Would anyone oppose a 20% tax on sugary drinks in the upcoming budget?

Fukuyama

UCDVet wrote: »

I'd oppose it.


Second - if you want to argue about associated health costs, since we, as taxpayers, provide medical treatment for everyone - that's fine. That's a sound, rational argument. But only if it is true - and it isn't. Studies have shown a correlation between sugary drinks and obesity. And a correlation between obesity AND LOWER MEDICAL COSTS. That's right, healthy, non-smoking, non-obese people cost more in lifetime medical costs than obese people or smokers.

This has been known now for a while. It's a very 2D method of looking at things.

There are principles which need to be addressed. If there's on hospital bed and two patients. One of the patients ate/smoked their way to heart disease. The other lead a healthy lifestyle but gets ill. I'd give the bed to the healthy person.

Also, I can't back this up, but I'd argue that healthy people contribute more tax into the system.

Fat sacks of **** tend to stall their lives after their teens to a mediocre existence of XFACTOR and the couch. This explains why the lower socio-economic bracket has the highest percentage of chunkies.

Those who contribute more taxes (and are in higher socio-economic bracket as a result) tend to be healthier and have an ounce of self control/respect.

It's all well and good being a sensitive soul about things. But this problem is just begining. Babies born in 2007 will have an obesity rate of 90% by 2040 if things keep going.

What are the consequences of that? Who's going to staff vital positions such as gardaí/fire rescue/military/coast guard when all we have is a nation of moon people?

How will re respond to flooding? Natural disasters?

In a less dramatic approach serious questions still exist.

Do we start building different sized seats in schools/cinemas/airplanes? Will we have a nation where, like the US, an increasing portion of people could be declared disabled?

Who's going to work? Who's going to care for these people?

This is a problem that stems from selfishness and laziness.

Coca Cola are business that sell a product. They survived for decades selling one bottle of coke to every person once in a blue moon. They're responding to consumer demand (they may have created the demand, but they're not force feeding us the stuff).

If we all decide to start drinking water then they'll either adapt or die. That's business.

Honestly - look 20 years into the future. Being fit and healthy will no longer be a normal aspect of a person. As a society, we're killing our selves and anyone that denies it is enabling obesity to become a normality.

B.A._Baracus

Jesus, it's only coca cola. The way some people go on its akin to heroin.

Can't believe the poll is at 57% in favor. The government will gladly tax the holes off us but as long as there is a health issue slapped to mask things people are like seals clapping their hands for more fish.

How about if you don't like drinking sugary things just dont drink them and leave other people to enjoy them? ... just a mad thought that people could let other people live their lives.

Karl Stein

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Did I advocate selling drugs to minors?
Is there any such thing as "second hand coke"?

Alcohol and tobacco companies target young people. Do you think scumbag companies that make money from a horrible life-wrecking addiction should be allowed free reign to nurture new consumers?

Once I'm over 18 and what I'm doing harms nobody except possibly myself, it's nobody's business but my own.

See this is what I consider 'naive libertarianism'. What about freedom from being manipulated by the advertising industry on behalf of corporations whose bottom line is profit at any cost while the public foots the bill?

Fukuyama

Charlie Rock wrote: »

Can you provide a credible source for this reductive bullshit?

It's true. The idea is that a fat sack of 'human' will have a heart attack at 35 and die a quick death.

Healthy people tend to survive, and thus will cost more in the long run.

This ignore the fact that healthy people contribute more taxes, which over the years (due to investment of said taxes by govt.) will be worth more than their actual sum.

The idea that fat people cost the health system less is true on paper in a simplistic form. But, once analysed, it's nonsense. It also gives off the idea that it's acceptable to ruin you body in any way you see fit - despite the fact that you'll likely pass you habits on to children and/or be a general useless sack who spills into others seats on aeroplanes.

Richard Hillman

srsly78 wrote: »

Fanta is muck, it was only invented because a world war cut off supplies of coke. A poor substitute! A real nazi drink.

Nazi's and Dublin's Heroin addiction community

Fukuyama

B.A._Baracus wrote: »

Jesus, it's only coca cola. The way some people go on its akin to heroin.

Can't believe the poll is at 57% in favor. The government will gladly tax the holes off us but as long as there is a health issue slapped to mask things people are like seals clapping their hands for more fish.

How about if you don't like drinking sugary things just dont drink them and leave other people to enjoy them? ... just a mad thought that people could let other people live their lives.

Having no self control = addiction :rolleyes:

We claim to hate the government interfering in our lives. But openly welcome the idea of fully grown adults being handled with kid gloves and moddycoddled into loosing weight.

Karl Stein

Dean0088 wrote: »

Healthy people tend to survive, and thus will cost more in the long run.

Source?

This ignore the fact that healthy people contribute more taxes, which over the years (due to investment of said taxes by govt.) will be worth more than their actual sum.

You're contradicting yourself here. So now healthy people are a nett gain to the exchequer?

The idea that fat people cost the health system less is true on paper in a simplistic form. But, once analysed, it's nonsense.

So its not true?

WTF?

darkpagandeath

There is One Word people have got correct in this Thread

TAX

B.A._Baracus

Dean0088 wrote: »

Having no self control = addiction :rolleyes:

We claim to hate the government interfering in our lives. But openly welcome the idea of fully grown adults being handled with kid gloves and moddycoddled into loosing weight.

It's cola, mate. ffs.

lets ban sweets, alcohol, fast food, cooking oils, chips, salt, eggs etc etc etc. Because it's all bad for you. Actually, better yet, lets not ban those things. Lets tax the hell outta them.

Fukuyama

Charlie Rock wrote: »

Source?



You're contradicting yourself here. So now healthy people are a nett gain to the exchequer?



So its not true?

WTF?

Google it. It's well known and raised during almost every discussion of the subject online.

I'm agreeing that in a simplistic manner, fat people cost less. This is because they'll die a quick death. Their cost to the HSE will be less because they'll only enter the system once for a heart attack and then die on their second heart attack.

Healthy people, when they go to hospital when they're older, will cost more as diseases are more complicated to treat beyond 65.

So, in theory, healthy people will have a bigger hospital bill over their (much longer) life time.

HOWEVER, they will also have worked more, been more likely to have a better job etc.. and because their taxes have been invested over a longer period, the state makes a net gain, despite them having higher health costs over the long term.

This also ignores the fact that healthy people are more likely to have private health insurance, so many healthy people will never even enter the HSE system.

Hope that clears up what I meant. It's a complex one to get your head around, but it's logical.

wazky

Dean0088 wrote: »

Their cost to the HSE will be less because they'll only enter the system once for a heart attack and then die on their second heart attack.

Really?, someone should tell my Uncle he is infact dead then.

Fukuyama

B.A._Baracus wrote: »

It's cola, mate. ffs.

lets ban sweets, alcohol, fast food, cooking oils, chips, salt, eggs etc etc etc. Because it's all bad for you. Actually, better yet, lets not ban those things. Lets tax the hell outta them.

I was being sarcastic when I said that. I'm not in favour of banning/taxing coca cola.

I buy maybe one can a month. I don't want to pay an extra euro or whatever because Fatty McBeetus inhales the stuff.

I'm not in favour of paltry attempts of a government to fix this issue.

The issue has stemmed from a culture of laziness, sedated lifestyles and crappy parenting.

It's a family activity to go to the cinema and inhale junk food. It should be a family activity to go hiking / swimming / cycling etc...

The odd family you do see with attitudes such as that never have an weight issue.

RandomName2

Charlie Rock wrote: »

People need to drop this 'wah, wah, wah, nanny state' reflex to government measures designed to protect the public from scumbag corporations who hoover money out of the economy at the expense of the health service among other services.

The state has a duty to protect its citizens. The state has done an excellent job of reducing the harm caused to the population by slapping harsh taxes on tobacco, banning advertising, making public buildings and work places smoke free etc.

Why shouldn't we follow this tried and tested example with sugar?

I agree with you.

And we should not stop there.

Alcohol is destroying this country. It is seen at every event, every fixture. People are getting intoxicated every night of the week. Drunk drivers crashing cars... people needing liver transplants... I could go on!

And this immorality constantly displayed on our screens! The filthy language, pornography and salacious material! Not to mention the godlessness of it all. The morality of this country is being corrupted and quite frankly without action it is only going to get worse.

All this modern liberal nonsense of letting people do what they like, say what they like, think what they like: it has to stop.

This message is brought to you by the Authoritarian Single Party State.

Fukuyama

wazky wrote: »

Really?, someone should tell my Uncle he is infact dead then.

Someone should tell your uncle to lay off the McD.

B.A._Baracus

Dean0088 wrote: »

I was being sarcastic when I said that. I'm not in favour of banning/taxing coca cola.

I buy maybe one can a month. I don't want to pay an extra euro or whatever because Fatty McBeetus inhales the stuff.

I'm not in favour of paltry attempts of a government to fix this issue.

The issue has stemmed from a culture of laziness, sedated lifestyles and crappy parenting.

It's a family activity to go to the cinema and inhale junk food. It should be a family activity to go hiking / swimming / cycling etc...

The odd family you do see with attitudes such as that never have an weight issue.

Opps. Sorry dude. Took you completey wrong in your previous post. My bad.

Smithwicks Man

Wompa1 wrote: »

What would be the result for somebody who would want to be a designated driver in a pub now? Paying more for a glass of Coke than your friends pay for their pints?

It would have to be a pretty hefty tax for it to reach the price of a pint with the cost of a pint as high as it is!

jester77

wazky wrote: »

"Breaking news: A bad batch of Coke is on the streets at the moment, reportedly it has been cut with Fanta".

Aka mezzo mix

The One Who Knocks

jester77 wrote: »

Aka mezzo mix

Do you know where you can get it in Ireland?

Had it in Germany before, love the stuff!

Gummy Panda

In germany they sell a drink which is like coke and fanta mixed together.

Celly Smunt

I saw a kid skulling into a 2 litre of coke on the way home from school on thursday because the shop had an offer on.Surely restricting the cheaper drinks would be more effective than taxing the expensive ones.

jester77

Jamez735 wrote: »

Do you know where you can get it in Ireland?

Had it in Germany before, love the stuff!

It's not sold in Ireland or I've never seen it, the generic name here is Spezi with mezzo mix from coca cola being the most popular brand. It's just coke and fanta mixed, nothing else added that I am aware of. Not sure of what the ratios are, probably a bit more fanta than coke as it's not that sweet. But the Fanta recipe is totally different in Germany compared to Ireland, much nicer imo, not as sweet and not as fizzy.

April O Neill

Dean0088 wrote: »

Schemes, info campaigns dont work.

People have unprecedented access to diet information, studies etc... thanks to the Internet. Yet here we are.

Food is not to blame. Idiocy is.

I know people who use coke and red bull as their main source of hydration.

When I was a kid (2000s) my ma would buy us Coca Cola on our birthdays/Christmas etc... Now it's the main drink for kids.

Fully grown adults who can't control their eating, make poor decisions and then blame their "condishun". :mad:

Most people live a sedated life. No exercise. Car/public transport everywhere. No outdoor activities.

Come home from work and veg out in front of the TV/laptop. :rolleyes:

Loosing weight is simple. Eat ACTUAL food. One hour of exercise/strenuous physical work per day. Simple.

We all know this. But yet... it's not happening. Makes sense, we are evolutionary wired to be drawn to sweet, salty and high calorie foods, but in ancient times these were rare, so it wasn't a problem. It was an advantage as occasional high calories fixes would tide us over. We still have that within us. The problem isn't caused by idiocy. That's too easy.

So, bearing all this in mind, and considering the problem is worsening, what's the solution? Because 'eat less, move more' ain't working.

GobBass

They increased the price of chewing gum by over 20c, I'm angry enough at that for the moment.

_Redzer_

I would oppose it. Damn fat people having kids and passing on their ****e diets feck it up for the rest of us who like the occasional bar of chocolate or can of coke!

darkpagandeath

would an orange count as a sugary food ?

Seaneh

Below are a series of videos called "The Skinny on Obesity" narrated by Robert H. Lustig who is a pediatric endocrinologist at the University of California, San Francisco. He also has other videos like "Sugar: The Bitter Truth" and so on. His Youtube Channel is an extremely good resource.

Anyway, Video's #2, #4 and #7 in this series are especially pertinent to this debate and anyone pulling the "Nanny state rabble rabble" bollocksology needs to educate themselves on the realities.

Karl Stein

Dean0088 wrote: »

Google it. It's well known and raised during almost every discussion of the subject online.

You make the claim you back it up. Your claim is nonsense until you provide a credible source.

RandomName2 wrote: »

All this modern liberal nonsense of letting people do what they like, say what they like, think what they like: it has to stop.

You've me all wrong. I believe in freedom. I think weed should be legalised along with other drugs. I also believe in freedom from having corporations push harmful products. Allowing the profit motive to dictate public policy when it comes to harmful products is truly truly ****ing stupid.

up for anything

Leave the fizzy drinks alone. Pile more tax onto alcohol and rid us of those 'merry', half-cut, stupid fools who turn into morons after 3 drinks. Also means that I might not have to avoid piles of puke on the street on the way into work in the morning. It would also cut down on a quite a few associated alcohol problems. :mad: The government are running scared on that though - it's the one thing that would get the Irish people out on the street demonstrating.

Seaneh

darkpagandeath wrote: »

would an orange count as a sugary food ?

Massive strawman there.

There is a difference between naturally occurring sugars and added, refined sugars. Also, a whole Orange has neutrients, fibre, it has dietary benefits, a can of coke has no benefit, it's literally just 330ml of ****e.

WoollyRedHat

Why stop at sugar drinks... I say, and this might sound a bit radical to some, but tax everything that has sugar in it, choclate, sweeets, sugar bags,.... tax the Great Sugar Loaf , that will bring loads of tax revenues, tax anything that even looks like sugar, salt I'm looking at you. We need a sugar taskforce and stat.

_Redzer_

up for anything wrote: »

Leave the fizzy drinks alone. Pile more tax onto alcohol and rid us of those 'merry', half-cut, stupid fools who turn into morons after 3 drinks. Also means that I might not have to avoid piles of puke on the street on the way into work in the morning. It would also cut down on a quite a few associated alcohol problems. :mad: The government are running scared on that though - it's the one thing that would get the Irish people out on the street demonstrating.

Why not just feck off with all the taxes? Let anyone who can't regulate their intake suffer the consequences themselves.

0ph0rce0

Tax the people who want to add more tax to other stuff

Gatling

Tax on sugary soft drinks should be taxed on the amount of sugar added ,
10c on every spoon of sugar added the more spoons the more tax

josip

I'd be very happy if they did. I'm well on my way to being a type 2 diabetic

0ph0rce0

josip wrote: »

I'd be very happy if they did. I'm well on my way to being a type 2 diabetic

And that wont change just because a can of coke costs 20c extra.

You enjoy it so why not, if you become diabetic then so be it.

You could be killed tomorrow sure.

Healthy me hole.

Seaneh

0ph0rce0 wrote: »

Tax only the people more who want to put more tax on other stuff

Engrish?

0ph0rce0

Seaneh wrote: »

Engrish?

Yes

edit: JUST READ IT HAHA

tomdempsey200

whats the point like....?

a bag of sugar is just a euro anyhow for anyone that likes sugar

ezra_pound

wazky wrote: »

Yes because people cant make decisions for themselves and need a porky little Health minister to advise us if we can have a coke or not.

They can still decide for themselves. The minister isn't banning sugary drinks. He'd just be encouraging them to make the right decision. Like taxing plastic bags.

srsly78

Charlie Rock wrote: »

You make the claim you back it up. Your claim is nonsense until you provide a credible source.

It's a simplistic analysis but... From a cold economic point of view the ideal tax paying citizen is the one that works hard all their lives but then drops dead at 65. The least ideal citizen is one that lives a long time drawing their pension but needing lots of medical care. Well... technically the worst is a citizen that doesn't work or contribute to society at all, and then proceeds to live long in retirement with massive medical bills.

So don't use money as the argument, use health instead.

dublinbhoy88

Just another excuse to rob the people of Ireland, no from me

Gummy Panda

I want free fillings if they are taxing sugary drinks like coke. At least then I see a benefit to the tax

ezra_pound

dublinbhoy88 wrote: »

Just another excuse to rob the people of Ireland, no from me

So tax is theft then. Used to fund the evil healthcare and education system. Maintaining our tyrannical law and order system. And preserving our oppressive social democracy. The evil empire.

Dempsey

A 20% tax isnt going to stop people getting fat. Its just another way to tax people. The likes of Coca Cola have been ahead of the curve on this by developing and selling products which has legal levels of Sodium Cyclamate as an artificial sweetener. Not much better for anyone's health. When this doesnt solve the obesity problem, what are they going to do, ramp up the sugar tax? Create an artificial sweetener tax?

Tin Foil Hat

Tin Foil Hat wrote: »

Excise duties don't work. They don't work for ciggies. They don't work for alcohol. And they won't work for junk food. The only result of a tax like this will be a state addiction to monies earned from foods the government pretend they want us to stop consuming.

Sums it up

Cody Pomeray

srsly78 wrote: »

It's a simplistic analysis but... From a cold economic point of view the ideal tax paying citizen is the one that works hard all their lives but then drops dead at 65. The least ideal citizen is one that lives a long time drawing their pension but needing lots of medical care. Well... technically the worst is a citizen that doesn't work or contribute to society at all, and then proceeds to live long in retirement with massive medical bills.

So don't use money as the argument, use health instead.

Old people do lots of financially useful things, like child minding, provide financing for financial institutions, and voluntary work which saves the exchequer from having to directly provide for work which is currently done by charities.

Fit and healthy workers, in particular, are probably the least likely people to do nothing productive once they retire.

PickledLime

0ph0rce0 wrote: »

And that wont change just because a can of coke costs 20c extra.

You enjoy it so why not, if you become diabetic then so be it.

You could be killed tomorrow sure.

Healthy me hole.

Doubt you'd be saying that if you were actually diabetic.

srsly78

@Code: Don't nitpick, it was a simplistic analysis. These people may be productive but they still draw pensions, which make up a huge chunk of our welfare spending.

irishgeo

why not a 1c text on text messages?

In the Republic of Ireland, a total of 1.5 billion messages are sent every quarter, on average 114 messages per person per month

shruikan2553

Sure, tax them along with everything else that can be seen as unhealthy. The fatties are probably drinking full fat milk too so better tax that, get them onto the low fat milk. Eating only peppers is bad for you so we can tax those as well.