Alt view @BernardKeane bureaucrat implement but real driver is health profession & evidence indicate #sugartax effective at population level
-
-
-
maybe rationale not quite as random or Kafkaesque as you imply :)
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
at the heart of the idea is that damaging products should be taxed properly. From cigarettes to carbon emissions. And sugar.
-
but single product taxes without compensation are regressive. Low income already an indicator of poor health.
-
of course it should be partnered with subsidies for healthy food
-
How does that work in practice? Vastly complicates the law and still doesn’t help those with no time or money.
-
being obese doesn't help poor people get out of poverty either.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
I am at least middle aged, but not a health bureaucrat, but I know that we must do something dramatic about excess sugar use.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
that's grossly unfair
@BernardKeane - the need for change is coming from scientists and health professionals, not shiny-bumsThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Come to Launceston and see kids in prams sucking imitation Red Bull. True. Maybe tax isn't the answer, but something is.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Is it that simple? This week Mangoes are $3.50 each, 250gm bags of sweets are $1.What does a poor person do to have a 'treat'?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Seems a bit simplistic. Isn't a sugar tax similar to a cigarette tax or carbon tax?
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
Replace "middle class health bureaucrat" with "trained health professional" and you're spot on. That is, they do know better.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
as a taxpayer, I pay for cost of 'everyone's' diabetes, obesity etc so I'm happy to tax sugar just like cigarettes
@BernardKeane -
Would this be a state tax? Fair point if so. Our federal taxes don't go towards anything though. Ping
@DeficitOwls -
Even though
#TaxesDontFundSpending, there's still an argument to be made for taxes to distribute costs -
to certain groups. That is, consuming more sugar forces us to devote more real resources to dealing
-
with sugar-related consequences, meaning the gov has to pull more resources from private sector.
-
Not illogical to pin that cost on (in real terms, not monetary terms) on the people causing the problem.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.