Tax on Sugar

My blood caffeine and/or alcohol levels were too low. Had an espresso stout :)
 
Cobra said:
As the admin say, Member first Mod second :p
Click to expand...


Only because pr*** and d******d get picked up by the sweary filter! ;)
 
Nod said:
Only because pr*** and d******d get picked up by the sweary filter! ;)
Click to expand...
How come you have managed to peek in the staff room and find that thread about you?
:p
 
Lucky guess!!! (Although I would describe me as more of a c***... Well, you are what you eat!)
 
Ironic that Jamie's Italian KIDS brownie has twice the sugar in it a kid aged 6 should have. His adults lamb dish has almost 1.5 times the daily adult sugar intake. As his spokesman said, it is about an overall balance so what about those parents that do give the occasional drink as part of a balanced diet???

While I am against this tax I do not agree with Rubbish like it will hit the poorest, if they are poor what is wrong with kids drinking water which is free!!
 
viv1969 said:
I'd suggest the next time you go shopping, you purchase more wisely.....seems you're all stocked up on clichés and pig ignorance.
Click to expand...

I agree with him. why should we have to pay more for the occasional treat just cause Mr & mrs lard ass can't control themselves.
 
POAH said:
I agree with him. why should we have to pay more for the occasional treat just cause Mr & mrs lard ass can't control themselves.
Click to expand...

I feel the same way about tax I already pay going towards the upkeep of other people's brats just because they can't control their breeding habits.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nod
viv1969 said:
I feel the same way about tax I already pay going towards the upkeep of other people's brats just because they can't control their breeding habits.
Click to expand...


I feel the same way about fat people getting NHS resources spent on them when all they have to do is shut their gobs.
 
POAH said:
I feel the same way about fat people getting NHS resources spent on them when all they have to do is shut their gobs.
Click to expand...

And if they're being treated for something completely unrelated to their obesity?
After all...my contributions to others' progeny is ALWAYS and exclusively related to their parents' lack of ability to exercise control.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Nod
cambsno said:
While I am against this tax I do not agree with Rubbish like it will hit the poorest, if they are poor what is wrong with kids drinking water which is free!!
Click to expand...

I'll assume you're being serious for a mo snd say... No, it's not rubbish it's simple math. Let me explain...

If you're on a low wage / benefits an extra 5 or 10p here and there might not seem a lot but it very soon adds up and can represent a significant percentage of your income.

Take for example an extra 50p per day, thats £3.50 per week, £14 per month, £168 per year and that could represent a real headache. Soon adds up doesn't it?

Of course poor kids could drink water and if there's no bread they could eat cake but when some daft posh woman said that in France a while ago all hell broke loose :D
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
I'll assume you're being serious for a mo snd say... No, it's not rubbish it's simple math. Let me explain...

If you're on a low wage / benefits an extra 5 or 10p here and there might not seem a lot but it very soon adds up and can represent a significant percentage of your income.

Take for example an extra 50p per day, thats £3.50 per week, £14 per month, £168 per year. Soon adds up doesn't it?

Of course poor kids could drink water and if there's no bread they could eat cake but when some daft podh woman said that in France a while ago all hell broke loose :D
Click to expand...

Sorry, but if you are poor then you need to budget... I am not poor, but I still need to budget for the weekly shop, can't get fillet steak every week!! If you are poor why are you buying something that is worse for you and more expensive than water on a regular basis? If you are on a low wage, I don't begrudge the occasional treat we all need that, but there are many foodstuffs that are a higher priority than cans of soft drink!
 
cambsno said:
Sorry, but if you are poor then you need to budget... I am not poor, but I still need to budget for the weekly shop, can't get fillet steak every week!! If you are poor why are you buying something that is worse for you and more expensive than water on a regular basis? If you are on a low wage, I don't begrudge the occasional treat we all need that, but there are many foodstuffs that are a higher priority than cans of soft drink!
Click to expand...

Well, it's not just soft drink though is it or are you just trying to make your stance seem more reasonable?

All I can see a sugar tax doing is adding to the likelihood of hardship and misery or as you would have it forcing the poorer out of the market for taxed product but in reality that wont happen and all that will happen is some will spend a higher percentage of their money on food and drink.

There does seem to be an epidemic of obesity and I'd like to think that the way forward is education rather than ever more punitive taxes but sadly whatever route is taken it's going to be a long haul. Perhaps a two pronged attack might work with an attempt to educate adults through TV info broadcasts and children with healthy living classes at school and a second line of attack being the prosecution for child abuse of parents with obese kids. As I mentioned earlier though, no one seems to be talking about alcohol at the moment and judging by the number of grossly overweight people who drink too much I'd say that it's a big part of the problem.
 
woof woof said:
I'll assume you're being serious for a mo snd say... No, it's not rubbish it's simple math. Let me explain...

If you're on a low wage / benefits an extra 5 or 10p here and there might not seem a lot but it very soon adds up and can represent a significant percentage of your income.

Take for example an extra 50p per day, thats £3.50 per week, £14 per month, £168 per year and that could represent a real headache. Soon adds up doesn't it?

Of course poor kids could drink water and if there's no bread they could eat cake but when some daft posh woman said that in France a while ago all hell broke loose :D
Click to expand...

Not convinced. If we take the case of kids buying sugary drinks, do you think that their allocated dinner money is going to go up to cover the tax increase - because I don't think so. That means no increase to their annual spend.

Regarding people saying the tax will make no difference - every day there are millions of transactions for the purchase of sugary drinks and sweets. Thats millions of decision points every day. Some of those decisions will be swayed by the increase in purchase price, how many will need a behavioural economist to get out his slide rule.
 
woof woof said:
Well, it's not just soft drink though is it or are you just trying to make your stance seem more reasonable?

All I can see a sugar tax doing is adding to the likelihood of hardship and misery or as you would have it forcing the poorer out of the market for taxed product but in reality that wont happen and all that will happen is some will spend a higher percentage of their money on food and drink.

There does seem to be an epidemic of obesity and I'd like to think that the way forward is education rather than ever more punitive taxes but sadly whatever route is taken it's going to be a long haul. Perhaps a two pronged attack might work with an attempt to educate adults through TV info broadcasts and children with healthy living classes at school and a second line of attack being the prosecution for child abuse of parents with obese kids. As I mentioned earlier though, no one seems to be talking about alcohol at the moment and judging by the number of grossly overweight people who drink too much I'd say that it's a big part of the problem.
Click to expand...
It will only cost everyone more, regardless of poor or not, if they continue to buy the items incurring more tax. Cheaper, healthier options will still available. So there is no reason it will cost anyone anymore money. Companies sales will fall as a result and they will be forced to reduce the sugar content to a healthier level, avoiding the tax.
 
cambsno said:
but I still need to budget for the weekly shop, can't get fillet steak every week!!
Click to expand...
I'm not sure you'd want to if the latest finding are to be believed ;)
Its up there with other well known (or so they say ;) ) Carcinogens ...
  • bromopropane, used as a cleaning solvent and spray adhesive;
  • cumene, used to make phenol and acetone, and also found in fuel products and tobacco smoke;
  • wood preservative mixture pentachlorophenol.
 
POAH said:
I feel the same way about fat people getting NHS resources spent on them when all they have to do is shut their gobs.
Click to expand...

hahaha
free mobility scoots on prescription !
 
viv1969 said:
And if they're being treated for something completely unrelated to their obesity?
After all...my contributions to others' progeny is ALWAYS and exclusively related to their parents' lack of ability to exercise control.
Click to expand...

it probably is
 
So the old saying
"everything I like to do is either Immoral, illegal or fattening"
seems to be true :D
 
I watched Jamie's Sugar Rush even though I knew it would make me angry.

He presented a decent if slightly muddled argument that sugary drinks were very bad news indeed. Then he got a free holiday to Mexico. Then he said that sugary drinks are so bad that he's going to start charging a little bit more for them in his "restaurants". Then I started shouting at the TV. Quite a lot.

If you believe sugary drinks are really as bad as he says (and actually they probably are) then how on earth could you carry on selling them at all? His simple option is to stop selling them. Sell something else like water - or come up with a great tasting healthy drink. But no, let's "tax" them and then attack anybody who doesn't because, well, um, dunno really. In fact, there's a bit in Freakonomics about this - if you "tax" bad actions then people are more likely to do them because they think the tax makes it in some way virtuous.

But mostly I wanted to punch him. As often.
 
upload_2015-10-26_14-28-13.png

made 'with love' ... and unnecessary sugar;

upload_2015-10-26_14-28-48.png

If it's not sweet enough, buy better quality tomatoes.
 
JonathanRyan said:
Then he said that sugary drinks are so bad that he's going to start charging a little bit more for them in his "restaurants".
Click to expand...
Bravo, Jamie.
I was half expecting him to launch a range of low-sugar drinks, but this is so much easier. :woot:
 
JonathanRyan said:
then how on earth could you carry on selling them at all?
Click to expand...
As has been proved a few times in the thread, its because he is a bleedin' hypocrite
 
Really really sorry Mr Cobra, I promise not to do it (showing you up with my magnificence) again, can you ever forgive me?
 
Last edited:
Llamaman said:
Really really sorry Mr Cobra, I promise not to do it again, can you ever forgive me?
Click to expand...
OK just this once, but don't let it happen again!
 
Cobra said:
As has been proved a few times in the thread, its because he is a bleedin' hypocrite
Click to expand...

He's not the only one in this thread ;)
 
JonathanRyan said:
I watched Jamie's Sugar Rush even though I knew it would make me angry.

He presented a decent if slightly muddled argument that sugary drinks were very bad news indeed. Then he got a free holiday to Mexico. Then he said that sugary drinks are so bad that he's going to start charging a little bit more for them in his "restaurants". Then I started shouting at the TV. Quite a lot.

If you believe sugary drinks are really as bad as he says (and actually they probably are) then how on earth could you carry on selling them at all? His simple option is to stop selling them. Sell something else like water - or come up with a great tasting healthy drink. But no, let's "tax" them and then attack anybody who doesn't because, well, um, dunno really. In fact, there's a bit in Freakonomics about this - if you "tax" bad actions then people are more likely to do them because they think the tax makes it in some way virtuous.

But mostly I wanted to punch him. As often.
Click to expand...

Exactly my view, if Jamie is so against them, then stop selling full stop.

Thing is people know that drinks like that have a lot of sugar in but dont know about lots of meals that have added sugar.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top