Sugar tax: Doctors call for sweet drink levy

[Costa Fierro]

I don't see how that really differs from what I said.

That a lot of people do not know how obesity messes with you, and those who do know don't care enough because hey, we got 40-50 years ahead of us and who gives a shit?

I mean, seriously, do you think I care about what's gonna happen when I am 65? More importantly, do you?

I do care. I want to make it to 65, not die in middle age of a massive heart attack.

[Skyviolia]

Yes, a tax on sugary products will make said companies manufacturing the sugar raise prices or go out of business resulting in people not being able to buy said foods and a healthier society.

But that's not going to happen because of the sugar lobby.

[Sack Jackpot Winners]

I'm glad you aren't for that, and apologies for the misunderstanding.

But yes, that argument totally applies. As pointed out by those who use the body/choice argument, expenses should not be a factor in these discussions about civil rights, if one considers it a human right.

No "civil rights" are being violated. Who considers it a human right doesn't understand the seriousness of the problem that obesity presents for society. If government health experts are saying "we need to do something about this now", sitting around saying "it's my right to kill myself and become a burden on society in the process" is basically suggesting that governments do nothing.

Hey, no argument here. Rights are plenty and cheap to come by these days. I didn't know if you were one of those people who considered stuff like this violation of people's rights like Texas trying to limit abortions.

[The Liberated Territories]

How about the government leaves my goddamn drinks alone.

Yessss, good, let the hatred of big government flow threw you.

[Kravanica]

Yes, a tax on sugary products will make said companies manufacturing the sugar raise prices or go out of business resulting in people not being able to buy said foods and a healthier society.

But that's not going to happen because of the sugar lobby.

Why you want companies to go out of business and thousands to be without jobs is beyond me.

[Uxupox]

Yes, a tax on sugary products will make said companies manufacturing the sugar raise prices or go out of business resulting in people not being able to buy said foods and a healthier society.

But that's not going to happen because of the sugar lobby.

lets tax everything to hell so nobody can buy and the poor suffer

[95X]

to those who are putting up the body autonomy argument - how is adding a tax denying you bodily autonomy? Nobody is banning you from consuming what you want, they are just raising the price - how is that different to any other price rise?

This echos my thoughts on the topic, nobody's losing any 'freedom' whatsoever. Besides, the soda aisle of a grocery store aren't the only beverages available, as examples there's also fruit juices, milk, water, and whatever's in the 'natural' section.

[Aclion]

If we're going to be taxing sugar wouldn't it make more sense to tax... you know... sugar; rather then random things that contain sugar?

[SD_Film Artists]

I'm against it as it will only encourage manufacturers to replace the sugar with carcinogenic sweeteners like Aspartame.

[Republic of Canador]

No. This is a terrible idea. It should be of no business to the government what I put in my body.

[Kergstan]

This tax has already been put in force by the great Correa's government in Ecuador.
It has a double benefit, the health of the people and less health care spending in the future forma preventable diseases, the same reasoning of the cigarettes.
I think there should be a double-taxation, taxing more also the producing companies so to make them pursue natural dolcificants to keep profits.

[Luziyca]

As an avid drinker of Coca-Cola, I won't mind the tax. Means I can do my part in keeping the government afloat.

[Impireacht]

Oh lord no. It's people's responsibility to manage their own health, I don't need the government discouraging me from having a fucking soda. Not to mention if people stopped buying sugared food and drink our economy would take a freaking huge hit.

[Kuronami]

I'm a bit of a sodaholic, too much for my own good so I don't approve of this. Besides it's just pointless, as the OP mentioned, obesity and unhealthy life styles often falls along poverty lines and the fact so much of our food in America is already crammed full of sugar, fat, oil and sodium only adds to that problem. Tobacco taxes haven't stamped out smoking, alcohol taxes haven't stamped out excessive alcohol drinking a sugar tax isn't going to do jack at the end of the day.

[Donut section]

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.

[North Campbell Nation]

the issue here is that what most people call sugar - refined, bleached, crystalized sucrose - is bad for you and has been essentially stripped of all its nutritional value (thats what molasses is for).

Youre right sugars as found in foods are essential but generally most people who are eating enough fruit and veg are also getting enough nutrient sugars without the need for adding extra white crystals on top

ALSO
to those who are putting up the body autonomy argument - how is adding a tax denying you bodily autonomy? Nobody is banning you from consuming what you want, they are just raising the price - how is that different to any other price rise?

That's also not wholly true. Refined sugar obviously has nutritional value, or else eating it wouldn't really do anything (like eating most leaves). It is entirely possible to survive (for a time) on solely refined sugar, if you are inclined to ration properly. This is the reason why most sugar in intravenous fluids is dextrose- the most refined and fastest acting form of sugar availing. Also, most fruit sugar is quick sugar, and is medically and chemically indistinguishable from the stuff in Coke.

This begs the question exactly what are you going to tax. Coca-cola? Cordial? Juice boxes? The juice you get out of fresh fruits? It's all the same stuff, we just consider some inherently healthy and some unhealthy. But there's not a medical or chemical difference between the two (fruit usually has some extra vitamins and fewer additives than soda, but that's entirely separate from the sugar which is proposed to be taxed).

Refined sugar isn't bad, and does have a lot of applications where fast-acting, refined sugar is medically preferable to long acting carbohydrates. The problem arises when people stop taking those applications into consideration and get a majority of them calories from quick sugar. In the long run, you start to suffer various deficiencies and your metabolism becomes terribly inefficient. Of course, you get the same problems (albeit with different symptoms) by cutting out quick sugar entirely. What you need isn't exclusion, but moderation.

Having given this some more thought, I've come to the conclusion that a tax like this could be effective, but only if it was somehow made progressive. So, say the first 6-pack of Coca Cola each month (or whenever) costs its normal amount, but the second costs 10% extra, the third 20%, and so forth. However, I doubt that this would be practically effective, and it's not what's being proposed, hence my opposition. I don't think this tax is likely to seriously change obesity figures. It will raise costs for the poor, small businesses (restaurants comprise the majority of startups), and make it more difficult for people with unique nutritional requirements to balance their diets.

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.

Bad idea. Besides the obvious legal challenges (discrimination, arbitrary definitions of obese), there are a lot of people for who obesity is partially or completely out of their control. Not as many people as claim so, and not a majority of the people that are currently obese, but enough that it makes fat taxes a horribly discriminatory idea.

As to health classes for those on welfare, I think you'd do better having a full health consult with a doctor. It takes less time from people who are struggling to make ends meet, it's more likely to yield personalized suggestions and identity eating disorders, and it will solve a whole host of other issues. Doctors can then issue recommendations on classes where appropriate.

[Dooom35796821595]

This tax has already been put in force by the great Correa's government in Ecuador.
It has a double benefit, the health of the people and less health care spending in the future forma preventable diseases, the same reasoning of the cigarettes.
I think there should be a double-taxation, taxing more also the producing companies so to make them pursue natural dolcificants to keep profits.

Companies would just use artificial sweetener instead, and that's no better then sugar.

And as mentioned, it discriminates against the poor. If you want to fund healthcare tax the rich individuals who can afford it.

[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.

[Zottistan]

This tax has already been put in force by the great Correa's government in Ecuador.
It has a double benefit, the health of the people and less health care spending in the future forma preventable diseases, the same reasoning of the cigarettes.
I think there should be a double-taxation, taxing more also the producing companies so to make them pursue natural dolcificants to keep profits.

Companies would just use artificial sweetener instead, and that's no better then sugar.

And as mentioned, it discriminates against the poor. If you want to fund healthcare tax the rich individuals who can afford it.

If unhealthy foods were made too expensive for the poor, there'd finally be a market for cheap healthy food.

[Dooom35796821595]

Companies would just use artificial sweetener instead, and that's no better then sugar.

And as mentioned, it discriminates against the poor. If you want to fund healthcare tax the rich individuals who can afford it.

If unhealthy foods were made too expensive for the poor, there'd finally be a market for cheap healthy food.

There is, it just requires effort.

[Alvecia]

If unhealthy foods were made too expensive for the poor, there'd finally be a market for cheap healthy food.

There is, it just requires effort.

You'd think if it were that simple there'd already be a market for it

Edit: Oh, I read "There it is", not "there is". My bad.

[Community Values]

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.

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.

[Zottistan]

If unhealthy foods were made too expensive for the poor, there'd finally be a market for cheap healthy food.

There is, it just requires effort.

Which is... not going to happen.

[Dooom35796821595]

There is, it just requires effort.

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.

[95X]

It should be of no business to the government what I put in my body.

Most governments regulate this to some extent already, such as the Food and Drug Administration in the USA.

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

Actually, what would work better is the employer provides a break room for unpaid meal breaks and require employees to pack their own meal ahead of time and remain onsite for said breaks. I've worked at such places, it's not as bad as it seems.