:33AM

oldyouth wrote: »

Can't believe the number of people who would support more taxes, no matter what the reason.

No. We recognise that more taxes are needed.

Seaneh · 07-10-2013 08:37AM

jank wrote: »

So therefore one would have to tax fruit as well seeing as one can make sugary drinks that are bad for you from them. Don't forget cakes, biscuits and so on.

Strawmen, strawmen everywhere.

Sure you might as well go on and say we should have duty on grains as hypothetically people can use them to extract sugars to produce alcohol, seeing as you are prone to bouts of illogical hyperbole.

Eating fruit has a benefit, it provides nutrients and fibre, nobody eats 10 Oranges on one sitting but people do drink 500 ml of juice in one sitting, constantly, its also not uncommon fir people to drink multiple litres of soft drinks in a day.
Discouraging those habits is interests of society as a whole.

And the reduced vat on cakes should be scrapped, its idiocy.

jank · 07-10-2013 08:50AM

Seaneh wrote: »

Strawmen, strawmen everywhere.

Sure you might as well go on and say we should have duty on grains as hypothetically people can use them to extract sugars to produce alcohol, seeing as you are prone to bouts of illogical hyperbole.

Eating fruit has a benefit, it provides nutrients and fibre, nobody eats 10 Oranges on one sitting but people do drink 500 ml of juice in one sitting, constantly, its also not uncommon fir people to drink multiple litres of soft drinks in a day.
Discouraging those habits is interests of society as a whole.

And the reduced vat on cakes should be scrapped, its idiocy.

Hold on there mate, a sugary drink is a sugary drink. Why exemptions for sugary foods?

Should we discourage Internet use? Pornography?

Seaneh · 07-10-2013 09:01AM

jank wrote: »

Hold on there mate, a sugary drink is a sugary drink. Why exemptions for sugary foods?

Because eating an Orange or an apple has a net benefit nutritionally, drinking a litre of juice doesn't, can you seriously not understand that? Why do you feel the need to constantly create logical fallacies?

I've already said tax exemptions on cakes should be abolished, or did you just miss that because you don't ever actually think about the reality of the arguments you engage in and just spout your usual drivel regardless.

Discouraging over consumption of sugar is beneficial to industry, society as a whole and the individual, the fact that you cannot understand that simple, obvious reality isn't surprising though.

07-10-2013 09:20AM

ezra_pound wrote: »

No. We recognise that more taxes are needed.

No they aren't

the_syco · 07-10-2013 09:22AM

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?

Um, it has been more expensive to be the designated driver for the past few years. When a bottle of beer/cider is €4, a pint of Coca Cola would be €5!

=-=

I voted to tax it, as it's better to tax the sugary tax than to tax the alcohol. It isn't a health tax, it's just another tax to get more money off you...

UCDVet · 07-10-2013 09:56AM

oldyouth wrote: »

Can't believe the number of people who would support more taxes, no matter what the reason.

My favorite is the....

'Well, I don't do X, so yeah, tax X!'

super_furry · 07-10-2013 09:58AM

What's next? Tax on bacon and sausages, chinese food? If you're taxing sugary drinks, surely a tax on pizza won't be far behind.

07-10-2013 10:09AM

I think it's important to introduce a fat tax. If only for the reason that fat people sweat more and smell more in public places. Us non-fat people also shouldn't be expected to manoeuvre around slow, fat people at entrances. Same argument is made against smokers. I know some fat people say they're big-boned but I've never seen a fat skeleton.

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

Comments