So I "might" cost the NHS money.
You guys should really look into how the NHS spends it's money through government contracts and donations to charities.
This 'sugar tax' crap is doing my head in!
- Thread starter MrRockliffe
- Start date
So I "might" cost the NHS money.
You guys should really look into how the NHS spends it's money through government contracts and donations to charities.
Associate
- Joined
- 6 Apr 2011
- Posts
- 459
Its the latest thing to judge and jump on. Nothing new.
It's saying looking at the nation as a whole, obese people "are" going to cost the NHS more money - no-one can say whether you individually will or not. You may just drop dead immediately from your stroke.
Have one every morning and I'm still here! BOOM BOOM
Fanta is now sugar and Sweetneres though as are most other 'full fat' drinks. Coke and Pepsi are about the only drinks now only containing just sugar.
Soldato
- Joined
- 17 Jun 2012
- Posts
- 9,898
- Location
- South Wales
That explains why then.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 9 Jun 2009
- Posts
- 11,924
- Location
- London, McLaren or Radical
Can't drink Rubicon anymore 
Used to like that... damn sweeteners.
******* sugar tax... I might be a fat **** but it wasn't because of sugary drinks and only had them once in a while... rubicon lychee was the only decent lychee drink I've found in this country and now it no longer exists Mango was good too.
They've received so many complaints they've closed comments on their facebook page.
But oh... they do a deluxe range of the non-fizzy ones in Mango and Guava... dammit... I liked the fizzy ones & lychee no more
Used to like that... damn sweeteners.******* sugar tax... I might be a fat **** but it wasn't because of sugary drinks and only had them once in a while... rubicon lychee was the only decent lychee drink I've found in this country and now it no longer exists
Mango was good too.They've received so many complaints they've closed comments on their facebook page.
But oh... they do a deluxe range of the non-fizzy ones in Mango and Guava... dammit... I liked the fizzy ones & lychee no more
I've been drinking them for years so think they taste fine. If I drink a regular drink I think taste horrible with all the sugar.
Why should they do anything about it? Even this thread demonstrates that people want the full sugar versions. Punishing manufactures with a tax because they are supplying what the public want is perverse.
How can you morally justify sin taxes when those same consumers are being forced to pay for the NHS through general taxation?
Last edited:
The reason they put so much sugar into drinks and foods is the same reason we enjoy fatty food. It's HIGHLY nutritious. Nutritious in terms of calorie density anyway. Sugar is pure carbohydrate our primary source of energy. Fat is even higher in calories. Our bodies have evolved to seek these foods where we can for that reason. The trouble is it's available in high abundance and some/most people suffer from gluttony and low will power and thus gorge on high calorie foods and risk becoming obese.
Personally I drink gallons of fizzy drinks and never shy from a fatty meal or adding a lump of butter and full fat creme to a dish. I am not obese. How? By just not eating too much and counting snacks and drinks as meals. If I have a 6 pack of beer, considering the calories (Around 1200), I consider it a meal and skip an actual meal. If I'm not hungry and it's 5 o'clock I don't have dinner. I avoid eating for comfort. I don't do this like a calorie counting hippy, I just listen to my body and what it craves instead of listening to habits, customs, routines and not stuffing my face to make myself feel better.
If I'm honest, that last one is the hardest as stuffing you face with sweets, biscuits and crisps while watching a movie does feel good. Peanuts are my weakness. 600 calories per 100 grams in some.
Not entirely happy about paying a tax as some people can't look after themselves and I have to foot the bill.
Personally I drink gallons of fizzy drinks and never shy from a fatty meal or adding a lump of butter and full fat creme to a dish. I am not obese. How? By just not eating too much and counting snacks and drinks as meals. If I have a 6 pack of beer, considering the calories (Around 1200), I consider it a meal and skip an actual meal. If I'm not hungry and it's 5 o'clock I don't have dinner. I avoid eating for comfort. I don't do this like a calorie counting hippy, I just listen to my body and what it craves instead of listening to habits, customs, routines and not stuffing my face to make myself feel better.
If I'm honest, that last one is the hardest as stuffing you face with sweets, biscuits and crisps while watching a movie does feel good. Peanuts are my weakness. 600 calories per 100 grams in some.
Not entirely happy about paying a tax as some people can't look after themselves and I have to foot the bill.
Soldato
- Joined
- 31 May 2009
- Posts
- 21,468
How would you address the NHS issues with regards forthcoming diabetes apocalypse?
If manufacturers continue to buff yup whey and sugar into everything, things that never historically had it, how would you tackle the issues that taxpayers will face?
Permabanned
- Joined
- 9 Jun 2009
- Posts
- 11,924
- Location
- London, McLaren or Radical
Take money away from the illegal and immoral murder of the innocent in foreign countries and fund the NHS... sorted.
The defence budget is insane considering we aren't at war with anyone!
Soldato
- Joined
- 12 Feb 2006
- Posts
- 17,672
- Location
- Surrey
surely the tax isn't because the nhs ends up paying more on average for those who have sugary drinks. i took it as companies just loading more and more sugar into stuff, each putting more into their products as the consumers tend to buy sugary products and don't even realise it. they buy sugar filled sauces, sugar filled drinks that they think are healthy such as some orange juice drink, and not realise how much added sugar is in it. if there's no limits, companies that want to sell more than their competition end up having no choice but to just pile in that sugar.
the tax now creates a cost to filling anything with sugar, encouraging manufacturers to look for a better alternative. this also doesn't just apply to drinks but any food that is over a limit.
i've come to terms with the tax, but what i don't like is say for instance beefeater how they've dealt with this.
the now charge more for sugar pepsi than pepsi free. they also now don't offer unlimited refills on sugar pepsi, but pepsi free they do. the glasses are also smaller on the sugar version. so now i'm being hit 3 times. ok i can accept i'll pay more, but not pay more, for a small glass, and can't refill. same thing in pubs i've found i'm given the tiny glass bottle of coke and charge way more for it. charge me 20p if you have to, but it's more than a £1 more for a tiny pathetic glass bottle of coke that's gone in a few sips.
that's what's stupid.
the tax now creates a cost to filling anything with sugar, encouraging manufacturers to look for a better alternative. this also doesn't just apply to drinks but any food that is over a limit.
i've come to terms with the tax, but what i don't like is say for instance beefeater how they've dealt with this.
the now charge more for sugar pepsi than pepsi free. they also now don't offer unlimited refills on sugar pepsi, but pepsi free they do. the glasses are also smaller on the sugar version. so now i'm being hit 3 times. ok i can accept i'll pay more, but not pay more, for a small glass, and can't refill. same thing in pubs i've found i'm given the tiny glass bottle of coke and charge way more for it. charge me 20p if you have to, but it's more than a £1 more for a tiny pathetic glass bottle of coke that's gone in a few sips.
that's what's stupid.
Because they are being told to by the Govt. They were asked first, said they would then did nothing, hence now stronger measures being taken.
There is a health crises going on if you hadn't noticed and the food industry is not blameless in that. They have unnecessarily high levels of salt and sugar in their food and it's a problem to the nation.
And no, business can't just do what they like, especially in highly regulated areas such as the food industry, they do have to do what they are told. Don't like it? Go into another less regulated business.
Unless you think there should be no regulations and the food industry can put anything they want into food?
So, 'what people want' is not the best measure of 'what is best' for the country. And before you come back with the 'individual responsibility' or 'why should I suffer because others can't control themselves' arguments, we've tried that and it most demonstrably doesn't work.
For a start the manufacturer is not being punished, it's the consumer who has to pay the tax. Secondly, the manufacturer doesn't have to reduce the sugar content if they think the consumer will pay the higher price. But obviously they think the price point is important so reduced the sugar.
No one is stopping you gorging yourself on sugar if you want, but to have so much intrinsically put into our food is ridiculous, especially since its just used as a cheap bulking agent for profit and has no useful nutritional aspect to it at all.
Easily, we all pay a base level for a general health needs throughout life eg: accident, disease, child birth etc etc then certain activities which have a severely detrimental effect to your health can have a 'sin tax' if you like to call it that, to pay for the extra demands on the NHS your choice is making.
Do you complain as much when they increase the duty on cigarettes?
Edit : Looking at some of your previous posts, I would have thought you'd like sin taxes [unless you oppose taxes in general?] as it's getting the individual to pay more based on their own actions, rather than sharing that cost across all taxpayers including those acting responsibly
Here's a post of yours from 2014 where you seem quite amenable to the idea of higher prices for activities with long term expensive medical issues to encourage people to change their behaviour?
Energize said:
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 12 Feb 2006
- Posts
- 17,672
- Location
- Surrey
exactly. i don't understand one bit why smoking is taxed. my grandad smoked 2 packets and day and died at age 85 because of a totally unrelated cause so he spent all that money on smoke tax to not even use it. ridiculous given that people want cigarettes, punishing manufactures with a tax because they are supplying what the public want it perverse.
same as with stuff like handbags. they are subject to VAT but bread is not. It's perverse!
Soldato
- Joined
- 31 May 2009
- Posts
- 21,468
So your one anecdotal piece of history is sufficient to remove a large amount of tax grab by the government?
How would you fund the difference, if you remove the smoking tax, how would you fund what we don't get from it?