Awesome stuff you see on the internet

Donsteppa

So once there's a tax on my can of coke I'll then be left to drink it in peace?
 
Thought not.
 
From observation over the last few years... Donsteppa's rule of thumb: 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.
 
Wowsers.

Crucial

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. 
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

taniwharugby

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Crucial" data-cid="565333" data-time="1458259824">
<div>
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. 
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
</div>
</blockquote>
 
haha yep, despite claims of slim margins, supermarkets tend to sell things for what they want...loss leaders in some cases?
 
So coke zero & diet coke have no sugar, will they remain cheaper options to encourage healthier drinking?
 
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.

mariner4life

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Baron Silas Greenback" data-cid="565324" data-time="1458254560">
<div>
And in the non shock of the day.. people want to be taxed more.
 
Because you know.. politicians do such a bang up job of managing finances at the moment..
 
Bizarre.
</div>
</blockquote>
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.
 
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?

MajorRage

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="mariner4life" data-cid="565338" data-time="1458263811">
<div>
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.
 
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?
</div>
</blockquote>
 
What do we have now ... inactive kids eating M&M's and drinking coke
 
What do we want ... active kids eating fruit and drinking water
 
Which is preferable ... inactive kids eating fruit and drinking water OR active kids eating M&M's and drinking coke.
 
I'm all over the former. I suspect there won't be too many teachers who would really want the latter.
 
 
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.

antipodean

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="mariner4life" data-cid="565338" data-time="1458263811">
<div>
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.
 
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?
</div>
</blockquote>
 
Making them active won't do anything if they continue to consume vast amounts of sugars.
 
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.

reprobate

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.

Donsteppa

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="reprobate" data-cid="565393" data-time="1458283895">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.</blockquote>
 
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. 
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. 
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...

reprobate

i just really like the idea of a bouncer outside maccas saying 'ah sorry sir, i think you've had enough'.
 
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.
 
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.

Donsteppa

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="reprobate" data-cid="565429" data-time="1458289352">i just really like the idea of a bouncer outside maccas saying 'ah sorry sir, i think you've had enough'.</blockquote>
 
They'd have to be polite to the bouncer too. Couldn't outrun them...

Hooroo

How come we can't be fat? I understand the shitfaced argument but why bring fat?

reprobate

the problem is that being fat is an indicator of all sorts of health problems, and we have a public health system. so being fat is a drain on taxes. like booze, like ciggies. the justification for taxing the shit out of those things is health costs, so you can apply the same argument to food, or weight, or lack of exercise.
the bouncer thing is a joke obviously, but the reason for not letting shitfaced people into a pub is that they have had too much and hence are a potential cost to society and...

Catogrande

Well, the one thing we can seemingly all agree on that (said in Arnie terminator voice) "Der enemy ist shoooger". The issues are whether or not taxing sugary drinks will make any meaningful difference, whether the revenue raised can be applied specifically to help fight the problems and would the likes of coke etc have a fair point if they felt that other areas such as cereals (as has been pointed out), ready meals, processed foods of many kinds, lots of low fat options are also much too high in sugar and are not getting taxed?
 
The tobacco analogy was raised earlier as an example of taxation working. The thing is it is much easier to target, tobacco is tobacco. Sugar is everywhere in so many products. For sure it's (tobacco taxation) raised a shed load of revenue (any meaningful part of that been directed to education or alternatives or cancer research? Thought not) but TBH it is education that has made the biggest dent in smoking numbers not the fact that a packet of cages now costs a day's wages. People will always find a way to fund their vices. Education and opportunity are the things we need to major on.

canefan

Thanks to the Indonesians you can score one for the toothfish
 
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote">
 
<div>

Toothfish poaching vessel Viking blown up by Indonesian authorities <img src="http://www.stuff.co.nz/etc/designs/ffx/nz/stuff/clientlibs-all/images/icon_video.png" alt="icon_video.png">

&nbsp;<div>

Indonesian authorities blow up illegal fishing vessel Viking pursued by New Zealand authorities.
</div>
</div>
</div>
An illegal toothfish fishing vessel New Zealand authorities were pursuing has been captured and destroyed by the Indonesian Navy.
The stateless Viking was one of a fleet of six illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing vessels plundering toothfish stocks in the Southern Ocean.
Fishing in the area is banned by an international convention to conserve Antarctic marine life.
 
<div><img src="http://www.stuff.co.nz/content/dam/images/1/a/g/s/h/j/image.related.StuffLandscapeSixteenByNine.620x349.1agrmg.png/1458276936236.jpg" title="" alt="1458276936236.jpg"></div>
<div> </div>
Ministry for Primary Industries compliance operations manager Gary Orr said New Zealand authorities had been working with a range of countries for the past 12 months to try and capture the six vessels and crew from the poaching fleet.
 
The Viking was the last of the six vessels to be caught.
It was captured in Indonesian waters and blown up by the Indonesian Navy and the Ministry of Maritime Affairs and Fisheries in the waters of Tanjung Batumandi, Pangandaran, West Java, on Monday.
The crew was being detained in Indonesia.
"We are extremely hopeful that no-one will step in to fill the gap that has been left by elimination of these six vessels from that fishery," Orr said.
In December, New Zealand authorities patrolling the Southern Ocean captured video and still footage of illegal vessels and provided crew lists to other countries involved in the crackdown.
<div>
<div> </div>
</div>
"We've played a significant part."
The Viking was a stateless vessel, falsely claiming to be flagged under Nigeria.
"What we're seeing is fraudulent documentation in relation to the vessel flag."
The nationalities of the crew were not known.
Had it been caught in New Zealand waters, the vessel would not have been blown up, he said.
None of the vessels had been caught in areas under New Zealand jurisdiction, he said.
"Our engagement in these vessels has all been on the high seas where you're operating under international law where it's not so clear cut."
The fleet had extracted a significant amount of fish from the Southern Ocean fishery and its absence would significantly benefit the sustainability of the fish stock, Orr said.
Vast amounts of time and resources had been spent on pursuing the fleet, but Orr could not say how much it had cost New Zealand taxpayers.
 - Stuff
</blockquote>
That's how you deal with these scumbags

reprobate

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Catogrande" data-cid="565454" data-time="1458292338">
<div>
Well, thee one thing we can seemingly alls free on that (said in Arnie terminator voice) "Der enemy ist shoooger". The issues are whether or not taxing sugary drinks will make any meaningful difference, whether the revenue raised can be applied specifically to help fight the problems and would the likes of coke etc have a fair point if they felt that other areas such as cereals (as has been pointed out), ready meals, processed foods of many kinds, lots of low fat options are also much too high in sugar and are not getting taxed?
 
The tobacco analogy was raised earlier as an example of taxation working. The thing is it is much easier to target, tobacco is tobacco. Sugar is everywhere in so many products. For sure it's raised a shed load of revenue (any meaningful part of that been directed to education or alternatives or cancer research? Thought not) and TBH it is education that has made the biggest dent in smoking numbers not the fact that a packet of cages now costs a day's wages. People will always find a way to fund their vices. Education and opportunity are the things we need to major on.
</div>
</blockquote>
yeah tricky one. so much natural sugar in fruit, honey... so then you say 'any added sugar' i guess... but so many things, where do you draw the line.

canefan

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="reprobate" data-cid="565547" data-time="1458297400">
<div>
yeah tricky one. so much natural sugar in fruit, honey... so then you say 'any added sugar' i guess... but so many things, where do you draw the line.
</div>
</blockquote>
It's refined sugar. Someone will draw the line, they always do. Look at the alcohol cannabis debate. Many would argue alcohol has a far greater cost to the community yet it is legal and cannabis is not (yet)

gollum

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="reprobate" data-cid="565450" data-time="1458292178">
<div>
the problem is that being fat is an indicator of all sorts of health problems, and we have a public health system. so being fat is a drain on taxes. like booze, like ciggies.
</div>
</blockquote>
 
Thats the key thing. That whiney idea that "its my body! if I want to be fat its MY issue!!". That only works if you are not relying in the tax payer for anything. And in the UK especially the obese are a huge drain on the NHS. So their massive fat lard arsed bodies ARE an issue for the rest of us.
 
You want to smoke you contribute to the health budget via tax. Same with booze (tho' maybe not enough), same with riving a V8, so it should be with sugar.
 
People want libertarian socialism. IE full freedom & a huge tax funded safety net. Well fuck off. You want to be fully libatarian, be my guest, but there is no safety net. You are responsible 100% mate. Equally you want the state (ie tax payers) to carry you, you are responsible for your actions. And the more you can target that (by taxing consumption not income) the fairer for society.
 
 
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="reprobate" data-cid="565547" data-time="1458297400">
<div>
yeah tricky one. so much natural sugar in fruit, honey... so then you say 'any added sugar' i guess... but so many things, where do you draw the line.
</div>
</blockquote>
 
I don't think you need to draw the line re drinks. A litre of pure OJ is staggerinly unhealthy. 2 or 3 oranges, fine, but once you put it in a drink form its very very bad for you in the volume most people consume it. The issue at the moment is people have access to sugar in a liquid form, that they drink in vast quantities.

reprobate

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="gollum" data-cid="565567" data-time="1458299587">
<div>
I don't think you need to draw the line re drinks. A litre of pure OJ is staggerinly unhealthy. 2 or 3 oranges, fine, but once you put it in a drink form its very very bad for you in the volume most people consume it. The issue at the moment is people have access to sugar in a liquid form, that they drink in vast quantities. 
</div>
</blockquote>
but that is a volume issue, rather than the item itself, which i think is a problem. though the same could be said for red wine i guess. i'd much rather they dropped the tax on that rather than started taxing OJ. otherwise bacon will be next.

NTA

The day they put a bacon tax down is the day I Guy Fawkes that shit

gollum

Its very hard to shovel enough bacon into yourself to do as much damage as chugging a litre of OJ or Coke or dear god Sunny D.

The Silver Fern

Awesome stuff you see on the internet