Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.

Tax on fizzy drinks.

With the proposal today that sugary drinks should be treated and thought of much more like we do cigarettes what do we think then Lifers? Shouldn't those with a 5 can of Redbull a day habit take a bit more responsibility for their own health AND make a greater contibution towards the growing costs of treating obesity?
«1

Comments

  • i have a can of Redbull before football, should i be charged more because some fatty cant control how many he has?
  • Yes.
  • Cant argue with that.
  • Good idea tbh. I love fizzy drinks and have a can or so of pepsi max every other day or so. Still think its a good idea and could put a little bit more money into the coffers.
  • edited February 2013
    Perhaps should levy a small tax on ALL unhealthy food and drink and then use some of that money to subsidise healthy foods.

    Would eliminate the relatively lightweight (no pun intended) argument that it is too expensive to feed a family healthily and that crisps, cokes and turkey twizzlers are the only way to nourish their sprogs.

    If you want to put sh1te in your body (as all of us do sometimes I imagine) then you'll have to pay a bit extra for it.

    Wouldn't be long before manufacturers soon converted to producing healthy food to follow the £.
  • What RCT says ^
  • I would much prefer it if a nice chicken caeser salad bowl from M and S cost 50p and a big mac cost £20, but unfortunately that'll never happen
  • edited February 2013
    Isn't strange that the food and drink people actually like and enjoy is deemed "bad" whereas the horrid stuff is deemed "good."

    The fact that the bloke in charge of the NHS Trust that presided over the deaths of loads of people in his North Staffs hospital can get PROMOTED demonstrates that the welfare of ordinary people isn't a terribly high priority.

    Which begs the question what is the real angle on all this health fascism? The EU perhaps like the horsemeat thing?
  • It's cheaper to get fat, than to get fit.
  • sam3110 said:

    I would much prefer it if a nice chicken caeser salad bowl from M and S cost 50p and a big mac cost £20, but unfortunately that'll never happen

    Big Mac 490 Calories, 25.4g of fat of which 9.6g is saturated fat.

    M& S Ceasar Salad 385 Calories 12.00g of fat of which 9g is saturated fat.

    Apart from which Big Macs taste good, M& S salads taste like sh*t so why would it cost 40 times more?

  • Sponsored links:


  • edited February 2013

    It's cheaper to get fat, than to get fit.

    I disagree. Alcohol expensive, ciggarettes expensive, take aways more expensive than home cooking.

    Sky tv, xboxes and lazy boy armchairs are expensive.

    You can eat healthily and well economically if you take the time to look into it.

    It doesn't cost anything to go for a brisk walk every day and not much to go jogging.

    People need to take more responsibility for their own lives and stop making excuses looking for others to be accountable for every aspect of their well being.

    I imagine that most have more disposable income than previous generations i.e 50 years ago but there were probably less morbidly obese people about then.
  • It's cheaper to get fat, than to get fit.

    I disagree. Alcohol expensive, ciggarettes expensive, take aways more expensive than home cooking.

    Sky tv, xboxes and lazy boy armchairs are expensive.

    You can eat healthily well economically if you take the time to look into it.

    It doesn't cost anything to go for a brisk walk every day and not much to go jogging.

    People need to take more responsibility for their own loves and stop making excuses looking for others to be accountable for every aspect of their well being. I imagine that most have more disposable income than previous generations i.e 50 years ago but there were probably less morbidly obese people about then.
    There is evidence that AIDS is more common amongst male homosexuals than the rest of the population.

    Should the same logic apply?

    If not why the blatant discrimination against fat people?
  • Len I think I must live on a different planet to you so don't really know how to respond to that.
  • LenGlover said:

    It's cheaper to get fat, than to get fit.

    I disagree. Alcohol expensive, ciggarettes expensive, take aways more expensive than home cooking.

    Sky tv, xboxes and lazy boy armchairs are expensive.

    You can eat healthily well economically if you take the time to look into it.

    It doesn't cost anything to go for a brisk walk every day and not much to go jogging.

    People need to take more responsibility for their own loves and stop making excuses looking for others to be accountable for every aspect of their well being. I imagine that most have more disposable income than previous generations i.e 50 years ago but there were probably less morbidly obese people about then.
    There is evidence that AIDS is more common amongst male homosexuals than the rest of the population.

    Should the same logic apply?

    If not why the blatant discrimination against fat people?
    ?!

    You can stop being fat, you cant stop being gay and you cant stop having HIV. So your logic is a tad bizarre.
  • maybe i've just had a Whoosh moment...
  • JWADDICK said:

    sam3110 said:

    I would much prefer it if a nice chicken caeser salad bowl from M and S cost 50p and a big mac cost £20, but unfortunately that'll never happen

    Big Mac 490 Calories, 25.4g of fat of which 9.6g is saturated fat.

    M& S Ceasar Salad 385 Calories 12.00g of fat of which 9g is saturated fat.

    Apart from which Big Macs taste good, M& S salads taste like sh*t so why would it cost 40 times more?

    Big Macs do not taste good they taste fecking awful, if you want to know what a real burger should taste like try having a proper homemade one.

    Anyway, I'm using this as a basic generalisation, the fact of the matter is Big Macs, whoppers, chicken buckets etc. cost less than healthier foods which people should be encouraged to eat. When buying a meal for one as well, do you know how expensive it is to buy a single chicken breast, a single tomato, a single pepper, a single onion etc. etc. compared to just buying a shitty value meal
  • Len I think I must live on a different planet to you so don't really know how to respond to that.

    lol
  • LenGlover said:

    It's cheaper to get fat, than to get fit.

    I disagree. Alcohol expensive, ciggarettes expensive, take aways more expensive than home cooking.

    Sky tv, xboxes and lazy boy armchairs are expensive.

    You can eat healthily well economically if you take the time to look into it.

    It doesn't cost anything to go for a brisk walk every day and not much to go jogging.

    People need to take more responsibility for their own loves and stop making excuses looking for others to be accountable for every aspect of their well being. I imagine that most have more disposable income than previous generations i.e 50 years ago but there were probably less morbidly obese people about then.
    There is evidence that AIDS is more common amongst male homosexuals than the rest of the population.

    Should the same logic apply?

    If not why the blatant discrimination against fat people?
    Eat less and become less fat, pretty simple really. They need to stop passing the buck and go for a little walk, you dont contract fatness from unprotected eating.
  • edited February 2013

    LenGlover said:

    It's cheaper to get fat, than to get fit.

    I disagree. Alcohol expensive, ciggarettes expensive, take aways more expensive than home cooking.

    Sky tv, xboxes and lazy boy armchairs are expensive.

    You can eat healthily well economically if you take the time to look into it.

    It doesn't cost anything to go for a brisk walk every day and not much to go jogging.

    People need to take more responsibility for their own loves and stop making excuses looking for others to be accountable for every aspect of their well being. I imagine that most have more disposable income than previous generations i.e 50 years ago but there were probably less morbidly obese people about then.
    There is evidence that AIDS is more common amongst male homosexuals than the rest of the population.

    Should the same logic apply?

    If not why the blatant discrimination against fat people?
    ?!

    You can stop being fat, you cant stop being gay and you cant stop having HIV. So your logic is a tad bizarre.
    You may not be able to stop being gay but, given the evidence and proven risks of contracting HIV through promiscuity, it may be prudent for you to consider carefully who you choose to have sex with.

    In the same way as those who are fat can choose what to eat.

    I'm simply taking RCT's statement logically and literally by picking on an establishment sacred cow and contrasting it with the current Wagstaff scapegoat, fat people.

    The real point I'm making is one of individual freedom and choice.

    Even fat people are entitled to that or maybe not?
  • edited February 2013
    Most know my current employers are soft drinks giants so I will give my view point as unbiased as I can


    For 30 yrs the soft drinks industry has supplied low cal options


    But do you not think that it would be beneficial to families for the government to make healthy foods cheaper and not increase luxury items


    I am a large lad yet I dont drink and never have drunk fizzy drinks

    Except alcohol and guess what it weren't until I found pubs that I got fat


    If for example it cost less for a family make a healthy fresh ingredient dinner most if not all would do it


    To me this is just another shite way of people having to pay more for things they enjoy

    If this happens then there will be huge job losses as this industry is already on its arse


    People are already changing the habits on consuming fizzy drinks


    Wouldn't it be great if you could have a nice bit of meat Some veg and healthy treat for your kids for less than it costs for

    Turkey dinosaurs and potatoe faces


    All the time the balance is the wrong way round kids will get fat because it's cheaper for families to feed on processed low nutritional items than healthy high nutritional items

  • Sponsored links:


  • Problem with all this is that there is probably more bad science around food than anything else (well maybe not homeopathy), so we'd probably just end up with a whole bunch of the wrong things being taxed. Don't like the idea of controlling everything through tax anyway. As RCT already points out it's already more expensive to be unhealthy. People who are unable to control their intake, are unlikely to be able to as a result of a small tax. The fact that it's expensive, making them look disgusting, killing them and made out of animals bumholes in unsanitary conditions should be enough insensitive to try carrots and healthy runwank.
  • edited February 2013
    I think the easiest way is for the state to take all our wages and the then give us pocket money each week for our little luxuries.

    That way we will feel more like the children they want to treat us as.
  • It's easier for the Government to tax unhealthy foods than subsidise every vegetable growing farmer in the country.

    The tax is there to cover the costs of increasing health care due to fizzy drinks (such as teeth and gum problems, as well as obesity).
    I can walk into any shop today and find that 2 bottles of coke are cheaper than 2 bottles of water/juice. That's a problem that needs to be corrected.
  • It's easier for the Government to tax unhealthy foods than subsidise every vegetable growing farmer in the country.

    The tax is there to cover the costs of increasing health care due to fizzy drinks (such as teeth and gum problems, as well as obesity).
    I can walk into any shop today and find that 2 bottles of coke are cheaper than 2 bottles of water/juice. That's a problem that needs to be corrected.

    Tap water is cheaper than coke.
  • sam3110 said:

    JWADDICK said:

    sam3110 said:

    I would much prefer it if a nice chicken caeser salad bowl from M and S cost 50p and a big mac cost £20, but unfortunately that'll never happen

    Big Mac 490 Calories, 25.4g of fat of which 9.6g is saturated fat.

    M& S Ceasar Salad 385 Calories 12.00g of fat of which 9g is saturated fat.

    Apart from which Big Macs taste good, M& S salads taste like sh*t so why would it cost 40 times more?

    Big Macs do not taste good they taste fecking awful, if you want to know what a real burger should taste like try having a proper homemade one.

    Anyway, I'm using this as a basic generalisation, the fact of the matter is Big Macs, whoppers, chicken buckets etc. cost less than healthier foods which people should be encouraged to eat. When buying a meal for one as well, do you know how expensive it is to buy a single chicken breast, a single tomato, a single pepper, a single onion etc. etc. compared to just buying a shitty value meal
    Your opinion mate, my opinion is they taste good. Most homemade food equally tastes like crap IMHO but I don't care. What I do care about is the food/health gestapo telling me what I can and can't do/eat and please don't try to bring up the health cost to the nation argument. When I die through my own gluttony and other disgusting personal habits it will be through my own choice and no fecker needs to pay a penny piece to either keep me alive or to try and make me well again, the funeral is pre paid for and my wishes have been made known to those who need to know.

    As for the taxing of unhealthy foods surely you are not naive enough to believe that therevenue raised on cigarettes and alcohol is actually going to assist the health service or any other worthwhile cause - just like the fact there are no potholes in the road because we pay the Raod Fund Licence?
  • LenGlover said:

    It's cheaper to get fat, than to get fit.

    I disagree. Alcohol expensive, ciggarettes expensive, take aways more expensive than home cooking.

    Sky tv, xboxes and lazy boy armchairs are expensive.

    You can eat healthily well economically if you take the time to look into it.

    It doesn't cost anything to go for a brisk walk every day and not much to go jogging.

    People need to take more responsibility for their own loves and stop making excuses looking for others to be accountable for every aspect of their well being. I imagine that most have more disposable income than previous generations i.e 50 years ago but there were probably less morbidly obese people about then.
    There is evidence that AIDS is more common amongst male homosexuals than the rest of the population.

    Should the same logic apply?

    If not why the blatant discrimination against fat people?
    ?!

    You can stop being fat, you cant stop being gay and you cant stop having HIV. So your logic is a tad bizarre.
    So you should be careful what you eat but not be careful when having unprotected sex with the highest rated HIV category????
  • If people think that the issue is fizzy drinks as to why this country has fat kids then the problem won't ever go away

    It's a combination yes increase the cost makes sense but be aware the consumer not buying will not make the companies find a healthier option as most already have

    Zero sugar
    Zero calorie
    Zero fat

    Products on the shelf you will just make more people unemployed

    Wouldn't it be a much better option

    To then reduce the cost by removing any tax on the purchase of healthy items

    Especially as the horse meat issue is in the processed food items

    If you can get families to see that buying heathy foods costs less and tastes better then people would do it


    When I was younger the items like burgers and findus crispy pancakes (example) were dearer and more of a treat than the dinner my mum Or dad prepared from scratch every evening


    The whole thing has turned on its head
  • It's easier for the Government to tax unhealthy foods than subsidise every vegetable growing farmer in the country.

    The tax is there to cover the costs of increasing health care due to fizzy drinks (such as teeth and gum problems, as well as obesity).
    I can walk into any shop today and find that 2 bottles of coke are cheaper than 2 bottles of water/juice. That's a problem that needs to be corrected.

    Tap water is cheaper than coke.

    But pumped full of fluoride, something which is used in many poisons
  • LenGlover said:

    LenGlover said:

    It's cheaper to get fat, than to get fit.

    I disagree. Alcohol expensive, ciggarettes expensive, take aways more expensive than home cooking.

    Sky tv, xboxes and lazy boy armchairs are expensive.

    You can eat healthily well economically if you take the time to look into it.

    It doesn't cost anything to go for a brisk walk every day and not much to go jogging.

    People need to take more responsibility for their own loves and stop making excuses looking for others to be accountable for every aspect of their well being. I imagine that most have more disposable income than previous generations i.e 50 years ago but there were probably less morbidly obese people about then.
    There is evidence that AIDS is more common amongst male homosexuals than the rest of the population.

    Should the same logic apply?

    If not why the blatant discrimination against fat people?
    ?!

    You can stop being fat, you cant stop being gay and you cant stop having HIV. So your logic is a tad bizarre.
    You may not be able to stop being gay but, given the evidence and proven risks of contracting HIV through promiscuity, it may be prudent for you to consider carefully who you choose to have sex with.

    In the same way as those who are fat can choose what to eat.

    I'm simply taking RCT's statement logically and literally by picking on an establishment sacred cow and contrasting it with the current Wagstaff scapegoat, fat people.

    The real point I'm making is one of individual freedom and choice.

    Even fat people are entitled to that or maybe not?
    Fair enough, didn't see it in that light. Everyone should have protected sex unless its with a long term partner.
  • Isn't it more about "unhealthy" food being easier for people to prepare ie you don't have to do much shopping, preparation or cooking with a ready meal rather than direct cost.

    Ditto takeaways.

    And the sugar and chemicals in processed food keep it "fresh" for longer so better value for retailers.

    Processed white bread is much cheaper (about 1/3) than bread made in the old fashioned way but it is not only more expensive but harder to find and goes off quicker.

    And it tastes "funny" to many raised on mothers pride so they won't eat it.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Roland Out Forever!