4 ms·

Why do you think it is important that the use of the tax be ringfenced? My view would be that the aim of the tax would be to nudge people into changing their be

by pm215 11y ago

Why do you think it is important that the use of the tax be ringfenced? My view would be that the aim of the tax would be to nudge people into changing their behaviours, and it will do this whether the resulting income goes into funding obesity related treatments or just into the general taxation pot. Also, hypothecation doesn't really seem to me to rise above the level of a PR labelling exercise -- if sugar tax income is all spent on NHS obesity programmes, then the government will simply reduce the amount of NHS funding from the general pot correspondingly. Further, you get awkward effects if peoples' behaviour really does change where obesity programmes could end up underfunded because the sugar tax income falls. Better to just fund them to the right level from the general pot, I think.

mattzito 11y ago
The issue is that if the tax is successful, and revenues start to fall from that particular source due to fewer sugary foods, there may be an instinct on the part of politicians to make up that money elsewhere. A good example in the US is cigarette taxes - while originally designed to fund cancer treatment and anti-smoking initiatives, a lot of states have come to depend on the revenue from those taxes. As more people switch to e-cigs, which are not taxed and offer big cost savings, states are talking about taxing e-cigarettes similarly. If the goal of the cigarette tax was harm reduction, presumably there's some incentive to have people smoke e-cigarettes instead of regular tobacco - but the real concern is the loss of the tax revenue the state has come to depend on. Ringfencing (theoretically) discourages this.
awjr 11y ago
One of the big issues is that councils "fund" public realm changes from the central government grants. I do a lot of work with my local council to deliver better child safe cycle infrastructure. The Local Sustainable Transport Fund is coming to an end in 2016. Cycle City Ambition Grant money is an ad-hoc grant that only impacts 8 cities and many transport ideas would take years to deliver. Providing a national "fund" that councils could put together projects and then "bid" for funding with a focus on delivering healthy transport options (walking/cycling/public transport) would enable the delivery of huge long-term health benefits. One of the reasons London does so well with some of the cycling schemes is that there is a committed 10-year plan to invest in cycling. Without this type of financial commitment you don't get a good safe network. You get little bitty pieces of ad-hoc infrastructure that the council hopes to connect together eventually IF future grants become available.

by pm215 11y ago

mattzito 11y ago

The issue is that if the tax is successful, and revenues start to fall from that particular source due to fewer sugary foods, there may be an instinct on the part of politicians to make up that money elsewhere. A good example in the US is cigarette taxes - while originally designed to fund cancer treatment and anti-smoking initiatives, a lot of states have come to depend on the revenue from those taxes. As more people switch to e-cigs, which are not taxed and offer big cost savings, states are talking about taxing e-cigarettes similarly. If the goal of the cigarette tax was harm reduction, presumably there's some incentive to have people smoke e-cigarettes instead of regular tobacco - but the real concern is the loss of the tax revenue the state has come to depend on. Ringfencing (theoretically) discourages this.

awjr 11y ago

One of the big issues is that councils "fund" public realm changes from the central government grants. I do a lot of work with my local council to deliver better child safe cycle infrastructure. The Local Sustainable Transport Fund is coming to an end in 2016. Cycle City Ambition Grant money is an ad-hoc grant that only impacts 8 cities and many transport ideas would take years to deliver. Providing a national "fund" that councils could put together projects and then "bid" for funding with a focus on delivering healthy transport options (walking/cycling/public transport) would enable the delivery of huge long-term health benefits. One of the reasons London does so well with some of the cycling schemes is that there is a committed 10-year plan to invest in cycling. Without this type of financial commitment you don't get a good safe network. You get little bitty pieces of ad-hoc infrastructure that the council hopes to connect together eventually IF future grants become available.