Sugar tax: Doctors call for sweet drink levy

[Mad hatters in jeans]

Targeting products is a bad way to combat obesity. The problem is people.

Just have increased tax rates for obese people.
Have tax breaks for physically fit people.

Require all people in any kind of welfare attend self maintenance classes to learn how to cook/exercise and generally look after themselves.

Basically a fat tax.

I could see that idea going down faster than a lead balloon.

Taxing unhealthy substances is probably the easiest, fairest way to get people to pay extra towards healthcare for problems they, themselves caused.

The punitive element should be taken out of it, of course. If you want to recreationally poison yourself, more power to you, that's pretty much a central aspect of human culture at this stage. But it's only fair you chip in a bit extra for the healthcare bill.

I think a more elegant solution is to offer a money-back scheme for people who buy healthy food and drink rather than punitive measures on junk food and drink.

[Zottistan]

Taxing unhealthy substances is probably the easiest, fairest way to get people to pay extra towards healthcare for problems they, themselves caused.

The punitive element should be taken out of it, of course. If you want to recreationally poison yourself, more power to you, that's pretty much a central aspect of human culture at this stage. But it's only fair you chip in a bit extra for the healthcare bill.

I think a more elegant solution is to offer a money-back scheme for people who buy healthy food and drink rather than punitive measures on junk food and drink.

Yeah, that'd probably do the job better.

Taxing unhealthy substances is probably the easiest, fairest way to get people to pay extra towards healthcare for problems they, themselves caused.

The punitive element should be taken out of it, of course. If you want to recreationally poison yourself, more power to you, that's pretty much a central aspect of human culture at this stage. But it's only fair you chip in a bit extra for the healthcare bill.

The healthcare bill that the obese person is already paying? Unless you're talking about public healthcare, people usually pay their own healthcare bills.

It would be fairly strange that tax money would be going towards private healthcare, no?

Can't speak for the United States, but where I'm from the majority of people use public healthcare.

If you are talking about public healthcare, I know a good way to lower the rising costs of public healthcare, and a way we can avoid this whole sugar tax, too. Eliminate public healthcare.

I don't think I hate poor people enough for that.

Which is... not going to happen.

No, I mean you can already get cheap healthy food, you just have to make it yourself, requiring effort.

Also, better work regulations like fewer hours and higher pay would help.

Which is still not going to happen without some serious social reforms. Broadening the market for cheap healthy food is honestly probably much easier.

[Pope Joan]

sweet lattes and cappuccino. Tax Starbucks and Dunkin donuts. The stuff tastes horrible anyway.

[Antidem]

sweet lattes and cappuccino. Tax Starbucks and Dunkin donuts. The stuff tastes horrible anyway.

You take that back. Doughnuts have rights too!

[Purpelia]

okay then if rights depend on the practicality of my actually obtaining that right then how does that apply to setting any price on an item?

It applies because if the state explicitly forces the price of the item up or down than the state is explicitly picking who gets to have a right to it and who does not.

1 If I have a critical need of food and water and an implied right to obtain it, does that mean that I should be given unimpeded access to healthy food at no cost as of right?

Of course. Civilized 1st world countries have programs to ensure just that. People who can not afford food and water are either given these or money to get them. It's called welfare.

2 What right does a grocer have to require me to pay for an apple? Is there any limitation on what a grocer should be able to charge me for an apple other than my willingness to pay? and should my ability to pay matter?

An individual salesman setting prices is different from the state setting prices. Because if a grocer sets his prices too high you can just go to another grocer and this idiot will go out of businesses. If the state taxes all the grocers higher than you and they are all fucked. You can't buy the item any more. They can't sell the item any more.

3 As for taxing the poor - sugar-filled soft drinks are a luxury item, they are not an essential food and many people choose not to consume them. So does that make a difference on the prices that the seller can set?

The seller can set his prices to what ever he wants. But if they are too high he goes out of business for not selling. Than you have a bunch of angry poor that can't have their soft drinks and a bunch of angry newly poor that can't feed their children.

does affordability matter if the promise of the right still exists?

Of course it does! What a stupid question to even ask. The only thing that matters is the practical physical ability to have something or not. The on paper promise of the right is worth nothing.

4 and morally if the poor are those least able to afford treatment for the detrimental effects of sugar then why should the state not limit access via affordability mechanisms, its the same tax applied to alcohol?

Because you are punishing people for their life choices instead of allowing them to enjoy their lives. That is why it is wrong. It is literally saying "You are poor. Therefore you shall not have luxuries! Only the rich can enjoy their lives! You do not even have a choice! We shall force you to make the decisions we want you to make."


It's the sort of violent "for your own good" oppression that fascism stands for. And I am talking about the real stuff and not the thing you kids call Trump.

[Tule]

Definitely.

Consumption of sugary drinks is one of, if not the, most important cause of the western obesity epidemic. Obesity hurts not only those who who are afflicted by it but all of society.

It's only fair that people who choose to consume soft drinks (including me on occasion) pay for the damage those drinks cause.

[Community Values]

The healthcare bill that the obese person is already paying? Unless you're talking about public healthcare, people usually pay their own healthcare bills.

It would be fairly strange that tax money would be going towards private healthcare, no?

Can't speak for the United States, but where I'm from the majority of people use public healthcare.

If you are talking about public healthcare, I know a good way to lower the rising costs of public healthcare, and a way we can avoid this whole sugar tax, too. Eliminate public healthcare.

I don't think I hate poor people enough for that.

Yet you're willing to tax the poor people that just want to have a coke. The solution here is to have no public healthcare, but instead have a negative income tax, so that the government isn't paying for rising health costs.

[Dooom35796821595]

Definitely.

Consumption of sugary drinks is one of, if not the, most important cause of the western obesity epidemic. Obesity hurts not only those who who are afflicted by it but all of society.

It's only fair that people who choose to consume soft drinks (including me on occasion) pay for the damage those drinks cause.

No, you don't punish people who use a product because some people abuse it. The fat people are to blame.

[TURTLESHROOM II]

YOU SINISTER JACKBOOTED GOVERNMENT REGULATORS CAN LEVY A REGRESSIVE TAX ON MY COCA-COLA ONLY IF YOU CAN TAKE IT FROM MY COLD

DEAD

HANDS

---

Seriously though, this is a punishment for the middle class, the poor, and Dixie. All three of those groups tend to enjoy those sorts of sugary drinks. I drink a Coke every day, my mother drinks two or more... it's a tradition in my family. It will seriously hurt the poor.

-and today it's soda. Tomorrow it's sweet tea.

[Tule]

Definitely.

Consumption of sugary drinks is one of, if not the, most important cause of the western obesity epidemic. Obesity hurts not only those who who are afflicted by it but all of society.

It's only fair that people who choose to consume soft drinks (including me on occasion) pay for the damage those drinks cause.

No, you don't punish people who use a product because some people abuse it. The fat people are to blame.

The more you drink the more you are damaged by the drinks, ergo the more you drink the more you have to pay.
The damage is cumulative, there is no actual threshold where soda starts becoming harmful. We use the BMI categories as a convenient rule of thumb to assess healthy weight.

[Dooom35796821595]

No, you don't punish people who use a product because some people abuse it. The fat people are to blame.

The more you drink the more you are damaged by the drinks, ergo the more you drink the more you have to pay.
The damage is cumulative, there is no actual threshold where soda starts becoming harmful. We use the BMI categories as a convenient rule of thumb to assess healthy weight.

And the more food you eat, the fatter you become. Suprising how that works.

[Tule]

The more you drink the more you are damaged by the drinks, ergo the more you drink the more you have to pay.
The damage is cumulative, there is no actual threshold where soda starts becoming harmful. We use the BMI categories as a convenient rule of thumb to assess healthy weight.

And the more food you eat, the fatter you become. Suprising how that works.

Sugary drinks are an exception because they are especially effective at causing weight gain, people don't feel nearly as satiated after consuming sugary drinks as they are after eating the same amount of calories as food.
It's right in the link I posted.

[Dooom35796821595]

And the more food you eat, the fatter you become. Suprising how that works.

Sugary drinks are an exception because they are especially effective at causing weight gain, people don't feel nearly as satiated after consuming sugary drinks as they are after eating the same amount of calories as food.
It's right in the link I posted.

So normal people should pay more because some people have no self control? Why not just ban fat people from buying soda, more effective that way.

[Tule]

Sugary drinks are an exception because they are especially effective at causing weight gain, people don't feel nearly as satiated after consuming sugary drinks as they are after eating the same amount of calories as food.
It's right in the link I posted.

So normal people should pay more because some people have no self control? Why not just ban fat people from buying soda, more effective that way.

Some people?

Two thirds of Americans are overweight or obese and most other western countries aren't far behind.

And I reiterate, sugary drinks hurt everyone even skinny people. There is no actual "safe" threshold.

[Zottistan]

It would be fairly strange that tax money would be going towards private healthcare, no?

Can't speak for the United States, but where I'm from the majority of people use public healthcare.


I don't think I hate poor people enough for that.

Yet you're willing to tax the poor people that just want to have a coke. The solution here is to have no public healthcare, but instead have a negative income tax, so that the government isn't paying for rising health costs.

I'm willing to tax poor and rich people alike for the purchase of products that lead to higher levels of state healthcare spending, yeah. I don't see anything punitive about that.

Negative taxation is an interesting idea, yeah, and in such a situation where a certain level of income was guaranteed I suppose state provision of most services would be unnecessary. It's something I'd be interested to see. But since it's not going to happen anytime soon, sugar taxes are a much more feasible method for offsetting the problems associated with unhealthy eating.

[Dooom35796821595]

So normal people should pay more because some people have no self control? Why not just ban fat people from buying soda, more effective that way.

Some people?

Two thirds of Americans are overweight or obese and most other western countries aren't far behind.

And I reiterate, sugary drinks hurt everyone even skinny people. There is no actual "safe" threshold.

They hurt them? I'd love to know why they're still legal then. Unless you're talking about obesity, which is just a matter of consuming fewer calories.

[Community Values]

Yet you're willing to tax the poor people that just want to have a coke. The solution here is to have no public healthcare, but instead have a negative income tax, so that the government isn't paying for rising health costs.

I'm willing to tax poor and rich people alike for the purchase of products that lead to higher levels of state healthcare spending, yeah. I don't see anything punitive about that.

Negative taxation is an interesting idea, yeah, and in such a situation where a certain level of income was guaranteed I suppose state provision of most services would be unnecessary. It's something I'd be interested to see. But since it's not going to happen anytime soon, sugar taxes are a much more feasible method for offsetting the problems associated with unhealthy eating.

But with all taxation on a good or service, it disproportionately affects the poor. A rich person pays 1 more dollar for a soft drink, he doesn't care, he has a lot of money. If a poor person has to pay that extra dollar, it's going to affect him much more than it would affect the rich person. This tax would hurt the poor, and make sugar a luxury only upper classes could enjoy.

[Zottistan]

Some people?

Two thirds of Americans are overweight or obese and most other western countries aren't far behind.

And I reiterate, sugary drinks hurt everyone even skinny people. There is no actual "safe" threshold.

They hurt them? I'd love to know why they're still legal then. Unless you're talking about obesity, which is just a matter of consuming fewer calories.

...You realize tobacco is legal, right? And alcohol? Two very, very harmful and highly addictive drugs? Just because it's legal doesn't mean it isn't horrendously bad for you.

[Tule]

Some people?

Two thirds of Americans are overweight or obese and most other western countries aren't far behind.

And I reiterate, sugary drinks hurt everyone even skinny people. There is no actual "safe" threshold.

They hurt them? I'd love to know why they're still legal then. Unless you're talking about obesity, which is just a matter of consuming fewer calories.

A lot of things are legal that hurt people, but we usually regulate and tax those things to mitigate the damage.

Again, sugary drinks are disproportionately likely to make poeple obese and should be subject to more scrutiny than other sources of calories.

[Zottistan]

I'm willing to tax poor and rich people alike for the purchase of products that lead to higher levels of state healthcare spending, yeah. I don't see anything punitive about that.

Negative taxation is an interesting idea, yeah, and in such a situation where a certain level of income was guaranteed I suppose state provision of most services would be unnecessary. It's something I'd be interested to see. But since it's not going to happen anytime soon, sugar taxes are a much more feasible method for offsetting the problems associated with unhealthy eating.

But with all taxation on a good or service, it disproportionately affects the poor. A rich person pays 1 more dollar for a soft drink, he doesn't care, he has a lot of money. If a poor person has to pay that extra dollar, it's going to affect him much more than it would affect the rich person. This tax would hurt the poor, and make sugar a luxury only upper classes could enjoy.

Well no, it would hurt the poor's ability to buy soft drinks. Like I said before, if the shit we feed the poor nowadays becomes too expensive for them, there will finally be a competitive market for cheap healthy food.

[Flandre Remilia]

I think that a reward for buying healthy food rather than a tax would be a much more effective option. And, whatever is implemented, it needs to be run and payed for at a local level, so to avoid unfairness, promote the participation of those affected, and to better ensure efficiency.

I wouldn't be opposed to a sugar tax, given that I and my neighbors could actually talk to those who implement it.

[Dooom35796821595]

They hurt them? I'd love to know why they're still legal then. Unless you're talking about obesity, which is just a matter of consuming fewer calories.

A lot of things are legal that hurt people, but we usually regulate and tax those things to mitigate the damage.

Again, sugary drinks are disproportionately likely to make poeple obese and should be subject to more scrutiny than other sources of calories.

Really, I must have missed the biology class where they explain how soda makes you fatter then...you know...actual fat...
But yeah, lets tax sugary drinks, not foods high in saturated fats. I'm sure sugar free soda, full of sweetness that get turned directly into fat are so much better then sugary soda.

[Zottistan]

A lot of things are legal that hurt people, but we usually regulate and tax those things to mitigate the damage.

Again, sugary drinks are disproportionately likely to make poeple obese and should be subject to more scrutiny than other sources of calories.

Really, I must have missed the biology class where they explain how soda makes you fatter then...you know...actual fat...
But yeah, lets tax sugary drinks, not foods high in saturated fats. I'm sure sugar free soda, full of sweetness that get turned directly into fat are so much better then sugary soda.

You know there are other negative effects to excess dietary sugar than obesity, right? Type-2 diabetes being probably a bigger concern. And don't quote me on this, but I'm pretty sure carbs actually do contribute more to obesity than fatty foods, since most of the fat you eat isn't just added on to your own. Excess carbs, on the other hand, are actually converted to fat in the body if they're not used.

That aside though I'd be all for raising taxes on foods high in saturated fats, and I'd completely approve of taxing most artificial sweeteners off the mainstream market because the things are fucking toxic and should not be marketed as a healthy alternative to anything.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Well no, it would hurt the poor's ability to buy soft drinks. Like I said before, if the shit we feed the poor nowadays becomes too expensive for them, there will finally be a competitive market for cheap healthy food.

No there wouldn't.

They would just be forced to buy the healthy food that's already expensive and puts them on the red if they do anyways.

Your entire scheme revolves around "well, junk food is less expensive than healthy food? Let's tax it until it rises in price to become more expensive than healthy food! That'll make it much cheaper!"

Just because tomorrow you pay 7 dollars for a can of soda doesn't necessarily mean you won't keep on paying 5 for a pound of onions.

[Dooom35796821595]

Really, I must have missed the biology class where they explain how soda makes you fatter then...you know...actual fat...
But yeah, lets tax sugary drinks, not foods high in saturated fats. I'm sure sugar free soda, full of sweetness that get turned directly into fat are so much better then sugary soda.

You know there are other negative effects to excess dietary sugar than obesity, right? Type-2 diabetes being probably a bigger concern.

That aside though I'd be all for raising taxes on foods high in saturated fats, and I'd completely approve of taxing most artificial sweeteners off the mainstream market because the things are fucking toxic and should not be marketed as a healthy alternative to anything.

And soda is the easiest way for people with type one diabetes to raise their blood sugar.

Would you be happy in a world where everyone has to eat a flavourless goo for their whole lives because it's the healthiest option? Of course, rich people could eat real food, since they'd be the only ones who can afford it.