Putting a 20% tax on drinks with sugar

[Boges]

1 hour ago, Benz said:

I agree with the principle of that tax but, all products concerned by that suger should be taxed just the same way. Then 90% of the fast food will become expensive. Ironic because the US government is subsidizing the industry of that sugar.

A tax to fight the subsidize. How about we cut the subsidize in the first place? Well I know, most of the subsidizes are in USA and we are in Canada.

Then you cost lots of jobs. In the service industry and the farming sector. And if the price of producing food goes up then people's food security may be in jeopardy.

As I said in a previous post. This is a problem governments created, taxing people for their error is horrifically punitive. 

Edited March 20, 2017 by Boges

[dre]

On 3/16/2017 at 9:47 PM, Bonam said:

No thank you. I'm fit, at an ideal weight, and consume sugary drinks including fruit juice and sweetened tea on a regular basis. I even have the occasional coke. The human body needs energy, and sugar is just that. Not my fault that some people have a ton of sugar and then just sit around instead of burning it. 

If you want to tax something, tax the people that get fat for no valid medical reason, or worse yet, enable their kids to get fat. 

The thing is you are already paying, you just pay more in taxes and premiums to support UHC for a nation with high obesity rates. It would probably be cheaper overall and cost you less, as opposed to just waiting for people to get expensive diseases and medical conditions.

[Bonam]

52 minutes ago, dre said:

The thing is you are already paying, you just pay more in taxes and premiums to support UHC for a nation with high obesity rates. It would probably be cheaper overall and cost you less, as opposed to just waiting for people to get expensive diseases and medical conditions.

If it would be cheaper overall for me, that suggests it would probably be a pretty small tax, which then probably wouldn't be enough to significantly change anyone's behavior. Besides, even if it did save the healthcare system money, it's not like anyone would actually cut my income taxes or sales taxes with the savings, they'd just funnel it into some other program. Further, again, there's nothing unhealthy about sugar. It's energy that the body needs. Just because some people misuse it doesn't mean everyone should be made to pay.

If the choice is me being punitively taxed for something, I'd rather just let fat people be fat. 

[Boges]

6 hours ago, dre said:

The thing is you are already paying, you just pay more in taxes and premiums to support UHC for a nation with high obesity rates. It would probably be cheaper overall and cost you less, as opposed to just waiting for people to get expensive diseases and medical conditions.

Well then lets do away with Universal Healthcare if you want to be punitive about the personal choices of others. 

[dre]

7 hours ago, Bonam said:

If it would be cheaper overall for me, that suggests it would probably be a pretty small tax, which then probably wouldn't be enough to significantly change anyone's behavior. Besides, even if it did save the healthcare system money, it's not like anyone would actually cut my income taxes or sales taxes with the savings, they'd just funnel it into some other program. Further, again, there's nothing unhealthy about sugar. It's energy that the body needs. Just because some people misuse it doesn't mean everyone should be made to pay.

If the choice is me being punitively taxed for something, I'd rather just let fat people be fat. 

Like I said, you're paying anyways... probably more. Also healthcare is a massive line item in the budgets of both provincial and federal government. It either gets funded by taxes, or by debt and in either case you are on the hook. Its naive to think there isn't a link between  healthcare costs and taxes.

[Boges]

5 minutes ago, dre said:

Like I said, you're paying anyways... probably more. Also healthcare is a massive line item in the budgets of both provincial and federal government. It either gets funded by taxes, or by debt and in either case you are on the hook. Its naive to think there isn't a link between  healthcare costs and taxes.

Healthcare budgets will continue to increase as people continue to live longer. Sugar is nothing new. But now people that make poor life choices can still live into their 60's and 70's because we can keep them alive longer. Everyone who doesn't die suddenly is going to age and face huge end-of-life costs at some point. Living a healthy life is just delaying that eventual outcome. 

It's why I find the idea of a Paleo-Diet to be the most hilarious thing ever. People really think going back to a diet and lifestyle when life expectancy was a fraction of what it is now is a good thing. 

Edited March 21, 2017 by Boges

[Argus]

This sort of tax is meant to punish everyone because some abuse a certain thing. It's petty and stupid. People who drink too much cola and get fat have only themselves to blame. Tax fat people. 

[Boges]

9 minutes ago, Argus said:

This sort of tax is meant to punish everyone because some abuse a certain thing. It's petty and stupid. People who drink too much cola and get fat have only themselves to blame. Tax fat people. 

What measure are we using to determine fat? Going back to Member Impact's post, these things are very relative. Taxing people because their BMI is high is another awful idea. You can eat horribly and be quite healthy and you can be mindful of what you eat and struggle with weight. You can have a heart condition because of your genetics. 

I think people think that the taxation of sugar will work like the taxation of tobacco. Except Tobacco isn't in pretty much everything we consume. 

[Argus]

Just now, Boges said:

What measure are we using to determine fat?

Like art, I know it when I see it. We'll have doctors report fat people, and all the fat people will have to undergo mandatory PE classes or pay extra taxes!

[Boges]

4 minutes ago, Argus said:

Like art, I know it when I see it. We'll have doctors report fat people, and all the fat people will have to undergo mandatory PE classes or pay extra taxes!

That's a pretty extreme position. What if those fat people don't have any health issues associated with their weight. And are we talking Obese or just overweight. And if a person's weight is largely muscle do we include that? 

The rabbit hole you're creating is far more troublesome than making sugar a bit more expensive. 

[Argus]

Just now, Boges said:

That's a pretty extreme position. What if those fat people don't have any health issues associated with their weight. And are we talking Obese or just overweight. And if a person's weight is largely muscle do we include that? 

The rabbit hole you're creating is far more troublesome than making sugar a bit more expensive. 

Fat is not muscle. Someone overweight due to muscles is not a problem. Someone obese is a problem both to their own health and to the fiscal health of the health care system. There is no such thing as not having health issues due to obesity. Obesity is by its nature unhealthy and puts undue stress on the heart an other organs.

[Boges]

Just now, Argus said:

Fat is not muscle. Someone overweight due to muscles is not a problem. Someone obese is a problem both to their own health and to the fiscal health of the health care system. There is no such thing as not having health issues due to obesity. Obesity is by its nature unhealthy and puts undue stress on the heart an other organs.

I had a doctor tell me that weight is weight, It'll effect your joints just the same. People who play sports and live active lifestyles open themselves up to injury that may cost the the Healthcare system as well. 

People aren't really worried about the Healthcare system, they want people who do things they don't approve of to be punished. 

Have a parellel healthcare system available so people can pay for their own healthcare and live whatever the way they want if we want to go down this avenue. But then we should also tax people who do a variety of risky activities because they may cost the system extra. 

[Argus]

1 minute ago, Boges said:

I had a doctor tell me that weight is weight, It'll effect your joints just the same. People who play sports and live active lifestyles open themselves up to injury that may cost the the Healthcare system as well. 

Then tax ski hills. If you believe that lifestyle choices cost society and thus society is being fair in taxing lifestyle choices then why pick and choose? Tax anything which causes undue extra costs to the health care system.

But the notion is that skiing MAY cost extra if something goes wrong. Likewise, people drinking coke MAY cause extra but only if they drink to excess. There is certainty that obese people WILL cause extra because being obese is unhealthy.

 

[Boges]

1 minute ago, Argus said:

Then tax ski hills. If you believe that lifestyle choices cost society and thus society is being fair in taxing lifestyle choices then why pick and choose? Tax anything which causes undue extra costs to the health care system.

But the notion is that skiing MAY cost extra if something goes wrong. Likewise, people drinking coke MAY cause extra but only if they drink to excess. There is certainty that obese people WILL cause extra because being obese is unhealthy.

And Obese people may live long lives and not develop Type 2 Diabetes or Heart Disease. Whereas otherwise healthy people may develop Congestive Heart Failure because of who their parents were. 

All I'm saying is that there are no clear cut solutions to the obesity problem. Taxing people won't fix the problem. 

[Bonam]

5 hours ago, Boges said:

All I'm saying is that there are no clear cut solutions to the obesity problem. Taxing people won't fix the problem. 

If we round up fat people and send them off to gulags to work it off, that will fix the problem. And get some railroads built across the tundra at the same time. 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Bonam said:

If we round up fat people and send them off to gulags to work it off, that will fix the problem. And get some railroads built across the tundra at the same time. 

You could probably charge them for it, too.  Throw in some Richard Simmons videos...

[Benz]

On ‎2017‎-‎03‎-‎20 at 4:02 PM, Boges said:

Then you cost lots of jobs. In the service industry and the farming sector. And if the price of producing food goes up then people's food security may be in jeopardy.

As I said in a previous post. This is a problem governments created, taxing people for their error is horrifically punitive. 

Look at the big pictures. Fast food is cheaper, not good food. Sometimes the farmers have those specific corns instead of producing real food and the reason is because it is subsidized (bigger profit). It makes fast food cheaper at the expense of good food.

We are not about to stop eating anytime soon. The needs is there and will always be. The jobs will still exist. The orientation will be just better.

Recently I have visited the Philippines. A third wolrd country much more poor than I expected. It's like living 200 years ago but, with cars and cell phones. Despite the living conditions, the food is good. I have eaten very well. Even when I was eating amoung the locals in their homes, not "expensive" restaurants.

We do not have a good attitude regarding the food. We do not subsidizes the right ones. We do not protect the quality and leave the poor consumers at the crocs of industries looking for profits.