Mantis Posted March 16, 2016 Share Posted March 16, 2016 I expect that it's a classic case of throwing a dead cat on the table to mask the poor growth/deficit figures. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted March 16, 2016 Share Posted March 16, 2016 1 hour ago, penguin said: 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. Allegedly the sugar tax is going to pay for longer school days so with the extra half hour each day there's a good place to start Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted March 16, 2016 Share Posted March 16, 2016 33 minutes ago, tonyh29 said: Allegedly the sugar tax is going to pay for longer school days so with the extra half hour each day there's a good place to start teachers creeping ever closer to a 25 hour day 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted March 16, 2016 Share Posted March 16, 2016 The sofa has swallowed roughly two pounds this time for every one that it yielded last time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted March 16, 2016 Share Posted March 16, 2016 4 hours ago, chrisp65 said: ....which is sugar free Good point ... Errrm Dem is away on holiday and I said I'd cover for him 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rds1983 Posted March 17, 2016 VT Supporter Share Posted March 17, 2016 Ignoring politics or hidden motives. Kids consuming less sugar and playing more sport is a good thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted March 17, 2016 Share Posted March 17, 2016 Osborne's argument about the 'disability budget' going up meaning that 'more money is going to the disabled' is utterly shit. It's crassly stupid when you have announced already that you will be cutting the payments to a large number (six hundred thousand or more) within that group to be talking about overall budgets as the measure of your policy in that area. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davkaus Posted March 17, 2016 Share Posted March 17, 2016 14 hours ago, villa4europe said: its almost definitely about money in the coffers and ticking a box Partly. It's also a new tax that was bound to grab headlines.Almost all of the talk has been about this 'sugar tax', and while some people are against it, nobody seems to care that much. And hardly a word is being said about him taking funds away from disabled people. The sugar tax has done its job. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted March 17, 2016 Author Moderator Share Posted March 17, 2016 56 minutes ago, snowychap said: Osborne's argument about the 'disability budget' going up meaning that 'more money is going to the disabled' is utterly shit. It's crassly stupid when you have announced already that you will be cutting the payments to a large number (six hundred thousand or more) within that group to be talking about overall budgets as the measure of your policy in that area. There's two things, aren't there. He shouldn't be mixing them. Disabled people as a large grouping, getting more money overall - it's "fair" to claim that as a good thing. But as you say it's typical crass Osborne to hit a section of them by taking away their equipment money and make out "so that's all right then, because overall more money is going to a wider section of society". It's the smirking, devious and deceitful nature of what he does that particularly hacks me off. it's not an open approach to governing. It's all "playing word games" and playing number games. The man's a massive arse. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted March 17, 2016 Share Posted March 17, 2016 Just now, blandy said: Disabled people as a large grouping, getting more money overall - it's "fair" to claim that as a good thing. I don't agree (other than it being fair to make any sort of claim and have it scrutinized) because one only makes that kind of a claim if one is taking a statistic out of context and using it to present a distorted picture as you go on to explain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mantis Posted March 17, 2016 Share Posted March 17, 2016 3 hours ago, Rds1983 said: Ignoring politics or hidden motives. Kids consuming less sugar and playing more sport is a good thing. It's likely that the sugar tax won't result in kids consuming less sugar, that's one of the main problems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villa4europe Posted March 17, 2016 Share Posted March 17, 2016 its potentially the same as fags going up by 20p every budget, does it actually stop people smoking? or is that done through educating people? then you have the criticism of it which is that poor people drink fizzy drinks and will continue to do so but at greater cost, personally i think thats tory bashing bollocks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HanoiVillan Posted March 17, 2016 Share Posted March 17, 2016 (edited) 47 minutes ago, Mantis said: It's likely that the sugar tax won't result in kids consuming less sugar, that's one of the main problems. I'm pretty sure most of those studies in the document you linked yesterday showed at least some reduction in fizzy drink consumption. The claim was made that the consumption of soda is inelastic - ie. that demand doesn't decrease proportional to price increase, which I can't argue with - but they appeared (haven't time to check now) to show some reduction in soda consumption. I know the claim was that people will substitute sugar intake from soda with sugars from elsewhere, but I still say that's a win. Of course milk and orange juice aren't as healthy as water, but I'd still rather kids were drinking them than Coke. Edited March 17, 2016 by HanoiVillan 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted March 17, 2016 Share Posted March 17, 2016 thing with Fizzy drinks on a given day I can walk into Tesco and buy 12 cans for say £4 ..on an another day it can be buy 12 cans and get another 12 free so I'm not even sure the direct cost increase will be passed on or even noticed ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted March 17, 2016 Author Moderator Share Posted March 17, 2016 18 minutes ago, tonyh29 said: I'm not even sure the direct cost increase will be passed on or even noticed ? I bet you it is. Instead of doing 2 for one offers on full fat pop, the supermarkets will move to do them on low fat pop. Cheaper for them, innit. Also people's behaviour will change. Pretty much everything the health police go after - it ends up getting sold less of. Tabs, Booze, sugar's just next in line. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted March 17, 2016 Share Posted March 17, 2016 (edited) 7 minutes ago, blandy said: I bet you it is. Instead of doing 2 for one offers on full fat pop, the supermarkets will move to do them on low fat pop. Cheaper for them, innit. Also people's behaviour will change. Pretty much everything the health police go after - it ends up getting sold less of. Tabs, Booze, sugar's just next in line. I guess the manufacturers have 2 years to somehow get the sugar levels down ..which reminds me we did loads of testing on full fat drinks using Stevia plant extract last year ... it's almost as if the industry knew this was coming Edited March 17, 2016 by tonyh29 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PieFacE Posted March 17, 2016 VT Supporter Share Posted March 17, 2016 I like the sound of the lifetime ISA thing. Will definitely be getting involved in that. Free money. As someone who's yet to buy their first house, it's quite a solid investment at 4k per year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chindie Posted March 17, 2016 VT Supporter Share Posted March 17, 2016 5 minutes ago, PieFacE said: I like the sound of the lifetime ISA thing. Will definitely be getting involved in that. Free money. As someone who's yet to buy their first house, it's quite a solid investment at 4k per year. It's free money when you're 60. And only free money upto the amount you've put in till your 50. And if you need that money before you're 60 your charged 5% and lose the bonus and ask interest related to the bonus free money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PieFacE Posted March 17, 2016 VT Supporter Share Posted March 17, 2016 11 minutes ago, Chindie said: It's free money when you're 60. And only free money upto the amount you've put in till your 50. And if you need that money before you're 60 your charged 5% and lose the bonus and ask interest related to the bonus free money. Well I assume I wouldn't have to wait til i'm 60 if I was to purchase a house with it? If I wanted to purchase a house in 4 years, and had put 16k into the ISA, surely I'd get 20k out as a deposit for my house buy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted March 17, 2016 Author Moderator Share Posted March 17, 2016 1 hour ago, tonyh29 said: .. it's almost as if the industry knew this was coming They would have known, because the tories were briefing last year that they definitely weren't going to do it. Or more seriously, it would be both good business practice to assess risks and work out a strategy to overcome them, and also they're basically peddling illness and early death, so that's not completely a good thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts