VAT hypothetical.

[Kizzy]

If you were PM and had power to manipulate what was subject to VAT what would you have it on?
There are those who think it should be added to pop as the sugar adds to obesity. An idea similar to the shelved 'pasty tax'.
Would you stick to the 'luxury' tax added to confectionery and sanitary products in supermarkets?
Would you add it to fuel bills?

[user104658]

I'm going to mainly stick with food and basics because it would take forever to consider every consumer product type!

Zero on raw foods and ingredients, other household essentials, clothes, and energy!... moderate tax on packaged / prepared food of all kinds, a large tax on junk foods full of sugar and all forms of "ready meals".

Both tobacco and alcohol... I would tax through the roof. I'm talking a cheap bottle of vodka costing £30+ and no bottle of wine costing under £10, or can of beer under £2. That would apply to retail sales only though, I wouldn't apply it so heavily to pubs / bars / clubs... Basically, I would like to see it at the point where it isn't significantly cheaper to be downing vodka at home than to go out for a drink.

Cigarettes I'd happily see hit £20 a pack.


I'd probably also add an extra tax to luxuries like electrical goods...

[Kazanne]

If you were PM and had power to manipulate what was subject to VAT what would you have it on?
There are those who think it should be added to pop as the sugar adds to obesity. An idea similar to the shelved 'pasty tax'.
Would you stick to the 'luxury' tax added to confectionery and sanitary products in supermarkets?
Would you add it to fuel bills?

I am not very well read as far as politics is concerned Kizzy,but if I was PM,I would put VAT on luxury items,more on cigarettes and alchohol,is that bad?:hugesmile:

[Kizzy]

No it's bad for the companies whose profits would be affected, but seeing as they are addictive substances the would still sell I'm sure :laugh:
Maybe the VAT could be on a sliding scale that corresponds to the ABV?
I would remove it from energy and sanitary products as I don't really class those as a luxury :/

[Kazanne]

No it's bad for the companies whose profits would be affected, but seeing as they are addictive substances the would still sell I'm sure :laugh:
Maybe the VAT could be on a sliding scale that corresponds to the ABV?
I would remove it from energy and sanitary products as I don't really class those as a luxury :/

I was going to say that I don't consider sanitary products and nappies etc,are luxuries and should exempt,imo.

[Kizzy]

Jamie Oliver calls for a tax on sugar in drinks on newsnight :D

[smudgie]

Jamie Oliver calls for a tax on sugar in drinks on newsnight :D

Jamie Oliver gets on my tits.
He needs to get back into the kitchen :idc:
If people are paying over £1.50 a bottle of pop in restaurants then an extra 10p won't matter.
Parents need to take responsibility for their little darlings consuming so much sugar, teach them young I say.

[the truth]

id scrap it totally. its simply been abused by the rich to put it on the poor people and meanwhile the rich claim it all back. its an enslavement tax which I hate more than hitler and satan put together

[Kizzy]

Jamie Oliver gets on my tits.
He needs to get back into the kitchen :idc:
If people are paying over £1.50 a bottle of pop in restaurants then an extra 10p won't matter.
Parents need to take responsibility for their little darlings consuming so much sugar, teach them young I say.

What better than someone who understands food to advise on it?
If an industry has as much influence via media presence, sponsorship of major events and sports and dominance on the high street is any parental guidance a bit like pissing in the wind?....
I believe the boom in diabetes and fatty liver disease should be laid for the greatest part at the fizzy drinks market, I like Jamie believe they should be taxed.

[smudgie]

What better than someone who understands food to advise on it?
If an industry has as much influence via media presence, sponsorship of major events and sports and dominance on the high street is any parental guidance a bit like pissing in the wind?....
I believe the boom in diabetes and fatty liver disease should be laid for the greatest part at the fizzy drinks market, I like Jamie believe they should be taxed.

Yeah yeah yeah..Jamie yakking on again, showing us all how he is no longer porky himself.:laugh:
Here we go again..last time he was teaching the poor how to cook, getting down with them and effing and jeffing.
I have never found any of our parental guidance like pissing in the wind, hard work I know, but thankfully some of it sinks in.

[Kizzy]

Yeah yeah yeah..Jamie yakking on again, showing us all how he is no longer porky himself.:laugh:
Here we go again..last time he was teaching the poor how to cook, getting down with them and effing and jeffing.
I have never found any of our parental guidance like pissing in the wind, hard work I know, but thankfully some of it sinks in.

If he wants to spend his time, energy, money and effort helping people then I really don't get the negative press the guy gets to be fair. Everything he has done or proposed to do has been for the benefit of the many, and has improved many areas for young children in schools.

[smudgie]

If he wants to spend his time, energy, money and effort helping people then I really don't get the negative press the guy gets to be fair. Everything he has done or proposed to do has been for the benefit of the many, and has improved many areas for young children in schools.

Aye, he does like a crusade..oh hang on, does he have another TV show just started.:laugh:
To be fair to him, as much as he loves to promote himself, he does help others.
He used to be my favourite cheffy back in the day.

[Kizzy]

A report on sugar’s ruinous effects on people’s health that was controversially delayed by Jeremy Hunt urges ministers to impose a “sugar tax” and crack down on the marketing of unhealthy products to children and two-for-one deals in supermarkets in a bid to tackle childhood obesity.

The report, compiled by Public Health England, (PHE), the government’s own advisory group, sets out a range of tough policies that need to be taken to reduce the consumption of sugary foods and drinks that are fuelling the obesity crisis and costing the NHS £.5.1bn a year.

It is being published later today, but the Guardian has obtained an advance copy.

Its recommendations – including for the high amounts of sugar to be stripped out of many everyday food products – pose a serious challenge for ministers including the prime minister David Cameron, who have consistently ruled out bringing in any sort of a “sugar tax”, as advocated by Jamie Oliver and many medical groups and health charities.

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/oct/22/sugar-report-delayed-jeremy-hunt-tax-radical-action-obesity

[Northern Monkey]

But if we take all the sugar away what will the private dentists do?They'll be out of business.

[Marsh.]

They should tax self promoting preachers.

[Kizzy]

They should tax self promoting preachers.

Like doctors? it's them who are suggesting this is needed.

[Livia]

Before anyone decides what goods they're going to exempt from VAT, I'd like to hear how you're going to make up that cash.

[Marsh.]

Like doctors? it's them who are suggesting this is needed.

I was talking about Jamie Oliver. It's all about self promotion.

Unless he's a "celebrity doctor" now?

[Kizzy]

I was talking about Jamie Oliver. It's all about self promotion.

Unless he's a "celebrity doctor" now?

No, his information is provided from the medical profession. But by all means scoff it doesn't make the reality of what he says any more or less credible whoever promotes it.

I would make up the cash by adding VAT to betting, gaming and lotteries.

[arista]

"Cigarettes I'd happily see hit £20 a pack."


No TS that would start a War.

I do not smoke
but massive price increase is just not realistic

[Marsh.]

No, his information is provided from the medical profession. But by all means scoff it doesn't make the reality of what he says any more or less credible whoever promotes it.

I would make up the cash by adding VAT to betting, gaming and lotteries.

I've not scoffed at anything.

If you think Jamie Oliver preaches what he does out of his concern for the wellbeing of Britain's population then that's your prerogative. Where he gets his information from is immaterial to what I was saying.

[Kate!]

Betting
Cigarettes

I wouldn't tax sanitary products as they are a necessity and from a selfish point of view wouldn't tax alcohol either

[Kizzy]

I've not scoffed at anything.

If you think Jamie Oliver preaches what he does out of his concern for the wellbeing of Britain's population then that's your prerogative. Where he gets his information from is immaterial to what I was saying.

Whether he is merely a celebrity mouthpiece, he appears to truly believe in what he advocates. He isn't an actor therefore I believe him when he states that these are matters he personally feels strongly about, as cynical as the next man I am.

[Marsh.]

Whether he is merely a celebrity mouthpiece, he appears to truly believe in what he advocates. He isn't an actor therefore I believe him when he states that these are matters he personally feels strongly about, as cynical as the next man I am.

Great. :laugh: What being an actor has to do with it I don't know.

But there's something completely insincere about him for me. :think:

[Kizzy]

Great. :laugh: What being an actor has to do with it I don't know.

But there's something completely insincere about him for me. :think:

If he was insincere and it purely was for self promotion he would have to be an award winning actor is my point, as he always convinces me over the years that this chef is entirely passionate about the causes he backs.

[bots]

i've never liked Jamie Oliver, he does tend to attach himself to causes for his own self promotion. As to sugar, its just one aspect of the issue where parents find it difficult to say no to their screaming children or feed them stuff for an easy life.

Everyone has known the dangers of sugar for at least a couple of generations, taxing it is not the answer just as its not the answer to stopping those that smoke or drink.

[Kizzy]

It is becoming more widely known yes but where is the clarity... that is the message.
How much is too much, are companies open about the content in foods/drinks to aid people make better choices?

[Kate!]

i've never liked Jamie Oliver, he does tend to attach himself to causes for his own self promotion. As to sugar, its just one aspect of the issue where parents find it difficult to say no to their screaming children or feed them stuff for an easy life.

Everyone has known the dangers of sugar for at least a couple of generations, taxing it is not the answer just as its not the answer to stopping those that smoke or drink.

Taxing sugar is not the answer I agree. Which takes us back to cigarettes and gambling, hitting the poor the most.

[bots]

It is becoming more widely known yes but where is the clarity... that is the message.
How much is too much, are companies open about the content in foods/drinks to aid people make better choices?

Its not a simple issue. For example sugar is part of the manufacturing process of alcohol. Sugar in its natural form in fruits is just as bad for you as sugar in refined format.

Eat carbohydrates and your body converts that to sugar, which again, is just as bad for you,

These people are being overly simplistic and not addressing the real issue - that people are not eating balanced diets, How do we tax that ... you didnt have meat and 3 veg today - pay 5 quid tax, do not pass go.

[Marsh.]

Yes, exactly. Educating is key. Taxing is pointless.

Taxing will not achieve what Jamie Oliver appears to want.

Only a matter of time before it's dictated exactly what we all must eat and in what quantity. You can advise people, trying to force them into certain changes with ridiculous suggestions like this doesn't do anyone or anything any good.

[Kizzy]

Don't people across the board smoke and gamble? If you have more money you gamble more and therefore would pay more VAT.

[Kizzy]

Its not a simple issue. For example sugar is part of the manufacturing process of alcohol. Sugar in its natural form in fruits is just as bad for you as sugar in refined format.

Eat carbohydrates and your body converts that to sugar, which again, is just as bad for you,

These people are being overly simplistic and not addressing the real issue - that people are not eating balanced diets, How do we tax that ... you didnt have meat and 3 veg today - pay 5 quid tax, do not pass go.

This isn't suggesting fruit and carbs be taxed no.

[bots]

This isn't suggesting fruit and carbs be taxed no.

But the point is that they have the same effect and its not addressing the fundamental issue. Like with smoking and drinking - education is the only solution

[Kizzy]

So would you take the VAT from both of those?

[Marsh.]

So would you take the VAT from both of those?

Both of what? Neither are taxed on their sugar content are they?

[Kizzy]

Both of what? Neither are taxed on their sugar content are they?

They both have advice on their use, have a proven medical implication and are subject to VAT therefore they are comparable.

[Marsh.]

They both have advice on their use, have a proven medical implication and are subject to VAT therefore they are comparable.

But they've not yet had any VAT dependent on how healthy they are so, to me, they aren't comparable to what's being suggested with sugar content.

[arista]

i've never liked Jamie Oliver, he does tend to attach himself to causes for his own self promotion. As to sugar, its just one aspect of the issue where parents find it difficult to say no to their screaming children or feed them stuff for an easy life.

Everyone has known the dangers of sugar for at least a couple of generations, taxing it is not the answer just as its not the answer to stopping those that smoke or drink.


Yes Sly that
in his Café he sells Fizzy Drinks
making sure all Around the World
come to his Crap Cafe

[JoshBB]

tbh I think VAT should be lowered to the lowest possible (15% as per EU rules) and then put things like sugary drinks & extremely fatty foods at 20%.

It's too high, and we should be raising income tax for the richest individuals instead.

[arista]

tbh I think VAT should be lowered to the lowest possible (15% as per EU rules) and then put things like sugary drinks & extremely fatty foods at 20%.

It's too high, and we should be raising income tax for the richest individuals instead.


Some Fats are Good for you
its to Complex to do that.


Typical of you JoshBB

[Kizzy]

But they've not yet had any VAT dependent on how healthy they are so, to me, they aren't comparable to what's being suggested with sugar content.

Then why are they subject to VAT?

[Marsh.]

Some Fats are Good for you
its to Complex to do that.


Typical of you JoshBB

Top

[Kizzy]

Some Fats are Good for you
its to Complex to do that.


Typical of you JoshBB

Hydrogenated fats aren't.

[Marsh.]

Then why are they subject to VAT?

Not all of them are. :conf:

[Kizzy]

Not all of them are. :conf:

Cigarettes and alcohol.

[JoshBB]

Some Fats are Good for you
its to Complex to do that.


Typical of you JoshBB

Sorry I meant the bad fats, 'saturated fats' I think they're called?

[Marsh.]

Cigarettes and alcohol.

Eh?

:laugh: I was referring to fruit and carbs as per Josh's post.

[bots]

Sorry I meant the bad fats, 'saturated fats' I think they're called?

Actually, the latest research is suggesting saturated fats aren't bad after all :laugh:

Whenever we try and manipulate peoples habits by tax, it never works. Education is the only viable approach

[Kizzy]

Eh?

:laugh: I was referring to fruit and carbs as per Josh's post.

You quoted me responding to bitontheslides post about smoking and drinking.

[Marsh.]

Bitontheside responded to your mention of fruit and carbs so I got confused by the reference to "those two".

[arista]

Sorry I meant the bad fats, 'saturated fats' I think they're called?



OK that's fair

[Kizzy]

Actually, the latest research is suggesting saturated fats aren't bad after all :laugh:

Whenever we try and manipulate peoples habits by tax, it never works. Education is the only viable approach

The latest research? sat fats are butter and cheese most are educated enough to know these are perfectly healthy in moderation.
Processed foods containing hydrogenated fats are I think what create the greatest health risks and personally I would like to see the labelling for these products clearer too.

[Kizzy]

Bitontheside responded to your mention of fruit and carbs so I got confused by the reference to "those two".

Right, as I said sugar is a proven risk to health as is smoking and drinking therefor a sliding scale for tax could be implemented to offset the treatment costs?

[Marsh.]

Right, as I said sugar is a proven risk to health as is smoking and drinking therefor a sliding scale for tax could be implemented to offset the treatment costs?

But is damage caused by foods with sugary content as easily identifiable as the damage caused by smoking and alcohol?

[Kizzy]

But is damage caused by foods with sugary content as easily identifiable as the damage caused by smoking and alcohol?

Sugary soft drinks kill 184,000 adults every year, scientists claim.
And there could be a ticking time bomb because those under 45 consume more artificially sweetened drinks and are more at risk of diabetes and obesity.
The worldwide study is the first to estimate deaths and disability from diabetes, heart disease, and cancers caused by the drinks.
It said 133,000 deaths from diabetes, 45,000 deaths from cardiovascular disease and 6,450 deaths from cancer were caused by fizzy drinks, fruit drinks, energy drinks and sweetened ice teas in 2010.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/11707396/Sugary-drinks-kill-184000-a-year-through-diabetes-heart-disease-and-cancer.html


Non-Alcohol Related Fatty Liver Disease

What is fatty liver?
This is the name given to a condition in which you have too much fat in your liver. There should be little or no fat in a healthy liver and for most people, carrying a small amount of fat in the liver causes no major problems.

Too much fat in your liver is caused by the build-up of fats called triglycerides. These are the most common fats in our bodies, they belong to a group of fatty, waxy substances called lipids, which your body needs for energy and growth. We get triglycerides from our diet. Foods high in fat and sugar contain high amounts of triglycerides. They can also be made in the liver from sugars and proteins.

http://www.britishlivertrust.org.uk/liver-information/liver-conditions/non-alcohol-related-fatty-liver-disease/

[Marsh.]

Sugary soft drinks kill 184,000 adults every year, scientists claim.
And there could be a ticking time bomb because those under 45 consume more artificially sweetened drinks and are more at risk of diabetes and obesity.
The worldwide study is the first to estimate deaths and disability from diabetes, heart disease, and cancers caused by the drinks.
It said 133,000 deaths from diabetes, 45,000 deaths from cardiovascular disease and 6,450 deaths from cancer were caused by fizzy drinks, fruit drinks, energy drinks and sweetened ice teas in 2010.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/11707396/Sugary-drinks-kill-184000-a-year-through-diabetes-heart-disease-and-cancer.html


The worldwide study is the first to estimate deaths and disability from diabetes, heart disease, and cancers caused by the drinks.

Key word for me is "estimate".

Unlike a person whose health deteriorates from excessive smoking or alcohol consumption, there is no way of narrowing down someone's heart problems, weight problems or anything else to.... a soft drink. Unless they literally live on coca cola.

Not to mention, I don't think we've reached the point where anyone diagnosed with cancer can have a "cause" identified outside of hypotheticals.

Even if they could, I don't think taxing will make one iota of difference. No more than tax on alcohol has eradicated alcoholism.

[Kizzy]

Key word for me is "estimate".

Unlike a person whose health deteriorates from excessive smoking or alcohol consumption, there is no way of narrowing down someone's heart problems, weight problems or anything else to.... a soft drink. Unless they literally live on coca cola.

Not to mention, I don't think we've reached the point where anyone diagnosed with cancer can have a "cause" identified outside of hypotheticals.

Even if they could, I don't think taxing will make one iota of difference. No more than tax on alcohol has eradicated alcoholism.

It doesn't estimate the cause...just the numbers :/

Taxing these substances isn't about eradicating anything, it's about attempting to proportion the cost of the cause to the cure.

[Marsh.]

It doesn't estimate the cause...just the numbers :/

Yes, why do they need to estimate the numbers? Because those deaths can't be conclusively attributed to.... soft drinks. That would be ridiculous.

Taxing these substances isn't about eradicating anything, it's about attempting to proportion the cost of the cause to the cure.

And trying to get people to eat/drink less of them or come away from them entirely. Much like the rule of no advertising for cigs or having them out of sight behind the counter.

[Kizzy]

Yes, why do they need to estimate the numbers? Because those deaths can't be conclusively attributed to.... soft drinks. That would be ridiculous.

No not to soft drinks specifically, to sugar... soft drinks contain an inordinate amount of sugar and due to the amounts consumed in the UK it's having an impact on health.
Hence the calls for action from the medical profession...And Jamie Oliver.

[Marsh.]

No not to soft drinks specifically, to sugar... soft drinks contain an inordinate amount of sugar and due to the amounts consumed in the UK it's having an impact on health.
Hence the calls for action from the medical profession...And Jamie Oliver.

Right, but again, many people can have health problems related to the fats and sugars they eat and never touch fizzy pop.

Unlike tobacco or alcohol, "sugar" is not itself a health risk.

[Kizzy]

And trying to get people to eat/drink less of them or come away from them entirely. Much like the rule of no advertising for cigs or having them out of sight behind the counter.

How would you tackle that, remove sponsorships of sporting events maybe?

[Kizzy]

Right, but again, many people can have health problems related to the fats and sugars they eat and never touch fizzy pop.

Unlike tobacco or alcohol, "sugar" is not itself a health risk.

sugar is a health risk in the quantities contained in these drinks.
Of course there will be other causes but this has been found to be a major contributory factor.

[Marsh.]

How would you tackle that, remove sponsorships of sporting events maybe?

Probably.
And hit those adverts, especially the ones that make food appear something that it is not. (I can't remember, weren't they banning certain junk food TV ads?). They've come down hard on the touched up make up adverts, so time to regulate the fast food ones too.

I just feel like clear information and honest advertising is a more direct way of helping people make healthy eating choices and lifestyles. Trying to force it on them is just unsavoury (no pun intended) to me.

[Marsh.]

sugar is a health risk in the quantities contained in these drinks.
Of course there will be other causes but this has been found to be a major contributory factor.

Then I can't help feel there are dozens of alternate methods of curbing that risk.

From the advertising and promotion of them as I said above, to doing more research and coming up with some kind of limit on the amount that is legally allowed to be added to these foods and drinks by manufacturers.

Other than that, I think a tax is about as useful as making junk food illegal.

[Kizzy]

I'd say the manufacturers would probably prefer a tax to removing sponsorship or changing the recipe.

[Marsh.]

I'd say the manufacturers would probably prefer a tax to removing sponsorship or changing the recipe.

But it's not about what the manufacturers prefer, surely? :laugh:

These doctors and Jamie Oliver are concerned about our health and its strain on our health service. :smug:

[Northern Monkey]

The only way i would support this tax is if all the proceeds go to subsidising healthy foods.I.E making them 20% or however much cheaper.

[Kizzy]

But it's not about what the manufacturers prefer, surely? :laugh:

These doctors and Jamie Oliver are concerned about our health and its strain on our health service. :smug:

I know, what I'm saying is they won't care about any increase in tax as long as they still have their multi million pound deals.

Why are you posting a laughing and smug faces?

[Kizzy]

The only way i would support this tax is if all the proceeds go to subsidising healthy foods.I.E making them 20% or however much cheaper.

Hopefully the money raised will go to the NHS to help cure all the ailments the excess sugar in some products creates.

[Marsh.]

Why are you posting a laughing and smug faces?

Because they are in the box next to the reply box for us to use. :unsure:

[Kizzy]

Because they are in the box next to the reply box for us to use. :unsure:

Oh right... Bit hard to take you serious when you keep giggling though.
I would never use them myself.....

[Marsh.]

Oh right... Bit hard to take you serious when you keep giggling though.
I would never use them myself.....

Good for you. How superior you are on this reality television based forum with Anjelica Huston as a Roald Dahl character in your sig.

How small you make me feel. :unsure:

[Kizzy]

Good for you. How superior you are on this reality television based forum with Anjelica Huston as a Roald Dahl character in your sig.

How small you make me feel. :unsure:

It was a joke, but without the smiley... It can be done.
Anyhoo back on topic,

'David Cameron is under pressure to reverse his opposition to a sugar tax after ministers published a secret official report that argues a levy of 10-20% is needed to deal with obesity.

The prime minister faced calls to at least consider a tax on high-sugar products after it emerged he had not yet read research by Public Health England – the government’s advisory group – that was controversially delayed by his health secretary, Jeremy Hunt.
Downing Street confirmed the government is looking at other measures recommended in the report, including a crackdown on advertising of sugary products and cut-price promotions of sweet food and drink.

However, Cameron’s spokesman said the prime minister had not changed his view that there are “better ways” than a sugar tax to deal with childhood obesity.

Cameron’s refusal to consider a sugar tax puts him at odds with medical groups, health charities, the Labour party, the campaigning celebrity chef Jamie Oliver and even some Conservative MPs.'

God I really can't stand that Hunt.

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/oct/22/david-cameron-faces-pressure-to-back-sugar-tax

[Marsh.]

It was a joke, but without the smiley... It can be done.


Congratulations?

[Kizzy]

Thanks Marsh that means a lot.

'There is some who can't see it working.... Cadbury.
Britain’s largest confectionery company has claimed that a levy on sweet food and drinks will not make people overhaul their diets.

Mary Barnard, who heads the UK division of the parent company of Dairy Milk maker Cadbury, said Denmark had abandoned proposals for a sugar tax after consumers circumvented a similar tax on fatty foods by buying butter and ice cream abroad.'

That wouldn't be an issue here as we already have one of the lowest rates of VAT, Denmark is 2nd highest.

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/oct/22/sugar-tax-not-change-diets-cadbury-mondelez-childhood-obesity-public-health-england

http://www.retailresearch.org/eurovat.php

[Kizzy]

Hooray :)

'George Osborne could face an embarrassing defeat over the 'tampon tax' that MPs have branded sexist and wrong.

At least 11 Tory MPs have joined a Labour bid - backed by a 250,000-strong petition - to wipe out the controversial 5% VAT rate on the 'luxury' goods.

Whitehall officials insist the rules are locked down by the EU and can't be easily changed.

But tomorrow dozens of Labour MPs, led by a group including shadow chancellor John McDonnell , will try to amend the Budget to ditch the charge.'

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/tampon-tax-rebellion-tories-face-6702080#rlabs=19%20rt$category%20p$8