To get fed up with people with people like Jamie Oliver trying to coerce poor people via taxation.

[Booyaka]

I absolutely loathe Jamie Oliver anyway, but this crusade of his over sugar is driving me mad. I think something possibly needs to be done about sugar, but I don't think this is the way to do it. He did make a suggestion about prominently labelling total number of teaspoons of sugar in a product, which seemed quite sensible. But mainly he was pushing the tax angle.

Jamie Oliver's entire schtick seems to be that poor people can't be trusted to make the right decisions so they should instead be priced out to force them to make the decisions that he and his ilk believe that they should be making.

It bloody annoys me that they seem to think if you are wealthy and can afford them anyway you can be trusted to make the right decision anyway, but if you're poor you need to be coerced, and that coercion, of something as basic as what you eat and drink, is fine as long as you are poor. He did very much concentrate on handwringing about 'the deprived' too and how this tax would seemingly save them from themselves.

Apparently 1/3 of the products he sell in his restaurants are high sugar anyway, but he probably doesn't mind that, because he prices his tat so highly only middle class people can afford it and they're sensible enough to be trusted with sugar unlike the proles.

He probably doesn't realise, but a lot of people can't afford to take their kids to Tuscany or the Caribbean, Cornwall or even Skeg-bloody-ness. They can't buy their kids a lot of toys or give them days out. Is it really fair to give these people a financial kicking for giving their kids one of the few treats they can afford? Especially when many of them do so sensibly and in moderation.

RedStrawberry, he admitted that 1/3 of his products were high sugar on Newsnight when confronted with it. But he said that was irrelevant because he only had '40 odd restaurants which is nothing compared to these multinationals'. It's all very 'do as I say, not as I do'. If these products are so terrible why does he sell them? Unless it's because he knows his demographics don't include poor people so it's morally right for him to sell them.

As far as his tax goes, yes he would have had an account doing it. But there appears to have been a lot of creative accounting involving transferring a £10 million pound property from the company to his personal ownership in lieu of a dividend, and one company loaning another company money to create a tax deductible loss.

Yes he is entitled to avoid taxes like this as long as it's legal. But in my opinion it also strips him of the right to demand that other people are taxed in whichever way he sees fit. Presumably if he and his family have fizzy drinks he'll bung it all through the accountants to claim the tax back while the drones on PAYE or benefits will just have to suck it up.

The middle classes prefer to buy smoothies, fruit juices etc. which are very high in sugars (higher than a can of fizzy) but also that sugar is fructose which is worse than glucose and leads to a fatty liver.

"Why is he so keen for other people to pay extra taxes when he doesn't want to?"

Nobody would have to pay a tax on fizzy drink if they didn't want to. All they have to do is not drink that shit.

Honestly, you don't hear non smokers whining about high cigarette prices. Why would they? They know nobody has to smoke.

Re: smoothies, you have evidence that only middle class people drink them?

But some people will still be paying it Minifingerz. And in my opinion it's deeply hypocritical to demand that other people are taxed in particular ways when you're avoiding tax yourself.

I was meaning to ask you Minifingerz, the soda tax in Mexico has only reduced calorie consumption by 6 calories a day. So what would you do if that happened here? If people just moved on to having tea with sugar? Or had a chocolate bar or cake instead? Tax everything with sugar in it? So what if people started to move on to alternatives to sugar like honey? Tax them? And what if they then move on to fried food? Tax that? Tax deep fat fryers? Fine people for frying in their own homes? Tax oil? So what if they move on to fatty food instead? Are you going to start taxing fats? Some cuts of meat? Cream? Full fat milk? Cheese? Egg yolks?

Where would you propose ending it? Would you just keep taxing things until you thought the population was thin enough? What if they didn't do what you wanted? Are you going to keep on taxing until there is an approved list of foods which are untaxed and you expect to be taxed unless your dinner is mung beans with a side order of lentils?

Yes Booyaka, all of those things.

Exactly that.

Or we could just accept that shops being able to sell 2 litres of full sugar cola for 45p to a population where 1 in 3 children is fat and where soda consumption is at an all time high, is not something we can actually even try to change. Because we fear ending up in a situation where everyone is forced to eat mung beans every day.

Ffs.

But what's the point of introducing a tax which isn't going to change what you want it to change? The only thing it would achieve is more revenue for the government by disproportionately hitting the income of poorer people and increased sales of sugary alternatives. It's pointless.

what's the point of introducing a tax which isn't going to change what you want it to change? The only thing it would achieve is more revenue for the government by disproportionately hitting the income of poorer people

Yup, this. The poorest people already pay the biggest proportion of their income in taxes.

Since said sugar tax isn't likely to reduce per-person calorie intake by more than 0.5% but is likely to further increase the proportional tax burden on the hardest-up, it has no value other than to increase poverty. Which appears to be quite the thing among our policy-makers at the moment, with or without Jamie Oliver.

"But what's the point of introducing a tax which isn't going to change what you want it to change? "

The tax in Mexico was set at a ridiculously low level because of industry pressure but still reduced consumption by 6%. At a population level that will make a difference. It's not the whole answer or even a large part of it but it's a start and a public acknowledgement that government input is needed. Possibly if sodas hadn't been so very very cheap to start with it might have made more of a difference. Possibly if the tax had been set at 20% or 30% it might have had an important impact at a population level.

here

In the news today.

It's clearly not just Jamie Oliver who thinks eating loads of sugar should be made less appealing by making it more expensive.

here

All the other countries where a tax on sugar, sodas and juice drinks has been implemented.

Maybe you can all stop bitching about Jamie Oliver now you can see that he's not and has never been, suggesting anything that hasn't already been suggested and put into place in other countries.

Incidentally, the report that Jeremy Hunt has been suppressing is one which flags up that one in four children from the poorest households now leaves primary school obese.

That's right - obese.

Not overweight. Obese.

And you're all still insistent on the importance of poor people being able to buy dirt cheap high sugar food?

I think it's easier to get worked up about a celebrity saying something because you can dislike them as a person and use that to justify not liking anything they say (even if it does make sense!)

I'm a socialist and I despair over the inequalities in UK society, but to vilify JO for speaking out about the impact of over consumption of junk food and the consequences of that on the health of the poorest? It's not a crime to be rich and to feel like you have something to say about public health, particularly when food is your specific field of expertise.

He's saying something which needs to be said, loudly and repeatedly.

Well said minifingerz.

If taxation helps in any way to halt the rising obesity problem then how is this a bad thing. Something has to happen and at least JO is bothered enough to try and do something when none else will. I don't hear any better suggestions out there.

He is not suggesting a tax on necessities, these things he wants to tax are treats. They do not need to be consumed as part of any diet. How does this affect the poor? No one needs to buy cola.

The tax is designed to hurt the food industry not the consumer, the idea is that it will encourage manufacturers to bring the highly addictive cheap sugar they pack their drinks with down to keep their prices low. It's also a statement - that shit it bad for you and it does cause a lot of disease.

Indirect tax does affect those on a lower income, they pay more percentage wise.

Obviously high sugar foods are not necessary but what taxing them does makes it an affordable something for those on a higher income instead of to those on a lower income. It is therefore biased and directed at 'the poor'.

Taxation of high sugar food is deeply unlikely to do anything to dispel the increasing weight of the British nation.

Legislation changes or introduction if new ones in the food industries would be better. There is too much food out there that holds very little nutritional value.

Education in nutrition certainly is important too. Of course there are people out there that would not, even with everything handed to them on a plate would not attempt to make a decent meal and opt for poor nutritional conscience foods instead. I am not too sure what you can do about sheer laziness. Difference between a lazy person on a higher income and lower income is the quality of convenient food affordable to them.

A bag of ready prepared vegetables chucked into the microwave along with a prepared chicken breast from somewhere like M&S is just as quick but better than frozen chicken goujons/nuggets and chips from lidl, but the former costs more.

he admitted that 1/3 of his products were high sugar on Newsnight when confronted with it. But he said that was irrelevant because he only had '40 odd restaurants which is nothing compared to these multinationals'. It's all very 'do as I say, not as I do'. If these products are so terrible why does he sell them? Unless it's because he knows his demographics don't include poor people so it's morally right for him to sell them.

This is where I find a problem with JO. If he's going to "talk the talk" then he needs to "walk the walk." If he thinks high sugar products are terrible, then he should be leading the race to improve his products - both those he sells and those used/served in his restaurants. Actions speak louder than words IMO.

"Obviously high sugar foods are not necessary but what taxing them does makes it an affordable something for those on a higher income instead of to those on a lower income. It is therefore biased and directed at 'the poor'. "

It needs to be directed at the poor.

Basically because they're fatter, less healthy, and consume more sugar than everyone else.

It'll still be affordable. Honestly. Nobody's suggesting making sugar cost the same as gold. Just not 45p for two litres of full sugar coke. People will have to drink slightly less of the stuff. Boo hoo.

Point is that whilst a higher percentage of lower income are overweight there is still a huge number of higher income fatties too.

Jamie Oliver isn't saying that sugar is a disaster for health. He's saying that over consumption of sugar is a problem.

I'm sure he's not selling 2 litres of coke for 45p in any of his restaurants and most people wouldn't be expected to eat there daily. There would be a problem with him opening a cut price 'Dunkin Donuts' or something and selling 10 doughnuts for £1. (like all the supermarkets are now doing). But he's not doing that. He's not making unhealthy food easily available at cheap prices which encourage unfettered consumption.

Seriously people - use your common sense.

Nobody is suggesting sugar should be banned. Just like when they increased alcohol taxes they weren't trying to stop or show disapproval of someone having the odd glass of Pino Grigio, they were trying to discourage the consumption of giant bottles of super strong and incredibly cheap cider. All they'd be doing with a sugar tax would be to discourage the regular consumption of large amounts of fizzy drinks and sweets.

There is no problem with Jamie Oliver selling fatty or sugary food in his restaurant. There would be a problem with him opening a cut price 'Dunkin Donuts' or something and selling 10 doughnuts for £1. (like all the supermarkets are now doing).

"Point is that whilst a higher percentage of lower income are overweight there is still a huge number of higher income fatties too."

Yup.

Which is why the fight against obesity needs to take many forms. Health education, fiscal strategies to discourage consumption, legislation requiring manufacturers to label their products properly, a look at where and how unhealthy food is sold. There is not one strategy which will work for everyone all the time because this is a hugely complex issue.

Yes he is entitled to avoid taxes like this as long as it's legal. But in my opinion it also strips him of the right to demand that other people are taxed in whichever way he sees fit. Presumably if he and his family have fizzy drinks he'll bung it all through the accountants to claim the tax back while the drones on PAYE or benefits will just have to suck it up.

Why? Every wealthy person has accountants who are hired to reduce one's legal tax liability, and I am mystified to how that contradicts calling for a sugar. They are completely different. I also have no idea why that removes his right to even suggest it (I assume you don't mean his legal right, but his moral right). I see no hypocrisy here.

he admitted that 1/3 of his products were high sugar on Newsnight when confronted with it. But he said that was irrelevant because he only had '40 odd restaurants which is nothing compared to these multinationals'.

is he asking for his products to be exempt from the sugar tax? If not, I don't see the issue. In fact, he's saying the opposite of 'do as I do, not as I say'. He's saying he too is willing to take a hit.

What utter rubbish that this is targeting the poor! Obesity in children is an epidemic problem in this country and it needs to be addressed. Some parents abuse their children with the amount of rubbish they give them. Clearly they can't be responsible parents and therefore need the state to impose higher tax. They should be charged to offset the huge costs to the NHS their abuse causes.
The idea that richer ppl make better choices is rubbish... Take a look at some public school kids and the number of cigarettes they get through.
I can't believe there are ppl supporting the right to have a bullied child waddling to a future of poor health, lower life expectancy and low self esteem because their parents thought they were loving them a bit more...??!!??

It'll still be affordable. Honestly. Nobody's suggesting making sugar cost the same as gold. Just not 45p for two litres of full sugar coke. People will have to drink slightly less of the stuff. Boo hoo.

indeed. In fact, I think actual sugar should be exempt from the tax, as it's not sugar that's the problem. it's all the cheap, ready made sugary snacks.