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

jimgoose · 07-10-2013 04:46PM

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.

Well Inda, formitchabiy??

Seaneh · 07-10-2013 04:48PM

jimgoose wrote: »

formitchabiy

What?

A Rogue Hobo · 07-10-2013 04:49PM

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.

It's wrong because me and you both know that people who drink too much of the stuff will still buy it in the same quantity after if this tax was introduced. The tax does NOTHING to discourage children from buying sugary drinks. If a kid has 2 euro to spend now, he'll just sacrifice the 20 cent Wham bar, get a can of coke and a chocolate bar instead and continue his walk home. It's great that YOU know about the facts and stats and what's good and bad for you. Good for you. But you're in the minority.

The point is, if the government ACTUALLY gave a crap about peoples health they would not be TAXING sugary drinks and hitting the publics pocket, they would instead be SPENDING money, investing it into PSA's, an education for these children to learn why why diet is important, more physical activity at schools and no vending machines at schools. It's similar to cigarettes, as a smoker myself, I agree with the smoking ban, the warnings on packaging, no advertising and if I had my way all packs would be in plain uniform packaging. All great forward-thinking ideas. But what infuriates me is when the government tax the high heavens out of something, claim it's in the "interest of the public's health" whilst annually making huge cutbacks to healthcare, cutting staff entitlements and hours, funding for hospitals down the drain and the elderly losing more benefits each year. But all that's ok because of the "LIVES" they've saved forcing people to pay more for a can of coke and a pack of smokes? Bollocks, it's just to make a quick buck, nothing more, nothing less.

Seaneh · 07-10-2013 04:49PM

darkpagandeath wrote: »

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.

You don't seem to understand how insurance premiums work...

darkpagandeath · 07-10-2013 04:55PM

Seaneh wrote: »

You don't seem to understand how insurance premiums work...

just like you don't seem to know why a sugar tax wont work but lets not get to personal.

sKeith · 07-10-2013 04:56PM

I think i will patent a new over shoulder water proof bag. People can buy 1kg of sugar in local super store for E1.20, and will always have it on them in above bag for convenience. They can then buy the tax free, sugar free soft drinks and add 10-15 tablespoons of sugar to it from the handy dispenser incorporated into the bag. I believe i could market it as a healthy option as people would be doing constant exercises by dragging 1kg of sugar around with the permanently.

Seaneh · 07-10-2013 04:57PM

darkpagandeath wrote: »

just like you don't seem to know why a sugar tax wont work but lets not get to personal.

Despite the fact that direct taxation combined with increased education on the harms of products like tobacco have been proven to discourage consumption.

darkpagandeath · 07-10-2013 05:00PM

Seaneh wrote: »

Despite the fact that direct taxation combined with increased education on the harms of products like tobacco have been proven to discourage consumption.

The tax on them does nothing but fill the exchequers pockets. I think you will find the education part worked Not he tax part.

Seaneh · 07-10-2013 05:02PM

darkpagandeath wrote: »

The tax on them does nothing but fill the exchequers pockets. I think you will find the education part worked Not he tax part.

When former smokers are asked why they quit a staggeringly high proportion of them say price was a key factor, so either they are lying or you are wrong.

Also, pretty much every serious health policy academic in the would would say you are wrong.

http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/TOPICS/EXTHEALTHNUTRITIONANDPOPULATION/EXTETC/0,,contentMDK:20365226~menuPK:478891~pagePK:148956~piPK:216618~theSitePK:376601,00.html

Myth 5: Tobacco addiction is so strong that simply raising taxes will not reduce demand; therefore, raising taxes is not justified

Reality: Scores of studies have shown that increased taxes reduce the number of smokers and the number of smoking-related deaths. Price increases induce some smokers to quit and prevent others from becoming regular or persistent smokers. They also reduce the number of ex-smokers returning to cigarettes and reduce consumption among continuing smokers. Children and adolescents are more responsive to changes in the price of consumer goods than adults-that is, if the price goes up, they are more likely to reduce their consumption. This intervention would therefore have a big impact on them. Similarly, people on low incomes are more price-responsive than those on high -incomes, so there is likely to be a bigger impact in developing countries where tobacco consumption is still increasing. Models developed for this report show that tax increases that would raise the real price of cigarettes by 10 percent worldwide would cause 40 million smokers alive in 1995 to quit and prevent a minimum of 10 million tobacco-related deaths.

Sam Kade · 07-10-2013 05:09PM

Seaneh wrote: »

When former smokers are asked why they quit a staggeringly high proportion of them say price was a key factor, so either they are lying or you are wrong.

Also, pretty much every serious health policy academic in the would would say you are wrong.

http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/TOPICS/EXTHEALTHNUTRITIONANDPOPULATION/EXTETC/0,,contentMDK:20365226~menuPK:478891~pagePK:148956~piPK:216618~theSitePK:376601,00.html

If cigarettes went to €20/packet my wife would still smoke them even though the cost of them now is a big percentage of our income :mad:

A Rogue Hobo · 07-10-2013 05:16PM

Seaneh wrote: »

When former smokers are asked why they quit a staggeringly high proportion of them say price was a key factor, so either they are lying or you are wrong.

Also, pretty much every serious health policy academic in the would would say you are wrong.

http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/TOPICS/EXTHEALTHNUTRITIONANDPOPULATION/EXTETC/0,,contentMDK:20365226~menuPK:478891~pagePK:148956~piPK:216618~theSitePK:376601,00.html

Ironic then that sales of cheaper illegal cigarettes have sky-rocketed throughout the country then isn't it?

Seaneh · 07-10-2013 05:18PM

A Rogue Hobo wrote: »

Ironic then that sales of cheaper illegal cigarettes have sky-rocketed throughout the country then isn't it?

But yet the numbers of people (especially young people) smoking is cosntantly falling, and the single biggest factor cited by ex smokers and non-repeat smokers is still price.

darkpagandeath · 07-10-2013 05:19PM

A Rogue Hobo wrote: »

Ironic then that sales of cheaper illegal cigarettes have sky-rocketed throughout the country then isn't it?

Yeah it's odd that people don't want to pay stupid amounts of tax on things isn't it. pointing out allot of people will buy the cheaper alternative or illegal version. rather than stopping the behaviour Their trying to make people adopt.

Ray Palmer · 07-10-2013 05:23PM

Seaneh wrote: »

But yet the numbers of people (especially young people) smoking is cosntantly falling, and the single biggest factor cited by ex smokers and non-repeat smokers is still price.

Really did that happen last year or this year because it was increasing every year until very recently.

Sam Kade · 07-10-2013 05:23PM

Seaneh wrote: »

But yet the numbers of people (especially young people) smoking is cosntantly falling, and the single biggest factor cited by ex smokers and non-repeat smokers is still price.

Any smoker I know always said we will give them up when they are €5/packet they didn't. Now they say they will give up when they are €10/packet not far off that now but they are still smoking.

A Rogue Hobo · 07-10-2013 05:28PM

Seaneh wrote: »

But yet the numbers of people (especially young people) smoking is cosntantly falling, and the single biggest factor cited by ex smokers and non-repeat smokers is still price.

Where on earth have you pulled that figure from? It's on record available freely online from the Office of Tobacco Control that smoking rose 2% from 2004-2010, from 2010 on it's fallen roughly 1.7% meaning since the smoking ban was introduced there has been a .3% increase in smoking. Anyways, this is going off topic pretty quickly. All I'm saying is, people need to recognise money needs to spent by the government on preventing these type of things, not earning off of the problems.

EDIT: Just to further elaborate on that study that says it is a myth that price increase wouldn't lower the amount of smokers, doing some quick maths, in the last 9 years the average price of a 20pack of cigarettes has increased by about 39% and in the course of the last 9 years not only has the amount of people smoking in this country stayed at the same level but it has in fact increased by .3%. That is staggering when you think about it. I don't see how anyone can argue that tax increases will deter anyone from doing anything. It's completely backwards thinking. Education on health and physical activity is what money needs to be invested in here, taxes achieve NOTHING!

blatantrereg · 07-10-2013 05:30PM

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Yeah it's odd that people don't want to pay stupid amounts of tax on things isn't it. pointing out allot of people will buy the cheaper alternative or illegal version. rather than stopping the behaviour Their trying to make people adopt.

This practice can be costly in terms of healthcare as well as losses in tax. Some are not authentic brands, and contain far more tar and other dangerous substances than others.

A similar thing happened in the Soviet Union not long before its collapse Gorbachev's ill-advised boost on alcohol to try to address alcoholism which was a significant problem. It led to a significant black market developing which had serious impact on the economy.

07-10-2013 06:03PM

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 don't care about anyone else to be honest all I care is that the few cans of soft drink I have a week will get more expensive and even worse the price of soft drinks for mixers for alcoholic drinks will also increase. So not only will any lunch or dinner I have a soft drink with get more expensive but so will my nights out and they already cost a fortune.

F**k that is all I can say. You say it will only cost a few cent more, but I don't want to pay a few cent more and that few cent more will add up fairly fast even if you only have a couple of the soft drinks per week.

Filibuster · 07-10-2013 06:38PM

This would be the dumbest nanny state law yet:

Orange Juice - 8g sugar per 100g
Apple Juice - 10g sugar per 100g
Pineapple Juice - 15 to 44g sugar per 100g

Coca-Cola 10.6g sugar per 100g

Akrasia · 07-10-2013 06:50PM

Ray Palmer wrote: »

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

The body cannot convert artificail sweeteners into sugar. They are metabolised into other compounds, but none of these are converted into glucose or other forms of energy.

The controversy over artificial sweeteners is mostly driven by the same groups of people that tell you not to get your kids vaccinated and believe in magic water that can cure anything

Akrasia · 07-10-2013 06:57PM

Filibuster wrote: »

This would be the dumbest nanny state law yet:
Orange Juice - 8g sugar per 100g
Apple Juice - 10g sugar per 100g
Pineapple Juice - 15 to 44g sugar per 100g

Coca-Cola 10.6g sugar per 100g

Anyone who drinks 2 litres of pineapple juice a day has bigger problems to worry about than obesiety.

Dempsey · 07-10-2013 06:58PM

Filibuster wrote: »

This would be the dumbest nanny state law yet:
Orange Juice - 8g sugar per 100g
Apple Juice - 10g sugar per 100g
Pineapple Juice - 15 to 44g sugar per 100g

Coca-Cola 10.6g sugar per 100g

Would the possible tax be on sugar added in to a product, which would exempt fruit juices.

Karl Stein · 07-10-2013 07:00PM

Filibuster wrote: »

This would be the dumbest nanny state law yet:

Which is why I think ending the subsidizing of sugar production and an EU wide levy on refined sugar/products would be preferable along with education on nutrition in schools.

constance tench · 07-10-2013 07:02PM

Dempsey wrote: »

Would the possible tax be on sugar added in to a product, which would exempt fruit juices.

Fruit juices are not exempt, they are among a few products which have VAT at 23 percent...so I imagine they will get price hike too, were it to happen.

Karl Stein · 07-10-2013 07:06PM

constance tench wrote: »

Fruit juices are not exempt, they are among a few products which have VAT at 23 percent...so I imagine they will get price hike too, were it to happen.

Plus freshly squeezed fruit juice is bloody expensive compared to a 14 gallon drum of Rola Cola for €0.99

Dempsey · 07-10-2013 07:07PM

constance tench wrote: »

Fruit juices are not exempt, they are among a few products which have VAT at 23 percent...so I imagine they will get price hike too, were it to happen.

I'm not talking about VAT, I'm talking about the criteria for applying a sugar tax. Surely it would apply to products where you add sugar, not were it exists already like fruit juices.

rubadub · 07-10-2013 07:07PM

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?

Well already a pint of schweppes in my local would be about €13, its over 4 1/2 bottles. To fill a pint glass with coke is €8.50.

constance tench · 07-10-2013 07:15PM

Dempsey wrote: »

I'm not talking about VAT, I'm talking about the criteria for applying a sugar tax. Surely it would apply to products where you add sugar, not were it exists already like fruit juices.

Like a Tax on biscuits or something?.. Dolmio pasta sauce?...you see where I'm going?

hatrickpatrick · 07-10-2013 07:48PM

Charlie Rock wrote: »

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

We'll have to agree to disagree here I guess. Once over 18, it's each individual's responsibility to look after their own safety, the law should only mandate that we don't harm third parties without their consent.

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.

And I don't agree with it on grounds that the goal of reducing consumption amounts to the goal of changing people's purely victimless behaviors by making it more difficult for them to engage in them - I fundamentally disagree with this.

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.

I almost never drink them, just thought I'd point that out - my objection is purely on principle, such a tax would literally have no effect on me whatsoever.

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.

You're again blurring issues here. Giving them to kids and adults drinking them themselves are separate issues, and the latter is something the government does not, in my view, have a right to try and control in any sense whatsoever.

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).

It's a separate issue to the idea of the government directly trying to influence people's victimless choices, but personally I'd be wary of this myself simply on free speech grounds. But it is, in fact, a separate issue.

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

What's the difference exactly? They're different degrees of the exact same thing - the government trying to control people's behavior even when it doesn't involve protecting any third party whatsoever. That is simply something I don't agree with - obviously you do, in certain circumstances.
I highly doubt either of us is going to change our mind based on a Boards debate - and certainly not based on a debate held in After Hours

Pat Mustard · 07-10-2013 07:52PM

I think that the question should be whether increasing taxation on sugary drinks would do any good.

The answer seems to be that it would be unlikely to have a significant effect on obesity on its own.

The authors of this article from the New England Journal of Medicine are of the opinion that further taxation of sugary drinks will lead to reduced consumption, but they argue that such taxes would be regressive insofar as poorer people would pay proportionally more. Further, they argue that obesity is unlikely to yield to any single policy such as taxation of sugary drinks: as opposed to a range of measures.

The article mentions the non-calorific sweetener substitute products. I don't know enough to say whether taxation of sugary drinks would encourage an overall increase in the consumption of aspartame (which is commonly used as a sweetener). In any case, there are side-effects associated with aspartame, one of which is the metabolism of methanol into formaldehyde, a carcinogen.

I don't think that there are many who would disagree with an overall health policy which attempts to reduce obesity in Ireland.

If we look at the cause of the obesity problem though, it began to arise in the previous number of decades. From what I have read, the creator of the Seven Countries Study (Ancel Keys) cherrypicked information and created an essentially fraudulent study regarding consumption of fat and heart disease/obesity etc. In a very short period of time, people began to see an increase in the number of foods which were high in sugar in their supermarkets, they bought what they were sold, and so began the obesity problem as we know it today. That's my grasp of the situation, as simplistic as it may be.

So, I think a lot of this problem comes to misinformation and lack of correct knowledge. Sure, there are a some people who are morbidly obese, who don't seem to take care of themselves. But look at all of the people who constantly seem to be fighting a battle against their weight. They exercise regularly, they try to eat mostly the right foods, but it's still a battle for them. I don't think that they don't succeed because they are stupid or lazy. I think that they don't succeed because they don't know the correct things to do.

I wonder what percentage of Irish people use heavy weights. I would guess that it's a small percentage overall. What percentage of Irish people can do one single chin-up/pull-up, for example? At a complete stab, I would say that the figure must be less than 5%. A chin-up is a basic strength-training exercise, and most Irish people are incapable of doing it. I would venture a guess and say that they probably don't even know that they are missing out.

One poster made a suggestion that there should be free gyms in every town in the country. I like the idea. I think that if you tweaked that idea a bit, it might work. Maybe the government could have a system of tax breaks for gyms. Maybe gym owners could a certain level of tax free income, up to a point. Also, people could be allowed income tax write-offs for the costs of gym membership and fees for properly qualified Personal Trainers.

If anything that I have written above is incorrect, please feel free to correct me. It's just my opinion.

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

Comments