5 ms·
You can make up all these outrageous examples which don't correlate to what I said in any way shape or form at all as much as you like, but just know you aren't
by wasx 9y ago
You can make up all these outrageous examples which don't correlate to what I said in any way shape or form at all as much as you like, but just know you aren't convincing anyone or making a compelling argument.
Skin cancer and heart disease are major issues as is the elderly falling over, and if there were predatory organisations which were peddling products that abused human weakness to capitalize on addiction, or running around pushing old people over, I think we should look into handling those organizations. However salt and sunshine are absolutely vital to the proper functioning of the human body, whereas eating a bag of skittles and downing six bottles of coke is not. And corporations are out there peddling sugar because it sells, and that is predatory behaviour and the bill is footed by the Australian public for the profit seeking of a tiny minority. That is what this recommendation seeks to stop.
- PostOnce 9y agoA good argument, and a reasonable one, but we do have game, TV, and social media companies doing whatever they can to ensure a sedentary life of staring at screens, since the more you sit and stare (and develop mental and physical health problems) the more ads or iaps they can feed you and profit from. No one suggest we tax sitting or screen time. I'll concede sun and salt are in a different category, but it seems morally wrong to tax my sugar because someone else can't moderate their own intake. Why is it our position anyway, to tell someone what they can't do if it doesn't affect us? If we tax sugar, alcohol, salt, etc, then the man who has these each in moderation, once a month or whatever, is now paying higher taxes not on one product, but across the board, where none of it harms him because he partakes rarely of any one category.
- Retric 9y agoIf you eat less than the average amount of sugar then a sugar tax is equivalent to giving you money by reducing your tax burden at the expense of others.
- PostOnce 9y agoThat's true, but limiting someone else's freedom to save yourself some money seems to me to be pretty evil. -- I guess what you said doesn't conflict with that idea.
- megablast 9y agoWe are not telling someone what they can’t do, why do people keep saying that? I like a sugary drink as well, and I am happy for everyone including myself to pay more if it imporoves health.
- PostOnce 9y agoTax at some point is so burdensome as to be an effective ban. If a can of Coke is $250 then you're not really free to drink it. It's been done with cigarettes.
- seanmcdirmid 9y agoAustralia already has some of the highest taxes on cigarettes. They have nationalized healthcare also, so a sugar tax can be seen more as reducing society healthcare costs, which are born by everyone more equally, rather than anything else. So the sugar tax can lower your taxes even if you don’t impuslively eat sugar, by lowering your burden in supporting nationalized healthcare (the goal behind the cigarette tax as well). If this was America where much of the healthcare wasn’t socialized and it was every poor schlob for themselves, then you might have a point.