Awesome stuff you see on the internet
-
<p>Gollum, your first part sort of contradicts itself in that you state "I'm less concerned with actually raising revenue (tho' thats good) more with it moving cost to those responsible for it."</p>
<p> </p>
<p>If it doesn't raise any revenue (and therefore this cannot then be used for example to bolster the NHS as you would like), then the cost being moved less on to those responsible for it is largely irrelevant. In the UK with our levels of disposable income do you really think another 10% on the cost of a can of coke will deter many? Christ you can go to six different places and the cost of a can of coke can be double in some places and still gets bought. The vast majority of fizzy drinks get bought in supermarkets and they and the manufacturers have sufficient margin to absorb some of the increase if they wish, but this will only be temporary and they will gradually raise prices to regain margin.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I'm not arguing that trying to reduce such sugary filth is bad, just saying that IMO it is likely to have little effect and any revenue raised will get swallowed up by Government and spent on the new Save the LGBT Salamander initiative or some such. I have zero confidence in this being anything other than a sop and an excuse for Osborne to raise a few more quid for the general pot.</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Tim" data-cid="565229" data-time="1458211240">
<div>
<p>Gollum, have you or your avatar read <em>Nudge </em>by Cass Sunstein?</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>Yes, but then I got all "well that must have been bullshit" after it got talked about as driving policy in the Tory-Lib Dem coalition. </p>
<p> </p>
<p>But broadly it seems sensible. Tho' even if it sort of recognised that humans are boardly fucking retards, it (in my opionion) under-estestimated how fucking retarded most people are, and as a result thought a wee gentle nudge was enough. When a full on jack boot to blurter is more whats required.</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Catogrande" data-cid="565238" data-time="1458214020">
<div>
<p>Gollum, your first part sort of contradicts itself in that you state "I'm less concerned with actually raising revenue (tho' thats good) more with it moving cost to those responsible for it."</p>
<p> </p>
<p>If it doesn't raise any revenue (and therefore this cannot then be used for example to bolster the NHS as you would like), then the cost being moved less on to those responsible for it is largely irrelevant. In the UK with our levels of disposable income do you really think another 10% on the cost of a can of coke will deter many? Christ you can go to six different places and the cost of a can of coke can be double in some places and still gets bought. The vast majority of fizzy drinks get bought in supermarkets and they and the manufacturers have sufficient margin to absorb some of the increase if they wish, but this will only be temporary and they will gradually raise prices to regain margin.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>Thats a good point - re the 10%. And no, I don't think 10% will do dick. But I also don't think it'll stay at 10%, 10% is just to get the princeple agreed. Then it'll go through the fucking roof. Its the government equivilent of "I'll just stick the tip in"</p>
<p> </p>
<p>As the economist thing noted, a little tax did nothing, you need a BIG tax to change attitude & my focus is less on the revenue raised - as I think anything going in via tax gets at least half wasted, I'm more keen on the <em>effect</em> of the tax. IE you go from £5bn a year on couch heifers on the NHS to only £3bn as a result of people stopping drinking so much. So you are directly aying to them "this is the real cost of that coke". And the they can pay it or modify their intake. So the tax has to be high enough to make them modify their intake, or at least notice.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>And the £500m raised gets pissed away on HS2. </p> -
<p>It's a more involved form of behavioural finance (something that I have had a little experience with) and I often come across examples - anchoring being one of the more common. I had to study the concept (at a very basic level) for qualification - an insistence from our regulator who then goes on to state that it has no real basis in science and is totally unproven! However I have found it useful.</p>
-
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Catogrande" data-cid="565242" data-time="1458214965">
<div>
<p>It's a more involved form of behavioural finance (something that I have had a little experience with) and I often come across examples - anchoring being one of the more common. I had to study the concept (at a very basic level) for qualification - an insistence from our regulator who then goes on to state that it has no real basis in science and is totally unproven! However I have found it useful.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>Anchoring 100% works. Its one of those where once you get shown it you realise how often you make decisions based on it - or can get led to decisions using it without even realising.</p> -
Ideally if they ever introduce it into NZ then they should cut the GST on fresh fruit and vegetables and include lollies, chocolate etc in the sugar tax too.<br><br>
I saw a comment from a fizzy drink manufacturer that all this does is perpetuates the myth they fizzy drinks are the sole causes of obesity. -
<p>And in the non shock of the day.. people want to be taxed more.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Because you know.. politicians do such a bang up job of managing finances at the moment..</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Bizarre.</p> -
<p>So once there's a tax on my can of coke I'll then be left to drink it in peace?</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Thought not.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>From observation over the last few years... <em>Donsteppa's rule of thumb</em>: the people who want to tax my sugary filth - and who rage about the evils of sugar in society - would be the first to scream "Wowser!" if someone started campaigning against their comfortable middle class glass of Chardonnay.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Wowsers.</p> -
Taxing sugar will do nothing (at a low level). If a supermarket decides that the price point for Coke is $1.99 then they won't be pricing it any differently. <br>
Same goes the opposite way with fruit and veg. If apples sell at $2.99 a kg they will still be priced that way without GST -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Crucial" data-cid="565333" data-time="1458259824">
<div>
<p>Taxing sugar will do nothing (at a low level). If a supermarket decides that the price point for Coke is $1.99 then they won't be pricing it any differently.<br>
Same goes the opposite way with fruit and veg. If apples sell at $2.99 a kg they will still be priced that way without GST</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>haha yep, despite claims of slim margins, supermarkets tend to sell things for what they want...loss leaders in some cases?</p>
<p> </p>
<p>So coke zero & diet coke have no sugar, will they remain cheaper options to encourage healthier drinking?</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Milk is a topical one and if you believe Fonterra, UK supermarkets sell milk at a loss, whereas ours don't, hence the massive price disparity.</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Baron Silas Greenback" data-cid="565324" data-time="1458254560">
<div>
<p>And in the non shock of the day.. people want to be taxed more.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Because you know.. politicians do such a bang up job of managing finances at the moment..</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Bizarre.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>this time i actually agree. This is getting ridiculous. And the very idea that the government would actually be able to target anything with their new funding is fucking absurd. Vote pandering to interest groups which cleverly disguises blatant cash-grabbing.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Public policy is one of the many things i know fuck all about, but surely finding ways to get kids active is a better way to fight obesity than just slugging everyone for their can of coke or bag of M&Ms?</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="mariner4life" data-cid="565338" data-time="1458263811">
<div>
<p>this time i actually agree. This is getting ridiculous. And the very idea that the government would actually be able to target anything with their new funding is fucking absurd. Vote pandering to interest groups which cleverly disguises blatant cash-grabbing.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Public policy is one of the many things i know fuck all about, but surely finding ways to get kids active is a better way to fight obesity than just slugging everyone for their can of coke or bag of M&Ms?</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>What do we have now ... inactive kids eating M&M's and drinking coke</p>
<p> </p>
<p>What do we want ... active kids eating fruit and drinking water</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Which is preferable ... inactive kids eating fruit and drinking water OR active kids eating M&M's and drinking coke.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I'm all over the former. I suspect there won't be too many teachers who would really want the latter.</p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p>The sugar tax is really a great step forwards for a food industry that has really pushed things in a lazy direction, by simply substituting flavour and freshness with sugar and salt. I'm all for this change.</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="mariner4life" data-cid="565338" data-time="1458263811">
<div>
<p>this time i actually agree. This is getting ridiculous. And the very idea that the government would actually be able to target anything with their new funding is fucking absurd. Vote pandering to interest groups which cleverly disguises blatant cash-grabbing.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Public policy is one of the many things i know fuck all about, but surely finding ways to get kids active is a better way to fight obesity than just slugging everyone for their can of coke or bag of M&Ms?</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>Making them active won't do anything if they continue to consume vast amounts of sugars.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Coca-cola have seen this coming from a long way off, hence the investment in low sugar and zero sugar varieties of coke. It's the cereal manufacturers that need to be concerned.</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="reprobate" data-cid="565393" data-time="1458283895"><p>you can't get into a pub if you're shitfaced, you shouldn't be allowed into maccas if you're a big fat fluffybunny.</p></blockquote>
<br>
Or in that instance, you could tax fat lad for his Big Mac to cover the externality of his increased public healthcare cost and simply leave him in peace. <br><br>
As for the shitfaced pub analogy, fat lad in Maccas is less likely to potentially drive drunk, cause a massive fight if you spill his Big Mac, vomit in the shop doorway, or destroy your letter box on his the mission home.<br><br>
Being a big fat fluffybunny isn't a great life choice, but compared to shitfaced bloke trying to get into a pub, the externalities are fewer... -
<p>i just really like the idea of a bouncer outside maccas saying 'ah sorry sir, i think you've had enough'.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>you can't tax the person easily - so you have to tax the product - and that means people who are responsible for their health/weight/diet whatever are unfairly penalised.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>but then fuck all is fair really. same deal with booze - tax the shit out of it because of alcohol-abuse related problems, and we're all left paying a fortune for a drink which fucking sucks.</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="reprobate" data-cid="565429" data-time="1458289352"><p>i just really like the idea of a bouncer outside maccas saying 'ah sorry sir, i think you've had enough'.</p></blockquote>
<br>
They'd have to be polite to the bouncer too. Couldn't outrun them...
