homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   »   » Oblivion   » Should the UK have a soda tax? (Page 1)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: Should the UK have a soda tax?
Boogie

Boogie on down!
# 13538

 - Posted      Profile for Boogie     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Doctors have said all soda should be taxed at 20% to dissuade people from buying them to help us reduce our waistlines.

quote:
Britain's 220,000 doctors are demanding a 20% increase in the cost of sugary drinks, fewer fast food outlets near schools and a ban on unhealthy food in hospitals to prevent the country's spiralling obesity crisis becoming unresolvable.
('Soda' is the US catch-all term for sugary drinks like coke, I don't think we have one here in the UK and like the term)

What do you think?

--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk

Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713

 - Posted      Profile for Sioni Sais   Email Sioni Sais   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
There's already a 20% tax on "soda", like Coca-Cola, Pepsi and Fanta. It's called VAT.

--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"

(Paul Sinha, BBC)

Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333

 - Posted      Profile for lilBuddha     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
People will pay for their pleasures. I do not see a 20% tax reducing consumption by much.

--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou

Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged
Og, King of Bashan

Ship's giant Amorite
# 9562

 - Posted      Profile for Og, King of Bashan     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
('Soda' is the US catch-all term for sugary drinks like coke, I don't think we have one here in the UK and like the term)

That is actually one of the most contested linguistic topics in the United States.

But rather than letting this devolve into that old debate (along the lines of the one true Chili and the one true Barbeque in the States), I will add a link to one economist's take on this kind of taxation, (specifically, that it tends to be regressive and inefficient).

--------------------
"I like to eat crawfish and drink beer. That's despair?" ― Walker Percy

Posts: 3259 | From: Denver, Colorado, USA | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Marvin the Martian

Interplanetary
# 4360

 - Posted      Profile for Marvin the Martian     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
People will pay for their pleasures. I do not see a 20% tax reducing consumption by much.

Nobody seems to make that argument when they increase the tax on tobacco every year. What's the difference?

--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar

Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
blackbeard
Ship's Pirate
# 10848

 - Posted      Profile for blackbeard   Email blackbeard   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
It's very tempting to use differential taxation to promote some good policy. I'm just a little uneasy about it, in that it takes away the freedom to take responsibility for one's own actions.

But then, on the other hand, the idea of millions of people drinking expensive tinned fizzy sugary water with added chemicals (WHY?! - is it the power of advertising or do they actually LIKE the stuff?), to the detriment of teeth, waistline and lifespan, also makes me uneasy.

Should we? really don't know. Though I like the idea of taxes paid by someone else.

Blackbeard, uneasy and going for a cup of tea

Posts: 823 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Gwai
Shipmate
# 11076

 - Posted      Profile for Gwai   Email Gwai   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
blackbeard, to answer your question, I drink diet, but I drink it for the caffeine. It's not as caffeinated as coffee, and I do like the taste while I think coffee generally tastes abominable.

ETA: I'm against sin taxes unless it's clear that said item costs the public a lot. For instance, if said item's use causes substantial environmental harm that is expensive to fix, perhaps a tax earmarked to fixing it would be good. Similarly with cigarettes

[ 18. February 2013, 18:33: Message edited by: Gwai ]

--------------------
A master of men was the Goodly Fere,
A mate of the wind and sea.
If they think they ha’ slain our Goodly Fere
They are fools eternally.


Posts: 11914 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
Sleepwalker
Shipmate
# 15343

 - Posted      Profile for Sleepwalker     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Doctors have said all soda should be taxed at 20% to dissuade people from buying them to help us reduce our waistlines.

It isn't up to doctors to tell us to reduce our waistlines.

If people want to drink pop then they should be free to drink pop. And doctors should stick to the business of treating the sick and injured. That's what we all pay them to do.

Posts: 267 | From: somewhere other than here | Registered: Dec 2009  |  IP: Logged
Boogie

Boogie on down!
# 13538

 - Posted      Profile for Boogie     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Sleepwalker:

If people want to drink pop then they should be free to drink pop. And doctors should stick to the business of treating the sick and injured. That's what we all pay them to do.

Is this not all about preventative medicine? Surely cheaper and better for the patient than reacting after the event?

--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk

Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged
luvanddaisies

the'fun'in'fundie'™
# 5761

 - Posted      Profile for luvanddaisies   Email luvanddaisies   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
('Soda' is the US catch-all term for sugary drinks like coke, I don't think we have one here in the UK...

In Scotland we have the word jinjur which means any fizzy soft drink.

Y'r welcome [Big Grin]

(and I can't type)

[ 18. February 2013, 19:03: Message edited by: luvanddaisies ]

--------------------
"Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things you didn't do than by the ones you did do. So throw off the bowlines, sail away from the safe harbour. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream. Discover." (Mark Twain)

Posts: 3711 | From: all at sea. | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Og, King of Bashan

Ship's giant Amorite
# 9562

 - Posted      Profile for Og, King of Bashan     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Sleepwalker:
If people want to drink pop then they should be free to drink pop.

And they still are if there is a tax. At least if they are rich, and can afford to pay the tax. The poor don't get that option.

--------------------
"I like to eat crawfish and drink beer. That's despair?" ― Walker Percy

Posts: 3259 | From: Denver, Colorado, USA | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Schroedinger's cat

Ship's cool cat
# 64

 - Posted      Profile for Schroedinger's cat   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
In the UK, Soda is a completely different thing. Soda water and Cream Soda are the UK versions.

These other things are "fizzy drinks".

I am in two minds about the fizzy drinks tax. One part of me says that a tax to pay for increased health costs makes some sense - or it would if the money went to the health service, rather than to Tory Supporters pockets. If these things are bad for you, causing long term problems, then there is some justification.

This, however, would be a radical change in government medical direction - admitting that sugar is the biggest problem for health and weight, rather than fat. If they were to define fizzy drinks as "sinful", then surely this should also apply far wider, there should be a sugar tax, of which the drinks are just one significant aspect.

However, and this is the critical issue to me, I do not agree with sin-tax (or, as my work often shown, syntax). Taxing things that are bad for you can work (they do it with some significant success in Norway), but only by mutual consent. And Norway has its own set of problems, not least a very high suicide rate. Maybe because they have a society restriction on "sin".

So a good idea? TBH, any proposal this government makes to raise more money I am suspicious of. They are not doing it for the good of people, but as a means of raising money.

--------------------
Blog
Music for your enjoyment
Lord may all my hard times be healing times
take out this broken heart and renew my mind.

Posts: 18859 | From: At the bottom of a deep dark well. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333

 - Posted      Profile for lilBuddha     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
People will pay for their pleasures. I do not see a 20% tax reducing consumption by much.

Nobody seems to make that argument when they increase the tax on tobacco every year. What's the difference?
No difference on whether taxes make smokers consume less. I doubt they do. Taxes should go to lessen the burden of care for health problems caused by the addiction.

--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou

Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322

 - Posted      Profile for Enoch   Email Enoch   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
The primary purpose of a tax is to raise money to fund government, not to achieve a collateral purpose that some interest group of high minded wowsers that happens to have power thinks would be a good idea for the rest of us.

It's a bad thing if the incidence of taxation has economic or social bad collateral effects, but it's a misuse of government clout to impose taxes that have no real connection with the need to raise money.

What do they want children to drink? Home brewed beer? And why should those who are not fat have to pay extra because other people are?

Worthy or not, what's it got to do with government?

--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson

Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged
Og, King of Bashan

Ship's giant Amorite
# 9562

 - Posted      Profile for Og, King of Bashan     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
The primary purpose of a tax is to raise money to fund government, not to achieve a collateral purpose that some interest group of high minded wowsers that happens to have power thinks would be a good idea for the rest of us.

That's one of the unending debates on government, isn't it? Clearly the tax power can be used to influence behavior. Should the government consider that a tool in its arsenal to make the country a better place, or not?

I worry about the unintended consequences of such schemes. Consider this scenario that I have been hinting around for a few posts now:

I live in a diverse neighborhood, where the north side tends to be lower income, and the south side tends to be higher income. It is a 15 minute drive to the nearest grocery store, so we might qualify as a food desert. There are two markets. One on the north side is a classic urban neighborhood market, that has staples and lots of junk that would be taxed heavily under a fat tax regime. There is no fresh food to be found. The other market is a specialty Italian market. We love it, but it tends to be pretty pricy, so it probably isn’t an option for some of the other folks who live on the north side.

So picture the person who has no car and who has to shop on food stamps or a limited budget. That person cannot easily make it to a grocery store, and cannot afford to go to the specialty market. Their best (perhaps only) option is the urban market.

And now doctors want to enact a fat tax and make many of the items in that market cost 20% more?

If we want the obesity epidemic to end, we have to find a way to help the poor eat better. If there were a way to encourage the local chain of small and reasonably priced organic markets to open a store in my neighborhood, I would be all for it. But just slapping a tax on "bad" foods is going to create problems that the doctors might not have foreseen.

[ 18. February 2013, 20:07: Message edited by: Og, King of Bashan ]

--------------------
"I like to eat crawfish and drink beer. That's despair?" ― Walker Percy

Posts: 3259 | From: Denver, Colorado, USA | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333

 - Posted      Profile for lilBuddha     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
What do they want children to drink?

Water? Milk?

--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou

Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333

 - Posted      Profile for lilBuddha     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I agree with Og and tgc regarding being poor makes eating healthy more difficult.
However, that is where soda becomes even more of the problem. Water is the least expensive beverage. In most of the countries represented on these boards, it is safe.
Sugar laden drinks should be occasional, not staple.

--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou

Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged
Sleepwalker
Shipmate
# 15343

 - Posted      Profile for Sleepwalker     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by Sleepwalker:

If people want to drink pop then they should be free to drink pop. And doctors should stick to the business of treating the sick and injured. That's what we all pay them to do.

Is this not all about preventative medicine? Surely cheaper and better for the patient than reacting after the event?
That's one euphemism for it I suppose!

However, you could apply your argument to all food because if a person eats enough of pretty much anything they will put on weight. Would you want all food taxed so that people could reduce their waistlines?

As an aside, I have noticed that now the smoking ban is in full flow, the attention of the media and busybodies in general appears to have turned towards fat people. Are they now going to be hounded as much as smokers were I wonder? There has been a rather unpleasant streak develop in my country's culture of late.

[ 18. February 2013, 20:29: Message edited by: Sleepwalker ]

Posts: 267 | From: somewhere other than here | Registered: Dec 2009  |  IP: Logged
the giant cheeseburger
Shipmate
# 10942

 - Posted      Profile for the giant cheeseburger     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
People will pay for their pleasures. I do not see a 20% tax reducing consumption by much.

I don't either. Not when retail markup and differences in pricing between brands easily make for a lot more wiggle room than 20% for the retailer and consumer.

Another concern with these ad-hoc taxes/levies that various interest groups clamour for on a regular basis is that the government usually has to fritter away most of the revenue in the process of administering a small program which can't be run efficiently. Small retailers will be the big losers, as well as the extra workload associated with tax collection they will get sucked into a race to the bottom which only the bigger players can possibly win.

Above all, there's the ever-present problem that if you're poor, you can't afford high quality food. Trying to eat the same foods as you would on a higher budget just leaves you underfed, the only option to get the quantity needed is to go for lower-quality mass-produced food. When I was living on nothing but a student allowance from the government, the only way I could afford to buy fresh fruit and vegetables was to go to the market at the end of a Saturday when I could get the dregs left over at a discount - it didn't take long to realise that even using canned tomatoes for cooking and going without in sandwiches is better than settling for 'fresh' tomatoes which have sat there for hours being pawed, squeezed and rejected every few minutes.

Above all, I like a cold bottle of Coke or ginger beer on a hot day, and I have no trouble enjoying those as part of a balanced diet and maintaining a high level of physical activity. I don't see any reason to pay 20% extra for nice things which I can handle with responsibility just because there are others who can't, especially if that 20% is only going to get spent on the process of collecting it and not on anything useful like improving public services.

--------------------
If I give a homeopathy advocate a really huge punch in the face, can the injury be cured by giving them another really small punch in the face?

Posts: 4834 | From: Adelaide, South Australia. | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
Aravis
Shipmate
# 13824

 - Posted      Profile for Aravis   Email Aravis   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
It would be great if the government used the proceeds of the soda tax to increase the availability of healthier food at a reasonable price, but somehow I don't see that happening.

I heard a radio programme a few months back - might have been the Food Programme on Radio 4? - that gave details of an initiative to subsidize fruit and veg in local shops in deprived areas. Does anyone remember the details?

BTW - water is not the cheapest drink in all circumstances. In many UK shops it's cheaper to buy a 2 litre bottle of soda (not major brands) than it is to buy a 500ml bottle of water. Guess what the teenagers choose.

Posts: 689 | From: S Wales | Registered: Jun 2008  |  IP: Logged
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322

 - Posted      Profile for Enoch   Email Enoch   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
What do they want children to drink?

Water? Milk?
I thought milk was supposed to be fattening these days. We're always exhorted to use the green top sort. Besides, drinking milk neat, rather than in tea, coffee or on cornflakes is a bit of an esoteric taste.

Yes, it's very worthy to drink only water, but as a sole refreshment, that is a bit puritanical, a bit like expecting other people to make sacrifices. Most of us like sometimes to drink something with a flavour. In my experience, children don't usually like tea much until about 10 or coffee until their late teens. And national views vary on these things. English people used to disapprove of French children being given wine. Yet I remember an exchange student back in the 1960s being quite shocked at English children drinking tea by the mug full, and being told it was provided as a matter of course in schools.

--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson

Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged
comet

Snowball in Hell
# 10353

 - Posted      Profile for comet   Author's homepage   Email comet   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
tangent...
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
And Norway has its own set of problems, not least a very high suicide rate. Maybe because they have a society restriction on "sin".

nah. We have an epic suicide rate, too, and we're very embracing of our many sins. plenty of people blame exactly that - high suicide rate because we don't restrict various "sins".

it's the bloody darkness and cold.

--------------------
Evil Dragon Lady, Breaker of Men's Constitutions

"It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.” -Calvin

Posts: 17024 | From: halfway between Seduction and Peril | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged
the giant cheeseburger
Shipmate
# 10942

 - Posted      Profile for the giant cheeseburger     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Aravis:
BTW - water is not the cheapest drink in all circumstances. In many UK shops it's cheaper to buy a 2 litre bottle of soda (not major brands) than it is to buy a 500ml bottle of water. Guess what the teenagers choose.

Water out of a tap is considerably cheaper than bottled water though. If you're not at home, there would usually be somewhere in a town you could fill up a bottle you already have without needing to go into a shop and buy what is (let's be honest here) usually just tap water with a fancy label. Bottled water is about the convenience, not the water.

Some country towns in eastern Australia have actually banned the sale of bottled water because of the high amount of waste littering their streets. They provide plenty of water fountains in public areas for people to use for drinking or filling up a bottle. Interestingly, these are all towns in states where there is still no deposit system for recyclable drink containers. South Australia may have its problems, but the streets being covered with plastic bags and drink containers is not one of them.

quote:
Originally posted by comet:
tangent...
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
And Norway has its own set of problems, not least a very high suicide rate. Maybe because they have a society restriction on "sin".

nah. We have an epic suicide rate, too, and we're very embracing of our many sins. plenty of people blame exactly that - high suicide rate because we don't restrict various "sins".

it's the bloody darkness and cold.

I don't know much about Alaska, but in Norway you could probably add high consumption of alcohol into the mix of factors involved when it comes to suicide.

--------------------
If I give a homeopathy advocate a really huge punch in the face, can the injury be cured by giving them another really small punch in the face?

Posts: 4834 | From: Adelaide, South Australia. | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
comet

Snowball in Hell
# 10353

 - Posted      Profile for comet   Author's homepage   Email comet   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by the giant cheeseburger:
I don't know much about Alaska, but in Norway you could probably add high consumption of alcohol into the mix of factors involved when it comes to suicide.

that's certainly our favorite sin.

--------------------
Evil Dragon Lady, Breaker of Men's Constitutions

"It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.” -Calvin

Posts: 17024 | From: halfway between Seduction and Peril | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged
blackbeard
Ship's Pirate
# 10848

 - Posted      Profile for blackbeard   Email blackbeard   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
......I don't know much about Alaska, but in Norway you could probably add high consumption of alcohol .....

Which raises another point. Alcohol in Norway is EXPENSIVE, due to deliberate policy to reduce consumption, but it's still consumed - whether to a lesser extent than if would be if cheaper, I couldn't say.
So by analogy, a mere 20% on a can of fizzy pop wouldn't reduce consumption to zero, and perhaps wouldn't reduce it by much.

Posts: 823 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322

 - Posted      Profile for Enoch   Email Enoch   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I suspect adultery's more popular here. Should the government tax that, and if so, how?

It certainly causes more social damage than alcohol, fizzy drinks and obesity.

[ 18. February 2013, 22:18: Message edited by: Enoch ]

--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson

Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333

 - Posted      Profile for lilBuddha     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
I suspect adultery's more popular here. Should the government tax that, and if so, how?

It certainly causes more social damage than alcohol, fizzy drinks and obesity.

Let's just tax the ones you are more likely to get.
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged
churchgeek

Have candles, will pray
# 5557

 - Posted      Profile for churchgeek   Author's homepage   Email churchgeek   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I'm opposed to sin taxes generally, especially because they just tend to be punitive and do disproportionally affect the poor and working class (for whom the taxed items, like cigarettes, are a relatively affordable pleasure).

Is the proposed tax in the UK meant to subsidize the NHS for treatment of obesity-related illness? That would be the only thing that would make sense to me, but still it seems odd to pick on only sugary drinks - especially when genetics plays a huge factor in both obesity and diabetes, sugary drinks or not.

I personally drink a lot of diet pop. It is my simple pleasure. I tend to prefer carbonated drinks, but as a "taster" I have a strong aversion to bitterness and an equally strong sweet tooth. Filtered water and sparkling water are too bitter for me to drink, and my tap water tastes like chlorine. Back home in Detroit, my tap water was great, so I drank it; growing up in the country, our well water was better than great, so I drank LOTS of that - I was allergic to milk until my mid-20s, and fruit juices often make my stomach sour. At work, in San Francisco, I drink the tap water (rather than the bottled or filtered water that's available), although I do mostly drink pop that I bring with me.

Aspartame's a whole other issue (as are pretty much all artificial sweeteners). Some people get headaches from it, and others are just conspiracy theory types, so you can easily find movements to ban the stuff. I seem to have no adverse effects from it, although maybe an autopsy some 3 or 4 decades from now (God willing) would reveal some bad cumulative effect I'm not able to discern. But it's not like in the 21st century you can keep yourself pure of toxins anyway. My point here is that whatever it is you happen to enjoy, someone else is certain it's ruining your health and they want to tell you to stop enjoying it, or even to ban it.

Where there's nationalized health care (i.e., in properly civilized countries, unlike the US), the public does have a bit more of an interest in each other's health, and we should have an interest in each other's health, but not in this way. Since our individual health is a complex web of genetic, environmental, dietary, lifestyle and other factors, and since the latest wisdom about what's good for you and what's not will be completely different in 10 years or less, it seems wrong to tax today's pet sin on the basis that everyone else has to pay for your health care when said sin makes you sick. Unless they can demonstrate that there really are direct lines from a habit to the health problem that has no other significant causes, then taxing the habit is punitive in my opinion.

[ 18. February 2013, 23:48: Message edited by: churchgeek ]

--------------------
I reserve the right to change my mind.

My article on the Virgin of Vladimir

Posts: 7773 | From: Detroit | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513

 - Posted      Profile for Alogon   Email Alogon   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
So the tax will be on the sugar in the soda and not the... syrup, carbon dioxide, or whatever else is in it?

If the answer is yes, then the same question must be asked about candy: why not tax it because of the sugar? For that matter, why not tax sugar itself in the supermarkets?

If the answer is no, then it is hypocritical for proponents to claim that their concern is about calories.

This would be a kind of sumptuary tax, and I'm o.k. with them as long as they are moderate. Trouble is, they don't tend to stay that way. If the proponents of this tax are like those of tobacco taxes, they will keep ratcheting up their nannyism year after year as if it was a brand new idea and won't be satisfied until they have put bottlers out of business. If there were some way for us to enshrine in law that a 20% tax is the appropriate rate and, after it is enacted, the advocates will move on and get a life somewhere else for at least a generation, I'd vote yes if only for the entertainment value.

--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.

Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
churchgeek

Have candles, will pray
# 5557

 - Posted      Profile for churchgeek   Author's homepage   Email churchgeek   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
BTW, does pop in the UK actually contain sugar, or is it high fructose corn syrup as in the US?

--------------------
I reserve the right to change my mind.

My article on the Virgin of Vladimir

Posts: 7773 | From: Detroit | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460

 - Posted      Profile for ken     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Where did this idea that Norway has a high suicide rate come from? The World Health Organisation doesn't seem to think so. They reckon its lower than either the UK or the US. The highest rates seem to be in the far east and in some parts of eastern and southern Europe. Is it a misremembering of the old nonsense that Sweden has a high suicide rate? (Which it doesn't)

And they drink a lot less than the British do (though we are nowhere near the champion drinking countries like France, Ireland and Czeckia)

quote:
Originally posted by the giant cheeseburger:
When I was living on nothing but a student allowance from the government, the only way I could afford to buy fresh fruit and vegetables was to go to the market at the end of a Saturday when I could get the dregs left over at a discount...

So how come I can buy onions for less than a pound for a 4-kilo bag from a corner shop, carrots at 62p a kilo from a late-night garage (I did last night), large cabbages for less than a pound each,and potatoes at about 2.50 for a 5-kilo bag from a big supermarket? (And much cheaper if I had a car and so could by bigger bags). And the streetmarkets are cheaper than the shops. That might make for a boring diet but there is no way its more expensive than processed food.

I really don't think its true that fresh vegetables are more expensive than low-quality ready-made foods. They are more inconvenient for a lot of people and less comforting for many, but that's not quite the same thing. Obviously that's all worse if you have kids. I'm happy to wait while my vegetables are cooking. Not so easy if you have got two grumpy kids who are driving you up the wall. A microwaved tray of some ready-meal thingy is a lot easier then (though really not particularly cheaper)

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
And national views vary on these things. English people used to disapprove of French children being given wine. Yet I remember an exchange student back in the 1960s being quite shocked at English children drinking tea by the mug full, and being told it was provided as a matter of course in schools.

Yes. Lots of variation. I hardly ever drink fizzy sweet drinks. A lot of that is cultural. Round here they are for children. Grown-ups drink tea at home or with meals, or else beer and wine. Or water of course. Coffee is a more social thing rather than the liquid part of a meal. You might have a cup after a meal, or for the taste, but you are unlikely to drink it with a meal or because you are thirsty. I used to drink loads of lemonade and so on when I was a kid and more or less stopped in my late teens. The last time I remember buying any was some months ago when I bought some ginger beer (the spiciness counteracts the excessive sweetness)


So of course this would be disproportionately a tax on children.

--------------------
Ken

L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.

Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460

 - Posted      Profile for ken     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by churchgeek:
BTW, does pop in the UK actually contain sugar, or is it high fructose corn syrup as in the US?

Sugar.(Or rather sucrose, seeing as the stuff in corn syrup is sugar but just a different kind) Its cheaper here.

The stuff that gets into everything here is "milk solids" and "milk protein". On all sorts of lists of ingredients of all sorts of unlikely things.

--------------------
Ken

L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.

Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
no prophet's flag is set so...

Proceed to see sea
# 15560

 - Posted      Profile for no prophet's flag is set so...   Author's homepage   Email no prophet's flag is set so...   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I realize this is a UK thread, but the issues have come up here as well (and we call all of these fizzy sugar drinks "pop", the word "soda" identifies an American).

Might it be possible to fund public health, especially re diabetes and metabolic syndrome from the funds generated from such a tax? Might it also be quite reasonable for diabetics to have public and private insurers to assess them and refuse to provide some non-life threatening medical care in situations of behavioural obesity, like not subsidizing insulin, and forcing dietician care and attendance at exercise classes to lose the weight.

It has been occurring with smoking for decades that elective surgeries and respiratory physical therapy will not be provided to smokers who do not agree to attend cessation programs. Why not treat the dietarily dangerous similarly? This is akin to finding fault for an accident isn't it? We make those at fault pay fines and surcharges for their fault. I'd wonder if it couldn't be applied for health non-compliant sugar drinkers.

--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/

Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010  |  IP: Logged
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984

 - Posted      Profile for Doublethink.   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Surely it would make more sense to tax sugar directly (and high fructose corn syrup etc) and then its up to the manufacturer how much they put in the product. There is then the pressure to reduce sugar content to remain competitive.

--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell

Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
the giant cheeseburger
Shipmate
# 10942

 - Posted      Profile for the giant cheeseburger     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by the giant cheeseburger:
When I was living on nothing but a student allowance from the government, the only way I could afford to buy fresh fruit and vegetables was to go to the market at the end of a Saturday when I could get the dregs left over at a discount...

So how come I can buy onions for less than a pound for a 4-kilo bag from a corner shop, carrots at 62p a kilo from a late-night garage (I did last night), large cabbages for less than a pound each,and potatoes at about 2.50 for a 5-kilo bag from a big supermarket? (And much cheaper if I had a car and so could by bigger bags). And the streetmarkets are cheaper than the shops. That might make for a boring diet but there is no way its more expensive than processed food.

I really don't think its true that fresh vegetables are more expensive than low-quality ready-made foods. They are more inconvenient for a lot of people and less comforting for many, but that's not quite the same thing. Obviously that's all worse if you have kids. I'm happy to wait while my vegetables are cooking. Not so easy if you have got two grumpy kids who are driving you up the wall. A microwaved tray of some ready-meal thingy is a lot easier then (though really not particularly cheaper)

Lucky you, living in an area where there are fly-by-night street vendors you can get cheap stuff from. Not everyone can live in an area where there are market gardens with excess stock.

quote:
Originally posted by churchgeek:
Is the proposed tax in the UK meant to subsidize the NHS for treatment of obesity-related illness? That would be the only thing that would make sense to me, but still it seems odd to pick on only sugary drinks - especially when genetics plays a huge factor in both obesity and diabetes, sugary drinks or not.

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
Might it be possible to fund public health, especially re diabetes and metabolic syndrome from the funds generated from such a tax? Might it also be quite reasonable for diabetics to have public and private insurers to assess them and refuse to provide some non-life threatening medical care in situations of behavioural obesity, like not subsidizing insulin, and forcing dietician care and attendance at exercise classes to lose the weight.

I'm not seeing any evidence of a serious proposal that has been costed by the Treasury Department, just a frothy edict from an interest group wanting to remind the rest of society they still exist. My guess is that such a tax would be revenue-neutral at best, all the revenue collected would be frittered away on paying for the process of collecting it.

quote:
Originally posted by churchgeek:
Aspartame's a whole other issue (as are pretty much all artificial sweeteners). Some people get headaches from it, and others are just conspiracy theory types, so you can easily find movements to ban the stuff. I seem to have no adverse effects from it, although maybe an autopsy some 3 or 4 decades from now (God willing) would reveal some bad cumulative effect I'm not able to discern.

You might want to have "diet drinker" put on your medical records, so they'll be able to identify you by your dental records. Artificial sweeteners are even nastier for dental health than real sugar, make sure you at least wash it down with water afterwards (ideally fluoridated tap water, swish it round your mouth on the way) if you can't use a mouthwash straight afterwards.

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
Surely it would make more sense to tax sugar directly (and high fructose corn syrup etc) and then its up to the manufacturer how much they put in the product. There is then the pressure to reduce sugar content to remain competitive.

That will just shift the goalposts, there are other ways of making a nice sweet taste without adding cane sugar or corn syrup. The latest targets for the ban nannies in Australia (schools pronounce that they have 'banned' Coke despite them having no power to regulate students' lunches) is a range of carbonated fruit juice drinks which are 99% natural fruit juice and 1% carbonated water to add the fizz. They don't have anything added which could be subject to a punitive tax, yet they still have a 10.4% sugar content which comes in only slightly below Coke at 10.6% because it's fruit juice and it's naturally that way. It's all natural, but no less sweet.

Add in the fact it's sold in 250 mL skinny cans like the style you see used for energy drinks (they fit in school lunch boxes nicely and will still be cold at lunchtime if put in the freezer overnight) and you can see why they are so ridiculously popular.

[ 19. February 2013, 05:30: Message edited by: the giant cheeseburger ]

--------------------
If I give a homeopathy advocate a really huge punch in the face, can the injury be cured by giving them another really small punch in the face?

Posts: 4834 | From: Adelaide, South Australia. | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Sleepwalker:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Doctors have said all soda should be taxed at 20% to dissuade people from buying them to help us reduce our waistlines.

It isn't up to doctors to tell us to reduce our waistlines.

If people want to drink pop then they should be free to drink pop. And doctors should stick to the business of treating the sick and injured. That's what we all pay them to do.

Well, so long as they can charge you more for greatly increasing the chances of you being sick, I'm fine with that.

After all, that's the basis on which insurance premiums work. "We'll repair your house/car when it's broken... we think there's a greater risk of you needing repair, so here's your premium".

Why not medicine? No? Don't like that idea? In which case, doctors have every right to tell you how to reduce the chance of ending up in their consultation rooms or on their operating table.

--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.

Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
What do they want children to drink?

I'm stunned the human race managed to survive into the industrial revolution, what with all the children who died of thirst before then. And here was I thinking diseases had been the primary cause of child mortality.

--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.

Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Aravis:
BTW - water is not the cheapest drink in all circumstances. In many UK shops it's cheaper to buy a 2 litre bottle of soda (not major brands) than it is to buy a 500ml bottle of water. Guess what the teenagers choose.

This is just evidence of the remarkable success of somehow persuading people that the best source of water is a bottle, not a tap.

--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.

Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
LucyP
Shipmate
# 10476

 - Posted      Profile for LucyP     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Sleepwalker:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Doctors have said all soda should be taxed at 20% to dissuade people from buying them to help us reduce our waistlines.

It isn't up to doctors to tell us to reduce our waistlines.

If people want to drink pop then they should be free to drink pop. And doctors should stick to the business of treating the sick and injured. That's what we all pay them to do.

At least one judge takes the view that if obesity leads to other problems, then doctors are responsible for doing everything possible to reverse the obesity - even booking an appointment with a weight loss surgeon for the patient.

quote:
In his verdict, Justice Stephen Campbell said when Dr Varipatis first saw his patient in 1997, Mr Almario was "morbidly obese and suffered from a constellation of other inter-related conditions, all affected by his obesity, including the liver disease".

He upheld that the doctor was legally responsible for the disease progressing to cirrhosis, liver failure and eventually liver cancer.

"I am satisfied that but for the negligence of the defendant, the liver disease would not have progressed to cirrhosis and one could have expected a great improvement in his health generally, had bariatric surgery been successful, and a healthful weight been achieved by Mr Almario following surgery," Justice Campbell noted.



Posts: 235 | From: my sanctuary | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged
dv
Shipmate
# 15714

 - Posted      Profile for dv     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Politicians are just looking for new forms of taxation all the time. It justifies their existence and pays for their perks (including subsidised bars in the House of Commons).

Charging extra for pop will not make a blind bit of difference to the amount consumed. A 2 litre bottle of crap lemonade costs about 20p at present in many supermarkets. Adding another 20% tax will have no effect on consumption.

Taxation is already too high and government is already meddling in areas that are not its concern. It should concentrate on providing better basic services and stop pretending it can micro manage everything. Clearing up the patient-killing mess that is the NHS would be a better place to start.

Posts: 70 | From: Lancs UK | Registered: Jun 2010  |  IP: Logged
Jengie jon

Semper Reformanda
# 273

 - Posted      Profile for Jengie jon   Author's homepage   Email Jengie jon   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
To be fair and to show the hidden values, it should be a sugar content tax and be on all drinks which have over a certain percentage of sugar. The thing about that is that it would hit many "healthy" middle class options such as fruit based juices and drinks.

Jengie

--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge

Back to my blog

Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
la vie en rouge
Parisienne
# 10688

 - Posted      Profile for la vie en rouge     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Not wanting to drink water at meals is a cultural thing, I think. In France, I think most people still regard soda as more of a treat, and drink water with most of their meals.

When I have anglo-saxons round to dinner, I feel obliged to offer juice (not soda, because I don't drink it and I don't want it hanging around the house afterwards). When it's French people, I just stick the water-jug on the table (I use a filter jug because our tap water is full of chlorine and I think it tastes nasty) and no one thinks that's odd.

--------------------
Rent my holiday home in the South of France

Posts: 3696 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged
Boogie

Boogie on down!
# 13538

 - Posted      Profile for Boogie     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
Not wanting to drink water at meals is a cultural thing, I think. In France, I think most people still regard soda as more of a treat, and drink water with most of their meals.

When I have anglo-saxons round to dinner, I feel obliged to offer juice (not soda, because I don't drink it and I don't want it hanging around the house afterwards). When it's French people, I just stick the water-jug on the table (I use a filter jug because our tap water is full of chlorine and I think it tastes nasty) and no one thinks that's odd.

We also only have water at meals. I can also taste the chemicals in tap water, so our 'fridge has a filter. But a filter jug works just as well.

Am I right in thinking that France doesn't have such an obesity problem? If so, we could do to emulate them in more ways than this one!

--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk

Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I usually still drink milk with my dinner when I'm at home. Like I have since childhood.

I don't do it when I go out. But on the rare occasions I have people over for a casual meal they're often tremendously surprised... and then I end up being surprised at their surprise because I forget that it isn't 'normal'.

--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.

Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032

 - Posted      Profile for Anselmina     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Gradually it seems more and more restaurants and cafes are offering jugs of water with meals, which is great. And I've noticed, when going to someone's house for dinner, water is usually on offer without having to ask for it.

As for milk for children. I haven't checked, but doesn't full fat milk only have about 4% fat, anyway? And isn't the full fat kind the best for growing children? I understood semi and non-fat milk was not recommended for kids.

When I were a lad fizzy drinks were a treat; hence the popularity of soda stream when it first came out (oh, the joy of pressing the button)! For years now my teeth and my stomach can't easily take fizzy drinks. I imagine if kids get through their early years of high-input of the stuff, it's only because their bodies are young and resilient and their visits to the dentist regular and thorough.

Milk, water, some fruit juices or cordials. Even sugar-free squash is probably better as a regular drink for children (and adults).

Posts: 10002 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175

 - Posted      Profile for Pomona   Email Pomona   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
What do they want children to drink?

Water? Milk?
I thought milk was supposed to be fattening these days. We're always exhorted to use the green top sort. Besides, drinking milk neat, rather than in tea, coffee or on cornflakes is a bit of an esoteric taste.

Yes, it's very worthy to drink only water, but as a sole refreshment, that is a bit puritanical, a bit like expecting other people to make sacrifices. Most of us like sometimes to drink something with a flavour. In my experience, children don't usually like tea much until about 10 or coffee until their late teens. And national views vary on these things. English people used to disapprove of French children being given wine. Yet I remember an exchange student back in the 1960s being quite shocked at English children drinking tea by the mug full, and being told it was provided as a matter of course in schools.

Official advice is for young children to drink full-fat milk. 'Green-top' milk is only semi-skimmed though, I know lots of people who drink skimmed milk.

And re water, surely that's what squash is for? It's almost entirely water. Juice, however, is full of sugar.

--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]

Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012  |  IP: Logged
Boogie

Boogie on down!
# 13538

 - Posted      Profile for Boogie     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:

As for milk for children. I haven't checked, but doesn't full fat milk only have about 4% fat, anyway? And isn't the full fat kind the best for growing children? I understood semi and non-fat milk was not recommended for kids.

Yes, school milk is still 100% whole milk.

--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk

Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175

 - Posted      Profile for Pomona   Email Pomona   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I want to know if this tax applies to diet drinks - a number of people I know are in a well-known slimming club and diet drinks are syn-free and often used in cooking and baking to cut syns.

I also want to point out that I am classed as obese but mostly drink water, squash or tea without sugar! Even at the pub I drink gin and bitter lemon, nothing very calorific.

--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]

Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012  |  IP: Logged
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Just to go back to the "oh, doctors should just up and fix us after we've ruined things" line of thinking...

You'd be wrong to assume that they can fix you. If you become diabetic due to a high sugar diet, they probably can't fix you. They can probably only help you manage and survive the condition you've landed yourself with.

Ever since I studied biochemistry at university, I've found the prospect of diabetes horrific. It means one of THE most fundamental metabolic processes in your body isn't working. Seriously, I go queasy just thinking about it.

And while some people suffer diabetes for other reasons, huge numbers of diabetics result from 'lifestyle'. From people sitting around and consuming large quantities of crappy food.

The idea that doctors are supposed to just sit back, shut up and watch this happening on an ever-increasing scale, but then come running after a person's body rebels against the abuse and stops making insulin... No. Just no.

--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.

Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
I haven't checked, but doesn't full fat milk only have about 4% fat, anyway?

Yes. I roll my eyes at the people at work who get in a tizzy if there isn't skim milk in the fridge for their tea or coffee. The idea that milk is a high fat foodstuff - especially in the quantities they are consuming - is absurd. And the type of fat involved isn't one that it's necessary to avoid, either.

[ 19. February 2013, 11:02: Message edited by: orfeo ]

--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.

Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
follow ship of fools on twitter
buy your ship of fools postcards
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
 
  ship of fools