Sugar Tax.

[Machiavelli]

It's labeling we need, not tax. Food and drink should say how many teaspoons of sugar they have in them.

It's both, and more (public health education, legislation, etc). It's precisely such a multi-faceted approach that has helped shift public perceptions on smoking, and should be extended to foods that are high in sugar, fat and salt, and alcohol. I'm not anti- any of these, in fact I enjoy them, but there is an obesity epidemic. Have a look at the WHO on this.

 

[nwgull]

BMI is a massively flawed system, its nothing more than an OK indicator.

It's flawed for about 10% of the adult male population, other than that it's a fairly good indication.

 

[BigGully]

It's both, and more (public health education, legislation, etc). It's precisely such a multi-faceted approach that has helped shift public perceptions on smoking, and should be extended to foods that are high in sugar, fat and salt, and alcohol. I'm not anti- any of these, in fact I enjoy them, but there is an obesity epidemic. Have a look at the WHO on this.

But those are not bad for you, they are only bad for you if you do not consume them in moderation, as is nearly everything in life.

Anyone over 30 years old know that todays wisdom on anything nutritional is tomorrows debunked science.

Offer information, but get off trying to impinge on others, usually in a position of deluded intellectual superiority, live your life, be happy, eat some sugar not too much and let those that are just outside some flawed government measure get on with their life, it doesnt show ignorance or imminent early death, it might be a wholly reasonable lifestyle choice and it doesnt effect you and is non of your business.

 

[Machiavelli]

But those are not bad for you, they are only bad for you if you do not consume them in moderation, as is nearly everything in life.

Anyone over 30 years old know that todays wisdom on anything nutritional is tomorrows debunked science.

Offer information, but get off trying to impinge on others, usually in a position of deluded intellectual superiority, live your life, be happy, eat some sugar not too much and let those that are just outside some flawed government measure get on with their life, it doesnt show ignorance or imminent early death, it might be a wholly reasonable lifestyle choice and it doesnt effect you and is non of your business.

I am over 30 and am obviously in a position of deluded intellectual superiority but still maintain that there's an obesity epidemic, and that it's going to take more than your platitudes for it to be debunked tomorrow, and that it'll continue to be of epidemic proportions while a libertarian mindset holds sway, rather than being tackled by concerted action by government and professionals.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

I mean by a progressive (and I accept this is a loaded term, hence your scare quotes) tax the old-fashioned, redistributive principle whereby those that earn more pay not only more tax but ascending levels on their higher earnings. To update this slightly, it would also entail ensuring that the loopholes exploited by transnational businesses were taken seriously by governments. On this, there's a lot of recent work being done, see especially Gabriel Zucman:

http://gabriel-zucman.eu





It might be that on these tax issues, we start to disagree. Which is OK in my book.

Yes we do disagree

I think that when you earn more you should pay more, but this is all accomodated, and fairly, if we all pay the same percentage. It is not fair that once you earn more than a certain amount, then the percentage you are taxed increases. If, for example, I pay 40% on income up to £40K, that's £16K. If I pay 50% on income above £40K, and I earn £80K, then I am paying £20K tax on the second half of my earnings. Why should I pay £16K on the first £40K and £20K on the next? It is not 'fair' and it disincentivises me (or would do were the extent to which I work hard was determined by this). I cannot find any logical ethical or economic reason to justify this. If I earn £40K and pay $16K tax, then I would expect to pay double tax if I earn double. If, not, and I earn £50K then I might start looking into legal tax buffering to protect the extra £ 10K (offsetting my tax via the various mechanisms of investmenmt etc). That wastes my time. It also means the tax man needs to employ staff to check what I have done. This may well create lots of jobs, but does any of this increase UK productivity? 'Flat rate tax, no ifs and buts' would be easy to administer and would be fair. Those on low incomes would pay more tax (in actual pounds) if the cut off below which no tax is paid were abolished. I am less sure about this, but something tells me that if we all paid the same % tax then we would all feel equally part of the system. My brother disagrees with this and is in favour of a complex 'progressive' tax, but he does not seem to understand that X % of Y means that if you earn Z more than Y (Y+Z) then you pay more tax (X% of Y plus X % of Z). He thinks this is unfair on the person paying less tax (X % of Y). He has a degree in English . . . . .

I would be interested to know how you would argue that tax that is incremental by percentage is more fair than a flat % tax . . . .

 

[El Presidente]

But those are not bad for you, they are only bad for you if you do not consume them in moderation, as is nearly everything in life.

Anyone over 30 years old know that todays wisdom on anything nutritional is tomorrows debunked science.

Offer information, but get off trying to impinge on others, usually in a position of deluded intellectual superiority, live your life, be happy, eat some sugar not too much and let those that are just outside some flawed government measure get on with their life, it doesnt show ignorance or imminent early death, it might be a wholly reasonable lifestyle choice and it doesnt effect you and is non of your business.

If it didn't cost me anything then I might go along with what you say.

However 10% of the total NHS cost now goes on diabetes costs, and diabetes is preventable by reducing sugar intake.

It's therefore in everyone's interest to cut down on sugar consumption, how best that should be addressed is a separate issue.

The diabetes cost to the country was £23.7 billion, surely this cost could be better utilised elsewhere?

 

[BigGully]

I am over 30 and am obviously in a position of deluded intellectual superiority but still maintain that there's an obesity epidemic, and that it's going to take more than your platitudes for it to be debunked tomorrow, and that it'll continue to be of epidemic proportions while a libertarian mindset holds sway, rather than being tackled by concerted action by government and professionals.

Wow, I might accept that in some measure there is obesity, but I do not see this impending doom of an epidemic I really dont, most children are healthy and bright, most adults might need to lose half a stone to fit into todays genre of body image, but beyond that most seem quite happy and content.

I see some fattish people and now and again I see some morbid obese people and I cant help thinking that they have an underlying psychological or dysfunctional behaviour pattern, its beyond 5p on a can of fizzy drink or a mars bar or two, they know why they cannot fit through their front door and its more than an over active thyroid gland thats for sure.

In every aspect of human life there are extremes, it shouldn't follow we need to impinge on everyones personal space in the forlorn hope that we can stop just a single one and there is some risk of effecting the self image of an otherwise healthy child, leave well alone.

 

[Machiavelli]

Yes we do disagree

I think that when you earn more you should pay more, but this is all accomodated, and fairly, if we all pay the same percentage. It is not fair that once you earn more than a certain amount, then the percentage you are taxed increases. If, for example, I pay 40% on income up to £40K, that's £16K. If I pay 50% on income above £40K, and I earn £80K, then I am paying £20K tax on the second half of my earnings. Why should I pay £16K on the first £40K and £20K on the next? It is not 'fair' and it disincentivises me (or would do were the extent to which I work hard was determined by this). I cannot find any logical ethical or economic reason to justify this. If I earn £40K and pay $16K tax, then I would expect to pay double tax if I earn double. If, not, and I earn £50K then I might start looking into legal tax buffering to protect the extra £ 10K (offsetting my tax via the various mechanisms of investmenmt etc). That wastes my time. It also means the tax man needs to employ staff to check what I have done. This may well create lots of jobs, but does any of this increase UK productivity? 'Flat rate tax, no ifs and buts' would be easy to administer and would be fair. Those on low incomes would pay more tax (in actual pounds) if the cut off below which no tax is paid were abolished. I am less sure about this, but something tells me that if we all paid the same % tax then we would all feel equally part of the system. My brother disagrees with this and is in favour of a complex 'progressive' tax, but he does not seem to understand that X % of Y means that if you earn Z more than Y (Y+Z) then you pay more tax (X% of Y plus X % of Z). He thinks this is unfair on the person paying less tax (X % of Y). He has a degree in English . . . . .

I would be interested to know how you would argue that tax that is incremental by percentage is more fair than a flat % tax . . . .

Broadly because I take a totally different view to who we are. Your view is informed by individualism, or the one you're expressing here is. Mine is informed by the fact that there are certain attributes -- particularly language and knowledge -- that mean that comprise any claims about individuality, and make us something beyond that. I'm not particularly attached to any term to characterise this, although human and people might do that job.
The view you're expressing here -- and you characterise it as both ethical and economic -- is that individuals deserve to keep their hard-earned income (or, more accurately, that beyond a flat-rate of tax they should). I think those individuals are benefiting from an economic system that rewards people disproportionately, and from a society that provides them with certain skills (via the education system, for instance), and that governments should respond to the unfairness (see I can use that word too) of disproportionate incomes largely set by the market by taxing those that can afford to more heavily, and to reinvest that in not only public infrastructure but towards building a more sustainable society where we work less, and have more time to enrich our social relations.
I do appreciate that I'm going against the grain here somewhat, but I think we're both of the position that it's fine for us to attempt to persuade each other (and others still) of our views.

 

[Machiavelli]

Wow, I might accept that in some measure there is obesity, but I do not see this impending doom of an epidemic I really dont, most children are healthy and bright, most adults might need to lose half a stone to fit into todays genre of body image, but beyond that most seem quite happy and content.

I see some fattish people and now and again I see some morbid obese people and I cant help thinking that they have an underlying psychological or dysfunctional behaviour pattern, its beyond 5p on a can of fizzy drink or a mars bar or two, they know why they cannot fit through their front door and its more than an over active thyroid gland thats for sure.

In every aspect of human life there are extremes, it shouldn't follow we need to impinge on everyones personal space in the forlorn hope that we can stop just a single one and there is some risk of effecting the self image of an otherwise healthy child, leave well alone.

There seems little that can persuade you. I keep on invoking the WHO on this. Their reports are easily accessible, and the language they use is of an obesity epidemic. With respect, it's them that I'm going to base my position on.

 

[BigGully]

If it didn't cost me anything then I might go along with what you say.

However 10% of the total NHS cost now goes on diabetes costs, and diabetes is preventable by reducing sugar intake.

It's therefore in everyone's interest to cut down on sugar consumption, how best that should be addressed is a separate issue.

The diabetes cost to the country was £23.7 billion, surely this cost could be better utilised elsewhere?

Matter of scale and splurge.

I do not know your own drinking habits but mine are pretty healthy (in a social sense), I enjoy social drinking it enhances my life, I sometimes drink too much and fall down and I sometimes abstain.

I can only suspect that a professor of medical stuff could measure the likely damage and therefore cost to me personally and to the NHS and put together an argument to try and control my own decision to act as I do.

I do not care, my social drinking has never caused harm or sanction and I cannot help thinking I wish to partake this evening as well, its how I roll.

No amount of formulation of cost to me, you or the NHS should impinge on my legal right to make my own choices, anyway the medical man is a functioning alcoholic, I can tell by his bulbous nose !!!

 

[looney]

People are so stupid. This kind of tax is nothing more that legalised theft.

All tax is theft. Tax should be neutral and used to influence behaviour via incetives. Its allways baffled me that buying a meal is cheaper than just a burger and drink/coffee, ie a discount on fries which are effectivley free. In any normal world more food costs more, if the marketing has become this warped then a tax is valid imo.

They can put pictures of sugar lumps on other products via regulation.

Was also wondering when the shills for big sugar would role in here, Tate and Lyle topping up their bank accounts as they type. Wake up sheeple.

 

[El Presidente]

Matter of scale and splurge.

I do not know your own drinking habits but mine are pretty healthy (in a social sense), I enjoy social drinking it enhances my life, I sometimes drink too much and fall down and I sometimes abstain.

I can only suspect that a professor of medical stuff could measure the likely damage and therefore cost to me personally and to the NHS and put together an argument to try and control my own decision to act as I do.

I do not care, my social drinking has never caused harm or sanction and I cannot help thinking I wish to partake this evening as well, its how I roll.

No amount of formulation of cost to me, you or the NHS should impinge on my legal right to make my own choices, anyway the medical man is a functioning alcoholic, I can tell by his bulbous nose !!!

Fair enough BG, alcohol is however taxed, and quite heavily too.

I'm all for choice, which I why I follow the Albion despite working in Liverpool and living in Manchester for most of my life.

I've never tasted booze, but it's a long and unpleasant story why.

 

[Machiavelli]

Fair enough BG, alcohol is however taxed, and quite heavily too.

I'm all for choice, which I why I follow the Albion despite working in Liverpool and living in Manchester for most of my life.

I've never tasted booze, but it's a long and unpleasant story why.

Now I understand. No booze, so your vices are re-directed elsewhere and explains much of your output on here

 

[El Presidente]

Now I understand. No booze, so your vices are re-directed elsewhere and explains much of your output on here

Yup.

No booze, no drugs, no gambling, no smoking, but I AM going to hell (which for me will probably be a place where porn is unavailable).

 

[Machiavelli]

Yup.

No booze, no drugs, no gambling, no smoking, but I AM going to hell (which for me will probably be a place where porn is unavailable).

I differ on some of these, but I like your style.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Broadly because I take a totally different view to who we are. Your view is informed by individualism, or the one you're expressing here is. Mine is informed by the fact that there are certain attributes -- particularly language and knowledge -- that mean that comprise any claims about individuality, and make us something beyond that. I'm not particularly attached to any term to characterise this, although human and people might do that job.
The view you're expressing here -- and you characterise it as both ethical and economic -- is that individuals deserve to keep their hard-earned income (or, more accurately, that beyond a flat-rate of tax they should). I think those individuals are benefiting from an economic system that rewards people disproportionately, and from a society that provides them with certain skills (via the education system, for instance), and that governments should respond to the unfairness (see I can use that word too) of disproportionate incomes largely set by the market by taxing those that can afford to more heavily, and to reinvest that in not only public infrastructure but towards building a more sustainable society where we work less, and have more time to enrich our social relations.
I do appreciate that I'm going against the grain here somewhat, but I think we're both of the position that it's fine for us to attempt to persuade each other (and others still) of our views.

Nice to chat. I agree with all of your comments, except the notion that taxing the richer 'more heavily' means more than in proportion to their earnings. I appreciate that is sort of seems fairer to tax high income at a higher percentage, but it just doesn't add up.

The complex tax system we have, which is complex largely because we are not all required to pay the same percentage, is exactly the reason rich people can avoid tax - the incremental percentage, which is not fair, has been modified so that if you do a few noble things like charity, investing in people etc., you get a bit of respite.

Thus Lord Vesty who is minted, famously legally paid a tenner in income tax some years ago, while the average earner, without the funds to pay someone to work out a cunning plan, pay their full wack without much if any offsetting.

And people earn income as full time tax advisors.

And people earn income as full time tax return accountants.

This is not only unfair and wrong, it is a complete waste of everyone's time.

I say this as a lifelong labour voter, and someone who hopes that Jezza will somehow prevail (although my expectation nowhere matches my hopes).

All the best

 

[Machiavelli]

Nice to chat. I agree with all of your comments, except the notion that taxing the richer 'more heavily' means more than in proportion to their earnings. I appreciate that is sort of seems fairer to tax high income at a higher percentage, but it just doesn't add up.

The complex tax system we have, which is complex largely because we are not all required to pay the same percentage, is exactly the reason rich people can avoid tax - the incremental percentage, which is not fair, has been modified so that if you do a few noble things like charity, investing in people etc., you get a bit of respite.

Thus Lord Vesty who is minted, famously legally paid a tenner in income tax some years ago, while the average earner, without the funds to pay someone to work out a cunning plan, pay their full wack without much if any offsetting.

And people earn income as full time tax advisors.

And people earn income as full time tax return accountants.

This is not only unfair and wrong, it is a complete waste of everyone's time.

I say this as a lifelong labour voter, and someone who hopes that Jezza will somehow prevail (although my expectation nowhere matches my hopes).

All the best

Something's afoot, but I'm not so sure that Jezza will prevail. I remain to be convinced that he's got it in him, but am always open to being pleasantly surprised. I think all of that lot you're talking about can be dealt with by bolstering HMRC rather than running it down. Thankfully this is the view of Richard Murphy of the Tax Justice Network, who has all of a sudden become more prominent with the rise of said Jezza.
We shall see, us thwarted optimists, if I may.

 

[Leekbrookgull]

Walking to school doesn't constitute a valid reason for such soaring obesity though. I'm quite involved in this issue and there is a wealth of evidence that activity levels are a very small part of the problem and that very young children remain very active (in terms of overall calorie expenditure).

In one of the largest studies done, it was found that obesity preceded inactivity in children. The steady increase in "empty" calories and "high insulin" diet has resulted in the current situation. Sugar is added to everything (bread, pasta sauce etc) and we have become ever more tolerant to it.

The background to the sugar lobby is very interesting - in the 70s, US farmers were saved by subsidised corn syrup and from then on the lobbyists ensured that fat was painted as the reason for poor health and sugar was presented as healthy.

This could be a regressive tax but it should be used to make cheaper alternative options and legislate down the sugar content in all foods.

Maybe one reason for less obesity years ago was 'mother's home cooked food which would have been veg based and a sweet which was not sweet if you follow me.