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

jimgoose · 07-10-2013 02:02PM

This is a revenue-generating exercise with a "For Your Own Good!!" spin on it, much like the ridiculous CO2-based motor tax system. Actually doing something concrete and positive about obesity would cost money.

07-10-2013 02:08PM

jimgoose wrote: »

This is a revenue-generating exercise with a "For Your Own Good!!" spin on it, much like the ridiculous CO2-based motor tax system. Actually doing something concrete and positive about obesity would cost money.

And like the "we're putting costs on drink for your own good, we swear" despite previously admitting they just wanted to prop up the pubs.
And people wonder why some of us are skeptical

SmurfX · 07-10-2013 02:10PM

jimgoose wrote: »

This is a revenue-generating exercise with a "For Your Own Good!!" spin on it

Would assume that's crystal clear to everyone, the notion of the public avoiding this extra tax just isn't going to happen. We'll have to pay it some way and the question is if this is an appropriate place.

I don't think it is considering the problem this country has with alcohol and why it'd be sensible to tax the most popular non-alcoholic alternative. Particularly for designated drivers.
Children buying or having it on demand in their home is a parenting issue.

Cork24 · 07-10-2013 02:23PM

I dont see the 20 % working. why should we suffer from Fat people doing what Fat people do..

I don't have anything against over weight people who are out doing something about it, wanting to lose weight,

but i have a problem with over weight people who know that they are over weight but choice not to do anything. but wishes for the government to pay for their Stomach stapling

Surveyor11 · 07-10-2013 02:25PM

The 20% tax will more than likely go into the massive black hole that is taxation in this country. A waste of time, unless it can be demonstrated that this tax will be invested in initiatives to reverse / control obesity.

jimgoose · 07-10-2013 02:27PM

Cork24 wrote: »

I dont see the 20 % working. why should we suffer from Fat people doing what Fat people do..

I don't have anything against over weight people who are out doing something about it, wanting to lose weight,

but i have a problem with over weight people who know that they are over weight but choice not to do anything. but wishes for the government to pay for their Stomach stapling

Cheeses Cripes! One po-faced arsehole of a doctor mentions yet another rather silly tax, and we're off to tar-and-feather the poor fatties! It just never misses in Ireland, does it!!

Irish Guitarist · 07-10-2013 02:28PM

I'm an adult. I can decide for myself what I drink. As for children drinking sugary drinks, tax isn't going to make a difference. They don't care how much something costs when their parents are paying for it. The amount of discarded half full bottles of Coke I see thrown on the ground is evidence of this.

Ray Palmer · 07-10-2013 02:32PM

Remove child benefits from any parent who has a fat child. Cheaper quicker solution.

Didn't they already say they wouldn't bring in such a tax already.

There used to be an extra tax on sugary drinks to do with Boer War. They got rid of the tax and introduced a new one in one day some time in the 1990s I believe. So it isn't just vat on soft drinks as is.

jank · 07-10-2013 02:33PM

Seaneh wrote: »

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.

Having a can of coke can be of benefit to you nutritionally as well depending on your diet and the frequency you have a beverage. Having too much of anything is generally bad for you, should we regulate and tax everything to 'protect' society? Internet, pornography, red meat, tv, radio. . . . .

Why do liberals always want to tax everthing. You know the poor will be the ones most hit?

jank · 07-10-2013 02:36PM

RandomName2 wrote: »

So squeezed oranges should be taxed as sugary drinks, but unsqeezed oranges should be exempt because you can't drink them?

How about freezing bottles of coke? Can't drink that.

Reminds me of orwells Animal Farm. Solid orange, gooooood. Liquid orange baaaaad.

jimgoose · 07-10-2013 02:37PM

Ray Palmer wrote: »

Remove child benefits from any parent who has a fat child. Cheaper quicker solution...

Aye, that'll slim 'em down ta furk quare lively!

Akrasia · 07-10-2013 02:41PM

A tax on sugary soft drinks might actually be a good idea.

If you go into a shop and you see two drinks
A) Sugar based Cola flavoured soft drink €1.92 with about 210 calories

'Diet' Cola flavoured soft drink - €1.60 with zero calories

This would make people think twice about buying the full sugar soft drink

210 calories is about 10% of your calorie budget for the day but this can vary wildly depending on your age and metabolic rate. Some people should only be consuming 1600 calories or fewer a day in order to maintain their current body weight.

If you can cut out 10% empty calories by making a switch from sugary drinks to sugar free drinks, then this can mean the difference between maintaining a healthy weight, and getting into difficulty over time.
If you only drink soft drinks every now and again and you really enjoy the taste of full sugar soft drinks, then the extra 30 cents for a 500ml bottle won't break the bank. However, if you're consuming them every day in large quantities, then from a public health perspective, it's a good idea to discourage this kind of behaviour.

emmabrighton · 07-10-2013 02:49PM

good idea, they are a luxury and something we really can do without. Also, just like the auld ciggies, they're bad for you. Why not slap a few extra shillings on them. The addicted will still pay and maybe the rest of us won't have to suffer so much on other things.

Ray Palmer · 07-10-2013 02:49PM

Akrasia wrote: »

A tax on sugary soft drinks might actually be a good idea.

If you go into a shop and you see two drinks
A) Sugar based Cola flavoured soft drink €1.92 with about 210 calories
'Diet' Cola flavoured soft drink - €1.60 with zero calories

This would make people think twice about buying the full sugar soft drink

.

Haven't recent studies shown that diet drinks aren't any better. The body turns the sugar substitute into real sugar and the calories don't matter at the start because the body has turned it into the full calorie equivalent. The chemicals in the diet drinks are also questionable.

The other thing to remember is a diet version of a drink is "two servings" of the same size as a the regular drink which is classed as one serving

sKeith · 07-10-2013 02:50PM

No to taxing Sugary Drink.

Yes to taxing sugar. make it cost 20 euro for a kg bag of sugar.

Frank Garrett · 07-10-2013 02:52PM

Good job I'm on a diet.

darkpagandeath · 07-10-2013 02:52PM

emmabrighton wrote: »

good idea, they are a luxury and something we really can do without. Also, just like the auld ciggies, they're bad for you. Why not slap a few extra shillings on them. The addicted will still pay and maybe the rest of us won't have to suffer so much on other things.

So getting people to pay tax for others benefit ? then why is there so much dole bashing around here.

emmabrighton · 07-10-2013 02:53PM

Ray Palmer wrote: »

The other thing to remember is a diet version of a drink is "two servings" of the same size as a the regular drink which is classed as one serving

What?

Are you saying... uh... um...

What?

Ray Palmer · 07-10-2013 03:05PM

emmabrighton wrote: »

What?

Are you saying... uh... um...

What?

A 500ml bottle of Diet Coke has information per serving which the bottle contains 2

a 500ml bottle of regular coke has information per serving which the bottle contains 1.

There was some complaint so it may no longer apply here but it does in the USA.

taytothief · 07-10-2013 03:26PM

People voting yes to a tax. What a fúcking joke this place is.

dark crystal · 07-10-2013 03:36PM

Soon, all the little pleasures in life will be taxed. people will be looked down on and preached at for enjoying something which doesn't contain optimal health benefits.

I swear if I wasn't reading it, I'd think it was the plot to an outlandish futuristic sci-fi movie. The Running Man with fat people.

07-10-2013 03:47PM

taytothief wrote: »

People voting yes to a tax. What a fúcking joke this place is.

I'm fairly sure it's not a referendum and just an AH poll.

The Internet is serious business.

darkpagandeath · 07-10-2013 03:58PM

rarnes1 wrote: »

I'm fairly sure it's not a referendum and just an AH poll.

The Internet is serious business.

The same people calling for tax everything can vote you know in real life. If there was a real vote on this the same people would actually vote. I am actually scared by the general opinion of “do what we say is healthy police or it’s for your own good” where will it end ? does anyone not see the erosion of the individual's right's to serve the apparent common good. I'm no lefty against everything type. but I'm not for being constantly told what i can and cant do as I'm polluting my body, under the guise of it’s for the common good. And when did that become the rallying cry now “it’s for the common good” People have access to education You don't have the right to tell everyone what to do with there lives.

07-10-2013 04:04PM

darkpagandeath wrote: »

The same people calling for tax everything can vote you know in real life. If there was a real vote on this the same people would actually vote. I am actually scared by the general opinion of “do what we say is healthy police or it’s for your own good” where will it end ? does anyone not see the erosion of the individual's right's to serve the apparent common good. I'm no lefty against everything type. but I'm not for being constantly told what i can and cant do as I'm polluting my body, under the guise of it’s for the common good. And when did that become the rallying cry now “it’s for the common good” People have access to education You don't have the right to tell everyone what to do with there lives.

Obviously there'd never be a vote on such as issue so it's a moot point.

Who cares what people say on the internet. Isn't 40% of Irish people overweight meaning that that percentage or near it are posting on boards and perhaps this thread. So essentially it's full of hypocrites!

darkpagandeath · 07-10-2013 04:06PM

so 60% are not fat :P i can do what the government does to make the figures look the way i want to

Seaneh · 07-10-2013 04:25PM

The amount of hyperbole from the rabble rabble "gubberment moneh grabbers" brigade on this thread is hilarious.

You'd swear someone was suggesting banning sugary drinks or taxing them until they aren't affordable.
Neither is true.

If you only drink a can every now and then, this will not effect your finances in any tangible way, a few cents on the euro extra, you won't even notice.
What the idea does do is discourage people who are consuming 2+ litres per day and using soft drinks as their primary water intake and everything possible should be done to reserve that growing trend.

Obesity is, in the medium term, going to become the single biggest drain on the health system in this country unless we do something about it, and quickly.
Kids in their teens are starting to develop type 2 diabetes and all the associated problems that come with that.
Mitochondrial disease, Diabetic Kidney Disease, Pancreatic Overload, Liver Disease, etc, etc, etc.

Obesity costs the state, the private sector and everything in between money.
Obese people get sick more often, miss more work, drive up health insurance costs, clog up hospital facilities and out patient waiting lists.

The idea of "shur let dem off, like, they aren't effecting me, what right does the gubberment have ta tell me wha to do!" is bollocks, it does effect you, in several ways, it effects society as a whole as I've outlined above.
Nobody is saying you can't have a can of coke, what people are saying is over consumption of sugar, should be actively discouraged by all levels of society, in every way possible.

Taxing the commodity directly is the fairest way to discourage over consumption and gather the extra revenue to deal with the issues that are already arising from this problem. Those who drink the odd can of coke won't even notice, those who abuse soft drinks and guzzle several litres per day will pay for the damage they are doing to themselves and actively contribute to their future healthcare costs. There is a direct correlation between the rise of diabetes world wide and the rise in consumption of fructose rich soft drinks, it's not even up for discussion.

darkpagandeath · 07-10-2013 04:31PM

Seaneh wrote: »

The amount of hyperbole from the rabble rabble "gubberment moneh grabbers" brigade on this thread is hilarious.

You'd swear someone was suggesting banning sugary drinks or taxing them until they aren't affordable.
Neither is true.

If you only drink a can every now and then, this will not effect your finances in any tangible way, a few cents on the euro extra, you won't even notice.
What the idea does do is discourage people who are consuming 2+ litres per day and using soft drinks as their primary water intake and everything possible should be done to reserve that growing trend.

Obesity is, in the medium term, going to become the single biggest drain on the health system in this country unless we do something about it, and quickly.
Kids in their teens are starting to develop type 2 diabetes and all the associated problems that come with that.
Mitochondrial disease, Diabetic Kidney Disease, Pancreatic Overload, Liver Disease, etc, etc, etc.

Obesity costs the state, the private sector and everything in between money.
Obese people get sick more often, miss more work, drive up health insurance costs, clog up hospital facilities and out patient waiting lists.

The idea of "shur let dem off, like, they aren't effecting me, what right does the gubberment have ta tell me wha to do!" is bollocks, it does effect you, in several ways, it effects society as a whole as I've outlined above.
Nobody is saying you can't have a can of coke, what people are saying is over consumption of sugar, should be actively discouraged by all levels of society, in every way possible.

Taxing the commodity directly is the fairest way to discourage over consumption and gather the extra revenue to deal with the issues that are already arising from this problem. Those who drink the odd can of coke won't even notice, those who abuse soft drinks and guzzle several litres per day will pay for the damage they are doing to themselves and actively contribute to their future healthcare costs. There is a direct correlation between the rise of diabetes world wide and the rise in consumption of fructose rich soft drinks, it's not even up for discussion.

I thought that was smokers i wish people would make up there mind not everything can be the top reason for healthcare expenditure.

And the second point what if they have private health insurance ? how does that effect the public system. Your tax on sugar would not be necessary. as they are paying for there own healthcare

Seaneh · 07-10-2013 04:34PM

darkpagandeath wrote: »

I thought that was smokers i wish people would make up there mind not everything can be the top reason for healthcare expenditure.

And the second point what if they have private health insurance ? how does that effect the public system. Your tax on sugar would not be necessary. as they are paying for there own healthcare

Somkers are the current highest drain.

Smoking is year on year becoming less common, less smokers = less people being treated with smoking related illnesses = less drain on the health service.

Eventually, something (obesity) will overtake smoking.

This isn't rocket science.

Seaneh · 07-10-2013 04:37PM

darkpagandeath wrote: »

And the second point what if they have private health insurance ? how does that effect the public system. Your tax on sugar would not be necessary. as they are paying for there own healthcare

Then they are still driving up health insurance premiums and, the tax now becomes a levy to subsidise health insurance premiums to keep them lower so that those who aren't abusing fructose aren't being unfairly punished becuase fatties are taking up all the consultant time and hospital resources in the private system.

Whether it's public or private health care, fatties are going to drive the cost up for everyone.

darkpagandeath · 07-10-2013 04:46PM

Seaneh wrote: »

Then they are still driving up health insurance premiums and, the tax now becomes a levy to subsidise health insurance premiums to keep them lower so that those who aren't abusing fructose aren't being unfairly punished becuase fatties are taking up all the consultant time and hospital resources in the private system.

Whether it's public or private health care, fatties are going to drive the cost up for everyone.

people accessing what they paid for raises the price for everyone ? i think you should take that up with the greedy insurance companies that cant invest there money properly. then pass on the cost to all. Insurance companies supply a service they invest your money and so on.

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

Comments