Survey finds majority support tax on sugary drinks

yawhat! · 23-06-2014 09:35AM #1

Why should I pay more for people who like to over indulge? Next thing it will be fast food. Fizzy drinks do not cause people to get fat!

Its people who are constantly eating or over eating is the reason. Just eat less and exercise FFS.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2014/0623/625800-sugar-tax/

whiskeyman · 23-06-2014 09:37AM

Image is nothing...

Tefral · 23-06-2014 09:42AM

Nanny state poking fingers into business that really should be left to the individual.

Are they going to reduce the VAT on my GYM membership in the same vein, or my runners or bicycles or weights? Some how I doubt it

Dan_Solo · 23-06-2014 09:45AM

Maybe we should have mandatory health insurance with premiums based on a comprehensive annual health assessment...

_Kaiser_ · 23-06-2014 09:45AM

We already pay tax (VAT) on sugary drinks, plus there's usually a sizeable mark-up if buying in smaller shops - the pub is even worse!

More nanny state shyte. Let's penalise everyone because of the small percentage with no self-control

AnonoBoy · 23-06-2014 09:45AM

Survey says give us a link.....

Celticfire · 23-06-2014 09:47AM

Is this like one of those shampoo surveys??? 72% of 81 people agree....

Captain Chaos · 23-06-2014 09:49AM

yawhat! wrote: »

. Fizzy drinks do not cause people to get fat!
.

They do if you drink about 2l of the stuff a day like used to. Year ago I gave it up and kept my diet the exact same for 3 weeks and the weight fell off me from giving up fizzies alone, they are just full of sugar even the diet versions is full of crap too.

yawhat! · 23-06-2014 09:54AM

Captain Chaos wrote: »

They do if you drink about 2l of the stuff a day like used to. Year ago I gave it up and kept my diet the exact same for 3 weeks and the weight fell off me from giving up fizzies alone, they are just full of sugar even the diet versions is full of crap too.

Why would you drink that much of it in the first place? Over indulging!

FutureGuy · 23-06-2014 09:56AM

Captain Chaos wrote: »

They do if you drink about 2l of the stuff a day like used to. Year ago I gave it up and kept my diet the exact same for 3 weeks and the weight fell off me from giving up fizzies alone, they are just full of sugar even the diet versions is full of crap too.

Diet versions increase appetite.

I'd be all on for more tax on fast food, alcohol and cigarettes/tobacco so long as the money goes to the healthcare system.

If you want to smoke 20 a day or drink 20 pints a week or eat **** food, you'll be paying for your hospital stays later in life when your lungs/liver/heart packs it in.

23-06-2014 09:59AM

How many people did they poll, 10?

Load of rubbish

MRnotlob606 · 23-06-2014 10:00AM

could we not somehow develop some sort of national exercise system free to everybody to try tackle obesity, sounds crazy , but governments provide healthcare, education, so what about gym classes or something ?

jackofalltrades · 23-06-2014 10:19AM

cronin_j wrote: »

Nanny state poking fingers into business that really should be left to the individual.

If the state is ultimately responsible for the health effects of these sugary drinks, then they have every right to try and combat the problem.

I would only agree to a tax like this, if the money was ring-fenced towards fighting obesity.

Captain Chaos · 23-06-2014 10:23AM

yawhat! wrote: »

Why would you drink that much of it in the first place? Over indulging!

Just like/liked the taste of it. Don't like tea or coffee so I don't drink the stuff. Tap water tasted like crap in my house growing up and still does but now all I drink is bottled water for the past while.

Is drinking 2l of water a day over indulging? Or 2l of tea or coffee a day over indulging because thousands of people drink that and it ain't exactly good for you either, that amount from a dental point of view just like fizzies.

catallus · 23-06-2014 10:24AM

This is just another step taken by our overlords to plunge us deeper into a dismal downward spiral into a Judge Dredd-esque dystopia where they will outlaw the very things we need to survive. Down with this sort of thing!

twowheelsgood · 23-06-2014 10:24AM

FutureGuy wrote: »

If you want to smoke 20 a day or drink 20 pints a week or eat **** food, you'll be paying for your hospital stays later in life when your lungs/liver/heart packs it in.

Thing is, in many cases it will be the public who will be paying, which is why there is an economic utility in encouraging people to make healthier life style choices.

Also, this is not a government proposal, it is an opinion of the public so I'm not clear on why there are shouts of nanny state?

Cookie_Monster · 23-06-2014 10:26AM

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

More nanny state shyte. Let's penalise everyone because of the small percentage with no self-control

that small percentage is getting pretty big (:)), 40% of the adult population are overweight, 18% are obese. At what point does it become an issue that the state needs to intervene in to reduce future medical costs to society as a whole?

If it's not sugary drinks, it'll just be general tax or more mandatory health insurance costs...
It's proven to work for fags, why shouldn't it be tried for fizzy drinks?

23-06-2014 10:27AM

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

that small percentage is getting pretty big (:)), 40% of the adult population are overweight, 18% are obese. At what point does it become an issue that the state needs to intervene in to reduce future medical costs to society as a whole?

If it's not sugary drinks, it'll just be general tax or more mandatory health insurance costs...
It's proven to work for fags, why shouldn't it be tried for fizzy drinks?

If the state STOPPED intervening by telling people to eat more bread and eat more pasta we might even get somewhere.

_Kaiser_ · 23-06-2014 10:30AM

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

that small percentage is getting pretty big (:)), 40% of the adult population are overweight, 18% are obese. At what point does it become an issue that the state needs to intervene in to reduce future medical costs to society as a whole?

If it's not sugary drinks, it'll just be general tax or more mandatory health insurance costs...
It's proven to work for fags, why shouldn't it be tried for fizzy drinks?

We're already paying 23% tax on these drinks plus the generally excessive mark-ups I mentioned

If FG have their way we'll all be paying mandatory health insurance too regardless

Still failing to see why this needs to be singled out

AnonoBoy · 23-06-2014 10:31AM

bluewolf wrote: »

If the state STOPPED intervening by telling people to eat more bread and eat more pasta we might even get somewhere.

Minister Old Mr. Brennan said he was going to send that legislation through to the Dolmio committee but that was the last we heard about it.

yawhat! · 23-06-2014 10:31AM

FutureGuy wrote: »

Diet versions increase appetite.

I'd be all on for more tax on fast food, alcohol and cigarettes/tobacco so long as the money goes to the healthcare system.

If you want to smoke 20 a day or drink 20 pints a week or eat **** food, you'll be paying for your hospital stays later in life when your lungs/liver/heart packs it in.

Cigarettes is basically all tax so 7 euro a day for a week is 56 euro which is 3,000 euro a year and if your a smoker for 40 years thats 120,000 and around 90,000 in tax. I think you've covered your hospital bills!

overexcitedaj · 23-06-2014 10:31AM

cronin_j wrote: »

Nanny state poking fingers into business that really should be left to the individual.

Are they going to reduce the VAT on my GYM membership in the same vein, or my runners or bicycles or weights? Some how I doubt it

Good point. Why not just promote healthy living? It is a much more positive outlook than punishing an unhealthy lifestyle. However, that would cost the government and we would not want that now would we :rolleyes:

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo · 23-06-2014 10:34AM

The money wouldn't be ring fenced so it would just be another tax.

Food education and cooking skills should be a full subject in all schools. In our school the only things they ever sold in the shop were different forms of sugar; coke, bars, jellies ect, that was literally all they sold. They also wouldn't let us leave the grounds at lunchtime to go to the supermarket or wherever, rock/hard place springs to mind.

If we teach every child about nutrition and how to cook a few healthy and tasty meals you would certainly reduce the amount of obesity that's so prevalent right now.

imitation · 23-06-2014 10:40AM

Its a load of bolloxolgy, the problem is the food industry is a race to the bottom now, cheaper crappier ingredients. Good luck trying to get a snack in a shop that isn't fat or sugar laden. In the days of yore people ate at home and the shop had a few treats. Now though people are so busy they go for gungy convience stuff Whats the government solution Mandatory nutrition and cooking in school, incentives for healtier food ? Nah more taxes !

Iwannahurl · 23-06-2014 10:52AM

cronin_j wrote: »

Nanny state poking fingers into business that really should be left to the individual.

Are they going to reduce the VAT on my GYM membership in the same vein, or my runners or bicycles or weights? Some how I doubt it

There's already a tax break for cycling to work.

Exercise opportunities are also freely available to anyone willing and able to avail of them -- eg walking, running, swimming, calisthenics, -- so why would the State want to subsidise a lifestyle choice such as gym membership?

There are very good public health reasons to use tax policy as a means of curbing the consumption of sugary drinks, just as there are with other products such as alcohol and tobacco.

"Nanny State" accusations are just the usual reactionary huffing and puffing.

alleystar · 23-06-2014 10:54AM

I think it's a good idea...if they used the money towards educating children on healthy food choices/ lifestyle then it would be a win-win. Junk food isn't a necessity, it's a waste of money and of absolutely no nutritional value.

Dan_Solo · 23-06-2014 10:55AM

catallus wrote: »

This is just another step taken by our overlords to plunge us deeper into a dismal downward spiral into a Judge Dredd-esque dystopia where they will outlaw the very things we need to survive. Down with this sort of thing!

Didn't Mega City One have a population of 800 million? Looks like they were doing OK!

catallus · 23-06-2014 10:58AM

Yes it did, but they outlawed sugar and sweeteners!

I for one will fight to the death against this anarcho-atheist plot!

_Kaiser_ · 23-06-2014 10:59AM

alleystar wrote: »

I think it's a good idea...if they used the money towards educating children on healthy food choices/ lifestyle then it would be a win-win. Junk food isn't a necessity, it's a waste of money and of absolutely no nutritional value.

But unless we're formally admitting this is a dictatorship we live in, who are you to decide that for everyone?

If people want to spend their money on gallons of Coke and boxes of Mars bars that's their choice - stupid yes, but it's their life.

If they get sick as a result they'll have to deal with the results of that and seeing as we all already pay for a public health service (even if the money is pissed away for the most part), AND private health insurance in many cases then they'll pay for it that way too.

I'm sick to death of this PC, do-goodery, interfering nanny state, pandering to the lowest common denominator shyte that is only getting worse. By all means educate people about the damage they're doing and the alternative options they should consider, but beyond that worry about your own life and leave others to theirs. As long as they're not out thieving or assaulting people or whatever then it's no-one's business what they do.

catallus · 23-06-2014 11:04AM

Will this apply to coke zero?

alleystar · 23-06-2014 11:08AM

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

But unless we're formally admitting this is a dictatorship we live in, who are you to decide that for everyone?

If people want to spend their money on gallons of Coke and boxes of Mars bars that's their choice - stupid yes, but it's their life.

If they get sick as a result they'll have to deal with the results of that and seeing as we all already pay for a public health service (even if the money is pissed away for the most part), AND private health insurance in many cases then they'll pay for it that way too.

I'm sick to death of this PC, do-goodery, interfering nanny state shyte that is only getting worse. Worry about your own life and leave others to theirs. As long as they're not out thieving or assaulting people or whatever then it's no-one's business what they do.

I'm not, it's an opinion and no, I'm not apart of the do-gooder, PC brigade. :rolleyes:

I couldn't give two sh!tes what adults stuff into their gob with their money, it's children..with pocket money loading themselves with sugary crap. If they up the cost of junk food then they might not be able to afford as much of it as before.

Survey finds majority support tax on sugary drinks

Comments