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.

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?

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

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.

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.

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

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

So would you take the VAT from both of those?

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.

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.

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

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

Then why are they subject to VAT?

Top

Hydrogenated fats aren't.

Not all of them are. :conf:

Cigarettes and alcohol.

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

Eh?

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

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

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

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