I can accept that Osbourne just does not what to do or where to turn to raise money. The sugar tax amazes me as I believe the Scandivinian countries are dropping it as it added to much cost to ALL foodstuffs. Or is he really aware of it so that those who can least afford decent fresh food will be the source of more taxes? To make bread last longer sugar is added as a preservative, or does he not know that? Advertising cigs and booze was banned from TV so why not those doing the same for soft drinks?
The sugar tax is only to be applied to fizzy drinks mate, personally I think it's the biggest positive in the whole budget.
Thanks for that. It will probably 1p to the cost of a drink but the chancellor spends 5p recovering it. Makes sense.
Apparently it's going to add 8 p to a can of coke, so I'd presume it's going to add a noticeable amount on to the 2 litre bottles, it's all done based on how much sugar is in the drink so it will be different from brand to brand. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/food-and-drink/news/sugar-tax-what-does-it-mean-and-who-will-be-affected/
It would have been better to show how many spoonfuls of sugar in every can printed on the side. That might, just might have influenced some people. He'd have been told that but thought, where's the tax money in that?
Well a financial expert on BBC News confirmed what we already knew. Since the Tories came to power the poorest 20% of the population are £500 per year worse off and the richest 20% are £250 per year better off... If anyone can justify the growing inequality being delivered by this government I would love to hear it..
[QUOTE="Otter_Bolt, post: 9037368, member: 1008347"]That's what I meant by you empathising with an entire demographic, those who are 'most needy'... many people, in my mind, fall into this category by default, they are needy because they choose to be, they are inherantly lazy. There are obviously many, probably more, who are genuinely in need of support but that's not something governments create, that's something mankind creates, it's natural selection. There will always be weak and there will always be powerful in species on this planet, humans attempt to create some sort of parity and that's where people start blaming others for those who have not necessarily thrived during their lives. As for the second part, I am choosing not to engage, not because I think you're right or wrong, but I don't want to go where it ends up.[/QUOTE] I'm sure that there are plenty of poor people who are lazy, just as I'm equally sure there are plenty of rich people who are also lazy.
I'm sure that there are plenty of poor people who are lazy, just as I'm equally sure there are plenty of rich people who are also lazy.[/QUOTE] I actually believe there is a difference between lazy and being an idle t wat.
