A Sugar Tax - Discuss.

[ameerat42]

Britain has introduced a "Sugar Tax".
You can read something about it in these links:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3495160/George-Osborne-shocks-Britain-including-sugar-tax-Budget-sends-soft-drinks-shares-freefall.html
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/527afaaa-98f4-11e5-9228-87e603d47bdc.html#axzz436p2tDAZ
http://fortune.com/2016/03/16/sugar-tax-soft-drinks/

There are calls to do the like here. What are your thoughts?

I will start with one of mine: There goes the neighbourhood! People will balk at lending new
neighbours a cup of sugar.:eek:

[Cricket]

I personally think the sugar tax is a good idea. It helps pay for the health care of those with diabetes and other diseases caused but too much sugar in our diet. The other thing I would really love to see is a litter tax placed on takeaway food places like MacDonalds, Hungry Jacks, KFC and the likes as there is so much takeaway packaging just thrown out the windows of cars. We live in a rural area and see MacDonald wrappings along the roadside drains and the nearest takeaway food shop is in town miles from us :(

[wayn0i]

Good idea cricket I'm for the litter tax


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Boo53]

I think we'd have no hope of getting it up in Australia, too many Nationals seats in sugar growing areas, something the poms don't have.

We do tax alcohol and cigs, but that was just a way of raising revenue and only later did the health implications of higher taxes get mentioned to justify higher levels.

If the tax was all used on health promotion/support I would probably support it (I don't drink sugary soft drink) but alcohol, cigarette and fuel taxes just disappear in to consolidated revenue and mask the need for more sophisticated tax reform.

[tandeejay]

The problem I see is that no matter how comprehensive a reform any particular in power government puts forward, the opposition will block in the senate unless certain exceptions/changes/alterations/concessions/etc are made to the plan, and what finally ends up getting implemented is a poor corruption of the original reform that consists of hang-overs from the previous tax system, with probably the worst aspects of both the old and the new... so we never really end up moving forward to a better system...

[ameerat42]

By "better system" do you mean chaos and anarchy?:D I thought we already had that.

[tandeejay]

Chaos and anarchy might be better than what we already have... but it isn't necessarily the best... :lol: Or else chaos and anarchy is what we end up with when governments fail to make the complete reforms that are necessary.

[ameerat42]

If I may opine just a little: I do not think that such a tax would have the desired effect of significantly (or is that just me?)
improving the maladies that they say it will. Perhaps some - and then you will get the banal refrain "If it saves just one
person..." But taxes just seem to be the panacea for every human and social ill. Perhaps if they put taxes into a pill form
and made that available...? - But then should it be covered by the PBS...? - Or would it be available over the counter?

[Mark L]

If I may opine just a little: I do not think that such a tax would have the desired effect of significantly (or is that just me?)
improving the maladies that they say it will.
Well you may not be able to improve the maladies but if the revenue raised from the tax was used to fund the consequents of what they are taxing then you and I will have to pay a bit less for what others are doing.

- - - Updated - - -




We do tax alcohol and cigs, but that was just a way of raising revenue and only later did the health implications of higher taxes get mentioned to justify higher levels.


Yep, and with the cigs continuing to be more expensive due to huge taxes I think we are now hurting the lifestyle of addicts (it's legal) and the less well off (they have more time to waste and have the highest smoking rates now/always).
It's about time there was an aggressive campaign of trying to help the last people smoking to give up. Keep hearing smoking's bad, gunna keep increasing taxes. Don't here much about smoking's bad, here's how we can help you give up.
Day 15.

[martycon]

AM, well done to trigger an entertaining discussion, as well as alerting us to the serious social consequences.
Agree with Cricket so long as the feline and canine species are not litterers.
And Boo53, agree entirely, since I became a non user,
cheers, marty.

[arthurking83]

Britain has introduced a "Sugar Tax".
.....

From what I'm reading in those articles linked too, it's sounding like a recipe for disaster and loophole searching.
All CocaCola has to do is add a few insignificant drops of milk to their vats of Cola and it's now a health product and therefore exempt! :p

Just stupid. You either tax sugar ... the actual sugar itself, or not!
Not some half assed Howard/Democrat GST-esq convolution .. where this drink is taxed and that drink isn't!
Just plain stupid! Either do it(properly) or don't do it at all.


.... We live in a rural area and see MacDonald wrappings along the roadside drains and the nearest takeaway food shop is in town miles from us :(

Seriously amazing at how people treat rural areas .. and more so the beautiful remote areas they travel for hours on end to enjoy the pristine splendour of.
I kind'a regularly travel to remote desert(y) areas like Flinders Ranges, Lake Eyre ... etc.
Although it's been a while now(lack of time and all round busyness) .. when I did do it more regularly .. the amount of litter on some of those really remote roads/tracks was mind boggling!
Firstly, how many folks actually travel those roads, and if it is very few, how long does that discarded packaging take to breakdown? :confused013

Travelling up the Old Ghan track up to Alice Springs from Oodnadatta many years ago, the amount of rubbish along the roads(and dead car bodies!!).
We hardly saw any other cars past Dalousie/Mt Dare .. maybe one or two per day until we got to a stop/location of any type. So traffic was very sparse, yet the amount of rubbish along the sides of the tracks gave the impression that daily traffic was akin to any major street in any major city!

[Glenda]

I won't really care if they add a tax to sugary drinks as I rarely drink them. Supposedly introduced to help combat childhood obesity. I guess some will balk at paying the higher price, others won't but in the end it's the parents who buy their childrens' food/drinks and many will still opt for the easy fast food options and having a constant supply of soft drinks in the fridge. I doubt there are many people who don't realise soft drink contains lots of sugar, it's the hidden sugar in sauces/low fat products that worries me more. I think I heard fruit juice will be exempt but nutritionists say it's almost as unhealthy as soft drink as all the fibre has been removed and many are full of sugar.

On the spot fines for littering would definitely be excellent, it's the implementation that's a problem - more so in regional/rural areas. It always annoys me to see fast food packaging left near tables/chairs at our local parks when there are bins within easy walking distance.

[John King]

Gidday Am

A sugar tax could have extremely bad and unintended consequences - e.g. increasing the amount of aspartame consumed! Aspartame is banned by the FDA in the USA after much (slow) investigation, and for very good reasons.

One really needs to ask why aspartame isn't totally banned in Oz ...

BTW folks, do not buy non-Australian sugar ... Brazilian sugar has aspartame added to make it taste sweeter!

[Edit]

I know there is a lot of BS and hype on this subject, and I'm not generally a food faddist type, but none of the various articles about aspartame mention what happens when it breaks down into methanol, formaldehyde and formic acid prior to ingestion ... I.e. when subjected to temperatures in excess of 80 deg. F, whether in foodstuffs or not.

I avoid all artificial sweeteners and oils.

I do have to be extremely careful about what I eat for several important medical reasons.

[End edit]

[John King]

See here for what Wikipedia has to say about health and safety issues wrt aspartame:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspartame#Safety_and_health_effects

I have seen article/s in peer reviewed magazines that link the pre-ingestion breakdown of aspartame into methanol, formaldehyde and formic acid to serious health issues, but it was a long time ago (late 1990s - early 2000s), so cannot recall the specifics. I remember that at the time it was sufficient for me to avoid this chemical completely.

[ameerat42]

Well, with that concoction you'll: go blind, then be preserved, and then... Well apart from ant bites, what's formic acid good for?:umm:

[John King]

Well, with that concoction you'll: go blind, then be preserved, and then... Well apart from ant bites, what's formic acid good for?:umm:

In a sensitive human (think bee/wasp/ant sting allergies), less than a microgram of formic acid is sufficient to kill ...

I note that nowhere in the Wikipedia article or attached references I read does it mention what happens if one ingests aspartame that has already broken down into those constituents. With the involvement of major chemical companies, I suspect that this information would be hard to find!

After all, it took a very, very long time for the link between aspirin and asthma exacerbation/deaths to be recognised, and how many people suffer from asthma and how many take aspirin ... ? And aspirin-like substances; probably includes Ibuprofen and the like. I cannot take any of these medicines, as I take Warfarin. I'm also an asthmatic. Plus a couple of other things ... :(.

[mpb]

.... and loophole searching.

Exactly. What are they actually going to tax, refined sugar? or all the different 'ose's?
They are already substituting other forms of sugar into soft drinks, like corn syrup, then advertising that it has no added sugar.

[ameerat42]

Exactly. What are they actually going to tax, refined sugar? or all the different 'ose's?
They are already substituting other forms of sugar into soft drinks, like corn syrup, then advertising that it has no added sugar.

PAH! By what deranged mentality would that conform to "no added sugar". :rolleyes:
Wiki on corn syrup: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corn_syrup
Tell yer what's being taxed: OUR BRAYNES.:crzy:

I heard something that they were boofing on about that did not contain PALM OIL.:confused013

[EmzDad]

hmmm... interesting subject...
I work in the Sugar Industry.

I find it interesting, we were just discussing these type of taxes the other day because of the tax increase on sig's. ( I don't smoke)

Our basic conclusion was it does not solve the root cause of the problem. It is really only fund raising supposedly to help pay for the after effect.

The same with a sugar tax, are you going to put a tax on the sugar we pack that is refined and retailed? or the raw post milling? or the cane tonnage that arrives at the mill pre-milling...

Because it will effect who actually gets to pay the tax?

Is it a persons choice to consume sugar? How ever they like... drink/ food/ straight off the spoon... :nod:.

So should they not be responsible for there own actions? :confused013

Thanks
Shane

[John King]

Gidday Shane

I agree with you completely. The Nanny State once again asks for open ended taxing powers.

IMNSHO, cigarettes (and all other drugs of addiction that are not already properly controlled) should only be available to registered addicts via a doctor's prescription ...

[landyvlad]

I am ABSOLUTELY against Taxation as a way of solving ANY 'problem'.

1. The funds are rarely diverted, at least in full, to where politicians claim they will be.
(example: Speeding fines were supposedly to go into improving roads. In fact a lot of that money gets spent on more speed cameras.... and the rest goes into consolidated revenue)

2. The tax never solves the problem, and sometimes makes it worse.
(example: KRudd's "alcopops" tax. Supposedly would reduce drinking of spirits by young people. In fact many now just buy bottles of (straight) spirits and 'pre-load' before heading out on the topwn. Some studies indicate that they drink MORE actual alcohol now than they did previously)

3. Taxes almost always affect the responsible consumer (I used to drink Bundy and Coke cans - occasionally. I am not a drunk or socially irresponsible. Yet suddenly I am forced to pay more! Why? It's certainly punishing me for something I am not doing.


as MarkL points out:


Yep, and with the cigs continuing to be more expensive due to huge taxes I think we are now hurting the lifestyle of addicts (it's legal) and the less well off (they have more time to waste and have the highest smoking rates now/always).
It's about time there was an aggressive campaign of trying to help the last people smoking to give up. Keep hearing smoking's bad, gunna keep increasing taxes. Don't here much about smoking's bad, here's how we can help you give up.

Nailed it! If the government was GENUINE about stopping these addictions they would be ACTIVELY HELPING people to do so. (Say FREE stop smoking medications / personal support as long as required). It's a good investment if smokers are the drain on the health system that governments claim to be the case.
The same logic could be applied to obesity.

We are all being scammed, yet we sit back and let it happen.






- - - Updated - - -


The other thing I would really love to see is a litter tax placed on takeaway food places like MacDonalds, Hungry Jacks, KFC and the likes as there is so much takeaway packaging just thrown out the windows of cars. We live in a rural area and see MacDonald wrappings along the roadside drains and the nearest takeaway food shop is in town miles from us :(

This wouldn't work. Again everyone would be paying it, not just the litterers.
And given they were paying the tax, the litterers' logic would be that they were now entitled to litter!

[Cricket]

I am ABSOLUTELY against Taxation as a way of solving ANY 'problem'.


- - - Updated - - -



This wouldn't work. Again everyone would be paying it, not just the litterers.
And given they were paying the tax, the litterers' logic would be that they were now entitled to litter!

You misunderstand me I think. MacDonalds, Hungry Jacks and Kfc etc should pay the litter tax and if they feel the need to add that cost to their take away then so be it.

[mpb]

You misunderstand me I think. MacDonalds, Hungry Jacks and Kfc etc should pay the litter tax and if they feel the need to add that cost to their take away then so be it.
But its not Maccas, KFC, or HJ's that are doing the littering.
What? do you want to receive your chips served into your bare hands. No you want them in a container of some sort.

[Cricket]

But they are providing the product for which people use to litter placing the responsibility on usually council clean crews to clean up the mess left behind. take away is the scourge of our society in more ways than one.

[Mark L]

But its not Maccas, KFC, or HJ's that are doing the littering.
What? do you want to receive your chips served into your bare hands. No you want them in a container of some sort.

Yes I want the chips (do you want fries with that) in a container. And yes I'll pay extra so I can chuck the container out the window after I've eaten the fries with my bare hands. :)
Maybe the suppliers could create much more biodegradable packaging. While they don't do it I see their rubbish distributed by others in places that make me :scrtch:

[ricktas]

Good idea..sort of.

The issue is the amount of sugar in our diets. Will coca-cola reduce the amount of sugar in Coke just cause there is a tax on it? Will people cut down their teaspoon of sugar with their coffee just cause there is a tax on it?

Great news, the government has found a way to introduce a new tax, hidden under the guise of better health. When the reality is likely to be that people will still have the sugary things, and just accept paying the tax. Yay. the government has more money to waste on a study into how much sugar contributes to healthcare costs.

All the time, people keep using sugar and healthcare expenditure doesn't go down... but continues to cost more. So they up the Tax (like the ones on cigarettes and fuel). They up the sugar tax under the statement that more tax is to try and stop people using as much sugar. But still the healthcare costs increase year after year.

Is the sugar tax a good idea. Yes..if it does decrease the amount of sugar added to things, or makes people decrease the amount of sugar they use. But I reckon we will all just pay more tax, and nothing else will change. Problem solved, the government has more tax income..life is good!