[Newsbot]

Title: Should Canadians pay a sugar tax on food and drinks'
Category: Misc CDN
Posted By: N_Fiddledog
Date: 2016-02-14 00:39:49
Canadian

[Strutz]

In answer to the headline question... no.

Sure, drinks and food with sugar added to them can contribute to obesity but there are other foods that can also be contributors. What about them? They might as well consider slapping a tax on video and computer games and TV packages too since hours on end sitting on one's fat ass is also a contributor.

Where would this 20% collected tax go? Toward health care? Yeah, right.

[andyt]

The usual perfection is the enemy of the good argument. If it's hard to regulate all problem food we shouldn't regulate any.

Sugar has a far more insiduous effect on the body than fat, it's not just about obesity but glycemic index and the addictive nature of sugar. (works like crack, a huge spike in blood sugar followed by a huge drop that makes you want to eat more sugar. Fat, otoh, works to slow blood sugar spikes.)

The argument against this tax seems to always be made by righties who claim they don't personally consume a lot of sugar, but their heart bleeds for those who do. Like "I don't personally do crack, but I don't want to see a tax on it because I worry for the people who do use crack."

IF this tax does anything to reduce sugar consumption, especially by kids, that's a good thing. Add it to refined sugar as well. And even if the income goes to general revenue (it should go to healthcare), so what? What's wrong with the govt having a bit more money from a tax that economists tell us is the best from of taxation - taxing those things you want to reduce.

I can't see the downside of this tax.

[2Cdo]

Andy likes taxes. Hell, in andys world we should just give all our money to the government and have them take care of us from cradle to the grave.

[ShepherdsDog]

because the government is oh so careful and conscientious when it comes to spending tax dollars.

[andyt]

Because the govt doesn't need tax dollars, except of course for the military, and all taxes are to be resisted, even ones that might have a beneficial impact. I don't care if they take the money and have a bonfire with it, the tax is still a good idea. Better yet if it goes to health care, and since health care is about 50% of a provincial budget, 50% of this tax would.

But keep knee jerking.

[martin14]

andyt andyt:

the tax is still a good idea.

Andy never met a tax he didn't like.

And he's always looking for more ways to screw everyone else over.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

They could slap a hefty carbon tax on bottled water too, if it's just about revenues and health.
Too much salt is bad for you too. Let's tax it more even though salt is essential for brain functions.

If the govt was really serious about the "sugar problem", they'd pass legislation seriously limiting the amount of sugar one can add to food and food products.

Coke used to have a "brand" called C2. It was original formula Coke but with only half the sugar. After two sips you couldn't tell the difference. That's one difference that can be made, force the "liquid candy" makers to cut their sugar content by half if they want to sell it here. And by reducing it by half, I don't mean playing semantics and reducing a serving size by 50%, which is what one cereal maker actually tried to pull off. They "reduced" the sugar content per serving by reducing the suggested serving size of cereal to half a bowl.

[Mowich]

Yep, people can't control their appetites so let the government do it for them.
Better idea would be to educate the kids in school about the dangers of too much sugar. It has been seen that educated kids can and do teach their parents new tricks.

[Mowich]

My apologies, double post.

[andyt]

Mowich Mowich:

Yep, people can't control their appetites so let the government do it for them.
Better idea would be to educate the kids in school about the dangers of too much sugar. It has been seen that educated kids can and do teach their parents new tricks.

Why can't we do both? There's certainly lots of info out there about the harm that sugar does, probably kids are being educated. And still people guzzle pop like crazy. So what harm will this tax do?

[andyt]

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

They could slap a hefty carbon tax on bottled water too, if it's just about revenues and health.
Too much salt is bad for you too. Let's tax it more even though salt is essential for brain functions.

If the govt was really serious about the "sugar problem", they'd pass legislation seriously limiting the amount of sugar one can add to food and food products.

Coke used to have a "brand" called C2. It was original formula Coke but with only half the sugar. After two sips you couldn't tell the difference. That's one difference that can be made, force the "liquid candy" makers to cut their sugar content by half if they want to sell it here. And by reducing it by half, I don't mean playing semantics and reducing a serving size by 50%, which is what one cereal maker actually tried to pull off. They "reduced" the sugar content per serving by reducing the suggested serving size of cereal to half a bowl.

How is bottled water bad for your health? When people are out and about, what do you want them to drink?

[Mowich]

Good grief there are multiples.....will clear them all up.

[Mowich]

Gone.

[andyt]

Holy shit.