Proposed Sugar Tax - Good Idea or Nanny State?

[OpiateOfTheMasses]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-34603118

In principle I don't have too much of a problem with this, there have been taxes on dafter things and excessive sugar consumption is a problem. So even if it only gets people to think about it before they pick up their multipack of Coke or it only reduces consumption by a couple of percent it's not a bad thing.

It'll also encourage manufacturers of processed foods to reduced the amount of sugar that they hide in food and it gets in some more money to the Treasury to help reduce the deficit.

But I accept that as with a lot of ad valorem taxes it will hit the poorest hardest.

[Blade Azaezel]

Instead of making sugary foods more expensive, could they not just make healthy foods cheaper?

Of course not, that'd be insane

[Gypsy-Vanner]

Food shouldn't be taxed at all.

[CashRules]

Food shouldn't be taxed at all.

This is true. There should be zero taxes on necessities: food, clothing, shelter, transportation, firearms and ammo, and sex. Brothels in Nevada charge taxes, WTF?

EDIT: In this case WTF = We Tax Fucking.

[Gypsy-Vanner]

We should just like tax income, all income too including dividends and interest and all that jazz corporations and rich people earn but pay no taxes on. Like people making 0-20K no tax, 21k-30k 5%, 31k-41k 10%, 42k-50k 12%, 51k-70k 15%, 71k-99k 20%, 100k-299k 30%, 300k-800k 40%, 800k-1mil 50% and anyone over 1mil 60%.

Thatoutta fix all our problems.

[Gypsy-Vanner]

oh and stop subsidies and fire about 10% of govt workforce and reduce military spending by like 75%, that'll help too

[CashRules]

I'd be perfectly fine with taxing luxuries at 500%. Nobody needs a goddamn Lamborghini and if they want one bad enough then tax the fuck out of the bastards. Also, a 300% tax on all imports and stop Walmart from raping the world by forcing them to buy at home. We stole Hawaii, Puerto Rico and The Virgin islands fair and square so there's not a single agricultural product that can't be grown right here in the U.S.

[Gypsy-Vanner]

One payer health care would be nice too

and get rid of this two party system bs we got

and end super pacs and take away personhood from corporations.

and stuff

[Gypsy-Vanner]

Need has nothing to do with it said a pigfarmer once.

Stop taxing anything but imports and that'll suffice.

[CashRules]

To get away with lowering military spending you first have to convince the general public of the fact that the U.S. doesn't have any serious threats and hasn't had one since 1945 and we bombed the last one of them into being one of our closest allies. But both political parties have done an outstanding job of convincing the gullible idiots in this country that shithole countries actually stand a chance against us in a war, all to broker the military-industrial complex. meanwhile, they further that ignorance by getting into ridiculous wars with those shithole countries and dragging it out so that a war that we could win in a about three days ends up taking twenty years. They do that shit on purpose. China's fucking military is being financed by the U.S. through goddamn Walmart.

Also: need has nothing to do with the Bill of Rights. There is no Constitutional right for sixty year old men to drive Italian sports cars.

[Blade Azaezel]

As an aside, I read a very interesting article which argued that the atomic bombs didn't really end the war in Japan, they were just a very useful excuse for both Japan and America. The article was ridiculously long, and I think it was linked on Achilles' facebook page, but the main argument was this:

Japan was being endlessly bombed by the US anyway. Barely any city was left standing at this point.
Japan was hoping the Soviets might argue for a conditional peace with the US on their behalf.
Soviets decided instead to move their focus towards Japanese territory after having dealt with the Nazis.
Using the atomic bombs as an excuse meant the Japanese could be seen as victims of an atrocious attack, rather than the war criminals they were.
this suited the US because the myth of the atom bomb was birthed and it made them a huge superpower, gaining prestige whilst taking it from the Soviets...or something

the end.

[CashRules]

The biggest loser of the two world wars was the U.K. Before WWI the U.K. was still the most powerful nation on earth. After WWI the U.S. became their equal and after WWII the U.S. pulled ahead. Your country spent almost a thousand years building an empire and gave it away in less than 50.

[Blade Azaezel]

Yup. But I don't suppose the empire would have lasted much longer anyway. Even the Soviet Union broke apart. Problem with the UK is at times we still think we're a world superpower, and we're not...except for the nukes we have.

[CashRules]

You just have to treat your subjects the way we treat Puerto Ricans.

"Hey, you're American citizens now!"

"That means we can vote in national elections, right?"

"Yeah, but only if you move to the mainland."

"Um, okay."

[Blade Azaezel]

Ha! Well, I mean, we can't really even do that with Scotland at the moment. Bastards keep trying to leave

I say we let 'em.

[CashRules]

You fucked up when you gave Hong Kong away. There's no coming back from that.

[Blade Azaezel]

Yeah not really sure how anyone thought that was a good idea. And now we have the Chinese building our next nuclear power station...because that will go well

[CashRules]

That's the kind of thing that makes those idiots in Argentina get all uppity about the "Malvinas".

Also, the U.K. should really transfer Bermuda to the U.S. I guarantee our claim to Bermuda would be a hell of a lot stronger than Argentina's claim to the Falklands.

[Blade Azaezel]

I'm pretty sure we're keeping the Falklands just to egg them into trying something again

Surely the Spanish have a better claim on Bermuda than the US?

[CashRules]

Bermuda was originally part of the Virginia colony before being granted it's own colonial status and there was an unsuccessful movement during our revolution for Bermuda to become our 14th colony/state. On the other hand, Argentina's claim to the Falklands is based on absolutely nothing. It was never part of Argentina.

[Blade Azaezel]

I think we probably have a better claim on northern France than the Argentinians do on anything. Haven't had a decent war with the French for a while. Might be time...

[Dr_Liszt]

The rational Argentinians wish Britain beat the Spanish in some war so they could have claimed it all as their colony. Kind of like how I wish they would just colonized the Spanish out instead of just raiding them and blowing up their castles. Fucking Spain was a joke then it's a joke now.

[aels]

As you say, I believe it will unfairly target poor people. Also, the government is not reckoning with people like me, who will happily beggar themselves to continue keeping their blood sugar levels at 99% sugar

[Gypsy-Vanner]

I think policing things people put into their bodies is stupid. The only thing we should concern ourselves with is any potential harm that can come from irresponsible use. We can put a protections in place and toss out some rules to ensure the safety of the public but that's all we need.

And then you know...we could like have a real education system that teaches kids about safe sex and healthy eating and all that bullshit instead of what we have now because that is totally working /sarcasm.

[aels]

Also, a lot of people don't eat unhealthily because they're stupid and they don't know what's good for them or because they have a free choice between chips and salad and they pick chips*. They eat unhealthy because they're finanically poor, time-poor, and energy-poor, because fruit and veg may be hard to come by and expensive, because healthy food may require them to travel five miles to a supermarket instead of going to the McDonalds on the high street, and because fruit and veg spoil quickly but shitty tinned food is forever. I don't think that taxing sugar appreciates the reasons why people eat badly. Sometimes it's because they want to (CHIIIIIIPS) and a lot of the time it's because they have to. I eat like shit because I'm sick and I don't have the energy to cook something healthy for half an hour when I could microwave something shitty in two minutes, and because I'm miserable literally the time and junk food makes me feel better.

*Although seriously, who would not pick chips?

[OpiateOfTheMasses]

Also, a lot of people don't eat unhealthily because they're stupid and they don't know what's good for them or because they have a free choice between chips and salad and they pick chips*. They eat unhealthy because they're finanically poor, time-poor, and energy-poor, because fruit and veg may be hard to come by and expensive, because healthy food may require them to travel five miles to a supermarket instead of going to the McDonalds on the high street, and because fruit and veg spoil quickly but shitty tinned food is forever. I don't think that taxing sugar appreciates the reasons why people eat badly. Sometimes it's because they want to (CHIIIIIIPS) and a lot of the time it's because they have to. I eat like shit because I'm sick and I don't have the energy to cook something healthy for half an hour when I could microwave something shitty in two minutes, and because I'm miserable literally the time and junk food makes me feel better.

*Although seriously, who would not pick chips?

Convenience/processed/junk food is always going to be quicker and easier, but it's not generally cheaper. If you buy the raw ingredients and make it yourself from scratch it's pretty much always cheaper doing it that way and it's better for you. But it is more hassle, time consuming and you do have to be organised and know how to cook. It's also much harder to do if you're in a remote location and you're reliant on public transport.

I have a lot of sympathy for people working long hours/people living in the arse end of no-where/people having to cope with disabilities or chronic illnesses and so on. I have less sympathy for people who are sat at home all day doing nothing, but eat processed crap all the time - they have time to go the shops and they have time to cook - and they'd save money.

[aels]

Also, a lot of people don't eat unhealthily because they're stupid and they don't know what's good for them or because they have a free choice between chips and salad and they pick chips*. They eat unhealthy because they're finanically poor, time-poor, and energy-poor, because fruit and veg may be hard to come by and expensive, because healthy food may require them to travel five miles to a supermarket instead of going to the McDonalds on the high street, and because fruit and veg spoil quickly but shitty tinned food is forever. I don't think that taxing sugar appreciates the reasons why people eat badly. Sometimes it's because they want to (CHIIIIIIPS) and a lot of the time it's because they have to. I eat like shit because I'm sick and I don't have the energy to cook something healthy for half an hour when I could microwave something shitty in two minutes, and because I'm miserable literally the time and junk food makes me feel better.

*Although seriously, who would not pick chips?

Convenience/processed/junk food is always going to be quicker and easier, but it's not generally cheaper. If you buy the raw ingredients and make it yourself from scratch it's pretty much always cheaper doing it that way and it's better for you. But it is more hassle, time consuming and you do have to be organised and know how to cook. It's also much harder to do if you're in a remote location and you're reliant on public transport.

I have a lot of sympathy for people working long hours/people living in the arse end of no-where/people having to cope with disabilities or chronic illnesses and so on. I have less sympathy for people who are sat at home all day doing nothing, but eat processed crap all the time - they have time to go the shops and they have time to cook - and they'd save money.

There are definitely places where healthy food is more expensive, either in raw costs or in the cost of time and money to get to the place where they are sold: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_desert#Affordability And things like this: http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/01 ... 18888.html become a problem where you don't have a local market or it is too far away to be easily accessible. (I know you covered some of this so I'm not disagreeing, just supplementing).

[OpiateOfTheMasses]

I agree. It's also good to have a wife who is self-employed and works from home so she can go out and do the shopping during the day and cook nice meals for you from scratch so there's something tasty and healthy waiting for you when you get home. You want to get one of those too - makes life much easier.

[aels]

What is the asking price for your wife?

[OpiateOfTheMasses]

Thanks, but she's not for sale. It'd take too long to break in a new one. Kidnap - sorry, TRAIN - your own.

[aels]

Ugh, if I'm too lazy to cook for myself, I'm too lazy to break in some kind of womanslave to do it for me.

[Boomer]

Ugh, if I'm too lazy to cook for myself, I'm too lazy to break in some kind of womanslave to do it for me.

You can just say "woman". Adding slave to the end is kind of redundant.