How is it a tax on the poor it's not.

If you are that poor why are you spending money on the likes of alcohol and tobacco.

Edited by grumpymort (09 Aug 2019 12.40am)

It's a tax on the poor in so much that upping the cost of sugary drinks and whatnot has a disproportionate impact on their finances when compared to someone who is financially better off.

So I'd tend to oppose it, but as I said I'd support it if the money was used to subsidise healthier foods because at least that's an exchange of sorts rather than take, take, take.

Where the state can implement health improvements without a deliberate direct cost to the poor I'm in support of it.....for example chlorine in the water supply.

But I'm of the belief that there is a line where the state steps from intelligent policy to the nanny state.

I mean I can see the arguments for making bad foods more expensive just as they do with cigarettes.....however, we don't directly see the hidden social costs of these...for example bad parents letting their children go hungry in preference to having their smokes.

Also I'm personally quite critical of those increases in energy bills to subsidize comparatively inefficient green energy, which impacts everyone but obviously more so the poor......Comparing our energy bills to the similarly sized but almost purely nuclear powered French shows that......Look at the prices for the 'go green' Germans.

Of course it makes sense. The cost of the item may well be the same for all, but if you have significantly more disposable income an extra quid here and there will make very little difference to your life or decisions. If you're poor, increasing the cost of basics may well have a greater impact. Therefore it's effectively a judgement based 'lifestyle tax' that primarily impacts poor and the decisions they make. I've said nothing about sugary drinks being essential. I'm well aware that people can make different choices, but that has nothing to do with the point raised.

My point was that I'm not in favour of this, but if this tax was instead transferred to reductions in the cost of healthy food instead of disappearing into some kind of government black hole, I can see the sense in that approach. They they could also just do nothing at all in this department, and educate as you say.

Edited by dollardays (09 Aug 2019 8.01pm)

You don't appear to understand sugar drinks are not basics WE DO NOT NEED ANY SUGAR IN OUR DIETS.

it's a luxury as such.

Now these people with more wealth have that for a reason they are careful with their money people think because some one has money they can go buy all these things they don't, I know fair amount of people with money and they are so tight with it.

The other thing you mentioned is more disposable income that is false each person has a set lifestlye so to a millionaire spending thousands in bills a month is standard to yourself i would say a few hundred is classed as a lot but this is what they are used to and the reason you see the likes of ex footballers struggle they got to used to income of thousands a week.

As said before it has nothing to do with the poor i pointed this out you can on jsa go and buy correct foods easily for around £25 if a person is stupid which it appears a lot are they will go for the silly processed sugar products resulting in paying much more for worst quality which also leads to all these health issues.

If you are referring to the likes of the sugar tax that was just another hidden tax to make out they was helping children just like this blocking of adult material on internet it's nothing to do with going after the poor.

I disagree... it depends on the job you do where even planning ahead doesn’t matter... I speak from experience

So we know that most cancers could be prevented by diet. If you get cancer and have eaten those foods, we should refuse you treatment because of that? Let's not be silly and say that people deserve to die. These are peoples husbands, wives, mums, dads, children etc. Be a bit more empathetic.