UK Sugar Tax - It's War!

#21
People don't want to be responsible and don't take care of themselves. That's why we give more and more power to the government. It's easier like that. Thus, the nanny state.

I'm all for free choice, but people want only rights, not obligations and that's why we ''need'' somebody to take care of us. The government has to impose regulations 'cause:
1. it's not fair that somebody who's on a diet, does exercise, whatever ...pays for someone else's bad habits.
2. because of already too much nanny state and government takes care of all people simply don't think, it's ''FREE'' and thus there's no reasonable spending and everything costs much more = MORAL HAZARD

If somebody said: You have one life, live it by your own choice but nobody will take care of you meaning if you smoke 2 packs and drink 2 liters of Cola a day nobody will pay for treatments of lung cancer or obesity I bet we would think a bit more.
In a system in which we live - who cares? I'm gonna keep smoking, won't save any money and the NHC/Government/Other People will pay for that.
 
Last edited:
#25
As with most things responsibility, healthy living and so on need to be learnt. To be learnt it needs to be taught both by instruction and by having a lifestyle that makes it seem worthwhile. On the whole the poorer and less educated people are the unhealthier they are, the less they care about their environment. The more unequal a society is the more that people feel aggrieved and think they should be helped. When most of many peoples education comes from TV and social media many of their ideas stem from advertising and celebrity culture, we can hardly complain when they act it out.

The larger and more nuclear a population becomes the more need there is for a 'Nanny State' to replace the role of family and local public opinion. If you don't know your neighbours who cares what they think.

I have no problem with my taxes funding the NHS and the NHS being used to treat all illnesses or injuries whether self inflicted or not. I'll not blame anyone in our present society for making bad choices.
 
#26
If a non obese healthy adult now wants to consume a normal soft drink that doesn't have artificial sweeteners, they are limited to two major products - Coca Cola Classic and Pepsi. Even in restaurants, adult drinks are adulterated with artificial sweeteners.
 
#28
I used to enjoy regular Pepsi now and again and flavoured fizzy water/diet soft drinks the rest of the time but for the past month or so i've cut them out and now I just drink tap water and tea. I got really sick of the artificially sweetened stuff and decided that i'd stop drinking them since I wasnt really enjoying them anyway and I heard that the aspartame and saccharine stuff they put in them might not be all that good for you (not that sugar is much better). Like Sabre says so many soft drinks like taste nothing like they used to either including my second favourite Barrs Cream Soda which seemed to change overnight without any notice unlike the Irn Bru debacle.

Now that i've just stuck to water for a month or so I dont really miss soft drinks, I used to drink a can or sometimes two a day but now I dont look for them anymore when im thirsty. It was a bit bland the first few days but after a week just drinking water when I was thirsty I got used to it. I dont know if its all in the head but I feel a lot better just drinking water.
 
#32
Scandinavia owes its status due to years of capitalism, liberation and less government. When they reached a certain level of growth, development and richness they could become more socially aware. Even now, they have a mix of free markets, less regulation which allows them to have a welfare state. Some examples: they don't have minimum wage laws as opposed to the UK, they have a lot of private hospitals and clinics, their education system works on vouchers....
They CAN afford it, at least for the time being, but also with many indicators are showing their economies are slowing.
In a nutshell, Scandinavian countries have Social Democracy, not Democratic Socialism.
 
Last edited:
#34
I have no idea what the comparison of economic models has to do with taxing sugar.

I suppose there is a general agreement of a rejection of the big corporates who deal out nothing but a bland and sanitised product of the lowest denominator and an hope for a post-capitalist small scale, artisinal model of cooperation with no desire to stamp out others in the same field but bring quality and variety to market.

Just as Imperialism had had its day, capitalism too has had its day. Russia and China are the new free-marketeers and raw capitalists, and we can see just how this is terrifying the older capitalist economies which are desperately trying to keep a toe in the water by retreating into protectionism. I sense it won't last long; another generation or so.

Perhaps the artisinal model is just a reboot of capitalism, which has most certainly become entirely ridiculous and absolutely counter-productive.

I'll pick up what @Count of Undolpho said above - you can't fault people for imbibing what the capitalist machine has literally forced down their throats. Now it's a problem we should do something about it, but switching out sugar for other sweeteners is nothing but an answer for the corporates to their tax problem.

I'd rather wait in line for something I actually want than put up with the cheapest that can be produced.
 
#38
I know a four-year-old who has fillings from too much sugar.
That is tremendously depressing. Poor kid.

Edit: on the other hand, I did a work experience at a dental practice. One regular patient had terrible teeth from too much carb intake, as a result of a condition in which their body used sugars at an alarming rate.
Similarly, crisps are terrible for your teeth as the starch is stickier, binds to teeth more than sugar and breaks down into sugars which subsequently rot the teeth.
 
#39
''switching out sugar for other sweeteners is nothing but an answer for the corporates to their tax problem'' - That's why Sugar tax has everything to do with economic and political models.

Apparently, the people want the government that will take care of them and impose lots of rules with good aims but often bad ways. Noone can't blame the Corporations for doing what they're doing. They operate to survive and they have to do it by following rules and regulations. How to stop them from doing so - more rules? Also, you can't blame the government for trying to stop people using sugars - they have to pay for your healthcare.

My opinion is the people need to be more self-aware, take care more of themselves and take responsibility. Then it won't need so many rules & regulations.
OR simply ban all sugary things, alcohol, smokes, chips and salty snacks and whatever is bad for us.
Can't see the other way
 
#40
I seem to remember seeing some science stuff about sweeteners being a problem because by their nature they fool the body into reacting to them as if they were sugar -
Tricking Taste Buds but Not the Brain: Artificial Sweeteners Change Brain’s Pleasure Response to Sweet
Banning stuff as the drug wars show is not a great answer to problems, regulation can help but education (or indoctrination if you like) I think is what makes the difference. My 7 year old, who does gymnastics and generally runs round like a dynamo all the time, rarely eats sweets - she'd rather eat a bowl of frozen peas - and doesn't have a spare ounce of fat on her, was telling me the other day that the ketchup was healthy because it only had a few calories.
@pimple8 Getting people to be more self-aware etc. is a long and difficult road and would incorporate a quite radical shift in our whole society. Most people have little idea from moment to moment of what their own face is doing let alone anything else.
 
Top