6 ms·

Is this how we want to do this? Taxes... really? We should strongly question why this is the most effective means rather than blindly pursuing that it works an

• xen0 2y ago
  Would you prefer an outright ban?
  • sublinear 2y ago
    No.
• drekipus 2y ago
  In absence of a big stick, yes! People aren't going to will themselves to personal responsibility
• alias_neo 2y ago
  Can't have those poor people having sugar in their diet, it's bad for them. Sugar is for the rich.
  • spacebanana7 2y ago
    There’s actually a paradoxical situation in most developed countries where the poorer you are, the more likely you are to be overweight. Making unhealthy food too expensive for poor people is a blunt instrument of course, but it does have an empirical case. https://www.bmj.com/content/356/bmj.j163# https://www.bmj.com/content/356/bmj.j163#
    • rightbyte 2y ago
      Unhealthy food is allready way more expansive than cooking your own. I guess the main culprit is lack of energy and time to cook, not the price.
      • actionfromafar 2y ago
        Time is a kind of a price too. Also, look up "food desert" some time. It's real.
      • alias_neo 2y ago
        I disagree when it comes to the UK. Healthy food; fresh fruit, vegetables and meat is significantly more expensive than processed food. There are/were plenty of British YouTuber's doing "how cheap can you eat" meals through COVID and the cost of living crisis, they started at ~£1 for a bare-bones meal for one, they were at ~£1.50 last I looked; that's hopefully improving with the recent falls in inflation, but still and issue for many. Of course the same demographic who can't afford the ingredients to cook their own healthy meals can often also not afford the time to prepare them either; due to working long hours, not being able to afford care for their children, etc. Food banks are very much on the rise in many parts of the UK[0] and we have millions of children in poverty[1], a significant and heart breaking statistic for such a country. [0] https://www.trusselltrust.org/news-and-blog/latest-stats/end-year-stats/#factsheets https://www.trusselltrust.org/news-and-blog/latest-stats/end... [1] https://cpag.org.uk/child-poverty/poverty-facts-and-figures https://cpag.org.uk/child-poverty/poverty-facts-and-figures
    • alias_neo 2y ago
      I think everyone missed the sarcasm my comment was dripping with, British humour I guess. I'll take the downvotes. I understand the issues with sugar, I have no arguments with it, but it is, as you say, a blunt instrument. Sadly, the opposite case; healthy food, is also too expensive for the same demographic this affects; that's a separate and independent problem though, and the evidence in OP seems to suggest the tax is (somewhat) effective, so, again, no arguments from me. EDIT: To be clear, I'm talking about in the UK when I talk about a demographic.
• petepete 2y ago
  It works and it works quickly. What else would?
  • sublinear 2y ago
    [flagged]
    • petepete 2y ago
      You answered it yourself. Parents don't know/care, their kids bare the brunt. Taxing isn't ideal and is a blunt instrument at best - but I'm not convinced there's a better (working) alternative.
      • ollybee 2y ago
        I don't think it is a blunt instrument, in fact I'd say the complete opposite. It's been a nudge of industry in a direction that's better for society, in a way that keeps that playing field level for different manufacturers, reduced their overall tax burden and not cost consumers anything. All this while avoiding any harsh ban, you can still buy high sugar drinks if you wish.
  • GrassTheKayaks 2y ago
    [flagged]
    • sublinear 2y ago
      [flagged]
    • petepete 2y ago
      No sensible solutions then, par for the course!
    • YurgenJurgensen 2y ago
      Think about how you’d actually implement that policy. It’d be political suicide. I can see the ‘literally killing children’ headlines already. No law can change anything if it can’t make it through the Commons.
• smoothbran 2y ago
  If you're allergic to the word tax, then think of it more as a fee. If you want to sell a soda in the UK that is greater than X% sugar, you pay an additional, relatively small, fee. There are a lot of externalities from having an unhealthy populace, this fee can help to counter that.
  • sublinear 2y ago
    Why in the hell would anyone need to pay a tax for this is my question. Sounds like a racket to me. What's next?
    • waciki 2y ago
      You're not replying to OP > There are a lot of externalities from having an unhealthy populace, this fee can help to counter that.
      • skatebear 2y ago
        Is this tax sized to cover for that externalities or the amount is decided in other basis (likely to maximize government revenue)? Is the collected money exclusively used to counter the externalities or is the spending left to the discretion of the government? I'm asking from ignorance, but if the answer of any of those questions is no then the purpose of the tax is not to make up for the externalities.
        • rsynnott 2y ago
          > Is this tax sized to cover for that externalities No, nothing like it. The final costs to the state of excessive sugar consumption are _vast_. This levy is primarily to discourage people from consuming loads of sugar. > Is the collected money exclusively used to counter the externalities While I don't know, I'd be very surprised. That sort of bucketed approach to tax collection/use is _extremely_ inefficient; the only place it can possibly be justified is social insurance.
    • xen0 2y ago
• Skeime 2y ago
  I think a tax or levy is somewhat reasonable, but then should go towards paying for sugar-induced costs (mostly healthcare, I'd assume).
• Bancakes 2y ago
  they’ve been putting made up dietary pyramids in schools for decades, and it hasn’t worked.
• tene80i 2y ago
  Who says it’s blindly pursuing anything, or indeed a hole of any depth? It works because it increases the price, which reduces demand and leads suppliers to change recipes. What is your concern?
• CalRobert 2y ago
  How else would you do it? Is it bad we tax cigarettes too? I’m open to the argument that it -is- bad, actually, but a tax seems like a reasonable approach if you want people to drink less sugar.
• frereubu 2y ago
  It's not good enough to just ask questions like that - what alternatives are there? The information that too much sugar is bad for you isn't exactly hidden away, yet rates of obesity, tooth decay and diabetes are still going up.
  • sublinear 2y ago
    > It's not good enough to just ask questions like that - what alternatives are there? Strongly disagree. That's the entire point of these kinds of questions.
    • sirtaj 2y ago
      Without a counter-argument it just becomes a statement of faith, of the "it's so obvious that god exists that I don't have to prove it" variety. You're entitled to your opinion, but expecting others to take your word for its value isn't going to get you anywhere.
  • olalonde 2y ago
    What if we added some sort of additive to the sugary drinks that made people become fat and get tooth decay, wouldn't that dissuade them? (/s fwiw, I don't think there's a "solution", people should be free to mess with their health)
• netsharc 2y ago
  Oh no, taxes bad! Probably because we've all been programmed with the neoliberal agenda[1] of less money spent is better (for food, for cars, on taxes, like you've been programmed). Norway has had steep taxes for ICE cars for ages, and when EVs came along they were taxed very low, and to cite this source [2], 80% of new cars sold are now EV... [1] https://www.theguardian.com/books/2016/apr/15/neoliberalism-ideology-problem-george-monbiot https://www.theguardian.com/books/2016/apr/15/neoliberalism-... [2] https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/automotive-and-assembly/our-insights/what-norways-experience-reveals-about-the-ev-charging-market https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/automotive-and-assembly/...
  • _g6gm 2y ago
    [dead]
• YurgenJurgensen 2y ago
  In a country with taxpayer-funded healthcare, taxing things which make people unhealthy is just basic economics. The only problem with this tax is that it doesn’t go far enough. There’s definitely other product categories it could apply to.
  • sublinear 2y ago
    That's precisely why healthcare shouldn't be taxpayer funded. It's a total outage. There needs to be a separation of concerns, and do I really need to give a history lesson why taxing the disadvantaged is not a long term solution? History must repeat, but almost always from ignorance, huh?
    • robertjpayne 2y ago
      What?!? You argue disadvantaged shouldn’t be taxed but argue they should be on the hook for their own healthcare? Insanity.
    • lupusreal 2y ago
      > do I really need to Please do make your best argument for why taxing horribly unhealthy junk foods will actually harm poor people more than it helps. No sense holding back and merely threatening to make that argument. Do you figure that expensive cola will cause famine or something? I'm eager to know.
    • xen0 2y ago
      Ok, so who is paying for health care? Because it isn't the 'disadvantaged', many of whom are going to need it.
      • sublinear 2y ago
        I think there are more poor than you imagine. Can you provide solid numbers how this rectangle is constructed?
        • 2y ago
• knapcio 2y ago
  I'm close to being libertarian in many cases; however, I think that a tax may be a good way to quickly address this issue. I also believe that the money received from this tax should be directly spent on educating the public about why it's bad to consume too much sugar. The tax should be gradually decreased until people's habits change.
  • robertlagrant 2y ago
    > The tax should be gradually decreased until people's habits change I don't think people's habits will change irreversibly. If you remove the tax, a new cool drink (think Monster when it came out, but for kids) will sweep tiktok, and all the kids will want it. > the money received from this tax should be directly spent on educating the public about why it's bad to consume too much sugar Sadly I don't think taxes end up working this way for long. They might or might not start by doing this, but then they just stay forever.
    • knapcio 2y ago
      > I don't think people's habits will change irreversibly. I actually disagree. A great example is smoking. It's been declining for the past 70 years. It just became unattractive. > Sadly I don't think taxes end up working this way for long. They might or might not start by doing this, but then they just stay forever. I just described my idea how to approach this. I agree that governments are far from being perfect in this matter.
      • robertlagrant 2y ago
        Sorry - I'm missing the point being made?
• paulluuk 2y ago
  I doubt anyone is "blindly pursuing" this. There are many alternatives, but they all have their own downsides: 1. Prohibiting products that have sugar content above a certain percentage. 2. Asking the industry nicely to please favor children's health over profits. 3. Instead of taxing, giving subsidies to products that are "healthy alternatives". 4. Education campaigns telling children and parents to "say no to unhealthy food". I'm sure there's even more. I don't like taxing unhealthy products, because it creates this weird incentive for selling more of it for the tax gains. Also, products like soy milk are taxed while cow milk is untaxed, despite cow milk being much less healthy than soy milk. But given these four alternatives, I still think taxes are the best way to do it, although I'd love to hear better alternatives.
  • scotty79 2y ago
    > despite cow milk being much less healthy than soy milk How could that possibly be true? One is a fluid that exists in similar forms for millions of years in order to supply all growing mammal infants with all the nutrients they need ... and the other is just some plant matter from a random cheaply cultivable plant (by currently dominant species at current tech level) dispersed in water. Is soy milk healthier in a sense that no food is healthier than too much food for a person who has western diet?
    • paulluuk 2y ago
      Seals, Lions, Platypus, Dolphins, and Koalas are also mammals that produce milk for their infants. All of their milk is bad for humans. While cow milk is better for us then the milk of most animals, it's not human milk. So why would it be healthier than (essentially) water with some plants in it? Also, 70% of the human population is allergic to cow milk (as opposed to 0.4% being allergic to soy). Anyway, there's tons of data public about it that you can easily find, just wanted to respond to your "millions of years" argument.
      • scotty79 2y ago
        There's no reason to think that dolphin milk for example is bad for humans. It has just a bit more fat than lactose. In a balanced diet it could be perfectly fine. It's just inconvenient to acquire. Humanity milks basically any milk that is convenient to milk. And uses it as food since the beginning of animal domestication with amazing results. I doubt 70% of human population is allergic to milk. If you just read Wikipedia article about milk allergy you'll find out that the rate is 3% and 15% of those 3% are also allergic to soy. And that is just about children. Only 0.4% retain milk allergy in adulthood. I can imagine that 65% people don't have ability to digest lactose because they lost it at some point because of culture and food availability they didn't need to retain it beyond childhood. The funny thing is that the problem is with just lactose and if you supplement the missing enzyme nearly all people can draw nutritional benefit from milks vitamins, micro elements, sugars and fats. Could you point me to some research indicating superiority of soy milk over any animal milk, preferably one that's not analogous to "eating Teflon is healthier than eating a burger for the purposes of weight loss"?
• ollybee 2y ago
  Yes absolutely. It's not a tax aimed at consumers, or even raising revenue. It's to incentivize manufacturers to reformulate their drinks to be less harmful and seems to have worked. An alternative might be a straight ban on high sugar drinks which seems blunt and less fair response.
• 4ndrewl 2y ago
  How else might you persuade companies operating in a competitive marketplace to change the makeup of their products? Ask them nicely?
• Moldoteck 2y ago
  taxes are the most efficient instrument a govt can use. You decrease taxes for things you want to grow in consumption/use and you increase taxes for things you want to reduce production/consumption. Do you want faster transition to renewables and others from fossils? Increase taxes for fossil related stuff and decrease them for production & import of renewable related stuff. Same thing goes for electric cars, same things goes for electric/simple bikes. The only problem I see is low tax for artificial sweeteners. It would be nice to both limit the max quantity for sweeteners we know and limit the sweetness for all others to avoid high concentration of unknown stuff
• elefanten 2y ago
  You should take a breath and make your complete argument somewhere all at once. Your reactive fragmented answers up and down the tree of comments are still terminally unintelligible, as of this comment.
• rsynnott 2y ago
  There are, broadly, four routes to getting people to stop using dangerous consumer products: - Public education: This is easiest, but not particularly effective. Doctors, and more recently governments, have been telling people to eat less sugar for about a century; meanwhile, in most places, the level of sugar consumption has only increased. - Taxes/levies: This is thought to be somewhat effective (in particular it seems to have worked in many places for tobacco to some extent), and it has the great advantage that it's _easy to do_; governments typically have a lot of latitude over what they tax and it's quite difficult for the industry to resist through legal means (they can still lobby, of course). - Ban or restrict advertising: This seems to have been effective for tobacco and maybe alcohol, but certainly in Britain it's currently seen as a bit culture war-y (Sadiq Khan banned ads for unhealthy food on TfL, apparently with some promising results, but the right-wing media had a complete nervous breakdown) and is open to legal challenges. Some other countries, with different political environments, are in the process of doing this for certain problem food products. - Ban the product: This is practically impossible, even for products which are known to be extremely harmful like tobacco. Just a political death sentence, not worth pursuing. Given the above, they probably did about the best they could.