tonyh29 Posted March 16, 2016 Share Posted March 16, 2016 (edited) 1 hour ago, blandy said: That's a terrible slur. He's qualified to be chancellor because 3) He's got O level maths How more highly qualified could you get? Didn't he study history the same as Gordon Brown did ? ( remember when he was lauded as the best chancellor the uk had ever had ) Does pose the question why don't they put economists into the chancellor role ... And then you remember Vince Cable who did study economics was complety bonkers and put someone who studied history into the role Edited March 16, 2016 by tonyh29 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
omariqy Posted March 16, 2016 Share Posted March 16, 2016 Looks like the Next Generation will be able to afford that first home by the time they are 60. Great news. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chindie Posted March 16, 2016 VT Supporter Share Posted March 16, 2016 In fairness any flat rate tax increase will effectively attack the poor more harshly than the more affluent. So the sugar tax is an attack on the poor. It's unlikely to be as bad as VAT is but still. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarewsEyebrowDesigner Posted March 16, 2016 Share Posted March 16, 2016 and so we go on ignoring the problems and shoring up the privileges of the middle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davkaus Posted March 16, 2016 Share Posted March 16, 2016 (edited) The talk in my office full of fairly well off software developers is about how fantastic these changes are, due to the income tax rises, and the lifetime ISA. Bribery accomplished, nobody gives a shit about disabled people. Edited March 16, 2016 by Davkaus 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chindie Posted March 16, 2016 VT Supporter Share Posted March 16, 2016 The lifetime ISA isn't quite as great once you delve into it. The bonus 25% is only paid up to the age of 50, and if you take money out you lose the 25% bonus, and any interest relevant to that bonus, and get charged 5%. They appear to be pushing it as a pension top up or mortgage part off fund, but I'm fairly sure there's better investments out there if you could afford to make the most of this. Which a lot of people won't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davkaus Posted March 16, 2016 Share Posted March 16, 2016 And that's the current, optimistic, view of it. Who's confident that the government won't raid the saved funds, or increase the age at which you're allowed to claim the money? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mantis Posted March 16, 2016 Share Posted March 16, 2016 54 minutes ago, tonyh29 said: Fairly sure they said no to a sugar tax last year and were castigated for it , now they have implemented one that are still castigated ... I'd have thought seeing as it's linked to obesity which is regarded as a drain of NHS resources that a lot of people would be in favour of it ? but id imagine it will be seen as another attack on the poor by some ... I agree that they're damned if they do damned if they don't but obviously the people castigating them for not bringing one in are not the same people doing so now. It is likely though that had this measure been introduced under a Labour government Osborne would've slaughtered them for it. As someone who is very much against big government and nanny-statism it's sad to see the party that is supposedly about less government intervention giving more of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HanoiVillan Posted March 16, 2016 Share Posted March 16, 2016 I think the 'sugar tax' is the first thing they've done that I've been in favour of since gay marriage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mantis Posted March 16, 2016 Share Posted March 16, 2016 The worst thing about the sugar tax is that it doesn't even work. Also, sugar consumption is falling anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HanoiVillan Posted March 16, 2016 Share Posted March 16, 2016 Just now, Mantis said: The worst thing about the sugar tax is that it doesn't even work. Also, sugar consumption is falling anyway. It's only been in place a matter of hours, how do you know it doesn't work? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villa4europe Posted March 16, 2016 Share Posted March 16, 2016 the worst thing about the sugar tax will be when a bottle of coke zero goes up by the same amount as a proper bottle of coke, which wont be going up by just 24p regardless anyone know if price increases are more effective than education in stopping people smoking? im lazily guessing that anti smoking campaigns are far more effective at stopping people than sticking an extra 50p on a pack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mantis Posted March 16, 2016 Share Posted March 16, 2016 (edited) 30 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said: It's only been in place a matter of hours, how do you know it doesn't work? I was referring to the concept of sugar taxes as a whole. The evidence is there though. Demand for sugary drinks, snacks and fatty foods is inelastic. People tend to be quite unresponsive to price hikes and do not significantly change their shopping habits. Consumers respond to switching to cheaper brands of the product or shopping in cheaper shops. This leads to the consumption of inferiror goods rather than the consumption of fewer calories. Consumers respond by switching to cheaper brands of the product or shopping in cheaper shops. This leads to the consumption of inferior goods rather than the consumption of fewer calories. Taxes on sugary drinks lead consumers to switch to other high calorie drinks such as fruit juice, milk or alcohol. Taxes on energy-dense food and soft drinks take a greater share of income from the poor than the rich. This regressive effect is exacerbated by low income consumers being less reponsive to price changes than the rich. No impact on obesity or health outcomes has ever been found. Edited March 16, 2016 by Mantis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HanoiVillan Posted March 16, 2016 Share Posted March 16, 2016 Interesting link, thanks. Seems to be some evidence against them, for sure. But some of those arguments aren't very good: just to highlight one, milk and fruit juice might contain a lot calories, but they also contain calcium and vitamin C which are actually beneficial to childrens' health. Carbonated sodas don't contain anything at all that's beneficial to health, so I would consider that change a benefit not a drawback. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted March 16, 2016 Share Posted March 16, 2016 46 minutes ago, Mantis said: The worst thing about the sugar tax is that it doesn't even work. Also, sugar consumption is falling anyway. The article I read gave Mexico as its example of how it had worked but I kinda agree with you , I'm not sure it will work , it's not going to make me drink any less Pepsimax any more than the 3p on a pint that they usually stick on at each budget would make me drink less beer on a night out Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mantis Posted March 16, 2016 Share Posted March 16, 2016 2 minutes ago, tonyh29 said: The article I read gave Mexico as its example of how it had worked but I kinda agree with you , I'm not sure it will work , it's not going to make me drink any less Pepsimax any more than the 3p on a pint that they usually stick on at each budget would make me drink less beer on a night out My worry is not so much the prices but that companies will start tampering with their products and make them worse just so they have less sugar in them. As an example, Wine Gums used to be so much nicer before they switched to "natural" colours. That kind of shit just annoys me because Wine Gums aren't good for you either way. Obviously we're talking about drinks but the same principle can apply. 10 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said: Interesting link, thanks. Seems to be some evidence against them, for sure. But some of those arguments aren't very good: just to highlight one, milk and fruit juice might contain a lot calories, but they also contain calcium and vitamin C which are actually beneficial to childrens' health. Carbonated sodas don't contain anything at all that's beneficial to health, so I would consider that change a benefit not a drawback. That's true but ultimately drinking sugary fruit and milk drinks regularly is still bad for one's health and only marginally better than fizzy drinks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted March 16, 2016 Share Posted March 16, 2016 5 minutes ago, tonyh29 said: it's not going to make me drink any less Pepsimax ....which is sugar free 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted March 16, 2016 Share Posted March 16, 2016 7 minutes ago, Mantis said: That kind of shit just annoys me because Wine Gums aren't good for you either way. They contain spinach but speaking as someone that makes a living testing products for a global company as they remove ingredients and change them in a bid to make them healthier I look forward to these changes you mention Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
penguin Posted March 16, 2016 Share Posted March 16, 2016 I'm also of the opinion the health benefits of a sugar tax will be marginal at best. But it's more money for the coffers, which I cynically assume is really the main aim. I'd much rather see an emphasis on education, especially at a young age, and clearer information of what's included in products than taxation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villa4europe Posted March 16, 2016 Share Posted March 16, 2016 its almost definitely about money in the coffers and ticking a box attack the fizzy drinks industry which is dominated by coca cola, a foreign company who pay around about 2% tax in the UK, like i said if they put the increase across the board on all the brands then it potentially gives the supermarkets and pubs a higher margin on the diet products, they didnt attack the food industry which has far bigger UK based players and they didnt attack cereals or bakery products and face the wrath of the farmers its an easy win really Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts