LordAnubis Posted March 16, 2016 Posted March 16, 2016 Now i'm not a huge supporter of taxes, least of all as a "discouragement" of behaviors. I have long taken the argument that while i don't mind a tobacco tax (not as high as it currently is mind you) i also thing there should be a tax on fast food. If tobacco is unhealthy, then everything else thats unhealthy should also be taxed. Can you imagine a whopper getting taxed at the tobacco rate of 660 dollars per kilo? Anyway apparently UK is bringing in a tax on soft drinks basically. Specifying sugar contents and exempting pure fruit juices. I can see a lot of companies figuring out loopholes to this already (coke zero as an example) but what are your folks general views on this topic? I think it's a good initial step forward to improving the health of younger generation but ultimately its all about alternatives. When a bottle of water costs the same, or sometimes more, than a bottle of coke, you know there's something wrong with your society. I find the same thing with fresh produce. Its all well and good to get people to eat healthier fresh foods, but if it's a lot cheaper to buy a meal at mcdonalds than it is to buy salad at the grocers, then you cant be surprised by the choices being made. I think the next step should be addressing portion sizes. Coke itself is not that bad for you. Drinking a liter of it every day is. Make cans about 100mL or something i reckon.
Guest Posted March 16, 2016 Posted March 16, 2016 I've long held the view that if a product is legal and deemed safe, the manufacturer has a fair right to expect not to have their right to trade, promote and sell their products held back by governments that profit from their operation. Either ban outright, or allow manufacturers the opportunity to trade fairly, and unhindered.
Popular Post PapaDisco Posted March 16, 2016 Popular Post Posted March 16, 2016 The other way to look at is that, when a society decides to grant everyone cradle-to-grave healthcare, then that society also acquires the right to regulate your healthy/unhealthy behaviors. I'm more a fan of the pay-your-own-way rather than the nanny state, but it makes sense to have national healthcare come with this sort of baggage. 10
Zigatoh Posted March 16, 2016 Posted March 16, 2016 How is coke zero a 'loophole' when it has no sugar in? (I think anyway?) and about the 'deemed safe' bit, sugar is rapidly heading into the 'deemed not safe' area with bugger all redeeming features unless you like body fat, inflammation (the non useful kind), shitty insulin sensitivity, etc... Sorry, adding a bit more, was writing that in the chippy Surely this just makes sense, at least to anyone who thinks taxing alcohol or ciggies is ok due to the added cost to the country/nhs, sugar is becoming known as the major driving force in a number of health issues, obesity for example - a huge cost and growing at a stupid rate, cancer - lots of new research showing the links between inflammation and cancer and blood glucose levels and cancer - some trials are looking at drugs like metformin to reduce the food supply for the cancer cells directly, fasting and low gi diets have been shown to have a positive effect on tumor growth. Diabetes anyone? And like I said above, no redeeming features, there is no reason to include simple sugars in your diet. 2
ayepatz Posted March 16, 2016 Posted March 16, 2016 They should make a fortune from Irn-Bru sales in Glasgow alone. 1
TomF Posted March 16, 2016 Posted March 16, 2016 The Mayor of New York tried that a few years ago. It didn't end well for him. That law I was never enacted. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-06-26/new-york-big-soda-ban-rejected-by-n-y-top-court-as-overreach
Popular Post PigFish Posted March 16, 2016 Popular Post Posted March 16, 2016 Do you think your fellow man is stupid? You can only think that, if you believe that the State should tell your neighbors what to do and how to do it. Why then trust them with electing officials if that is the case? Democracy then is in direct conflict with believing your neighbors are stupid...! We have a conflict here! Guess what. Your neighbor thinks you are stupid too... He thinks that your hobby, recreation, habit, needs, wants, landscape, car, gas milage, time off, clothing, toilets water holding capacity.... etceteras, etcetera... is all wrong too. We take this theory out to 10 people, far less than 100 million, and we have the rational (individual judgment) for the State to legislate all freedom of everyone such that there is no freedom. How about a different mindset, one from a conservative known (allegedly) to want to legislate your bedroom!!! Read that factiously please...! How about you trust your neighbor to make the right decisions for himself and mind your own f'in business as long as he does the same. You smoke and he drinks Coke. He does not tell you not to smoke Churchills because they are bad for you and you tell him it is okay to drink 32oz soft drinks. How about accepting real conservative principles, and let our neighbors find and be responsible for their own destiny? How about we change our own minds to let freedom reign and ditch the elitist loophole that we all use when we think that we are smarter, wiser than our neighbor? How about we let him smoke, drink and kill himself in his Porsche, and we are in turn left to do what we want to do? The fact that the State can determine what is or what is not healthy to drink is tyranny! If you don't get it, you are well on your way there, with all the rest of the people you call stupid! -Piggy 15
Guest Posted March 16, 2016 Posted March 16, 2016 I'm all for a user pays. As tax payers here in Australia, we all are contributing. As road user, we contribute. As people, our general health is looked after. Housing too, for the very most destitute (with dependants) etc... However I'm not convinced that taxing extra in certain areas means that the funds are directed properly. It's taking advantage of a legally tradeable product, under the guise of public interest. Like tobacco, if the majority of society demonise it, then it's easy for the government to win twice: - firstly, by showing a sign of care by increasing the tax to reduce consumption (rather than banning it outright, but that's another issue) - secondly, by the coffers filling with dollar bills @ papadisco There was an amazing business person here, who died a few years back, who said when he was in court for tax evasion: Kerry. Packer said: "I am not evading tax in any way, shape or form. Now of course I am minimizing my tax and if anybody in this country doesn't minimize their tax they want their heads read because as a government I can tell you you're not spending it that well that we should be donating extra"
Guest Posted March 16, 2016 Posted March 16, 2016 Well said, Ray. Let's smoke and drink a Coke, amigo.
westg Posted March 16, 2016 Posted March 16, 2016 Now i'm not a huge supporter of taxes, least of all as a "discouragement" of behaviors. I have long taken the argument that while i don't mind a tobacco tax (not as high as it currently is mind you) i also thing there should be a tax on fast food. If tobacco is unhealthy, then everything else thats unhealthy should also be taxed. Can you imagine a whopper getting taxed at the tobacco rate of 660 dollars per kilo? Anyway apparently UK is bringing in a tax on soft drinks basically. Specifying sugar contents and exempting pure fruit juices. I can see a lot of companies figuring out loopholes to this already (coke zero as an example) but what are your folks general views on this topic? I think it's a good initial step forward to improving the health of younger generation but ultimately its all about alternatives. When a bottle of water costs the same, or sometimes more, than a bottle of coke, you know there's something wrong with your society. I find the same thing with fresh produce. Its all well and good to get people to eat healthier fresh foods, but if it's a lot cheaper to buy a meal at mcdonalds than it is to buy salad at the grocers, then you cant be surprised by the choices being made. I think the next step should be addressing portion sizes. Coke itself is not that bad for you. Drinking a liter of it every day is. Make cans about 100mL or something i reckon. Mus coke is very bad for you ....100ml cans will never happen ...guaranteed ...only a shitty little profit margin on a 100ml
Zigatoh Posted March 16, 2016 Posted March 16, 2016 Do you think your fellow man is stupid? You can only think that, if you believe that the State should tell your neighbors what to do and how to do it. Why then trust them with electing officials if that is the case? Democracy then is in direct conflict with believing your neighbors are stupid...! We have a conflict here! ... All good until I'm paying for my neighbour to have a gastric bypass and diabetes medication and a wheelchair and a leg amputated and specialist equipment in the hospital for people who weigh over half a ton and (well you get the point) because he'd rather drink the full fat coke than the coke sitting one foot to the right on the shelf with no sugar at all because it tastes a bit different. PS plenty of people are stupid, or to put it another way plenty of people don't have any interest in nutrition or their own health or this wouldn't be a problem! And it seems that some gentle guidance does bugger all as well as sugar has been demonised for some time now, maybe that same neighbour would go for the no sugar coke if it cost less than the full fat version? I guess there's a fundamental difference between paying for your own healthcare and sharing the cost over the population. 1
btp1979 Posted March 16, 2016 Posted March 16, 2016 I too think you should be able to do what you want as long as it doesn't hurt someone else. Also, I don't want to be on the hook and have to pay for someones said freedom when they do some stupid s#!t and it goes sideways.
Zigatoh Posted March 16, 2016 Posted March 16, 2016 Oh and don't forget what happens to fatties in a zombie apocalypse (yes I did just kick off Zombieland ) (oh man the beginning of this film is Awesome!) (speak of the devil - Where are the -----ing Twinkies!!)
Popular Post Orion21 Posted March 16, 2016 Popular Post Posted March 16, 2016 Don't use Red Herrings to try to make your points valid people. Nothing in life is free. You all that think you have free healthcare are deluded. They take it from your wages, quality of care or both. Do you honestly think if they were to outlaw sugary drinks that they would magically demand less of you? In Australia, does someone making $1,000,000 pay more into healthcare than someone paying $100,000? There is nothing fair about this system of taxation for healthcare or on behavior. It's simply a mechanism to make the populace dependent on the government and confiscate wealth for it's own use. 6
Zigatoh Posted March 16, 2016 Posted March 16, 2016 Don't use Red Herrings to try to make your points valid people. Nothing in life is free. You all that think you have free healthcare are deluded. They take it from your wages, quality of care or both. In Australia, does someone making $1,000,000 pay more into healthcare than someone paying $100,000? There is nothing fair about this system of taxation for healthcare or on behavior. It's simply a mechanism to make the populace dependent on the government and confiscate wealth for it's own use. In the UK someone making a million a year likely pays both their fair share and then some for the NHS and for their own private healthcare, so yes they likely do pay more into our system than someone making 100k (about 50 ish k gbp - so some one who might or might not pay for private insurance) and they sure as hell pay more than the person who does get it for free. "nothing in life is free" - you obviously haven't been a UK citizen who without working will always get NHS treatment for free to the same standard of care as anyone else getting NHS treatment - surely quality of care becomes null and void when you pay nothing for it - and in my experience the NHS does pretty well, barring wait times
Zigatoh Posted March 16, 2016 Posted March 16, 2016 PS when my neighbour kills himself in his porsche is he on his own or does the stupid bastard kill his wife and kids in the car plus a dozen other people in the ensuing pileup? 'freedom' Speed limits Drink driving laws Alcohol /tobacco /sugar tax All tyranny under the false assumption that average Joe doesn't know best about everything. 1
PigFish Posted March 16, 2016 Posted March 16, 2016 PS when my neighbour kills himself in his porsche is he on his own or does the stupid bastard kill his wife and kids in the car plus a dozen other people in the ensuing pileup? 'freedom' Speed limits Drink driving laws Alcohol /tobacco /sugar tax All tyranny under the false assumption that average Joe doesn't know best about everything. I am not an anarchist! But must I explain the false narrative that more government, bigger government, more laws equals a safer society? How about this! You live in a federal penitentiary. You eat, sleep, **** and otherwise live in the lap of the most stringent law and law enforcement in the land. You also live in one of the most dangerous situations possible. There are weapons, drugs, rapes and murders and all sorts of crimes in you midst. This dispels the myth that ‘more laws, more oppression and oppressive laws equals safety.’ Safety is the result of the moral quality of a society and not a result of government oppression. This argument that the freedom to kill or harm another is excessive freedom is absolutely a farce and a tool of the tyrant as well as a rule of the ignorant. Understanding that there is no living Utopia, is the responsibility of those who wish to remain free. It is far easier to enslave the ignorant as well as the stupid!!! Enslavement, as shown in the case of incarceration does not make you safe. It simply makes those that are the most powerful, the most likely to commit the heinous crimes, above the law. -the (free for now) Pig 2
PigFish Posted March 16, 2016 Posted March 16, 2016 All good until I'm paying for my neighbour to have a gastric bypass and diabetes medication and a wheelchair and a leg amputated and specialist equipment in the hospital for people who weigh over half a ton and (well you get the point) because he'd rather drink the full fat coke than the coke sitting one foot to the right on the shelf with no sugar at all because it tastes a bit different. PS plenty of people are stupid, or to put it another way plenty of people don't have any interest in nutrition or their own health or this wouldn't be a problem! And it seems that some gentle guidance does bugger all as well as sugar has been demonised for some time now, maybe that same neighbour would go for the no sugar coke if it cost less than the full fat version? I guess there's a fundamental difference between paying for your own healthcare and sharing the cost over the population. You live in a circular self-fulfilling world. Government defines risk. Government attempts to mitigate risk. Government fails. Government grows to mitigate further. Government fails. Government grows more, fails more etcetera... Man is no longer free! Government creates a national healthcare system not to heal people but to control them. Once someone like you is forced to pay for another you decide that you should dictate what that other must do... How about this. Please post your sexual preference so that we can judge your risk. Please post the sports you play, the habits you have and all the details of your lifestyle so that we can judge if you need to scrutinized and controlled.... You don't want to do it do you! Nor do I want you to. I only wish to point out that your opinion of risk is not for you to decide for anyone but for yourself. If you don't want to pay for the healthcare of another change out your government and start depending on yourself and not the government and other people! Bigger government is never a solution for an error of government. -Piggy 2
MrGTO Posted March 17, 2016 Posted March 17, 2016 I'm amazed at some comments here. Laziness is the main reasons laws like this pass. Instead of being responsible for your own actions and consequences, some people wish for someone else to regulate them. I would say the majority of the population will make the right decisions and live a wonderful life without government control. The problem is we are propping up the portion that no matter what will make the wrong choices. 1
brschoppe Posted March 17, 2016 Posted March 17, 2016 Mus coke is very bad for you ....100ml cans will never happen ...guaranteed ...only a shitty little profit margin on a 100ml Actually, Coke has managed to remain profitable despite declining sales because they are selling products in smaller containers. The small cans and bottles command a higher profit margin. http://www.businessinsider.com/coca-cola-q2-earnings-shift-to-smaller-packs-2015-7
CdnLimitada Posted March 17, 2016 Posted March 17, 2016 I am a moderate when it comes to this. I couldn't care less about what one person wants to do to their body. Just don't expect me to pay for it when the consequences of said action comes to fruition. As pointed out very clearly and correctly by Zihatoh, sugar (refined especially) is the cause of many serious sicknesses including many cancers. I see a balanced approach as the only solution. Without some regulation from a non-corrupt government it would be anarchy. Straight up communism or total government regulation is not an answer but I see a total free market as a disaster of equal proportions. Expecting a government to be perfect in regulating things is just as silly as expecting people to act selfishly and everything will work out great for all. The whole issue of the taxes on said products actually going to the programs and awareness that they are supposed to or just to the "coffers" of the government is another separate issue. Bottom line for me is that I would be all for taxing the S*%T out of these companies and even some to the consumer just as tobacco and alcohol are. 3
JohnS Posted March 17, 2016 Posted March 17, 2016 They should make a fortune from Irn-Bru sales in Glasgow alone. A tax on Irn-Bru? (I love that stuff!) If he were alive, what would William Wallace do? 2
Guest Posted March 17, 2016 Posted March 17, 2016 Just don't expect me to pay for it when the consequences of said action comes to fruition. Bottom line for me is that I would be all for taxing the S*%T out of these companies and even some to the consumer just as tobacco and alcohol are. Using this logic, you agree it is correct that you are forced to pay a tax, at an exceedingly mind boggling amount for your cigar consumption 'hobby interest - regardless of how safely you moderate your consumption. You agree that you are no different to the guy who smokes a pack a day for 20 years. There is no distinction between you and he. You agree that it's right to be screwed by a government who wants to popularise themselves - by demonising your interest and appeasing a majority who frown upon your pleasure. A slippery slope, man..... a slippery slope. Good topic by the way, Mus. kudos man. Well argued and discussed gents.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now