Drink tax is here!

[Zigatoh]

Same! Though I should also now admit that due to a fest of classic American films (ghost busters 1&2 and zombie land ;-)) I've eaten a shitload of twinkies, sno balls, and extra long cherry twizzlers recently :-D

[Zigatoh]

Twizzlers - "low fat snack" (proudly declared on the label...)

[Colt45]

I think drivers who regularly exceed the government prescribed speed limits thereby endangering their own lives as well as the lives of those around them, are the worst. I think all cars should be electronically controlled so as to not allow anybody to surpass said limits. And we should be taxed extra just to drive home the point (as well as make the government more money).

And those aftermarket exhausts....

No one should be allowed to purchase, possess, or consume more than one liter of alcohol per year. For any reason.

Anyone using a mobile device while in motion - be it in or on a vehicle - or while walking, should be shocked by said device. Enough to make one poop their pants. Anyone taking photos of their food in restaurants should receive double the shock.

[CaptainQuintero]

Isn't this UK sugar tax simply on sugar content per 100ml without specify sugar type?

Just read that the money 'should' be going towards sport in primary schools, which can't be bad when 1 in 10 children starting primary school (age 4) in the UK are considered obese, and 1 in 5 when they leave primary school (age 11).

Not surprising when one 330 ml can of full fat coke has more sugar than the recommended daily intake for an 11 year old!

I still don't get why anyone drinks full fat instead of diet fizzy drinks, which tend to have a grand total of zero sugar...

There's been research starting to come out the shows sweeteners while calorie free (aspartame and a few others) still trick the body into spiking, only stevia (plant based) seems to not perform the same as sugar in terms of blood sugar.

Wether that is because aspartame and the others are synthesised in a lab from chemicals and are not a natural plant extract like stevia has something to do with it I'm not sure. I only read the report briefly a few months ago

So in terms of health, diet colas etc may not be as clear cut as as thought

For the topic, I'm a great believer in everything in moderation. From a government who are cutting disability payments by 30% from literally the most vulnerable in society while giving themselves 10% payrises I'm not surprised in the slightly that they would pass short sighted legislation. This law is purely a tax hike disguised in a populist think tank inspired idea.

[CaptainQuintero]

Well, the Tories certainly grabbed the headlines on this one -" here's an idea for a tax on bad stuff and we'll give the money to make children better". Really? C'mon, see through the smokescreen.

They have created the headline, they have controlled the media message and they are defining the debate. It's a political tactic that has been used again and again to distract the populace from other issues and actions that are way more controversial, underhand, immoral even (some of which have been touched upon in this thread).

A sugar tax is mostly unworkable, would be ineffective in combating the stated aims and would be challenged and diluted if the suggestion ever went any further.

They know this.

And people are complicit in this manipulation whether they know it or not.

I don't have a solution - I only have cynical disregard for Westminster politics, national media and the willing submission of the majority. I rage, I calm down and I carry on with my life, my way. They will pass and the sun will rise again. **** 'em.

I think you hit the nail on the head; everyone is talking about the sugar tax, now a few are talking about the tampon tax. No one is talking about the slashing of the disability payments for those in the most critical category.

There was something a while ago about you can judge a nation by how it treats it's most vulnerable. It's a standout piece of knowledge that seems to be lacking nowadays.

[CaptainQuintero]

Pigster, the issue is complex over here. It isn't what you would think instinctively guess at. After the war the nation was rubble, cities were bombed flat the survivors had been under severe rationing and millions had just returned from all corners of the globe fighting for their country. Churchill decided he would keep high taxes and go about rebuilding the empire and past for it with that money and the lives of the returning soldiers.

The opposition said that would leave the empire to decide what it wanted for itself, nations could become independent if they wished, no more fighting to keep people subjected would happen and more importantly to give something back from a grateful government, the nation would ensure they were looked after from the cradle to the grave by a national healthcare. This would be paid for out of the savings from winding down policing the empire.

It was a choice between having a huge lumbering military budget, or a smaller one and a healthcare system.

Incidentally there was no third option of 'or just have a third off your taxes!'

The system was designed to be a safety net, it's something everyone is proud of having here. For example my father worked from the age of 16 in a steelworks, my mother was the first ever woman in the country to hold a senior management position in the national telecommunications company. My sister was unlucky enough to be born with a cancerous growth in one eye (retinoblastoma) but under the NHS she was able to be treated by the best team in the world in London (The top two optical oncologists at the time worked in the NHS). The care she recieved over the 4 year process ran into multiple millions of pounds. Without the NHS my sister would simply have had to be left untreated an die.

The system was a safety net for those in need by no fault of their own.

Nowadays however it has become somewhat of a mirror of your expressions. Overweight people can get gastric band surgery paid for by the NHS, and women who have self confidence issues due to the size of their breasts can get breast enlargement paid for entirely by the NHS to fix the mental side of the issue.

The sugar tax, while not under the NHS budget, is the widening gap of "piss taking" that has transformed the noble system of a safety net to something very close to an entitlement system. Something which has started rumblings of dismantling the NHS.

I suspect the answer to the issue lies somewhere in between your thinking and the opposite.

Wholesale overhaul of healthcare and social securities are something that nations with ageing populations and struggling unemployment

[Zigatoh]

Hi Cap, if you mean the studies mentioned here I think more research is needed but it's not conclusive like you say by a long way -http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20150127-are-sweeteners-really-bad-for-us

I'd say the study from 2013 that found no link to diabetes still stands, not only because the new study used equivalent to 40 cans a day of diet drinks but also due to the size of the study (300,000 people were considered in the 2013 study).

Happy to read anything else you can link to but I'm still for this sugar tax :-)

[CdnLimitada]

All in all, life is not fair, perfect nor safe! Accept it and live free or surrender to egalitarian masterminds and live as their slave and with the same risk an inequity!

The best place for kids is with their parents, imperfect as they are, two of them, male and female where someone with values raises them to be good to themselves and to others. Government will never be that, nor do that!!! Never...

Poverty today means an iPhone, cable TV and enough money to eat fast food. The poorest people are also some of the most addicted, poorest health and fattest. Make 'em get a job!!!! Stop feeding them for free to get fatter and make them give up the $200 sneakers to pay for their own doctor!!!

That my friend is one way to start solving the problem...

Next, get the government out of the school system! Stop teaching our kids that they are 'owed' something from society that they don't contribute to and that losing is as good as winning. Maybe when kids start picking on fat kids again, some of them will lose weight!!! Ever think of the old "free market" approach? You coddle and protect the fat kid with your PC crap, then blame the sugar company on his health... Jesus, is this not obviously a scapegoat?

No, we call them bullies and tell little fat Jonny it is okay... The free market works mate. I am no slender man, I am not built that way and when I wanted to get laid in school I took the fat off! It played a large part in ruining my joints (sports, working out etc.) but I am a better man for it. Today I still change my own oil, mow my own lawn, and build my own home additions...! I AM A F'N MAN!

Give freedom a chance and stop coddling people at my expenses. Your way of thinking gets us less freedom, and less joy in life. It makes it harder to fire a bum, thin out the fat kids, and robs the fat kid of the pride of personal achievement. In your world mate, achievement is punished and failure is rewarded as there is never personal responsibility as long as there is a corporate scapegoat. When people start working at their own problems and mistakes then they are the better for it. It worked for me and generations before me and it would work today if you and many like you stopped believing that life would be better run by a Utopian mastermind!!!

By the way. That mastermind likely failed at work, and is in government as a result. His kids are fat, he has been divorced several times and likely drinks to fall asleep. Men are not Gods... I would have to say that most in politics are not even men, while they may be male!

Thanks for asking! -Piggy

I don't fully understand the position. I get that you want the government out of life in general but do you mean that things would be better off with no regulation? What about infrastructure like roads, bridges, building codes, airline safety standards? If left to corporations most of these things would be terrifying to count on.

Not sure why many think that it needs to be black or white. Of course there is ALWAYS a risk of a slippery slope. You have to be careful of what you ask for. Look at the US and Donald Trump It doesn't mean that you scrap the whole thing. There is no perfect system. History has shown us that (and the present still proves that).

I still think that when the science is overwhelming about how bad sugars are, we should have no problem calling it out. Again, if you want to eat crap, not exercise and develop very preventable issues, GO FOR IT!!! I just don't want to support you when you are sick from it and require hundreds of thousands in care. I am not even sure who would argue the opposite in this regard.

Is the argument, "People should be able to do what they want and I will gladly pay as long as that means the government stays out of my life"? Expecting people to just be responsible is not realistic so the sicknesses will occur regardless. Expecting the government to be perfect is also unrealistic. Happy/unhappy medium.

[PigFish]

Perhaps I will post more on this later. I have been thinking of a general reply, not to this question but to the thread in general but I can see the post taking 2 hours out of my day. With the stack of email that i have and the projects left undone, I just cannot go there.

A couple of things. First, Ziggy, thanks for not taking offense to an opposing position. I post almost always for edification, not agitation nor animosity. There are plenty of people who read threads who might take something from it. People with staunch opposing views will not likely change there minds, but in a broader "conflict" of ideas and ideals, I post to enlighten others, if they choose to be enlightened.

Captain... I would like to get to more of what you have written but let me say this for now. I am not picking on a county's healthcare system. I am not talking specifics, because when that is done, that is when the most tempers flair and people get caught up in the minutia of the "exact" argument that they are making. I am not taking jabs at anyone's country. I am making broader, sweeping political statements about a mindset and how the minutia of a specific problem may seem to be well directed and on course, until it proves to be a poorly conceived nightmare to ones country and other aspects of the broader economy and society. I am not "jabbing" your country's system. I don't have to deal with it. That is for you and your countrymen to work out and deem appropriate for your neighbors, not mine.

With that come some of the concept of centralized government. In the example where it might work good for one country and be a disaster for another comes a general lesson about centralized government, and centralized authority. How can I tell another country what is good or not good for them? Sure, I can guess at it, but not being a part of your society, other than our common heritage as mankind, I am too far removed to deem your situation wrong for you. I do believe that centralized government, furthest from the people that it is to serve is a disservice. In that way, and therefore in being consistent, I can believe that my principles are best for your country as "free people" but I would not wish to impose my will on them! Localized, responsive and detailed government closest to the people that it serves is the best form (IMHO). Imposing my will on your people would be contradictive to my position...

About the post above... As stated, I am not an anarchist. Anarchism is fine for parties of one! Living with my wife, I can attest that it does not work with parties > than 1-LOL.

I am talking, not of the catch phrase, "a slippery slope" but of a broader concept, "the big picture." My philosophy is not based on idealism, the prevailing philosophy that I am often arguing against. I am not an idealist. I have studied enough of the well know philosophers that were used in building my county's political system to agree with them that it is in the understanding that people are not perfect, and government's, comprised of the very same imperfect people is not altruistic or in itself perfect.

As they concluded, the only means by which human rights can be preserved is by understand them as a gift from God, and not mankind, nor government. Anything within mans power, controlled by man is therefore transient and unreliable. As man is transient in nature and unreliable, often corrupt and dishonest. But Natures Law, or the Laws of God are not. There is a higher order (my specific religion removed intentionally) and that law must be respected by and understood by all men (if) men are to remain free! That is a foothold in understanding my position.

Where we go from here is a matter of a macro, or micro view of a specific problem and where it takes us. As stated, I am not arguing centralized healthcare per say. I am arguing the flaws with attempting to mastermind hundreds of millions of free souls by a handful of masterminds. History has shown, that is not mankind's highest and best form of government. What appears to no longer be taught, is the history of freedom and the philosophy of mankind, where we get caught up in the minutia of the moments crisis.

People, in my country at least, are largely taught idealism of the Utopian, rather than the proven ground that provide them freedom, industry, the middle class, and what was at least at one point in time, the most successful and free society on earth. It is the search of Utopianism that now dominates the discussion. It requires rejecting man's nature, reeducating him, coercing him, punishing him and rewarding him though a system of laws, laws that become increasing centralized and further from his interests and his needs, that are proving to have far reaching and negative effects on his society and his economy.

There is always a reason and rationale for greater government and more control over society. It frankly never ends with the Utopian mindset. When caught up in the minutia of the moment, the transient need and cause always appears to well meaning and well thought out... Yet history has show that these master plans, while they may work for sometime have far reaching effects that do more damage than benefit over time. It appears to me, that perfection society is an impossibility, and governments can do not good by trying.

With localized government, you can test it and try it out without destroying the whole of society. If it works out, it can spread. If not, it can die out with the rest of the bad ideas... With localized government, you can bang on your neighbor's door and do something about it. One and all can be active and activist! Furthermore, one can flee it! The economy of free people near you can prove or disprove your theory by the simple migration of disaffected parties.

So to conclude I am discussing a mindset. I discuss it here around friends whom presumably have a baseline of similar thought. We all enjoy a good cigar. With that foothold of common ground I find a pathway to work with people on my (certainly not original) concepts of freedom. I fight the populist government Utopian mindset here because we have the common ground. If one can understand that in his world his freedoms are diminished via the Utopian mindset, then perhaps he can understand that his part of the Utopian mindset is also doing damage to others and is therefore flawed.

That is my point! I wish I had the time to take it further. I cannot answer every hole in the argument, but would if I had the time! It is that important to me! Someone needs to teach the benefits of freedom again. I try to do it in an inoffensive way any time and place that I can. My mindset of freedom and personal liberty is in harmony with my desire to smoke my cigars. Is yours? Or are you the same as the smoke Nazis, you are just blind to your vice while being critical of another's.

That is what I want you to think about.

Oh, and for the record... I stopped drinking soft drinks at 13. It was a free choice not imposed upon me. I am anti-softdrink (for me) but my desire for freedom and my respect for the freedom of others is consistent. I don't smoke, nor have I ever smoked cigarettes or drugs. I am totally against them (for me) but respect the freedom of others!!! I do not drink alcohol, maybe 6 total beers (real beer) in a year. I believe alcohol is one of the most damaging drugs to mankind ever consumed. Frankly I hate the stuff... and what I have seen its use do to people's lives, even in my libertarian mind could be considered criminal. YET, my desire to respect the freedom of others outweighs my personal opinion of the stuff. It does not pour itself into people. People take it freely, and I want it, against my judgment and bias against it, to stay that way!!!

Freedom is a mindset. Up with freedom!

-Piggy

[Colt45]

That is what I want you to think about.

Bravo Ray, bravo.

Inviting in one "we know what's good for you-er" opens the door for them all. For me there's really no difference between those who don't believe one should be allowed to have soft drinks, and those who would banish cigars.

Just last night, there was a segment on the local news regarding school lunches the gist of which was that while getting better, they are still not always as "healthy" as they could be. My first thought: if one is concerned about what their child is eating for lunch at school, one should pack them a lunch to bring with them....

[PigFish]

Bravo Ray, bravo.

Inviting in one "we know what's good for you-er" opens the door for them all. For me there's really no difference between those who don't believe one should be allowed to have soft drinks, and those who would banish cigars.

Just last night, there was a segment on the local news regarding school lunches the gist of which was that while getting better, they are still not always as "healthy" as they could be. My first thought: if one is concerned about what their child is eating for lunch at school, one should pack them a lunch to bring with them....

Thanks mate!

I am hoping that the centroid of the smoking fraternity proves itself, at least in a case or two, to be stronger than the Utopian mindset. I would prefer that freedom be a war of ideas and not bullets.

-Ray

[Guest]

Piggy, you have articulated the thoughts, ideas and philosophies I was trying to put forward.

Thank you, Sir.

[Akela3rd]

Woke up this morning and IDS resigns ministerial position over disability benefit. Hahahahahahaha!

As I said - they will pass and the sun will rise again. It ain't philosophy, it's empirical fact it would seem.

Coke anyone?

[Zigatoh]

They will pass, but there's always another to take their place, so does it matter?

[Akela3rd]

True - but if it makes me smile of a morning, I'll take it.

Little victories Mr Z, little victories.

[PigFish]

Piggy, you have articulated the thoughts, ideas and philosophies I was trying to put forward.

Thank you, Sir.

Thank you my friend. Positive peer reviews are always welcome. After proofreading my last post it is a wonder anyone could understand it... -LOL Lot'a typos!

People who love freedom can no longer have a laissez faire attitude towards engaging about it. Defend it or lose it. Those that would steal your liberty, by design or my happenstance need to be stopped, and education is the first choice (by me).

-Ray

[Fugu]

Very interesting thread, gents. Can't get too deep into the discussion, but just one aspect,

In fact the whole food thing is a nightmare,

It is not, if people would eventually learn to listen to their body again. It is easy if people would simply consume less heavily processed, artificial food. For that it needs enlightenment and not a tax.

But the effects of calorific intake alone are vastly overestimated, and a unifactorial focus on that is not appropriate to tackle the obesity problem. The true cause is our particular way of living. Today's main problem is the lack of physical activity with some kids spending hours and hours immobile in front of TV, computer, smartphone and commuting in their parents' cars instead of using the bike. Crikey, kids even already show motoric disabilites! Organic dysfunctions left aside, an active kid will always find its own healthy balance between energy intake and expenditure. Active kids don't become obese. Cause and effect. The question must be 'how to spend the day' as much as 'what to eat/drink today'.

Taxing foodstuff is hypocritical and leading nowhere.

But - this all is about society and not about a governmental stepping in. There is no way gov can control the physical excercise of our kids. And it should not of course, it can make offers. We all have to work on that, no legislation or taxation needed. People tend to confuse that when calling for the nanny state and not thinking about their own personal responsibility and their particular options to effect something, e.g. in form of active citizenship and volunteer engagement.

[Zigatoh]

Ah fugu, I agree with what you say. Except that the quote was taken out of context. Or at least the context I was trying to put forward. Which was that taxing the sugar content of drinks (excluding pure fruit juice and I think milk as well) based on sugar content is easier or perhaps more sensible than trying the same with food as the sugar content of food doesn't necessarily correlate with the effect on blood sugars - the example given being fruit where in most cases the effect is diminished by the rest of the fruit, fiber and so on. At the very least there would be a much more complex set of exclusions which would also have to take into account any processing and potentially even method of cooking as these can also change the same.

[Fugu]

No, I got that. Either way, your example just proves how absurd the idea of taxing a particular "unhealthy" food component is, be it its concentration or its supposed physiological effect on the organism. No matter which "calculation basis", it is just another way of collecting peoples' money with no actual avail to the claimed health benefits. It is a matter of doses. And why do I have to pay higher prices on my reasonable and moderate use of sugar, just because other consumers act irresponsible? For fat the same, we need fat in our diet, it is healthy, certain fatty acids are even essential. Why and how tax that?? Can't stress it enough - it's a matter of ration. It is just plain stupid to think one could apply a general tax to certain food components, be it sugar, other carbohydrates, fat or else.

Anyway, was only a minor point in my argumentation, which was more targeting towards another call for a nanny function of the state. It's really ridiculous, we, resp. our govs allow the industry to produce this trash in the first place (diet products, such as low-fat, low-carb etc. expressly included!), and then we, the consumers whine and beg for this trash to be higher priced (taxed), so that we don't buy it... ?