"What about the benefits to the nation’s diet? This tax would lead people to consume, on average, 15 fewer calories a day. That’s right: 15. This is approximately one eighth of a chocolate digestive. Worryingly, researchers tell us this minor reduction will ensure that 3.7 million people don’t become obese in the next 10 years, as if the difference between a healthy lifestyle and one that causes the nation huge financial difficulties is the odd nibble on a hob nob." This is from the article. I read is as researchers say the tax will ensure 3.7m won't become obese. But to me the article is saying that eating unhealthy isn't the problem. What is the problem is some people aren't educated enough to know when too much sugar is bad for you. The odd drink or snack isn't bad for you it's when that snack or drink becomes a common thing. Puting the money earned into childrens sport is a start, but then it isn't the children that need educating it's their mums and dads. You can tax whatever product you want. But that won't stop people buying it as much as they do. What will stop them is educating them about the risks. You only have to look at smoking. That is taxed to hell yet still a lot of the older generation still smoke. There are far fewer younger people smoking and why is that? Yes because of education. As I said people read articles differently. So that is my take on it.
I would prefer a belt and braces approach. Tax sugar, especially in processed and packaged food. Educate as well. The problem with Osborn's approach is that it amounts to a sticking plaster when there is an epidemic. How many people will be type 2 diabetics by the time they are 40 is frightening, the costs enormous both in financial terms and in humanitarian terms. Never mind your political persuasion there does need to be a manipulation of the market to address the problem.. Heinz bake beans are cheaper than Heinz bake beans with reduced salt and sugar.. So a product with less produce in is more expensive than the other. (I know the savings of mass production, but that's exactly why there needs to be manipulation of the market through taxation) Until the anomaly and many others like it are rectified it will be a losing public health battle..
There is an assumption that the Sugar Tax will lead to fewer sugary drinks being consumed, when there is just as much chance of consumers switching from a premium brand to a cheaper, store brand, that may actually contain more sugar, thus increasing sugar consumption. If the Sugar Tax is to be taken seriously, it really should be applied to all foodstuffs, that are overloaded with it, and not just drinks.
It's just a way of raising tax whilst appearing to have a social conscience. If the Govt was serious about excess sugar there would be law passed on maximum amounts allowed in food stuffs. Also, the amount of sugar substitutes could also be controlled, for example the carcinogenic linked Aspartame. I'm sure many food & drink firms will either just sell the sugary stuff at higher prices or introduce amounts of artificial sweetener. Sad to find myself being cynical on this, but my present feeling is that the ignorant and apathetic in society will find a way to remain uninformed and carry on buying foodstuffs with excessive sugar and the only thing that will happen is that the Govt will receive more revenue. So-called food and drink 'brands' were meant to be food items one could trust. But for decades they've been some of the worst offenders as far as excessive sugar, salt, etc... Cooking from scratch and getting kids to drink proper fruit juice, milk or even flavoured waters would be helpful. Can't see that happening with families because too many are slaves to the trusted brands.
Sin taxes are generally silly. Pigovian taxes make sense. So to me, it doesn't matter if people keep smoking or eating too much sugar after the imposition of these taxes. As long as the tax covers the cost of the negative externality of increased lung cancer or diabetes or what not.
Which it doesn't. The real thing that needs to happen is the big companies made to reduce unhealthy products.
Yeah, well they never do. Because sin taxes are silly. Well, not necessarily. They could if they wanted, apply a real Pigovian tax on sugar, which would have the result of taxing the biggest companies who make unhealthy sugar products the most. And would probably result in healthier living, but more importantly not force others to pay the cost if you choose to live dangerously. It works perfectly in theory. It works less well in real-life. But when you throw in politics, it doesn't work at all because it will never happen. But then, neither will forcing big companies to stop making unhealthy products. How do you think they got so big in the first place?
Iain Duncan Smith - Secretary for Work and Pensions - has resigned. In his resignation letter he says he could not be a passive onlooker while policy was enacted against the disabled which he considered to be unjust in the context of the budget as a whole. He also complains that the Treasury has placed pressure on him to make more cuts too many times now, so he has resigned. Full statement available below.
You shouldn't underestimate educating the Children about eating the wrong things. Smoking is a good example of how in my view children actually educated the parents. Anyone that has had children within the last 10/15 years will remember being chided by their children for smoking. In the very early days they didn't have a lot of success but gradually parents began to listen. Obviously media reports and TV programmes helped but usually children would be the instigators. They are the generation that has shunned smoking in the main.
IDS' statement is spot on. Does it show his true beliefs, though? Hmm. Mustn't forget there are other motives at play. Ahhh, politics.
I meant if they wanted it to start quicker. I would rather children get educated at school about unhealthy eating. Then adults gets educated by a campaign. It's the late 20's to 30's that need it. I have loads of people I train that are badly over weight. It shouldn't take a diet plan for a person to know what is good or bad.
It's true sometimes the children are more educated than the adults about what is good and what is not. A friend of mine was overweight and was always being told by his daughter what was bad for him. He didn't take any notice until he had a heart attack last year. Now he has seen the light but it's a shame he didn't listen to his daughter. As for the sugar levy it's a step in the right direction. There is still loads more that needs doing though. The discussion about education is a strange one. It's sometimes hard to understand how parents aren't aware of some of the health problems of certain food and drinks. It's on the news often enough, in the papers and there are programs about it but somehow I see it but parents don't. The information is there but still people seem to ignore it.
Yes I can quite see that Osborne fulfils the role of the Sheriff of Nottingham but I'll not be persuaded that IDS could be Robin Hood. Maybe Boris's Chancellor should the Brexits win in June.. One last shot at it then a seat in the Lords if he's out with the in crowd.
Iain Duncan Smith has lost his latest attempt to keep potentially damning Universal Credit documents secret. If this sounds a little familiar, it's because this isn't the first time the department has beenordered to publish these papers. In fact, it's now the third. In 2012, Tony Collins and John Slater separately fired off Freedom of Information (FOI) requests for several reports relating to the early stages of Universal Credit. The documents detail any problems Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) staff imagined could arise from the programme, information about issues which did occur, and the outcome of a high-level review. Their requests were flatly refused. The pair complained to the Information Commissioner who decided that all but one of the reports should be published. The DWP then started what has become a lengthy and costly legal battle to keep them hidden. Four years on from when the FOI requests were first sent in, a second judge has now demanded that all the papers are released. http://www.politics.co.uk/blogs/201...l-challenge-to-keep-universal-credit-problems This is probably why he resigned.
It should be that sugar in items should be limited to say 50% of the recommended daily intake. I'm not sure what things would taste like but it seems very wrong that one drink for example can contain a lot more that you should have all day.
