Survey finds majority support tax on sugary drinks

Dravokivich wrote: »

I thought sugar was listed as a carb?

The issue isn't one consumable item or one common ingredient. It's overall consumption. Looking solely at foods or beverages to increase tax on is missing the point entirely.

Sugar is a carbohydrate but excess carbohydrates are stored as fat in the body.

Of course food and beverages aren't the only source of the obesity problem but it has a large part to play and it does need to be addressed. Exercise is very important too and there's already a number of initiatives out there that aim to help people exercise more. More could be done but it's not a vacuum. The cycle to work scheme is one example where tax policy has been used to promote exercise.

IMO, the attempts to provide nutritional education have failed. The food companies have rung rings around any attempt to educate people on how to make better food choices. A tax on sugar certainly won't solve the problem but it would be a step in the right direction.

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

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

Exactly I paid €6 for a rock shandy once in the local hotel bar never again.

TomoBhoy wrote: »

I'd prefer a tax on all alcohol products personally.

There's already quite a large tax on alcohol!

Lapua Magnum wrote: »

Yes but why would they put a sugar supertax on Coke when Orange Juice has the exact same sugar content??

I presume an excise on sugar would be based on added sugar, not the naturally-occuring version?

Yeah it's the sugars fault not the parents kicking the fat little bastard out to play rather then on their playstation.

In 80's and 90's look all the E numbers in sweets, I probably ate as much as these kids but I was running around for about 12 hours a day.

Now their too busy putting up selfies, it's sunny but how many kids do you see outside playing.

Dravokivich wrote: »

They themselves aren't. An excess quantity of them is. That takes someone to do it themselves for what ever reason leads'em to it. Additional taxes just punishes people punishing themselves already.

Part of the reason is cost. (I'm currently living in the UK but the price comparisons shouldn't be too far out). I read somewhere the suggestion that instead of a chocolate bar for a snack think about picking up a bell pepper which seemed like a pretty good idea. I was in the shop yesterday and I could purchase a pepper for 98p or 3 bars of chocolate for £1. IMO, the incentives are the wrong way around there. I agree about the regressive tax element but I suppose I'm thinking more about the future. The people who are addicted to sugar already shouldn't be abandoned of course but how much easier would it be if half of western society weren't already addicted?

Dravokivich wrote: »

The Cycle to Work scheme is only good when there's the infrastructure to support it. Cars can park in cycle lanes and outside of towns or cities, roads are poorly lit. Meaning it's only viable for a little over half the year.

I'm in complete agreement about the need for proper cycling infrastructure and for a step change in the education of motorists on how to drive around cyclists but the main point that I was making is that tax policy is already used (however ineptly) to try and promote exercise.

Dravokivich wrote: »

It isn't a step in the right direction at all as far as I'm concerned. This isn't something I can ever agree with. You're fining someone based on their choice, whether it's excessive, or casual. I don't know where the answer to this problem is, but it's not in raking money from the consumer. If someone is not properly managing their food consumption, it's just charging someone more for the result of their issue. Not dealing with the causes of it.

I don't see it as fining anybody. I see it as an attempt to charge the true cost of a product. There's an implicit subsidy to the food companies at the moment because they don't have to pay for the health care required by the people who consume their products. This means that the products are cheaper than they should be and that people consume more of them than they would if they had to pay their true price. I don't expect that it will make a huge difference (if any) to the people who already consume vast quantities but as my kids grow older and start to make some decisions about what to spend any money they have on I'd be happier if there choice between an apple and a chocolate bar wasn't so tilted in favour of the chocolate bar on cost grounds, i.e. it's for future generations. I don't know what the history of tobacco consumption is but I don't imagine that the first extra tax on tobacco products made a big difference to its immediate consumption.

BTW - someone not properly managing their food consumption IMO vastly underestimates the power wielded by the big food companies.

Add some tax to the sugar filled version and leave the tax the same on the sugar free version ie coke/coke zero

airuser wrote: »

I am not sure if anyone has posted this suggestion. That is, rather than Tax, ensure that they reduce the sugar content of the products.

I don't agree with that, some of the most enjoyable foods are bad for you. If you go to any high class restaurant you're probably eating as many calories as going to McDonalds depending on what you order.

People should be able to have a treat, they should be able to buy whatever food they like, we should also have the freedom to get fat. Sometimes it's shocking how ready people are to have every aspect of their lives controlled so they don't have to see others doing things they don't like or agree with.