Looking at the reviews of the new Bond movie Spectre it appears they may be including a few topical themes. Suggests they're taking a pro-Snowden line on surveillance and perhaps more amusingly they seem to have updated it for age of austerity. There's a new pen-pushing bureaucrat called 'C' (not short for anything we assume) who's decided he wants to, horror of all horrors, cut the 00 section. It's up to M and Bond to fight for their jobs.
It opens here 11/6. I was 10 when Dr, No came out, but the first one I saw on release was Goldfinger. Since then even after all these years, whenever I hear the James Bond theme I react to it. I have the soundtrack of the pre-credits music from Goldfinger as the ring tone on my phone. Some of the later Roger Moore ones were poor, but I'll be there in 2 weeks.
The music has never been the same since John Barry's departure, culminating in the simply dreadful theme song to Skyfall.
@MichaelLCrick: At midnight I will start tweeting fascinating extracts from the files on the Cambridge Spies to be made public tomorrow by National Archives
"Shooting and fishing are the only true social levellers. You can be fishing or shooting beside a farmer, a binman or a Lord."
I would beg to add Freemasonry to the list. One can sit down to dinner with a Duke of the Blood on one side and a taxi driver on the other and all get pissed together without side or distinction.
And gardening. I have had interesting discussions on gardening with plumbers and electricians and builders as well as with assorted upper class riffraff hanging round Hampton Court.
Am I the only one who thinks a Sugar Tax is a really good idea?
Make the people who are knowingly putting more pressure on the NHS pay more, but without undermining the "free at point of use" principle.
Yeah I'm not in favour of taxes generally but a sugar tax might have the same effect of the 5p bag levy. You don't need sugar (Unlike petrol say) so the Gov't should probably go for it.
It's a terrible idea, like a salt tax or whatever.
Nanny State gone mad. Bar health nazis, I've seen very few thinking this is a sensible idea or worked up about the supposed burying of the report - it's eye rolling at best.
'Am I the only one who thinks a Sugar Tax is a really good idea?'
Yes, of course it is - taxing things that come with seriously high externalities is practically economics 101. We now know without doubt that the damaging elements of the modern diet are sugar, and to a lesser extent other simple carbs. The scandal is that the official finger has long been pointing wrongly at fat, costing countless lives and enormous unnecessary healthcare bills.
Am I the only one who thinks a Sugar Tax is a really good idea?
Make the people who are knowingly putting more pressure on the NHS pay more, but without undermining the "free at point of use" principle.
It's a terrible idea.
Consumption taxes DO NOT WORK. Ever.
Sugar is likely to be even more desired than alcohol and with alcohol doubling the price through tax reduces consumption by around 10% (as recently happened in Finland). This happens again and again wherever you find consumption taxes. Massive tax increases create small reductions in use.
Garibaldi entered Freemasonry during his exile, taking advantage of the asylum which was offered by the lodges to political refugees of European countries governed by despotic regimes hostile to democratic or nationalistic movements. At the age of thirty-seven, Garibaldi was initiated during 1844 to the "L'Asil de la Vertud" Lodge of Montevideo. This was an irregular lodge under a Brazilian Freemasonry which was not recognized by the main international masonic obediences, such as the United Grand Lodge of England and the Grand Orient of France. While Garibaldi had little use for masonic rituals, he was an active Freemason and regarded Freemasonry as a network uniting progressive men as brothers both within nations and as members of a global community. Garibaldi was eventually elected as the Grand Master of the Grand Orient of Italy.[8][9]
Garibaldi later regularized his position in 1844, joining the lodge "Les Amis de la Patrie" of Montevideo under the Grand Orient of France.
Hypothecate the sugar tax to the NHS. If it doesn't change behaviour the NHS gets more money, if it does well people should get a touch healthier in the round.
During Skyfall when Bond and M change cars, he opens the door and there is the DB5, the original Bond theme starts - I was there opening night and the place went wild and burst into spontaneous applause. I felt thrilled and ten all over again for a moment.
Looking at the reviews of the new Bond movie Spectre it appears they may be including a few topical themes. Suggests they're taking a pro-Snowden line on surveillance and perhaps more amusingly they seem to have updated it for age of austerity. There's a new pen-pushing bureaucrat called 'C' (not short for anything we assume) who's decided he wants to, horror of all horrors, cut the 00 section. It's up to M and Bond to fight for their jobs.
It opens here 11/6. I was 10 when Dr, No came out, but the first one I saw on release was Goldfinger. Since then even after all these years, whenever I hear the James Bond theme I react to it. I have the soundtrack of the pre-credits music from Goldfinger as the ring tone on my phone. Some of the later Roger Moore ones were poor, but I'll be there in 2 weeks.
The music has never been the same since John Barry's departure, culminating in the simply dreadful theme song to Skyfall.
Am I the only one who thinks a Sugar Tax is a really good idea?
Make the people who are knowingly putting more pressure on the NHS pay more, but without undermining the "free at point of use" principle.
Yeah I'm not in favour of taxes generally but a sugar tax might have the same effect of the 5p bag levy. You don't need sugar (Unlike petrol say) so the Gov't should probably go for it.
The bag tax works because it has a near 100% elasticity of Substitution.
Sugar is likely to be quite inelastic in price and only a few areas offer a realistic substitution effect.
Education would be better, combined with working with manufactures to make easy substitutions (I personally do not understand why people by soda with sugar in it). It might be helpful to work on making Stevia more cost effective and work on a bulking agent which makes it work exactly like granulated sugar does today.
Poor children barred from birthday cakes and popcorn at the cinema.
I'm not sure putting a few percent tax on things is going to stop people buying birthday cakes. Complete strawman.
Its simply making sure that the true cost to society is reflected, just like it is with cigarettes and alcohol. There's nothing 'nanny-state' about it, it's just basic common-sense joined-up economics.
Am I the only one who thinks a Sugar Tax is a really good idea?
Make the people who are knowingly putting more pressure on the NHS pay more, but without undermining the "free at point of use" principle.
It's a terrible idea.
Consumption taxes DO NOT WORK. Ever.
Sugar is likely to be even more desired than alcohol and with alcohol doubling the price through tax reduces consumption by around 10% (as recently happened in Finland). This happens again and again wherever you find consumption taxes. Massive tax increases create small reductions in use.
We have managed to reduce cigarette smoking massively. Now only 30% or fewer adults smoke. It does work.
Hypothecate the sugar tax to the NHS. If it doesn't change behaviour the NHS gets more money, if it does well people should get a touch healthier in the round.
Am I the only one who thinks a Sugar Tax is a really good idea?
Make the people who are knowingly putting more pressure on the NHS pay more, but without undermining the "free at point of use" principle.
How to implement it though? Would you tax everything that has a sugar content? Fruit? There's a lot of talk about taxing drinks but do they deserve to be singled out? What strikes me about sugar, just like vegetable fat, is just how extraordinarily cheap it is. About £1 a kilo. By a rough calculation that's 4000kcal.
Hypothecate the sugar tax to the NHS. If it doesn't change behaviour the NHS gets more money, if it does well people should get a touch healthier in the round.
Yes but that assumes the cost of treating sugar related diseases (or tobacco or alcohol related diseases) is less than the cost of treating people for 15 to 20 more years of life with very complicated and expensive age related diseases.
Consumption Taxes have a very, very bad history of reducing consumption. There tend to be better and more cost effective measures (education, incentivising industry into substitution, creating laws which enforce inconvenience).
All the tax hikes on smoking and what really did it in the end was the smoking ban. The reduction from education was no different in the UK to areas with lower taxes on tobacco. Only the smoking ban created abnormal reductions.
Poor children barred from birthday cakes and popcorn at the cinema.
I'm not sure putting a few percent tax on things is going to stop people buying birthday cakes. Complete strawman.
Its simply making sure that the true cost to society is reflected, just like it is with cigarettes and alcohol. There's nothing 'nanny-state' about it, it's just basic common-sense joined-up economics.
It's nothing of the sort.
It's wealthy people planting a tax on something they can still afford, and pricing the poor out.
During Skyfall when Bond and M change cars, he opens the door and there is the DB5, the original Bond theme starts - I was there opening night and the place went wild and burst into spontaneous applause. I felt thrilled and ten all over again for a moment.
Looking at the reviews of the new Bond movie Spectre it appears they may be including a few topical themes. Suggests they're taking a pro-Snowden line on surveillance and perhaps more amusingly they seem to have updated it for age of austerity. There's a new pen-pushing bureaucrat called 'C' (not short for anything we assume) who's decided he wants to, horror of all horrors, cut the 00 section. It's up to M and Bond to fight for their jobs.
It opens here 11/6. I was 10 when Dr, No came out, but the first one I saw on release was Goldfinger. Since then even after all these years, whenever I hear the James Bond theme I react to it. I have the soundtrack of the pre-credits music from Goldfinger as the ring tone on my phone. Some of the later Roger Moore ones were poor, but I'll be there in 2 weeks.
The music has never been the same since John Barry's departure, culminating in the simply dreadful theme song to Skyfall.
Am I the only one who thinks a Sugar Tax is a really good idea?
Make the people who are knowingly putting more pressure on the NHS pay more, but without undermining the "free at point of use" principle.
How to implement it though? Would you tax everything that has a sugar content? Fruit? There's a lot of talk about taxing drinks but do they deserve to be singled out? What strikes me about sugar, just like vegetable fat, is just how extraordinarily cheap it is. About £1 a kilo. By a rough calculation that's 4000kcal.
Start off with fizzy pop, which has readily available low sugar alternatives.
Am I the only one who thinks a Sugar Tax is a really good idea?
Make the people who are knowingly putting more pressure on the NHS pay more, but without undermining the "free at point of use" principle.
It's a terrible idea.
Consumption taxes DO NOT WORK. Ever.
Sugar is likely to be even more desired than alcohol and with alcohol doubling the price through tax reduces consumption by around 10% (as recently happened in Finland). This happens again and again wherever you find consumption taxes. Massive tax increases create small reductions in use.
We have managed to reduce cigarette smoking massively. Now only 30% or fewer adults smoke. It does work.
How much of the reduction in smoking is to do with pricing/taxation and how much is related to the ban on smoking in pubs etc?
Sensibly it would be levied on processed food and drinks with added sugar / glucose / HFCS, etc. only, not whole foods like fruit or even sugar on its own (people should be free to make their own cakes etc if they want, its quick and easy carb-loaded convenience foods that are the heart of the problem).
Poor children barred from birthday cakes and popcorn at the cinema.
I'm not sure putting a few percent tax on things is going to stop people buying birthday cakes. Complete strawman.
Its simply making sure that the true cost to society is reflected, just like it is with cigarettes and alcohol. There's nothing 'nanny-state' about it, it's just basic common-sense joined-up economics.
Consumption taxes are not about a few percent. They are about HUNDREDS of percent for a few percent of reduction of use. That is their history.
Poor children barred from birthday cakes and popcorn at the cinema.
I'm not sure putting a few percent tax on things is going to stop people buying birthday cakes. Complete strawman.
Its simply making sure that the true cost to society is reflected, just like it is with cigarettes and alcohol. There's nothing 'nanny-state' about it, it's just basic common-sense joined-up economics.
It's nothing of the sort.
It's wealthy people planting a tax on something they can still afford, and pricing the poor out.
Am I the only one who thinks a Sugar Tax is a really good idea?
Make the people who are knowingly putting more pressure on the NHS pay more, but without undermining the "free at point of use" principle.
It's a terrible idea.
Consumption taxes DO NOT WORK. Ever.
Sugar is likely to be even more desired than alcohol and with alcohol doubling the price through tax reduces consumption by around 10% (as recently happened in Finland). This happens again and again wherever you find consumption taxes. Massive tax increases create small reductions in use.
We have managed to reduce cigarette smoking massively. Now only 30% or fewer adults smoke. It does work.
The general reduction in smoking has been shown in all developed countries, those with high taxes and those with low. Only the smoking ban actually appears to have made any additional difference, the idea that the cigarette tax reduced consumption is just not true.
Hypothecate the sugar tax to the NHS. If it doesn't change behaviour the NHS gets more money, if it does well people should get a touch healthier in the round.
Yup, exactly. With a Sugar Tax, either there will (eventually) be less pressure on the NHS due to people getting a bit healthier, or if not then those people who have taken liberties with their health will have rightly paid a bit more for their treatment.
Poor children barred from birthday cakes and popcorn at the cinema.
I'm not sure putting a few percent tax on things is going to stop people buying birthday cakes. Complete strawman.
Its simply making sure that the true cost to society is reflected, just like it is with cigarettes and alcohol. There's nothing 'nanny-state' about it, it's just basic common-sense joined-up economics.
It's nothing of the sort.
It's wealthy people planting a tax on something they can still afford, and pricing the poor out.
Like beer, fags and petrol.
Yes, you Tories have shown so much concern for the poor in the rest of your policymaking The Tores that have had such a love affair with VAT. The cost of goods should reflect the externalities that their consumption places on the rest of society, certainly if they are as universally acknowledged to be as severe as added sugar in processed food. I can't really see how that can be argued against with a straight face.
Hypothecate the sugar tax to the NHS. If it doesn't change behaviour the NHS gets more money, if it does well people should get a touch healthier in the round.
Yup, exactly. With a Sugar Tax, either there will (eventually) be less pressure on the NHS due to people getting a bit healthier, or if not then those people who have taken liberties with their health will have rightly paid a bit more for their treatment.
Hypothecate the sugar tax to the NHS. If it doesn't change behaviour the NHS gets more money, if it does well people should get a touch healthier in the round.
Yup, exactly. With a Sugar Tax, either there will (eventually) be less pressure on the NHS due to people getting a bit healthier, or if not then those people who have taken liberties with their health will have rightly paid a bit more for their treatment.
Yes, what an absurd idea that a government can tax certain categories of consumed goods. Lunacy.
Hypothecate the sugar tax to the NHS. If it doesn't change behaviour the NHS gets more money, if it does well people should get a touch healthier in the round.
Yup, exactly. With a Sugar Tax, either there will (eventually) be less pressure on the NHS due to people getting a bit healthier, or if not then those people who have taken liberties with their health will have rightly paid a bit more for their treatment.
Sounds like you wish to punish the NHS 'spongers'?
Consumption Taxes have a very, very bad history of reducing consumption.
Well it'll raise revenue then. Refined sugar can be cut out of diets ;p
It won't raise Net Revenue if the additional cost of extended lifespan swallows more in pensions and NHS costs on age-related diseases.
Not to mention, is it really worth living in such a system. One of the main reasons people eat these foods, is because, well they taste good, provide positive chemical response in the brain and are generally enjoyable.
Also remember, most confectionery already carries a 20% tax rate not applied to most food. We are talking about prohibitive taxes - hundreds of percent reducing consumption by very little.
Am I the only one who thinks a Sugar Tax is a really good idea?
Make the people who are knowingly putting more pressure on the NHS pay more, but without undermining the "free at point of use" principle.
Yeah I'm not in favour of taxes generally but a sugar tax might have the same effect of the 5p bag levy. You don't need sugar (Unlike petrol say) so the Gov't should probably go for it.
The bag tax works because it has a near 100% elasticity of Substitution.
Sugar is likely to be quite inelastic in price and only a few areas offer a realistic substitution effect.
Education would be better, combined with working with manufactures to make easy substitutions (I personally do not understand why people by soda with sugar in it). It might be helpful to work on making Stevia more cost effective and work on a bulking agent which makes it work exactly like granulated sugar does today.
Why would it be price inelastic?
Quite often if I'm out and about I find bottled water can be about the same price as a bottle of Coke. Which is better for you?
Sugar is used in a plethora of areas and likely could be reduced quite considerably. Ready Meals especially can be very high in needless sugar. Taxes on tobacco have reduced the demand for it and taxes on sugar likely would too.
My problem is that while reasonable in theory it is likely to be complicated, convoluted and unworkable in practice.
If sugar is reduced, will it get replaced by artificial sweeteners which - some people believe - can be far more harmful than the real thing...
Noone's telling people what to do, just suggesting that quite rightly, the rest of society shouldnt be picking up the tab, but the manufacturers and consumers of something shown incontrovertibly to do immense harm should instead contribute a little more to mitigate the consequences.
Hypothecate the sugar tax to the NHS. If it doesn't change behaviour the NHS gets more money, if it does well people should get a touch healthier in the round.
Yup, exactly. With a Sugar Tax, either there will (eventually) be less pressure on the NHS due to people getting a bit healthier, or if not then those people who have taken liberties with their health will have rightly paid a bit more for their treatment.
Along with a lot more people needing treating for expensive, chronic, age related diseases.
And claiming pensions from the state for a lot longer.
The whole argument that the State's finances will benefit is utterly bogus.
Hypothecate the sugar tax to the NHS. If it doesn't change behaviour the NHS gets more money, if it does well people should get a touch healthier in the round.
Yup, exactly. With a Sugar Tax, either there will (eventually) be less pressure on the NHS due to people getting a bit healthier, or if not then those people who have taken liberties with their health will have rightly paid a bit more for their treatment.
Pizza from a takeaway has VAT since it is cooked. The so-called pasty tax would have put pasties on the exact same footing as pizza so arguably we already have a pizza tax (and every other cooked substance that has VAT).
Am I the only one who thinks a Sugar Tax is a really good idea?
Make the people who are knowingly putting more pressure on the NHS pay more, but without undermining the "free at point of use" principle.
Yeah I'm not in favour of taxes generally but a sugar tax might have the same effect of the 5p bag levy. You don't need sugar (Unlike petrol say) so the Gov't should probably go for it.
The bag tax works because it has a near 100% elasticity of Substitution.
Sugar is likely to be quite inelastic in price and only a few areas offer a realistic substitution effect.
Education would be better, combined with working with manufactures to make easy substitutions (I personally do not understand why people by soda with sugar in it). It might be helpful to work on making Stevia more cost effective and work on a bulking agent which makes it work exactly like granulated sugar does today.
Why would it be price inelastic?
Quite often if I'm out and about I find bottled water can be about the same price as a bottle of Coke. Which is better for you?
Sugar is used in a plethora of areas and likely could be reduced quite considerably. Ready Meals especially can be very high in needless sugar. Taxes on tobacco have reduced the demand for it and taxes on sugar likely would too.
My problem is that while reasonable in theory it is likely to be complicated, convoluted and unworkable in practice.
Am I the only one who thinks a Sugar Tax is a really good idea?
Make the people who are knowingly putting more pressure on the NHS pay more, but without undermining the "free at point of use" principle.
It's a terrible idea.
Consumption taxes DO NOT WORK. Ever.
Sugar is likely to be even more desired than alcohol and with alcohol doubling the price through tax reduces consumption by around 10% (as recently happened in Finland). This happens again and again wherever you find consumption taxes. Massive tax increases create small reductions in use.
We have managed to reduce cigarette smoking massively. Now only 30% or fewer adults smoke. It does work.
The general reduction in smoking has been shown in all developed countries, those with high taxes and those with low. Only the smoking ban actually appears to have made any additional difference, the idea that the cigarette tax reduced consumption is just not true.
Hypothecate the sugar tax to the NHS. If it doesn't change behaviour the NHS gets more money, if it does well people should get a touch healthier in the round.
Yup, exactly. With a Sugar Tax, either there will (eventually) be less pressure on the NHS due to people getting a bit healthier, or if not then those people who have taken liberties with their health will have rightly paid a bit more for their treatment.
Pizza from a takeaway has VAT since it is cooked. The so-called pasty tax would have put pasties on the exact same footing as pizza so arguably we already have a pizza tax (and every other cooked substance that has VAT).
Hypothecate the sugar tax to the NHS. If it doesn't change behaviour the NHS gets more money, if it does well people should get a touch healthier in the round.
Yup, exactly. With a Sugar Tax, either there will (eventually) be less pressure on the NHS due to people getting a bit healthier, or if not then those people who have taken liberties with their health will have rightly paid a bit more for their treatment.
Along with a lot more people needing treating for expensive, chronic, age related diseases.
And claiming pensions from the state for a lot longer.
The whole argument that the State's finances will benefit is utterly bogus.
Most chronic age related diseases are heavily diet influenced. It isnt the people who have been steering clear of refined carbs who are coming down with alzheimers, strokes, diabetes and heart disease.
Am I the only one who thinks a Sugar Tax is a really good idea?
Make the people who are knowingly putting more pressure on the NHS pay more, but without undermining the "free at point of use" principle.
Yeah I'm not in favour of taxes generally but a sugar tax might have the same effect of the 5p bag levy. You don't need sugar (Unlike petrol say) so the Gov't should probably go for it.
The bag tax works because it has a near 100% elasticity of Substitution.
Sugar is likely to be quite inelastic in price and only a few areas offer a realistic substitution effect.
Education would be better, combined with working with manufactures to make easy substitutions (I personally do not understand why people by soda with sugar in it). It might be helpful to work on making Stevia more cost effective and work on a bulking agent which makes it work exactly like granulated sugar does today.
Why would it be price inelastic?
Quite often if I'm out and about I find bottled water can be about the same price as a bottle of Coke. Which is better for you?
Sugar is used in a plethora of areas and likely could be reduced quite considerably. Ready Meals especially can be very high in needless sugar. Taxes on tobacco have reduced the demand for it and taxes on sugar likely would too.
My problem is that while reasonable in theory it is likely to be complicated, convoluted and unworkable in practice.
Well it depends if they change their ways or not. Tobacco taxes are an entirely voluntary tax, nobody needs to buy tobacco if you do so it is a voluntary action. Nobody needs to buy Coke.
I'd rather more voluntary taxes that people choose to pay than have incomes taxed because people are working hard. Hard work is not a bad thing that we should be seeking to penalise.
If a consumption tax on something with negative externalities can be implemented simply and effectively which cover a cut in income tax then I'd be in favour of that.
Am I the only one who thinks a Sugar Tax is a really good idea?
Make the people who are knowingly putting more pressure on the NHS pay more, but without undermining the "free at point of use" principle.
It's a terrible idea.
Consumption taxes DO NOT WORK. Ever.
Sugar is likely to be even more desired than alcohol and with alcohol doubling the price through tax reduces consumption by around 10% (as recently happened in Finland). This happens again and again wherever you find consumption taxes. Massive tax increases create small reductions in use.
We have managed to reduce cigarette smoking massively. Now only 30% or fewer adults smoke. It does work.
The general reduction in smoking has been shown in all developed countries, those with high taxes and those with low. Only the smoking ban actually appears to have made any additional difference, the idea that the cigarette tax reduced consumption is just not true.
You are a Tartan Tory !
Haha. On PB the first rule is that everyone is a Tory. SNP, Lib Dem, Labour - doesn't matter. All Tories.
When you can afford a nice bottle of plonk extra tax doesn't matter, when you're counting pennies you can't.
It's a Middle Class Tax that only affects those with less spending power. As someone who went from paying oodles in tax to eating or heating or neither = it's not a theoretical argument in any way.
Am I the only one who thinks a Sugar Tax is a really good idea?
Make the people who are knowingly putting more pressure on the NHS pay more, but without undermining the "free at point of use" principle.
Yeah I'm not in favour of taxes generally but a sugar tax might have the same effect of the 5p bag levy. You don't need sugar (Unlike petrol say) so the Gov't should probably go for it.
The bag tax works because it has a near 100% elasticity of Substitution.
Sugar is likely to be quite inelastic in price and only a few areas offer a realistic substitution effect.
Education would be better, combined with working with manufactures to make easy substitutions (I personally do not understand why people by soda with sugar in it). It might be helpful to work on making Stevia more cost effective and work on a bulking agent which makes it work exactly like granulated sugar does today.
Why would it be price inelastic?
Quite often if I'm out and about I find bottled water can be about the same price as a bottle of Coke. Which is better for you?
Sugar is used in a plethora of areas and likely could be reduced quite considerably. Ready Meals especially can be very high in needless sugar. Taxes on tobacco have reduced the demand for it and taxes on sugar likely would too.
My problem is that while reasonable in theory it is likely to be complicated, convoluted and unworkable in practice.
Well it depends if they change their ways or not. Tobacco taxes are an entirely voluntary tax, nobody needs to buy tobacco if you do so it is a voluntary action. Nobody needs to buy Coke.
I'd rather more voluntary taxes that people choose to pay than have incomes taxed because people are working hard. Hard work is not a bad thing that we should be seeking to penalise.
If a consumption tax on something with negative externalities can be implemented simply and effectively which cover a cut in income tax then I'd be in favour of that.
Noone's telling people what to do, just suggesting that quite rightly, the rest of society shouldnt be picking up the tab, but the manufacturers and consumers of something shown incontrovertibly to do immense harm should instead contribute a little more to mitigate the consequences.
Perhaps the problem in society isn't sugar gorging, beer drinking, fag smoking people consuming too much - they drop dead soon enough and pay a fortune in consumption taxes - it's all the pious, tee-totalling health freaks who contribute so little in indirect tax but live to 100 and expect 30-40 years pension?
When you can afford a nice bottle of plonk extra tax doesn't matter, when you're counting pennies you can't.
It's a Middle Class Tax that only affects those with less spending power. As someone who went from paying oodles in tax to eating or heating or neither = it's not a theoretical argument in any way.
And with that - bon nuit.
It only affects those that choose to spend their money on whatever is being taxed. If you start taxing Coke and instead of drinking bottles of Coke at home a family decides to cut that out of their weekly shop and drink tap water instead which is effectively free in comparison then their health will be better and financially they'll be better off.
So its not a tax on the poor. It is a tax on those that voluntarily choose to spend their money on unhealthy, unnecessary options.
As far as tobacco is concerned, it is a tax on idiots.
Hypothecate the sugar tax to the NHS. If it doesn't change behaviour the NHS gets more money, if it does well people should get a touch healthier in the round.
Yup, exactly. With a Sugar Tax, either there will (eventually) be less pressure on the NHS due to people getting a bit healthier, or if not then those people who have taken liberties with their health will have rightly paid a bit more for their treatment.
Along with a lot more people needing treating for expensive, chronic, age related diseases.
And claiming pensions from the state for a lot longer.
The whole argument that the State's finances will benefit is utterly bogus.
Most chronic age related diseases are heavily diet influenced. It isnt the people who have been steering clear of refined carbs who are coming down with alzheimers, strokes, diabetes and heart disease.
There is huge inconsistency and contradiction in the evidence of what age-related diseases are effected by what in diet and lifestyle and what are not. In the case of strokes, diabetes and heart disease, bad diet reduces the association of them being age related - they start happening at any age.
Even ignoring disease, there are quite massive associated costs of an aging population which were are already unable to afford. The cost of pensions, the cost of care, the bill for an individual living to 95 is massive compared to someone who has died in their 60s regardless of cause.
Someone who smokes and drinks heavily, contracting Esophageal cancer and dying at 65 costs the state virtually nothing while paying hugely in taxes. While the "clean living" individual who lives to 95 with Osteoperosis, Cataracts, Macular Degeneration, Hip Replacement, etc will be sucking up several hundred thousands (maybe millions) of pounds out of taxpayers.
several sightings of Tom Hanks and Clint Eastwood at my wife's college today. One of her fellow workers was talking to someone in the lobby when Clint Eastwood came round the corner, smiled and came up, shook their hands and introduced himself.
When she got back to the office, pretty much still hyperventilating, all she could say was that at 85, "He's still got it."
Several Tom Hanks sightings too - in his Sully make up. Everybody said two things - he looks just like Sully in his makeup, and how nice he is.
Even the college president has been roped in. He's been asked to supply a couple of lines for 'the producers would like to thank..." at the end of the movie.
Noone's telling people what to do, just suggesting that quite rightly, the rest of society shouldnt be picking up the tab, but the manufacturers and consumers of something shown incontrovertibly to do immense harm should instead contribute a little more to mitigate the consequences.
Perhaps the problem in society isn't sugar gorging, beer drinking, fag smoking people consuming too much - they drop dead soon enough and pay a fortune in consumption taxes - it's all the pious, tee-totalling health freaks who contribute so little in indirect tax but live to 100 and expect 30-40 years pension?
Indeed, it's time we started taxing Quinoa, Gym Membership and Wheatgrass through the roof so people living to 100 are paying their fair share.
When you can afford a nice bottle of plonk extra tax doesn't matter, when you're counting pennies you can't.
It's a Middle Class Tax that only affects those with less spending power. As someone who went from paying oodles in tax to eating or heating or neither = it's not a theoretical argument in any way.
And with that - bon nuit.
It only affects those that choose to spend their money on whatever is being taxed. If you start taxing Coke and instead of drinking bottles of Coke at home a family decides to cut that out of their weekly shop and drink tap water instead which is effectively free in comparison then their health will be better and financially they'll be better off.
So its not a tax on the poor. It is a tax on those that voluntarily choose to spend their money on unhealthy, unnecessary options.
As far as tobacco is concerned, it is a tax on idiots.
There are varieties of Coke - only the full-fat version of which would be covered by sugar tax. The various versions of Coke based on artificial sweeteners would evade the legislation - and potentially see people drinking more and more artificial sweeteners which, if some research is to be believed can be carcinogenic (particularly with extended exposure)
So we push people away from sugar and end up encouraging a substitute which may, in the end, prove as, or possibly more, harmful
Hypothecate the sugar tax to the NHS. If it doesn't change behaviour the NHS gets more money, if it does well people should get a touch healthier in the round.
Yup, exactly. With a Sugar Tax, either there will (eventually) be less pressure on the NHS due to people getting a bit healthier, or if not then those people who have taken liberties with their health will have rightly paid a bit more for their treatment.
Along with a lot more people needing treating for expensive, chronic, age related diseases.
And claiming pensions from the state for a lot longer.
The whole argument that the State's finances will benefit is utterly bogus.
Most chronic age related diseases are heavily diet influenced. It isnt the people who have been steering clear of refined carbs who are coming down with alzheimers, strokes, diabetes and heart disease.
There is huge inconsistency and contradiction in the evidence of what age-related diseases are effected by what in diet and lifestyle and what are not. In the case of strokes, diabetes and heart disease, bad diet reduces the association of them being age related - they start happening at any age.
Even ignoring disease, there are quite massive associated costs of an aging population which were are already unable to afford. The cost of pensions, the cost of care, the bill for an individual living to 95 is massive compared to someone who has died in their 60s regardless of cause.
Someone who smokes and drinks heavily, contracting Esophageal cancer and dying at 65 costs the state virtually nothing while paying hugely in taxes. While the "clean living" individual who lives to 95 with Osteoperosis, Cataracts, Macular Degeneration, Hip Replacement, etc will be sucking up several hundred thousands (maybe millions) of pounds out of taxpayers.
Is the latter a bad thing? Unless you are proposing the entire concept of the NHS is flawed and should be scrapped then surely the latter case is the intention and not a flaw?
When you can afford a nice bottle of plonk extra tax doesn't matter, when you're counting pennies you can't.
It's a Middle Class Tax that only affects those with less spending power. As someone who went from paying oodles in tax to eating or heating or neither = it's not a theoretical argument in any way.
And with that - bon nuit.
It only affects those that choose to spend their money on whatever is being taxed. If you start taxing Coke and instead of drinking bottles of Coke at home a family decides to cut that out of their weekly shop and drink tap water instead which is effectively free in comparison then their health will be better and financially they'll be better off.
So its not a tax on the poor. It is a tax on those that voluntarily choose to spend their money on unhealthy, unnecessary options.
As far as tobacco is concerned, it is a tax on idiots.
All consumption tax is a tax on the poor. It just depends what level "poor" kicks in at.
When you can afford a nice bottle of plonk extra tax doesn't matter, when you're counting pennies you can't.
It's a Middle Class Tax that only affects those with less spending power. As someone who went from paying oodles in tax to eating or heating or neither = it's not a theoretical argument in any way.
And with that - bon nuit.
It only affects those that choose to spend their money on whatever is being taxed. If you start taxing Coke and instead of drinking bottles of Coke at home a family decides to cut that out of their weekly shop and drink tap water instead which is effectively free in comparison then their health will be better and financially they'll be better off.
So its not a tax on the poor. It is a tax on those that voluntarily choose to spend their money on unhealthy, unnecessary options.
As far as tobacco is concerned, it is a tax on idiots.
All consumption tax is a tax on the poor. It just depends what level "poor" kicks in at.
Many consumption taxes are just a tax on the dumb. It just depends what level "dumb" kicks in at.
When you can afford a nice bottle of plonk extra tax doesn't matter, when you're counting pennies you can't.
It's a Middle Class Tax that only affects those with less spending power. As someone who went from paying oodles in tax to eating or heating or neither = it's not a theoretical argument in any way.
And with that - bon nuit.
It only affects those that choose to spend their money on whatever is being taxed. If you start taxing Coke and instead of drinking bottles of Coke at home a family decides to cut that out of their weekly shop and drink tap water instead which is effectively free in comparison then their health will be better and financially they'll be better off.
So its not a tax on the poor. It is a tax on those that voluntarily choose to spend their money on unhealthy, unnecessary options.
As far as tobacco is concerned, it is a tax on idiots.
There are varieties of Coke - only the full-fat version of which would be covered by sugar tax. The various versions of Coke based on artificial sweeteners would evade the legislation - and potentially see people drinking more and more artificial sweeteners which, if some research is to be believed can be carcinogenic (particularly with extended exposure)
So we push people away from sugar and end up encouraging a substitute which may, in the end, prove as, or possibly more, harmful
A sugar tax will have unintended consequences
Almost all non-Tin Hat research shows that while Diet Coke is not perfect it is far healthier than Coke. If people switch from Coke to Diet Coke then I have no qualms whatsoever about that.
Your final line is why I said in my first post, that I find the notion of a sugar tax although OK in theory, in practice it will be "convoluted, complicated and unworkable".
It is for that reason I do not currently support it. Not because it is a tax on the poor, which I just don't agree with or care about. Not because I don't care about the poor, but because if it was worked properly it would be like tobacco a largely voluntary tax.
If an introduction of a sugar tax could be achieved in a simple, effective manner that paid for a 1p cut in Basic Rate taxation then I would find that very desirable. I think cutting income taxes helps the poor more than keeping unhealthy items cheap.
Hypothecate the sugar tax to the NHS. If it doesn't change behaviour the NHS gets more money, if it does well people should get a touch healthier in the round.
Yup, exactly. With a Sugar Tax, either there will (eventually) be less pressure on the NHS due to people getting a bit healthier, or if not then those people who have taken liberties with their health will have rightly paid a bit more for their treatment.
Along with a lot more people needing treating for expensive, chronic, age related diseases.
And claiming pensions from the state for a lot longer.
The whole argument that the State's finances will benefit is utterly bogus.
Most chronic age related diseases are heavily diet influenced. It isnt the people who have been steering clear of refined carbs who are coming down with alzheimers, strokes, diabetes and heart disease.
There is huge inconsistency and contradiction in the evidence of what age-related diseases are effected by what in diet and lifestyle and what are not. In the case of strokes, diabetes and heart disease, bad diet reduces the association of them being age related - they start happening at any age.
Even ignoring disease, there are quite massive associated costs of an aging population which were are already unable to afford. The cost of pensions, the cost of care, the bill for an individual living to 95 is massive compared to someone who has died in their 60s regardless of cause.
Someone who smokes and drinks heavily, contracting Esophageal cancer and dying at 65 costs the state virtually nothing while paying hugely in taxes. While the "clean living" individual who lives to 95 with Osteoperosis, Cataracts, Macular Degeneration, Hip Replacement, etc will be sucking up several hundred thousands (maybe millions) of pounds out of taxpayers.
Is the latter a bad thing? Unless you are proposing the entire concept of the NHS is flawed and should be scrapped then surely the latter case is the intention and not a flaw?
It's a thing.
Whether it is good or bad, isn't important.
In this context what matters is that the argument for a Consumption Tax (which we know with absolute certainty will not work) is that it will, at least, pay for whatever cost there might be associated with early death from diet-related diseases. However, as the cost of age-related diseases, additional pensions and additional care costs could be many multiples higher, this is a fallacious and wrong argument.
Hypothecate the sugar tax to the NHS. If it doesn't change behaviour the NHS gets more money, if it does well people should get a touch healthier in the round.
Yup, exactly. With a Sugar Tax, either there will (eventually) be less pressure on the NHS due to people getting a bit healthier, or if not then those people who have taken liberties with their health will have rightly paid a bit more for their treatment.
Along with a lot more people needing treating for expensive, chronic, age related diseases.
And claiming pensions from the state for a lot longer.
The whole argument that the State's finances will benefit is utterly bogus.
Most chronic age related diseases are heavily diet influenced. It isnt the people who have been steering clear of refined carbs who are coming down with alzheimers, strokes, diabetes and heart disease.
There is huge inconsistency and contradiction in the evidence of what age-related diseases are effected by what in diet and lifestyle and what are not. In the case of strokes, diabetes and heart disease, bad diet reduces the association of them being age related - they start happening at any age.
Even ignoring disease, there are quite massive associated costs of an aging population which were are already unable to afford. The cost of pensions, the cost of care, the bill for an individual living to 95 is massive compared to someone who has died in their 60s regardless of cause.
Someone who smokes and drinks heavily, contracting Esophageal cancer and dying at 65 costs the state virtually nothing while paying hugely in taxes. While the "clean living" individual who lives to 95 with Osteoperosis, Cataracts, Macular Degeneration, Hip Replacement, etc will be sucking up several hundred thousands (maybe millions) of pounds out of taxpayers.
On the other hand, healthier people can work for longer.
When you can afford a nice bottle of plonk extra tax doesn't matter, when you're counting pennies you can't.
It's a Middle Class Tax that only affects those with less spending power. As someone who went from paying oodles in tax to eating or heating or neither = it's not a theoretical argument in any way.
And with that - bon nuit.
It only affects those that choose to spend their money on whatever is being taxed. If you start taxing Coke and instead of drinking bottles of Coke at home a family decides to cut that out of their weekly shop and drink tap water instead which is effectively free in comparison then their health will be better and financially they'll be better off.
So its not a tax on the poor. It is a tax on those that voluntarily choose to spend their money on unhealthy, unnecessary options.
As far as tobacco is concerned, it is a tax on idiots.
There are varieties of Coke - only the full-fat version of which would be covered by sugar tax. The various versions of Coke based on artificial sweeteners would evade the legislation - and potentially see people drinking more and more artificial sweeteners which, if some research is to be believed can be carcinogenic (particularly with extended exposure)
So we push people away from sugar and end up encouraging a substitute which may, in the end, prove as, or possibly more, harmful
A sugar tax will have unintended consequences
Almost all non-Tin Hat research shows that while Diet Coke is not perfect it is far healthier than Coke. If people switch from Coke to Diet Coke then I have no qualms whatsoever about that.
Your final line is why I said in my first post, that I find the notion of a sugar tax although OK in theory, in practice it will be "convoluted, complicated and unworkable".
It is for that reason I do not currently support it. Not because it is a tax on the poor, which I just don't agree with or care about. Not because I don't care about the poor, but because if it was worked properly it would be like tobacco a largely voluntary tax.
If an introduction of a sugar tax could be achieved in a simple, effective manner that paid for a 1p cut in Basic Rate taxation then I would find that very desirable. I think cutting income taxes helps the poor more than keeping unhealthy items cheap.
I'd be interested to see that research. Coca Cola obviously doesn't have great confidence in it, or they wouldn't have released Coke Life.
Is the latter a bad thing? Unless you are proposing the entire concept of the NHS is flawed and should be scrapped then surely the latter case is the intention and not a flaw?
It's a thing.
Whether it is good or bad, isn't important.
In this context what matters is that the argument for a Consumption Tax (which we know with absolute certainty will not work) is that it will, at least, pay for whatever cost there might be associated with early death from diet-related diseases. However, as the cost of age-related diseases, additional pensions and additional care costs could be many multiples higher, this is a fallacious and wrong argument.
Whether it is good or bad is very important. Because if people are living a long healthy life on the NHS then that is not an externality, it is the very intention of the NHS! If you are saying the intention is not right, then we should change it.
We have zero certainty that consumption taxes don't work. In fact the overwhelming economic evidence is that they do work. A number of people have quit smoking due to tobacco prices. A number of people have bought more fuel efficient cars because of petrol taxes. To deny that is to deny reality.
Hypothecate the sugar tax to the NHS. If it doesn't change behaviour the NHS gets more money, if it does well people should get a touch healthier in the round.
Yup, exactly. With a Sugar Tax, either there will (eventually) be less pressure on the NHS due to people getting a bit healthier, or if not then those people who have taken liberties with their health will have rightly paid a bit more for their treatment.
Along with a lot more people needing treating for expensive, chronic, age related diseases.
And claiming pensions from the state for a lot longer.
The whole argument that the State's finances will benefit is utterly bogus.
Most chronic age related diseases are heavily diet influenced. It isnt the people who have been steering clear of refined carbs who are coming down with alzheimers, strokes, diabetes and heart disease.
There is huge inconsistency and contradiction in the evidence of what age-related diseases are effected by what in diet and lifestyle and what are not. In the case of strokes, diabetes and heart disease, bad diet reduces the association of them being age related - they start happening at any age.
Even ignoring disease, there are quite massive associated costs of an aging population which were are already unable to afford. The cost of pensions, the cost of care, the bill for an individual living to 95 is massive compared to someone who has died in their 60s regardless of cause.
Someone who smokes and drinks heavily, contracting Esophageal cancer and dying at 65 costs the state virtually nothing while paying hugely in taxes. While the "clean living" individual who lives to 95 with Osteoperosis, Cataracts, Macular Degeneration, Hip Replacement, etc will be sucking up several hundred thousands (maybe millions) of pounds out of taxpayers.
On the other hand, healthier people can work for longer.
Good luck getting an even remotely realistic increase in the working age through parliament.
When you can afford a nice bottle of plonk extra tax doesn't matter, when you're counting pennies you can't.
It's a Middle Class Tax that only affects those with less spending power. As someone who went from paying oodles in tax to eating or heating or neither = it's not a theoretical argument in any way.
And with that - bon nuit.
It only affects those that choose to spend their money on whatever is being taxed. If you start taxing Coke and instead of drinking bottles of Coke at home a family decides to cut that out of their weekly shop and drink tap water instead which is effectively free in comparison then their health will be better and financially they'll be better off.
So its not a tax on the poor. It is a tax on those that voluntarily choose to spend their money on unhealthy, unnecessary options.
As far as tobacco is concerned, it is a tax on idiots.
There are varieties of Coke - only the full-fat version of which would be covered by sugar tax. The various versions of Coke based on artificial sweeteners would evade the legislation - and potentially see people drinking more and more artificial sweeteners which, if some research is to be believed can be carcinogenic (particularly with extended exposure)
So we push people away from sugar and end up encouraging a substitute which may, in the end, prove as, or possibly more, harmful
A sugar tax will have unintended consequences
Almost all non-Tin Hat research shows that while Diet Coke is not perfect it is far healthier than Coke. If people switch from Coke to Diet Coke then I have no qualms whatsoever about that.
Your final line is why I said in my first post, that I find the notion of a sugar tax although OK in theory, in practice it will be "convoluted, complicated and unworkable".
It is for that reason I do not currently support it. Not because it is a tax on the poor, which I just don't agree with or care about. Not because I don't care about the poor, but because if it was worked properly it would be like tobacco a largely voluntary tax.
If an introduction of a sugar tax could be achieved in a simple, effective manner that paid for a 1p cut in Basic Rate taxation then I would find that very desirable. I think cutting income taxes helps the poor more than keeping unhealthy items cheap.
I'd be interested to see that research. Coca Cola obviously doesn't have great confidence in it, or they wouldn't have released Coke Life.
Bizarre logic, Coke have hundreds of products on the market. They do that for marketing purposes as much as any other.
Almost all non-Tin Hat research shows that while Diet Coke is not perfect it is far healthier than Coke. If people switch from Coke to Diet Coke then I have no qualms whatsoever about that.
Personally I have no understanding as to why people drink soda with sugar in it in 2015, almost all drinks available have identical tasting alternatives. Diet Coke isn't the best example as it is a completely different product to Coke (hence why they now have Coke Zero). But in general it makes no sense to consume drinks with sugar for most people, most of the time.
But there are some exceptions, people who are involved in physical activity will find sugar drinks a much more appealing choice than gels to replace sugars, even in high performance environments. We do want to encourage physical activity right? It's also a good way to rehydrate people with certain mild illnesses.
What level of tax do you think would work, has there been a successful sugary soda tax anywhere? I know of a few that have been pulled (like New York). It's still going to need hug tax hikes to have any meaningful effect and will penalise legitimate use of the product.
Consumption Taxes have a very, very bad history of reducing consumption.
Well it'll raise revenue then. Refined sugar can be cut out of diets ;p
It won't raise Net Revenue if the additional cost of extended lifespan swallows more in pensions and NHS costs on age-related diseases.
Not to mention, is it really worth living in such a system. One of the main reasons people eat these foods, is because, well they taste good, provide positive chemical response in the brain and are generally enjoyable.
Also remember, most confectionery already carries a 20% tax rate not applied to most food. We are talking about prohibitive taxes - hundreds of percent reducing consumption by very little.
If we take your logic, then we should reduce taxes on sugar and tobacco. That way the sorry buggers will pop off earlier.
Another way to reduce costs on the NHS is to bring some NRA nutters from the States and hand our knife carrying youths real guns. Then bullets will kill them off rather than obesity.
I'm not sure why you're asking what level of tax would work since I have already said repeatedly that I think it would be unworkable in practice.
I am perfectly OK with consumption taxes in theory on things we want to discourage, so long as they're twinned with tax reductions elsewhere and are not just a money grabbing exercise by someone like Brown. In practice I think its unworkable so should not be implemented - and I always think the government is better doing what works in practice than in theory.
If in a few years time there is evidence of a clear, simple and effective regime that works overseas then I would be OK adopting it. I would not as some have said like to see the money hypothecated to the NHS, I would like to see it going to a tax cut on basic rate tax or abolishing employers NI contributions or something similar.
I find taxing employing people (Employers NIC) far more objectionable than taxing sugar consumption.
Is the latter a bad thing? Unless you are proposing the entire concept of the NHS is flawed and should be scrapped then surely the latter case is the intention and not a flaw?
It's a thing.
Whether it is good or bad, isn't important.
In this context what matters is that the argument for a Consumption Tax (which we know with absolute certainty will not work) is that it will, at least, pay for whatever cost there might be associated with early death from diet-related diseases. However, as the cost of age-related diseases, additional pensions and additional care costs could be many multiples higher, this is a fallacious and wrong argument.
Whether it is good or bad is very important. Because if people are living a long healthy life on the NHS then that is not an externality, it is the very intention of the NHS! If you are saying the intention is not right, then we should change it.
We have zero certainty that consumption taxes don't work. In fact the overwhelming economic evidence is that they do work. A number of people have quit smoking due to tobacco prices. A number of people have bought more fuel efficient cars because of petrol taxes. To deny that is to deny reality.
Whether it is good or bad is up to the individual. If an individual wants to live to a very old age, I find it difficult to believe there are many people who do not have a reasonable idea of how to promote that. They may choose not to because they value their unhealthy habits more than a few years. If they do, then why do you want to have the State TELL them that they are wrong. I believe in free will.
And yes we do know that consumption taxes don't work.
For example, the UK has had the highest level of Tobacco taxation in the developed world for many decades, yet the UK's reduction in smoking rates lagged behind most OECD nations until the smoking ban kicked it down. It was inconvenience and not price which changed behaviour. The general reduction (found in all nations high and low tax ones) was almost certainly fully due to education.
When you can afford a nice bottle of plonk extra tax doesn't matter, when you're counting pennies you can't.
It's a Middle Class Tax that only affects those with less spending power. As someone who went from paying oodles in tax to eating or heating or neither = it's not a theoretical argument in any way.
And with that - bon nuit.
It only affects those that choose to spend their money on whatever is being taxed. If you start taxing Coke and instead of drinking bottles of Coke at home a family decides to cut that out of their weekly shop and drink tap water instead which is effectively free in comparison then their health will be better and financially they'll be better off.
So its not a tax on the poor. It is a tax on those that voluntarily choose to spend their money on unhealthy, unnecessary options.
As far as tobacco is concerned, it is a tax on idiots.
There are varieties of Coke - only the full-fat version of which would be covered by sugar tax. The various versions of Coke based on artificial sweeteners would evade the legislation - and potentially see people drinking more and more artificial sweeteners which, if some research is to be believed can be carcinogenic (particularly with extended exposure)
So we push people away from sugar and end up encouraging a substitute which may, in the end, prove as, or possibly more, harmful
A sugar tax will have unintended consequences
Almost all non-Tin Hat research shows that while Diet Coke is not perfect it is far healthier than Coke. If people switch from Coke to Diet Coke then I have no qualms whatsoever about that.
Your final line is why I said in my first post, that I find the notion of a sugar tax although OK in theory, in practice it will be "convoluted, complicated and unworkable".
It is for that reason I do not currently support it. Not because it is a tax on the poor, which I just don't agree with or care about. Not because I don't care about the poor, but because if it was worked properly it would be like tobacco a largely voluntary tax.
If an introduction of a sugar tax could be achieved in a simple, effective manner that paid for a 1p cut in Basic Rate taxation then I would find that very desirable. I think cutting income taxes helps the poor more than keeping unhealthy items cheap.
I'd be interested to see that research. Coca Cola obviously doesn't have great confidence in it, or they wouldn't have released Coke Life.
Coke Life is one of the worst tasting drinks in history - what were they thinking?
Consumption Taxes have a very, very bad history of reducing consumption.
Well it'll raise revenue then. Refined sugar can be cut out of diets ;p
It won't raise Net Revenue if the additional cost of extended lifespan swallows more in pensions and NHS costs on age-related diseases.
Not to mention, is it really worth living in such a system. One of the main reasons people eat these foods, is because, well they taste good, provide positive chemical response in the brain and are generally enjoyable.
Also remember, most confectionery already carries a 20% tax rate not applied to most food. We are talking about prohibitive taxes - hundreds of percent reducing consumption by very little.
If we take your logic, then we should reduce taxes on sugar and tobacco. That way the sorry buggers will pop off earlier.
Another way to reduce costs on the NHS is to bring some NRA nutters from the States and hand our knife carrying youths real guns. Then bullets will kill them off rather than obesity.
Speaking of which, a school district out west - Oregon or some such - has had a disaster preparedness review, decided it is too far from first responders, has bought all its teachers firearms, and is paying for firearms training for them.
In the light of recent events, I don't have a problem with it - so long as the kids can't get their hands on the weapons.
And yes we do know that consumption taxes don't work.
For example, the UK has had the highest level of Tobacco taxation in the developed world for many decades, yet the UK's reduction in smoking rates lagged behind most OECD nations until the smoking ban kicked it down. It was inconvenience and not price which changed behaviour. The general reduction (found in all nations high and low tax ones) was almost certainly fully due to education.
This is just untrue, the new Labour government ramped up tobacco taxes in its early years UK's smoking rate had fallen already from 28% in 1998 to 26% in 2002 and down to 22% in 2006 which is BEFORE the ban in smoking in public places came in the following year.
Since the ban came in it has continued to fall down to 19% now but that is a 3% reduction in nine years compared to a 6% reduction in the eight years earlier. So the rate of smoking cessation is lower post-ban than it was post-tax, before-ban.
Of course as you get closer to zero it becomes increasing tough to shift the hardcore of smoking idiots. But to pretend nobody has quit due to tax is delusional.
It only affects those that choose to spend their money on whatever is being taxed. If you start taxing Coke and instead of drinking bottles of Coke at home a family decides to cut that out of their weekly shop and drink tap water instead which is effectively free in comparison then their health will be better and financially they'll be better off.
So its not a tax on the poor. It is a tax on those that voluntarily choose to spend their money on unhealthy, unnecessary options.
As far as tobacco is concerned, it is a tax on idiots.
There are varieties of Coke - only the full-fat version of which would be covered by sugar tax. The various versions of Coke based on artificial sweeteners would evade the legislation - and potentially see people drinking more and more artificial sweeteners which, if some research is to be believed can be carcinogenic (particularly with extended exposure)
So we push people away from sugar and end up encouraging a substitute which may, in the end, prove as, or possibly more, harmful
A sugar tax will have unintended consequences
Almost all non-Tin Hat research shows that while Diet Coke is not perfect it is far healthier than Coke. If people switch from Coke to Diet Coke then I have no qualms whatsoever about that.
Your final line is why I said in my first post, that I find the notion of a sugar tax although OK in theory, in practice it will be "convoluted, complicated and unworkable".
It is for that reason I do not currently support it. Not because it is a tax on the poor, which I just don't agree with or care about. Not because I don't care about the poor, but because if it was worked properly it would be like tobacco a largely voluntary tax.
If an introduction of a sugar tax could be achieved in a simple, effective manner that paid for a 1p cut in Basic Rate taxation then I would find that very desirable. I think cutting income taxes helps the poor more than keeping unhealthy items cheap.
I'd be interested to see that research. Coca Cola obviously doesn't have great confidence in it, or they wouldn't have released Coke Life.
Coke Life is one of the worst tasting drinks in history - what were they thinking?
We don't have Coke Life here - at the home of Coca Cola - so have been spared. I tend to drink Coke Zero or Diet Coke if they don't have zero. I'll even drink diet Pepsi if I have to.
In fact the irony with using tobacco as a pretension that consumption taxes don't work is incredibly delusional as it is often suggested that now the Treasury is reluctant to keep raising the tax much further because it works too well. That if the tax rate on tobacco was raised much higher then more people would quit, so not pay the taxes they're already paying, so the Treasury will lose money.
A sort of toxic Laffer Curve if you will. But honestly the pretence that tax does not alter behaviour is so delusional I can understand why you're so passionately not a Tory if you really think such bullshit. Of course tax affects behaviour. You're deluded if you think otherwise.
In fact the irony with using tobacco as a pretension that consumption taxes don't work is incredibly delusional as it is often suggested that now the Treasury is reluctant to keep raising the tax much further because it works too well. That if the tax rate on tobacco was raised much higher then more people would quit, so not pay the taxes they're already paying, so the Treasury will lose money.
A sort of toxic Laffer Curve if you will. But honestly the pretence that tax does not alter behaviour is so delusional I can understand why you're so passionately not a Tory if you really think such bullshit. Of course tax affects behaviour. You're deluded if you think otherwise.
The delusion is in your mind, just not the facts.
Smoking rates in all OECD countries have fallen, on a relatively similar path since the late 1960s. That includes countries with virtually no taxation on consumption like Spain or the US and countries with very high levels of taxation like the UK and everything in between.
No correlation between the level of taxation and smoking cessation can be found. None. In fact some developing countries have patterns where smoking rates have increased over periods where they have introduced and/or increased taxation.
The reason why the treasury are currently handcuffed on tax is because they created a very successful black market for fake and undeclared tobacco which started to see them lose revenue beyond the amount that could be attributed to cessation (but was instead due to the massive growth of the black market and a smaller but significant increase in the grey market where people would take day trips abroad and the flight costs were less than the savings on duty).
The fastest decline was in the 70s and 80s, decline slowed in the nineties and early 2000s and since 2007 (when the smoking ban was introduced) the decline has slowed down and all but halted amongst men.
So to pretend money doesn't matter and its all due to the smoking ban relies upon more Deloreans than Marty McFly ever saw.
The fastest decline was in the 70s and 80s, decline slowed in the nineties and early 2000s and since 2007 (when the smoking ban was introduced) the decline has slowed down and all but halted amongst men.
So to pretend money doesn't matter and its all due to the smoking ban relies upon more Deloreans than Marty McFly ever saw.
The EXACT same pattern of cessation is found in every country in the OECD despite widely divergent levels of taxation.
Comments
It's still one of my top three along with Goldfinger and Dr No.
Make the people who are knowingly putting more pressure on the NHS pay more, but without undermining the "free at point of use" principle.
And gardening. I have had interesting discussions on gardening with plumbers and electricians and builders as well as with assorted upper class riffraff hanging round Hampton Court.
Nanny State gone mad. Bar health nazis, I've seen very few thinking this is a sensible idea or worked up about the supposed burying of the report - it's eye rolling at best.
Yes, of course it is - taxing things that come with seriously high externalities is practically economics 101.
We now know without doubt that the damaging elements of the modern diet are sugar, and to a lesser extent other simple carbs. The scandal is that the official finger has long been pointing wrongly at fat, costing countless lives and enormous unnecessary healthcare bills.
Consumption taxes DO NOT WORK. Ever.
Sugar is likely to be even more desired than alcohol and with alcohol doubling the price through tax reduces consumption by around 10% (as recently happened in Finland). This happens again and again wherever you find consumption taxes. Massive tax increases create small reductions in use.
https://twitter.com/SaHreports/status/656883160672768000
How about a deal ? Sugar tax = 4.4bn. No cuts in tax credits on the poor.
In any case, it is quite easily avoidable. Don't drink Coca Cola. That way the poor actually wins on money and health.
When it comes to the beverage and chocolate industry's the Tories suddenly feel for the poor. They lose that when it comes to tax credits.
Sugar is likely to be quite inelastic in price and only a few areas offer a realistic substitution effect.
Education would be better, combined with working with manufactures to make easy substitutions (I personally do not understand why people by soda with sugar in it). It might be helpful to work on making Stevia more cost effective and work on a bulking agent which makes it work exactly like granulated sugar does today.
Its simply making sure that the true cost to society is reflected, just like it is with cigarettes and alcohol. There's nothing 'nanny-state' about it, it's just basic common-sense joined-up economics.
Consumption Taxes have a very, very bad history of reducing consumption. There tend to be better and more cost effective measures (education, incentivising industry into substitution, creating laws which enforce inconvenience).
All the tax hikes on smoking and what really did it in the end was the smoking ban. The reduction from education was no different in the UK to areas with lower taxes on tobacco. Only the smoking ban created abnormal reductions.
It's wealthy people planting a tax on something they can still afford, and pricing the poor out.
Like beer, fags and petrol.
I eye rolled for most of Skyfall, just awful. Didn't like Casino Royale at all, and never bothered with QoS. All the fun has been sucked out of it.
I will watch Spectre on TV if I'm tired of CBS Reality crime re-runs.
Sell shares in Irn Bru xD
Price is only part of the equation, surely.
The Tores that have had such a love affair with VAT.
The cost of goods should reflect the externalities that their consumption places on the rest of society, certainly if they are as universally acknowledged to be as severe as added sugar in processed food. I can't really see how that can be argued against with a straight face.
Or Chips Tax?
It's an absurd idea.
I don't use salt or sugar 99% of the time as I don't like the taste, but I'd never tell someone with different ones to follow mine.
It's incredibly patronising and totalitarian.
https://johnnyvoid.wordpress.com/2013/08/27/has-there-ever-been-a-bigger-prick-than-jamie-oliver/
Not to mention, is it really worth living in such a system. One of the main reasons people eat these foods, is because, well they taste good, provide positive chemical response in the brain and are generally enjoyable.
Also remember, most confectionery already carries a 20% tax rate not applied to most food. We are talking about prohibitive taxes - hundreds of percent reducing consumption by very little.
Quite often if I'm out and about I find bottled water can be about the same price as a bottle of Coke. Which is better for you?
Sugar is used in a plethora of areas and likely could be reduced quite considerably. Ready Meals especially can be very high in needless sugar. Taxes on tobacco have reduced the demand for it and taxes on sugar likely would too.
My problem is that while reasonable in theory it is likely to be complicated, convoluted and unworkable in practice.
And claiming pensions from the state for a lot longer.
The whole argument that the State's finances will benefit is utterly bogus.
So it's essentially the Nannying Middle Class who can afford it, telling the Lower Class to change their ways.
I'd rather more voluntary taxes that people choose to pay than have incomes taxed because people are working hard. Hard work is not a bad thing that we should be seeking to penalise.
If a consumption tax on something with negative externalities can be implemented simply and effectively which cover a cut in income tax then I'd be in favour of that.
When you can afford a nice bottle of plonk extra tax doesn't matter, when you're counting pennies you can't.
It's a Middle Class Tax that only affects those with less spending power. As someone who went from paying oodles in tax to eating or heating or neither = it's not a theoretical argument in any way.
And with that - bon nuit.
Liz is a class act and I'm glad that I voted for her.
So its not a tax on the poor. It is a tax on those that voluntarily choose to spend their money on unhealthy, unnecessary options.
As far as tobacco is concerned, it is a tax on idiots.
Even ignoring disease, there are quite massive associated costs of an aging population which were are already unable to afford. The cost of pensions, the cost of care, the bill for an individual living to 95 is massive compared to someone who has died in their 60s regardless of cause.
Someone who smokes and drinks heavily, contracting Esophageal cancer and dying at 65 costs the state virtually nothing while paying hugely in taxes. While the "clean living" individual who lives to 95 with Osteoperosis, Cataracts, Macular Degeneration, Hip Replacement, etc will be sucking up several hundred thousands (maybe millions) of pounds out of taxpayers.
several sightings of Tom Hanks and Clint Eastwood at my wife's college today. One of her fellow workers was talking to someone in the lobby when Clint Eastwood came round the corner, smiled and came up, shook their hands and introduced himself.
When she got back to the office, pretty much still hyperventilating, all she could say was that at 85, "He's still got it."
Several Tom Hanks sightings too - in his Sully make up. Everybody said two things - he looks just like Sully in his makeup, and how nice he is.
Even the college president has been roped in. He's been asked to supply a couple of lines for 'the producers would like to thank..." at the end of the movie.
Indeed, it's time we started taxing Quinoa, Gym Membership and Wheatgrass through the roof so people living to 100 are paying their fair share.
So we push people away from sugar and end up encouraging a substitute which may, in the end, prove as, or possibly more, harmful
A sugar tax will have unintended consequences
Chandler's Ford (Hampshire) result:
CON - 49.3% (+10.2)
LDEM - 35.5% (+3.8)
UKIP - 8.5% (-13.3)
LAB - 6.8% (+1.9)
Everything else has been a comfortable hold as expected. The No Two Ways candidate in Westminster came second with 18.6% though!
You can't normally buy an alcoholic drink that is 80% alchohol - why not? because it's too much and basically poisonous.
So why no maximum for sugars in fizzy drinks?
Your final line is why I said in my first post, that I find the notion of a sugar tax although OK in theory, in practice it will be "convoluted, complicated and unworkable".
It is for that reason I do not currently support it. Not because it is a tax on the poor, which I just don't agree with or care about. Not because I don't care about the poor, but because if it was worked properly it would be like tobacco a largely voluntary tax.
If an introduction of a sugar tax could be achieved in a simple, effective manner that paid for a 1p cut in Basic Rate taxation then I would find that very desirable. I think cutting income taxes helps the poor more than keeping unhealthy items cheap.
Whether it is good or bad, isn't important.
In this context what matters is that the argument for a Consumption Tax (which we know with absolute certainty will not work) is that it will, at least, pay for whatever cost there might be associated with early death from diet-related diseases. However, as the cost of age-related diseases, additional pensions and additional care costs could be many multiples higher, this is a fallacious and wrong argument.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absinthe
We have zero certainty that consumption taxes don't work. In fact the overwhelming economic evidence is that they do work. A number of people have quit smoking due to tobacco prices. A number of people have bought more fuel efficient cars because of petrol taxes. To deny that is to deny reality.
But there are some exceptions, people who are involved in physical activity will find sugar drinks a much more appealing choice than gels to replace sugars, even in high performance environments. We do want to encourage physical activity right? It's also a good way to rehydrate people with certain mild illnesses.
What level of tax do you think would work, has there been a successful sugary soda tax anywhere? I know of a few that have been pulled (like New York). It's still going to need hug tax hikes to have any meaningful effect and will penalise legitimate use of the product.
Another way to reduce costs on the NHS is to bring some NRA nutters from the States and hand our knife carrying youths real guns. Then bullets will kill them off rather than obesity.
I am perfectly OK with consumption taxes in theory on things we want to discourage, so long as they're twinned with tax reductions elsewhere and are not just a money grabbing exercise by someone like Brown. In practice I think its unworkable so should not be implemented - and I always think the government is better doing what works in practice than in theory.
If in a few years time there is evidence of a clear, simple and effective regime that works overseas then I would be OK adopting it. I would not as some have said like to see the money hypothecated to the NHS, I would like to see it going to a tax cut on basic rate tax or abolishing employers NI contributions or something similar.
I find taxing employing people (Employers NIC) far more objectionable than taxing sugar consumption.
And yes we do know that consumption taxes don't work.
For example, the UK has had the highest level of Tobacco taxation in the developed world for many decades, yet the UK's reduction in smoking rates lagged behind most OECD nations until the smoking ban kicked it down. It was inconvenience and not price which changed behaviour. The general reduction (found in all nations high and low tax ones) was almost certainly fully due to education.
In the light of recent events, I don't have a problem with it - so long as the kids can't get their hands on the weapons.
Since the ban came in it has continued to fall down to 19% now but that is a 3% reduction in nine years compared to a 6% reduction in the eight years earlier. So the rate of smoking cessation is lower post-ban than it was post-tax, before-ban.
Of course as you get closer to zero it becomes increasing tough to shift the hardcore of smoking idiots. But to pretend nobody has quit due to tax is delusional.
A sort of toxic Laffer Curve if you will. But honestly the pretence that tax does not alter behaviour is so delusional I can understand why you're so passionately not a Tory if you really think such bullshit. Of course tax affects behaviour. You're deluded if you think otherwise.
Smoking rates in all OECD countries have fallen, on a relatively similar path since the late 1960s. That includes countries with virtually no taxation on consumption like Spain or the US and countries with very high levels of taxation like the UK and everything in between.
No correlation between the level of taxation and smoking cessation can be found. None. In fact some developing countries have patterns where smoking rates have increased over periods where they have introduced and/or increased taxation.
The reason why the treasury are currently handcuffed on tax is because they created a very successful black market for fake and undeclared tobacco which started to see them lose revenue beyond the amount that could be attributed to cessation (but was instead due to the massive growth of the black market and a smaller but significant increase in the grey market where people would take day trips abroad and the flight costs were less than the savings on duty).
The fastest decline was in the 70s and 80s, decline slowed in the nineties and early 2000s and since 2007 (when the smoking ban was introduced) the decline has slowed down and all but halted amongst men.
So to pretend money doesn't matter and its all due to the smoking ban relies upon more Deloreans than Marty McFly ever saw.
Carson is a fundamentally flawed person who I would never trust with my medical care, let alone control of the White House.
A dangerously deluded man