Xt500 Posted January 29, 2013 Share Posted January 29, 2013 If thats the case then it would be more fitting to up the tax on computers than fizzy pop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris_Sleeps Posted January 29, 2013 Share Posted January 29, 2013 Will they tax lucozade? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Olive Posted January 29, 2013 Share Posted January 29, 2013 Or maybe people should just exercise more. Does anyone know how much exercise you'd need to do to work off the calories in a can of non-diet soft drink? Better still, how long would you need to run/cycle/swim to work off a bucket-full that's served in McDonalds, or at the cinema? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pottedplant Posted January 29, 2013 Share Posted January 29, 2013 Why is it muck, just because you don't drink it, and that's why you are in agreement about putting tax on it. Joker. Have you read the label - that will give you an idea about the muck that is in it. ---------- Post added 29-01-2013 at 20:41 ---------- From the linked article - Which would seem to suggest this is not the first place to start in tackling the increased incidence of fatties. Not necessarily..........the added (proper) sugar could probably be less of an health issue than the non added sugar variety that contains chemicals / additives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dromedary Posted January 29, 2013 Share Posted January 29, 2013 Have you read the label - that will give you an idea about the muck that is in it. ---------- Post added 29-01-2013 at 20:41 ---------- Not necessarily..........the added (proper) sugar could probably be less of an health issue than the non added sugar variety that contains chemicals / additives. I have just read the ingredients for both and I cant see anything that could be in anyway described as "muck." The only thing that I though was funny was this from wiki.. "Some surveys have also revealed that mass consumption of Diet Coke may cause Erectile Dysfunction along with Premature Ejaculation." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pottedplant Posted January 29, 2013 Share Posted January 29, 2013 I have just read the ingredients for both and I cant see anything that could be in anyway described as "muck." The only thing that I though was funny was this from wiki.. "Some surveys have also revealed that mass consumption of Diet Coke may cause Erectile Dysfunction along with Premature Ejaculation." So this ingredient doesn't bother you: In addition to being a chemical reagent, phosphoric acid has a wide variety of uses, including as a rust remover, food additive, dental and orthopedic etch, electrolyte, flux, dispersing agent, industrial etch, fertilizer feedstock, and component of home cleaning products Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quisquose Posted January 29, 2013 Share Posted January 29, 2013 Whilst I think soda drinks are unhealthy muck, which I personally choose to avoid, I don't see why the state should interfere in other people's choices to push themselves off this mortal coil as quickly as they wish. As long as people are aware that it is unhealthy muck, then fine, I'm sure they can weigh up the choice for themselves. The 20% tax that is already levied seems sufficient to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happ Hazzard Posted January 29, 2013 Share Posted January 29, 2013 I haven't drunk soft drinks in years they are poison IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slugger Posted January 29, 2013 Share Posted January 29, 2013 Apparently they make you fat, have nothing but empty calories and are contributing to obesity and the lardy state. "Leading medical bodies are calling for a 20p-per-litre levy on soft drinks to be included in this year's Budget. More than 60 organisations, including the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, are backing the recommendation by food and farming charity Sustain. They say it would raise £1bn a year in duty to fund free fruit and meals in schools to improve children's health." Is this a brilliant idea that will raise money for much needed health education and nutritious school meals or is it the curmudgeonly, miserable busy bodies sticking their noses in where they aren't wanted? I'm wondering if this figure is based on actual sales remaining the same. My feeling is adding 20p on a £2 bottle of pop would encourage people not to buy, after all its working out at a 10% increase. What next, put an extra levy on chocolates and sweets, or anything that contains sugar ? It should be up to individuals to decide what they wish to purchase, without others dictating whats good or bad. There are other ways round this without resorting to big price hikes. I remember getting free milk at school, as a kid, look what happened to that, too expensive to fund so it went ! I feel that the same would eventually happen to this new idea a few years down the line. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happ Hazzard Posted January 29, 2013 Share Posted January 29, 2013 I think energy drinks are a major problems, boggles my mind when I see fat people necking cans of that monster drink in the street. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.