Sugar tax isn't a sign of the nanny state: it's a step in the right direction http://www.smh.com.au/comment/sugar-tax-isnt-a-sign-of-the-nanny-state-its-a-step-in-the-right-direction-20161122-gsun3c.html … via @smh
-
-
Replying to @GidMK
surely the first step is ban advertising? (should do same with gambling IMHO) Why is the answer always that people should pay more?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Bridie_WA @BridiesTyping
I'm not against a restriction on advertising, but I suspect a sugar tax will be far more cost-effective
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @GidMK
it just feels like the thin end of a very big (and controlling) wedge to me... JMHO :)
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Bridie_WA @BridiesTyping
I'm not a fan of slippery slope arguments; it's always possible, but each step faces the same scrutiny as before...
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @GidMK @BridiesTyping
I'm not saying that it absolutely won't happen, but realistically there is enough opposition to just this one tax...
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
And this tax is only on added sugar, so all of the products you mentioned should be safe :)
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.