The fastest decline was in the 70s and 80s, decline slowed in the nineties and early 2000s and since 2007 (when the smoking ban was introduced) the decline has slowed down and all but halted amongst men.
So to pretend money doesn't matter and its all due to the smoking ban relies upon more Deloreans than Marty McFly ever saw.
The EXACT same pattern of cessation is found in every country in the OECD despite widely divergent levels of taxation.
Earlier you credited the decline in smoking to the smoking ban, despite the fact the data is that the smoking ban came in AFTER the decline in smoking. Now its the same everywhere, you have literally no shame do you?
Earlier you credited the decline in smoking to the smoking ban, despite the fact the data is that the smoking ban came in AFTER the decline in smoking. Now its the same everywhere, you have literally no shame do you?
Try dealing with real facts rather than making up your own. You might go further.
I said that cessation in the UK was lagging behind other countries before the smoking ban. Of course this is only partly true, there were countries with worse rates but those were all other countries with very high tax levels.
For the discussion of Consumption Taxes being effective, the smoking ban is utterly irrelevant. If I am wrong about it (which I may be) I'm sure you will continue to try to equate a mistake about this with a justification for your idiotic theory that Consumption Taxes work. The core problem is that no correlation can be shown between the rate of tax in a country and its level of smoking.
The problem you have is that you're trying to make data fit your assumptions without any understanding of what is a complicated and multi-level system. You basically want a Lie To Children as you seem incapable of dealing with a multi-faceted issue.
All OECD countries have seen a reduction in smoking. Those countries have had widely divergent tax policies. The rates of reduction in those individual countries have not shown direct correlation to the level of taxation at individual times.
You are just talking out of your backside now aren't.you?
Smoking rates were only worse in other nations with high tax levels? So that is why Spain which you credited as a nation with a low tax rate earlier has more than double the amount of cigarette consumption as the UK does?
Or that the USA has a higher consumption rate? Although the US smoking rate has come down in recent years, since (surprise, surprise) taxes were significantly increased a few years ago.
The UK has a significantly lower rate of tobacco consumption compared to the other nations that were chosen by you as shining examples of low tax rates working. Instead of just making bullshit claims how about providing some real data yourself.
You are now reduced to flailing about claiming "yeah but its going down elsewhere too" while ignoring that all economic evidence shows the rate it goes down to is DIRECTLY related to price.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cigarette_taxes_in_the_United_States#Under_the_Obama_Administration One of the biggest critiques of the passing of this bill comes from economists who believe that an increase in the federal cigarette tax will lead to decreased funding for state programs that rely on their own state cigarette taxes.[8] According to Nobel Prize–winning economist Gary Becker, who has studied the long-run price elasticity of cigarettes, the tax increase as a result of the Children’s Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act increases the price of cigarettes 13.3% which ultimately means a 10.6% decrease in unit sales. The National Tax Foundation calculates these numbers to determine a predicted $1 billion loss for states.
As predicted the US has witnessed a decline in sales since in the years the tax rates went up.
When you can afford a nice bottle of plonk extra tax doesn't matter, when you're counting pennies you can't.
It's a Middle Class Tax that only affects those with less spending power. As someone who went from paying oodles in tax to eating or heating or neither = it's not a theoretical argument in any way.
And with that - bon nuit.
It only affects those that choose to spend their money on whatever is being taxed. If you start taxing Coke and instead of drinking bottles of Coke at home a family decides to cut that out of their weekly shop and drink tap water instead which is effectively free in comparison then their health will be better and financially they'll be better off.
So its not a tax on the poor. It is a tax on those that voluntarily choose to spend their money on unhealthy, unnecessary options.
As far as tobacco is concerned, it is a tax on idiots.
All consumption tax is a tax on the poor. It just depends what level "poor" kicks in at.
Many consumption taxes are just a tax on the dumb. It just depends what level "dumb" kicks in at.
govts are just too pathetic to stand up to the food industry.
You can't normally buy an alcoholic drink that is 80% alchohol - why not? because it's too much and basically poisonous.
So why no maximum for sugars in fizzy drinks?
I don't want to need permission to fart! Nor do I want permission for my granddaughters to fart, nor do they want permission to fart. I haven't asked them but I don't doubt their response.
When you can afford a nice bottle of plonk extra tax doesn't matter, when you're counting pennies you can't.
It's a Middle Class Tax that only affects those with less spending power. As someone who went from paying oodles in tax to eating or heating or neither = it's not a theoretical argument in any way.
And with that - bon nuit.
It only affects those that choose to spend their money on whatever is being taxed. If you start taxing Coke and instead of drinking bottles of Coke at home a family decides to cut that out of their weekly shop and drink tap water instead which is effectively free in comparison then their health will be better and financially they'll be better off.
So its not a tax on the poor. It is a tax on those that voluntarily choose to spend their money on unhealthy, unnecessary options.
As far as tobacco is concerned, it is a tax on idiots.
There are varieties of Coke - only the full-fat version of which would be covered by sugar tax. The various versions of Coke based on artificial sweeteners would evade the legislation - and potentially see people drinking more and more artificial sweeteners which, if some research is to be believed can be carcinogenic (particularly with extended exposure)
So we push people away from sugar and end up encouraging a substitute which may, in the end, prove as, or possibly more, harmful
A sugar tax will have unintended consequences
Almost all non-Tin Hat research shows that while Diet Coke is not perfect it is far healthier than Coke. If people switch from Coke to Diet Coke then I have no qualms whatsoever about that.
Your final line is why I said in my first post, that I find the notion of a sugar tax although OK in theory, in practice it will be "convoluted, complicated and unworkable".
It is for that reason I do not currently support it. Not because it is a tax on the poor, which I just don't agree with or care about. Not because I don't care about the poor, but because if it was worked properly it would be like tobacco a largely voluntary tax.
If an introduction of a sugar tax could be achieved in a simple, effective manner that paid for a 1p cut in Basic Rate taxation then I would find that very desirable. I think cutting income taxes helps the poor more than keeping unhealthy items cheap.
This "debate" is so much crap. You can't legislate to make the stupid intelligent.
Hypothecate the sugar tax to the NHS. If it doesn't change behaviour the NHS gets more money, if it does well people should get a touch healthier in the round.
Yup, exactly. With a Sugar Tax, either there will (eventually) be less pressure on the NHS due to people getting a bit healthier, or if not then those people who have taken liberties with their health will have rightly paid a bit more for their treatment.
Along with a lot more people needing treating for expensive, chronic, age related diseases.
And claiming pensions from the state for a lot longer.
The whole argument that the State's finances will benefit is utterly bogus.
Most chronic age related diseases are heavily diet influenced. It isnt the people who have been steering clear of refined carbs who are coming down with alzheimers, strokes, diabetes and heart disease.
There is huge inconsistency and contradiction in the evidence of what age-related diseases are effected by what in diet and lifestyle and what are not. In the case of strokes, diabetes and heart disease, bad diet reduces the association of them being age related - they start happening at any age.
Even ignoring disease, there are quite massive associated costs of an aging population which were are already unable to afford. The cost of pensions, the cost of care, the bill for an individual living to 95 is massive compared to someone who has died in their 60s regardless of cause.
Someone who smokes and drinks heavily, contracting Esophageal cancer and dying at 65 costs the state virtually nothing while paying hugely in taxes. While the "clean living" individual who lives to 95 with Osteoperosis, Cataracts, Macular Degeneration, Hip Replacement, etc will be sucking up several hundred thousands (maybe millions) of pounds out of taxpayers.
On the other hand, healthier people can work for longer.
Of course you can't legislate to prevent stupidity. But you can tax it. People will try and avoid the tax as is inevitable and so be less stupid.
Or voluntarily fund the state through their stupidity. I'm ok with either option. I'd rather penalise and tax stupidity than penalise and tax hard work. Which would you rather penalise?
When you can afford a nice bottle of plonk extra tax doesn't matter, when you're counting pennies you can't.
It's a Middle Class Tax that only affects those with less spending power. As someone who went from paying oodles in tax to eating or heating or neither = it's not a theoretical argument in any way.
And with that - bon nuit.
It only affects those that choose to spend their money on whatever is being taxed. If you start taxing Coke and instead of drinking bottles of Coke at home a family decides to cut that out of their weekly shop and drink tap water instead which is effectively free in comparison then their health will be better and financially they'll be better off.
So its not a tax on the poor. It is a tax on those that voluntarily choose to spend their money on unhealthy, unnecessary options.
As far as tobacco is concerned, it is a tax on idiots.
There are varieties of Coke - only the full-fat version of which would be covered by sugar tax. The various versions of Coke based on artificial sweeteners would evade the legislation - and potentially see people drinking more and more artificial sweeteners which, if some research is to be believed can be carcinogenic (particularly with extended exposure)
So we push people away from sugar and end up encouraging a substitute which may, in the end, prove as, or possibly more, harmful
A sugar tax will have unintended consequences
Almost all non-Tin Hat research shows that while Diet Coke is not perfect it is far healthier than Coke. If people switch from Coke to Diet Coke then I have no qualms whatsoever about that.
Your final line is why I said in my first post, that I find the notion of a sugar tax although OK in theory, in practice it will be "convoluted, complicated and unworkable".
It is for that reason I do not currently support it. Not because it is a tax on the poor, which I just don't agree with or care about. Not because I don't care about the poor, but because if it was worked properly it would be like tobacco a largely voluntary tax.
If an introduction of a sugar tax could be achieved in a simple, effective manner that paid for a 1p cut in Basic Rate taxation then I would find that very desirable. I think cutting income taxes helps the poor more than keeping unhealthy items cheap.
I'd be interested to see that research. Coca Cola obviously doesn't have great confidence in it, or they wouldn't have released Coke Life.
Coca cola cares only about one thing - answers on a postcard
Of course you can't legislate to prevent stupidity. But you can tax it. People will try and avoid the tax as is inevitable and so be less stupid.
Or voluntarily fund the state through their stupidity. I'm ok with either option. I'd rather penalise and tax stupidity than penalise and tax hard work. Which would you rather penalise?
Why would governments need to make that distinction as a selection criterium?.
"Shooting and fishing are the only true social levellers. You can be fishing or shooting beside a farmer, a binman or a Lord."
I would beg to add Freemasonry to the list. One can sit down to dinner with a Duke of the Blood on one side and a taxi driver on the other and all get pissed together without side or distinction.
Hmmm. I think Freemasonry excludes itself. I could buy fishing tackle, pay the rights owner, and fish. I could buy ((or borrow) a gun and go on a shoot. I'm not sure I'd know how to become a Freemason, and I'm fairly certain they wouldn't have me if I tried.
Nah, its the same as shooting and fishing, you can't just volunteer to shoot on someone's land or fish in someone's river. You have to join a club one way or another, at least to get the best fishing/shooting.
Why you think that FreeMasonry wouldn't have you I have no idea, unless you have particularly disgusting table manners.
Yes, I tend to get my gun and fishing rod out whilst at the table.
Ahem.
I thought of a better way of putting it: clothing and kit is a great differentiator between people. When fishing (and also shooting to a lesser extent) the people taking part tend to wear the same sorts of clothes without it being a uniform. Particularly in fishing, the kit does not differentiate you either - some fishermen spend many thousands on their kit that they struggle to afford.
If you cannot tell someone's wealth or status from the clothing or class, it's difficult to know if the person sitting on the riverbank is a boiler fitter who spends all his spare money on expensive fishing gear, or a multimillionaire businessman.
"Shooting and fishing are the only true social levellers. You can be fishing or shooting beside a farmer, a binman or a Lord."
I would beg to add Freemasonry to the list. One can sit down to dinner with a Duke of the Blood on one side and a taxi driver on the other and all get pissed together without side or distinction.
Hmmm. I think Freemasonry excludes itself. I could buy fishing tackle, pay the rights owner, and fish. I could buy ((or borrow) a gun and go on a shoot. I'm not sure I'd know how to become a Freemason, and I'm fairly certain they wouldn't have me if I tried.
Nah, its the same as shooting and fishing, you can't just volunteer to shoot on someone's land or fish in someone's river. You have to join a club one way or another, at least to get the best fishing/shooting.
Why you think that FreeMasonry wouldn't have you I have no idea, unless you have particularly disgusting table manners.
Yes, I tend to get my gun and fishing rod out whilst at the table.
Ahem.
Or perhaps I'm talking out of my backside. Again.
PBers talking out of their ARSE is a huge distinction and much to be honoured on OGH's mighty organ.
I would imagine that's true of a great many pursuits JosiasJessop.
Quite possibly. I'm not saying my idea was particularly well-formed or structured.
Strangely, it's both true and false for railway preservation in my experience. I've known some rather posh people shifting sleepers or on the footplate with the hoi polloi, whilst others would not go anywhere near any dirt.
A new poll (don't have details, it just flew by while I wasn't looking) puts Carson at 28%, Trump at 20% in IA
Why would anyone think Carson was a potential president? Utter madness
because the offered alternative is Trump?
Except that there are several other Republican candidates in the race and have been more. However, Carson does have the look of a bubble candidate. I'd be amazed if he polls a quarter of the vote come February.
On the debate overnight on a sugar tax I heard on R5 yesterday that sugar alternatives such as those found in diet coke trigger the production of insulin in the same way as sugar does thereby increasing the risk of diabetes.
I had not heard this before and wonder if there are suitably qualified views on PB (such as foxinsox) who might be able to comment. If the replacements for sugar also have harmful effects then the argument for a sugar tax seems much less compelling.
For me, the main effect of a sugar tax is likely to be indirect. If the manufacturers of processed foods had to pay the tax on their products they would put less in. Since the evidence seems to increasingly point to sugar being more dangerous than fat this seems quite a good thing although I agree with those pointing out that taxes of this type have to be penal to affect the behaviour of consumers and the consumers most affected are inevitably the poor.
Based on last night’s local election results, the Meacher by-election should be V interesting.
Do you think? Bad night for Labour but poor night for UKIP too. If the local by-elections are any guide then OW&R will be a comfortable Labour hold ahead of the Tories in second on a lowish turnout. There may well be a net swing to the Tories but Labour will spin that as the drop-off of Meacher's personal vote / UKIP voters 'going home'. I'm not sure either argument will hold too much water (how many Tory-inclined voters went for Meacher on a personal level? Were UKIP's voters really ex-Tory?) but once you're into that kind of detail the public's tuned out. Labour won't lose and won't come close to losing so whatever the underlying movements, the media will ignore it, as will politicians looking for a reason to.
However, for psephological nerds, it could tell us a lot about the lie of the land going into next year's local and PCC elections.
Based on last night’s local election results, the Meacher by-election should be V interesting.
Do you think? Bad night for Labour but poor night for UKIP too. If the local by-elections are any guide then OW&R will be a comfortable Labour hold ahead of the Tories in second on a lowish turnout. There may well be a net swing to the Tories but Labour will spin that as the drop-off of Meacher's personal vote / UKIP voters 'going home'. I'm not sure either argument will hold too much water (how many Tory-inclined voters went for Meacher on a personal level? Were UKIP's voters really ex-Tory?) but once you're into that kind of detail the public's tuned out. Labour won't lose and won't come close to losing so whatever the underlying movements, the media will ignore it, as will politicians looking for a reason to.
However, for psephological nerds, it could tell us a lot about the lie of the land going into next year's local and PCC elections.
That's pretty much how I saw it yesterday. The only interesting question is whether UKIP can hold onto second. I am thinking no at the moment.
On the debate overnight on a sugar tax I heard on R5 yesterday that sugar alternatives such as those found in diet coke trigger the production of insulin in the same way as sugar does thereby increasing the risk of diabetes.
I had not heard this before and wonder if there are suitably qualified views on PB (such as foxinsox) who might be able to comment. If the replacements for sugar also have harmful effects then the argument for a sugar tax seems much less compelling.
For me, the main effect of a sugar tax is likely to be indirect. If the manufacturers of processed foods had to pay the tax on their products they would put less in. Since the evidence seems to increasingly point to sugar being more dangerous than fat this seems quite a good thing although I agree with those pointing out that taxes of this type have to be penal to affect the behaviour of consumers and the consumers most affected are inevitably the poor.
There is some evidence that diet drinks stimulate insulin, which in turn stimulates appetite. Probably the net effect is not as bad as the sugary drink though.
My best cure for dehydration is Coca Cola and potato crisps. The fluid is isotonic and the sugar speeds the salt absorption. Great tip for travelers in dodgy parts of the world.
Otherwise I am not a fan of sodas. I do like sugar in espresso though. Cutting out sugar is undoubtably a good thing. We have an epidemic of diabetes, but through tax? I am not so sure. The rates would have to be penal as sugar is so cheap.
On the debate overnight on a sugar tax I heard on R5 yesterday that sugar alternatives such as those found in diet coke trigger the production of insulin in the same way as sugar does thereby increasing the risk of diabetes.
I had not heard this before and wonder if there are suitably qualified views on PB (such as foxinsox) who might be able to comment. If the replacements for sugar also have harmful effects then the argument for a sugar tax seems much less compelling.
For me, the main effect of a sugar tax is likely to be indirect. If the manufacturers of processed foods had to pay the tax on their products they would put less in. Since the evidence seems to increasingly point to sugar being more dangerous than fat this seems quite a good thing although I agree with those pointing out that taxes of this type have to be penal to affect the behaviour of consumers and the consumers most affected are inevitably the poor.
There is some evidence that diet drinks stimulate insulin, which in turn stimulates appetite. Probably the net effect is not as bad as the sugary drink though.
My best cure for dehydration is Coca Cola and potato crisps. The fluid is isotonic and the sugar speeds the salt absorption. Great tip for travelers in dodgy parts of the world.
Otherwise I am not a fan of sodas. I do like sugar in espresso though. Cutting out sugar is undoubtably a good thing. We have an epidemic of diabetes, but through tax? I am not so sure. The rates would have to be penal as sugar is so cheap.
Many thanks. What a great resource this site can be.
On the debate overnight on a sugar tax I heard on R5 yesterday that sugar alternatives such as those found in diet coke trigger the production of insulin in the same way as sugar does thereby increasing the risk of diabetes.
I had not heard this before and wonder if there are suitably qualified views on PB (such as foxinsox) who might be able to comment. If the replacements for sugar also have harmful effects then the argument for a sugar tax seems much less compelling.
For me, the main effect of a sugar tax is likely to be indirect. If the manufacturers of processed foods had to pay the tax on their products they would put less in. Since the evidence seems to increasingly point to sugar being more dangerous than fat this seems quite a good thing although I agree with those pointing out that taxes of this type have to be penal to affect the behaviour of consumers and the consumers most affected are inevitably the poor.
through tax? I am not so sure. The rates would have to be penal as sugar is so cheap.
Might revive an old Guernsey industry - marmalade making - when a 19th century sugar tax drove Keiller production off shore.....
Based on last night’s local election results, the Meacher by-election should be V interesting.
Do you think? Bad night for Labour but poor night for UKIP too. If the local by-elections are any guide then OW&R will be a comfortable Labour hold ahead of the Tories in second on a lowish turnout. There may well be a net swing to the Tories but Labour will spin that as the drop-off of Meacher's personal vote / UKIP voters 'going home'. I'm not sure either argument will hold too much water (how many Tory-inclined voters went for Meacher on a personal level? Were UKIP's voters really ex-Tory?) but once you're into that kind of detail the public's tuned out. Labour won't lose and won't come close to losing so whatever the underlying movements, the media will ignore it, as will politicians looking for a reason to.
However, for psephological nerds, it could tell us a lot about the lie of the land going into next year's local and PCC elections.
UKIP came second in the seat even in May when the Tories won a national majority. I expect both Labour and the Tories to lose vote share, Labour to hold but with their majority down, UKIP up
You very kindly posted the population figures for my neck of the woods. You need to remember that turnout is derisory (I think the majority is only 7,000 or something).
That means that Kensington votes are worth the most.
It's interesting to see the Green vote fall or simply vanish in these by elections, yet there is little or no net bonus for Corbyn's Labour even though opinion polls are telling us that these are typical of his core and should theoretically be Labour now.
Based on last night’s local election results, the Meacher by-election should be V interesting.
Do you think? Bad night for Labour but poor night for UKIP too. If the local by-elections are any guide then OW&R will be a comfortable Labour hold ahead of the Tories in second on a lowish turnout. There may well be a net swing to the Tories but Labour will spin that as the drop-off of Meacher's personal vote / UKIP voters 'going home'. I'm not sure either argument will hold too much water (how many Tory-inclined voters went for Meacher on a personal level? Were UKIP's voters really ex-Tory?) but once you're into that kind of detail the public's tuned out. Labour won't lose and won't come close to losing so whatever the underlying movements, the media will ignore it, as will politicians looking for a reason to.
However, for psephological nerds, it could tell us a lot about the lie of the land going into next year's local and PCC elections.
UKIP came second in the seat even in May when the Tories won a national majority. I expect both Labour and the Tories to lose vote share, Labour to hold but with their majority down, UKIP up
Yes but UKIP have been down in every election and poll since the GE sometimes by quite large percentages. Haven't they lost all their defences since the GE, except for one hold? They have also lost their one Council. Labour win easily, Tories 2nd, UKIP third and saved deposit if they're lucky.
It's interesting to see the Green vote fall or simply vanish in these by elections, yet there is little or no net bonus for Corbyn's Labour even though opinion polls are telling us that these are typical of his core and should theoretically be Labour now.
Surely the Greens just don't bother to vote in such elections - they probably don't even know they're happening.
On the debate overnight on a sugar tax I heard on R5 yesterday that sugar alternatives such as those found in diet coke trigger the production of insulin in the same way as sugar does thereby increasing the risk of diabetes.
I had not heard this before and wonder if there are suitably qualified views on PB (such as foxinsox) who might be able to comment. If the replacements for sugar also have harmful effects then the argument for a sugar tax seems much less compelling.
For me, the main effect of a sugar tax is likely to be indirect. If the manufacturers of processed foods had to pay the tax on their products they would put less in. Since the evidence seems to increasingly point to sugar being more dangerous than fat this seems quite a good thing although I agree with those pointing out that taxes of this type have to be penal to affect the behaviour of consumers and the consumers most affected are inevitably the poor.
There is some evidence that diet drinks stimulate insulin, which in turn stimulates appetite. Probably the net effect is not as bad as the sugary drink though.
My best cure for dehydration is Coca Cola and potato crisps. The fluid is isotonic and the sugar speeds the salt absorption. Great tip for travelers in dodgy parts of the world.
Otherwise I am not a fan of sodas. I do like sugar in espresso though. Cutting out sugar is undoubtably a good thing. We have an epidemic of diabetes, but through tax? I am not so sure. The rates would have to be penal as sugar is so cheap.
People seem to have become habituated to have incredibly sweet drinks. This year I have been trying ways to fuel myself for evening 10k races. Problem is sports drinks like Gatorade and Lucozade Sport are disgustingly sweet. This is not because of the sugar, which is the whole idea, but the fact they have a load of artificial sweeteners added for some reason.
Based on last night’s local election results, the Meacher by-election should be V interesting.
Do you think? Bad night for Labour but poor night for UKIP too. If the local by-elections are any guide then OW&R will be a comfortable Labour hold ahead of the Tories in second on a lowish turnout. There may well be a net swing to the Tories but Labour will spin that as the drop-off of Meacher's personal vote / UKIP voters 'going home'. I'm not sure either argument will hold too much water (how many Tory-inclined voters went for Meacher on a personal level? Were UKIP's voters really ex-Tory?) but once you're into that kind of detail the public's tuned out. Labour won't lose and won't come close to losing so whatever the underlying movements, the media will ignore it, as will politicians looking for a reason to.
However, for psephological nerds, it could tell us a lot about the lie of the land going into next year's local and PCC elections.
UKIP came second in the seat even in May when the Tories won a national majority. I expect both Labour and the Tories to lose vote share, Labour to hold but with their majority down, UKIP up
Yes but UKIP have been down in every election and poll since the GE sometimes by quite large percentages. Haven't they lost all their defences since the GE, except for one hold? They have also lost their one Council. Labour win easily, Tories 2nd, UKIP third and saved deposit if they're lucky.
No some polls even have had UKIP on 17%. The Tories are nowhere in this seat as I said a Labour hold but with UKIP eating into their majority
Am I the only one who thinks a Sugar Tax is a really good idea?
Make the people who are knowingly putting more pressure on the NHS pay more, but without undermining the "free at point of use" principle.
It falls disproportionately on the poor.
So does tax on tobacco.
How about a deal ? Sugar tax = 4.4bn. No cuts in tax credits on the poor.
In any case, it is quite easily avoidable. Don't drink Coca Cola. That way the poor actually wins on money and health.
When it comes to the beverage and chocolate industry's the Tories suddenly feel for the poor. They lose that when it comes to tax credits.
The sugar tax treats everyone like a criminal. I eat healthy amounts of sugar in my diet and yet I do bulk buy Coke when it is on offer, I have enough self control to limit my intake of Coke to a couple of cans a week and yet I probably have over a hundred in my flat. Why should people like me have to suffer higher prices because fat people can't control themselves around sugary drinks. Comparing it to fag taxes is not the same because I don't smoke and it isn't healthy to smoke any amount of cigarettes, but there is a healthy level of sugar intake and people who do have self control shouldn't be punished for the sins of those who do not.
Specifically about the sugar tax, a better solution would be to make type 2 diabetes no longer covered by the NHS, people who get it would have to pay for treatment out of their own pocket. Do the same for fat busting operations etc...
Make the actions of these people have consequences instead of treating us all like criminals. If the complaint is that the NHS can't cope then make the people responsible for their fat pay for it. I would take the same view with smokers and alcoholics.
Comments
You want to compare the UK to Spain? OK smoking rates are a lot higher in Spain and the UK has one of the lowest smoking consumption rates: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2012/10/19/who-smokes-most-a-surprising-map-of-smoking-rates-by-country/
Try dealing with real facts rather than making up your own. You might go further.
Cigarette consumption per capita:
Spain: 1,757
United States: 1,028
France: 854
United Kingdom: 750
Yeah zero difference ...
For the discussion of Consumption Taxes being effective, the smoking ban is utterly irrelevant. If I am wrong about it (which I may be) I'm sure you will continue to try to equate a mistake about this with a justification for your idiotic theory that Consumption Taxes work. The core problem is that no correlation can be shown between the rate of tax in a country and its level of smoking.
The problem you have is that you're trying to make data fit your assumptions without any understanding of what is a complicated and multi-level system. You basically want a Lie To Children as you seem incapable of dealing with a multi-faceted issue.
All OECD countries have seen a reduction in smoking.
Those countries have had widely divergent tax policies.
The rates of reduction in those individual countries have not shown direct correlation to the level of taxation at individual times.
Smoking rates were only worse in other nations with high tax levels? So that is why Spain which you credited as a nation with a low tax rate earlier has more than double the amount of cigarette consumption as the UK does?
Or that the USA has a higher consumption rate? Although the US smoking rate has come down in recent years, since (surprise, surprise) taxes were significantly increased a few years ago.
The UK has a significantly lower rate of tobacco consumption compared to the other nations that were chosen by you as shining examples of low tax rates working. Instead of just making bullshit claims how about providing some real data yourself.
You are now reduced to flailing about claiming "yeah but its going down elsewhere too" while ignoring that all economic evidence shows the rate it goes down to is DIRECTLY related to price. As predicted the US has witnessed a decline in sales since in the years the tax rates went up.
(from your description, Carson does indeed sound highly unsuitable)
Or voluntarily fund the state through their stupidity. I'm ok with either option. I'd rather penalise and tax stupidity than penalise and tax hard work. Which would you rather penalise?
Summinck that Dr Sven might support (unlike more aware human-beings).
:tumbleweed:
Ahem.
I thought of a better way of putting it: clothing and kit is a great differentiator between people. When fishing (and also shooting to a lesser extent) the people taking part tend to wear the same sorts of clothes without it being a uniform. Particularly in fishing, the kit does not differentiate you either - some fishermen spend many thousands on their kit that they struggle to afford.
If you cannot tell someone's wealth or status from the clothing or class, it's difficult to know if the person sitting on the riverbank is a boiler fitter who spends all his spare money on expensive fishing gear, or a multimillionaire businessman.
Or perhaps I'm talking out of my backside. Again.
Based on last night’s local election results, the Meacher by-election should be V interesting.
Strangely, it's both true and false for railway preservation in my experience. I've known some rather posh people shifting sleepers or on the footplate with the hoi polloi, whilst others would not go anywhere near any dirt.
I had not heard this before and wonder if there are suitably qualified views on PB (such as foxinsox) who might be able to comment. If the replacements for sugar also have harmful effects then the argument for a sugar tax seems much less compelling.
For me, the main effect of a sugar tax is likely to be indirect. If the manufacturers of processed foods had to pay the tax on their products they would put less in. Since the evidence seems to increasingly point to sugar being more dangerous than fat this seems quite a good thing although I agree with those pointing out that taxes of this type have to be penal to affect the behaviour of consumers and the consumers most affected are inevitably the poor.
However, for psephological nerds, it could tell us a lot about the lie of the land going into next year's local and PCC elections.
My best cure for dehydration is Coca Cola and potato crisps. The fluid is isotonic and the sugar speeds the salt absorption. Great tip for travelers in dodgy parts of the world.
Otherwise I am not a fan of sodas. I do like sugar in espresso though. Cutting out sugar is undoubtably a good thing. We have an epidemic of diabetes, but through tax? I am not so sure. The rates would have to be penal as sugar is so cheap.
Cheers to Mr. Hayfield for his work on the results.
Practice for the American race starts today, but I'd guess it'll be quite late (the race start is 7pm on Sunday).
You very kindly posted the population figures for my neck of the woods. You need to remember that turnout is derisory (I think the majority is only 7,000 or something).
That means that Kensington votes are worth the most.
In other news, all's right with the world
Labour win easily, Tories 2nd, UKIP third and saved deposit if they're lucky.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-34613637
Make the actions of these people have consequences instead of treating us all like criminals. If the complaint is that the NHS can't cope then make the people responsible for their fat pay for it. I would take the same view with smokers and alcoholics.