Oct 2015
4:03pm, 22 Oct 2015
434 posts
|
Tonybv9
I understand Binks' libertarian angle, but You can't make direct comparisons with booze and fags. There are age and advertising restrictions for both of them - even if they are regularly ignored. I think there's some merit in the idea of a tax on sugary drinks. Dental problems are now the No.1 reason for childhood hospital admissions. theguardian.com A programme of education would help, but some people are beyond education - like the people who put Coke in their baby's bottles. |
Oct 2015
4:11pm, 22 Oct 2015
5,160 posts
|
paul the builder
I assume that Binks the ultra-libertarian doesn't object to information and education (thus helping people to make their own choices): I quite like the idea of a mandatory "this 330ml can contains XX teaspoons of sugar" on the packaging. Or is that an government imposition on the small business owner who is producing the delicious sugary fizzy goodness? 
|
Oct 2015
4:22pm, 22 Oct 2015
6,783 posts
|
Binks
I watched a film called “sugar” the other day, Oz production about this healthy normal chap who didn’t eat any sugar and then did an experiment having the “average” amount of sugar each day for a few months. It was about 40 teaspoons a day and he was only taking them via products that are labeled “healthy” like cereal bars, fruit drinks etc. Pretty shocking results. I get completely that sugar is killing people. Sugar tax would be regressive though, like tobacco. It will make poor people poorer. If it works anything like alcohol taxes it will reduce consumption of those who were not really a danger in the first place and do nothing for those who are abusing. Either those people get yet poorer with more tax or they go to more extreme measures to drink. These schemes seem to be measured by the total reduction in sugar consumption, rather than the reduction in deaths/diseases. If a 10% tax reduced sugar by 5% but that 5% came out of those people who were not going to have a problem anyway then has there been any point to it? But of course yes my biggest objection is with bureaucrats telling us what we can and can’t put into our own bodies. |
Oct 2015
4:26pm, 22 Oct 2015
11,737 posts
|
ChrisHB
I'd go along with a libertarian approach as long as the PEOPLE (as represented by HMG - ha! ha!) spent the same amount on marketing against sugar as the food industry spends on marketing for it. Or better, made the sugar industry pay for the anti- marketing.
|
|
Oct 2015
4:27pm, 22 Oct 2015
11,738 posts
|
ChrisHB
Because it's not an equal battle - my will-power against the marketing might of coca-cola et al.
|
Oct 2015
4:50pm, 22 Oct 2015
8,061 posts
|
Chrisull
I'd like to see an end to the cheap promotions in super markets on crap sugary drinks and rubbish. It's like why can't there be some offers on vaguely healthy or palatable foods? I think this is one of the two prongs being proposed.
|
|
Oct 2015
5:31pm, 22 Oct 2015
3,022 posts
|
Jono.
I didn't mind sugar tax TB. I'm for a tax on Sugary products - yes it is the fault of the food processor's making items of food we used to think of as treats part of our everyday diets and the downside for the less well off will be they may feel more hungry because they are not filling themselves up with crap. |
|
Oct 2015
5:44pm, 22 Oct 2015
435 posts
|
Tonybv9
At least a sugar tax would raise money to deal with the obesity/type 2 diabetes timebomb. Personally, I have a can of Coke at most once a month. A sugar tax wouldn't impact on me at all, but you see plenty of people with trolleys packed with fizzy stuff - energy drinks in particular. They would notice the price hike, but I don't know if they would be dissuaded. |
|
Oct 2015
5:47pm, 22 Oct 2015
436 posts
|
Tonybv9
Labelling the products with the number of teaspoons would be a good move. Much easier to understand for many people. I would target breakfast cereals too. |
|
Oct 2015
6:07pm, 22 Oct 2015
8,063 posts
|
Chrisull
I'm with you on this Tony , I get the feeling binks reply will be "personal responsibility" but as always some people are more responsible than others... should the more "irresponsible" and "lacking in will" be punished for this? This is where the state has a purpose IMO.
|
Useful Links
FE accepts no responsibility for external links. Or anything, really.Related Threads
-
Fantasy General Election
Jul 2024
-
EU Referendum - In or Out? Vote here
Aug 2018
-
March to Parliament Against Brexit - Sat 2nd July
Jun 2016
-
EU Referendum
Feb 2016
-
Ads on Fetch - anyone else getting Leave and Remain?!
Feb 2017
-
The Environment Thread :-)
Jul 2025
-
Economics
Jan 2025
-
Dear Scottish Fetchies
Jan 2023
-
Any economists out there - question
Oct 2022
-
Power and exploitation - please check my sanity
Oct 2018
Report This Content
You can report any content you believe to be unsafe. Please let me know why you believe this content is unsafe by choosing a category below.
Thank you for your report. The content will be assessed as soon as possible.