f1_fan

iTrader: (9)

England's chief medical officer tells MPs it may be necessary to introduce a sugar tax to fight obesity problems

That should read

RA Dunk

So the majority of people need to pay through the ******* nose for sugar because the minority of people are fat?

This place is like a giant leech sucking every last drop of anything it can from the general population, it really is getting worse daily.

dpb

I actually can hardly believe how chubby the average school teenager is nowadays, especially the girls

fpan

iTrader: (11)

Other countries have fat tax, any product containing fat is taxed at an extra 3%.
I think the idea comes from the EU.

stevebt

iTrader: (8)

They will be banning drugs next, oh wait a minute

neil-h

That would be all well and good if it was a minority but it isn't.

tubbytommy

iTrader: (20)

you lot are just fatist!

alcazar

iTrader: (2)

They don't seem to understand that you can't tax something out of existence.

They have tried it with smoking, drinking, driving our cars...and each time, they just spend the revenue, and end up needing us to go on doing the very things they are supposed to want us to stop doing.

It's what's known as farce.

thenewgalaxy

I love sweets. They're great. But I don't friggin eat the damned things on a daily basis. Unfortunately too many people do. And the tax payer invariably ends up shouldering a good deal of the burden.

I'm all for taking responsibility for ones own actions but unfortunately the general public has refused to do so time and time again. There is something of an obesity epidemic, let alone the other problems that go with bad habits such as the over-consumption of refined sugar.

If something can be done to make unhealthy things less appealing, then that's a good thing so far as I'm concerned. But if people are going to be stupid enough to carry on eating it in bulk then so be it, these are troubling times and the government's coffers need lining.

I'm all for it.

jonc

No, that's not the aim, the aim is to generate more money.

alcazar

iTrader: (2)

Aye...right....

The problem is, the government only pay lip service until it's too late.
They are too busy accepting money from the various companies that sell ****, booze, petrol sweets, crisps etc, before that.

Bought any potatoes recently? they are CRAP. Why? Because all the first grade ones now go to crisp manufacturers. I mean, come ON...how many different potato snacks and flavours does one country NEED?

f1_fan

iTrader: (9)

Reminds me of the song lyric

"Privatise the air, suck it, you'll be a millionaire!"

Turbohot

Well I'm not sure if that will happen. Remember that pasty tax? The reason for pasty tax wasn't some bullsh4t excuse but blatant revenue gain. But too many pasties do make people fat, like too many sweets would. Anyway that pasty tax had to be withdrawn, because pasty eaters kicked off something chronic. If sugar tax happens, sweet eaters will make Osborne's and Cameron's life hell, I think.

Cameron lied as well over that Cornish pasty tax matter, to look like common people’s person.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/...-brief-history



Let's see what he or Osborne would say about sugar tax. I can picture the two on the top storey of a London sight seeing double decker, sucking on a Rowntree lollipop each, while their Japanese co-passenger tourists take a million pictures of Trafalgar Square pigeons.

Lisawrx

iTrader: (1)

Out of interest, what do you guys think costs more, medical costs due to dealing with obesity related problems (or thought to be a result of it) or paying for our ageing population (pensions etc.)?

I just wonder because we keep hearing about how pensions are such a significant burden within the benefits system, and how the old are outnumbering the young now and the problems with that economically, yet we are constantly being told not to do this, that or the other because it is unhealthy and could shorten our lives. Why, if an ageing population is economically problematic, are the powers that be trying to encourage us all to do what we can to live longer?

This, imo, has nothing to do with wanting us to be healthy and live long, problem free lives, it's just another way to tax us that bit more, knowing people will somehow afford to keep doing what they are doing. Whilst squeezing 'normal' people that bit more who just enjoy things in moderation (it might not be a lot in the grand scheme of things, but it is just yet an added expense on the shopping bill).

Worlasshasansti

I've seen them ontop of a London bus sucking each other

Mick

EssexJamie

iTrader: (5)

They should just charge more for fat peoples clothes, it uses more material and if there clothes cost twice as much they might consider loosing weight!

Martin2005

I really don't agree with you here

It costs costs an astronomical amount of money to treat people with long term health problems caused by obsesity and diabetes... way way way more than they could ever hope to recoup with this 'Sugar tax'. And way more than it costs to keep healthy people on a derisory state pension

Lisawrx

iTrader: (1)

You don't agree with what? I asked a question. Well more than one....

Granted, I put an opinion at the end, which may or may not be true, but I can't help being sceptical of the motives of the powers that be. Feel free to shoot down my sceptical view point with hard facts, rather than what appears to be an opinion on your part.

Martin2005

Blimey that's a bit defensive

Hard facts are hard to come by, but there are plenty of reports out there stating that the cost to the NHS of treating the obese is between £4 - £8bn per year. That figure is set to rise dramatically over the next 2 decades.


By a very big margin the elderly already account for the largest part of NHS spending, healthy pensioners are relatively cheap


It's also worth remembering that this is a proposal by the Chief Medical Officer, not the treasury

Lisawrx

iTrader: (1)

Wasn't meant to come across that way.

I'm just not convinced of the motives of governments when they just stick a tax on a problem, and I was being inquisitive as to the difference in cost to the NHS treating people vs keeping people in old age.

Maybe I am being unfairly mistrusting here, but then again, maybe I'm not. Anyhow, you said you disagreed with me (which is fair enough) so all I've asked is you give me some evidence to back up what you believe to be the case. I can't say my sceptical view is factually correct, hence why I asked questions.

Martin2005

above

f1_fan

iTrader: (9)

This^^^^ 100% ths!

Martin can quote his reports in is unerring support for the political system of this country, but reports are great at saying what the report writer wanted them to say!

I think if we had a government that really cared about people's health and well being it might want to start taking a look at the real causes of obesity such as how come a McDonald's hambuger laiden with sugar and fat costs less than decent fresh vegetables.... then again that would mean investigating the whole food industry and as a lot of them are their mates that will never happen!

Easier just to slap a tax on it, pat yourself on the back and move on to the next cash cow!

If you want to watch an excellent documentary about the way the food industry and the government in the US collude then this is worth a watch and a lot of what you see on this film can be translated straight across to Europe!

Food Inc. - full documentary

warrenm2

The trouble here is in fact not the obesity per se, it is the fact the we have a nationalised health care system, hence obesity is everyones problem. If we moved to a private health insurance model (like France for example), the sugar problem goes away as fat people would pay more insurance premium. The issue we have is a persons self inflicted health problems have no repercussions on that person and hence they have no incentive to change because everyone else picks up the tab. Make it so they pay increased premium for their over eating and suddenly they are focused on eating more healthily, and no more nannying by the state.

jonc

I'd also add that IMO obesity is not down to the cost of food. Fresh vegetables, fruit and meats etc, in monetary terms, can be a lot cheaper if you take the raw ingredients and prepared and cooked it yourself. My father's a chef and taught me to cook and I do the same for my children and always have them in the kitchen helping out. But people aren't prepared to cook or even know how to do that anymore other than stick something in a microwave. People choose convenience, fast food and ready meals, quick fix and instant gratification is the order for todays society. The Government know this and tax on sugar will be no more effective in reducing consumption than it is for alcohol and tobacco. Idleness causes obeisity, but how do you tax that!!

f1_fan

iTrader: (9)

Chair and couch tax?

dpb

So this seems good solution then,

What have you to fear if you've chosen to live healthily.

ReallyReallyGoodMeat

Will only have my support if they use the tax income to discount healthy alternatives. Failure to do this would suggest it's purely a revenue generator for the treasury.

David Lock

It's actually quite difficult to shop and identify low sugar foods. Sugar content is labelled amongst a mass of ingredient information in tiny print. It's only when you make a real effort and, for example, find that the "healthy" looking fruit juices that my kids loved contained the equivalent of 14 spoons of sugar per litre

All that is needed is for packaging to have a readable red label on the front with a sugar per portion total.

School exercise for kids is a must.

dl

john banks

http://www.bmj.com/content/347/bmj.f6189

dpb

It's brutal targeted marketing.

Thing is they / you / we probably subconscious knew it 'tasted' too good to be teuwq