Sugar Tax Could Cut Soft Drink Consumption

[icyfroth]

A tax on sugar could cut soft drink consumption by 15 per cent and raise $500 million for the budget, recently released economic modelling shows.

Key points:

• Obesity costs taxpayers $5.3 billion annually, one in three Australians classed as obese
• A tax of 40 cents per 100 grams of sugar would lift the price of a two-litre bottle by about 80 cents
• Taxing soft drinks has shown to help cut rising obesity

 The Grattan Institute has recommended a sugar sweetened beverage tax to address obesity rates, which have climbed in recent decades.

It has calculated obesity costs taxpayers $5.3 billion annually, with one in three Australians now classed as obese.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-11-23/sugar-tax-'could-cut-soft-drink-consumption-by-15-per-cent'/80...

Really? The Grattan Institute thinks that soft drinks are the main contributor to Australian's obesity?

What about the rest of the stuff on Supermarket shelves? Dairy, bakery, confectionery?

Would a tax on soft drink manufacturor solve the problem of obesity in australia? Would it deter people from buying soft drinks?

[*tippy*toes*]

---

@icyfroth wrote:

---

@davidc4430 wrote:

as i dont drink soft drink, well not ones that contain sugar it wouldnt bother me.

but it brings up what i said on another thread.

all the talk of lowering the business tax rate has to be gotten back somewhere else, the poor sucker in the street.

even heard them talking about sticking a tax on pensioners.

heard one 'young suit' saying pensioners pay little or no tax! did he forget the GST!

---

I was thinking along the same lines, myself, Dave.

It's just a justification for another tax. Do they really think it'll stop people drinking soft drinks?

---

Constantly increasing the cost of smokes doesn't stop people smoking. They go without other things instead. If they want soft drink or smokes, they'll buy them, regardless of the cost. The cost of smokes never stopped me. The only reason I quit was because I had a chest x-ray and they commented that my lungs looked great for someone my age who was a heavy smoker. I figured I may as well quit before they tell me that my lungs no longer looked great for a heavy smoker. If I hadn't had that x-ray I'd probably still be paying $30+ a pack.

[ambercat16]

---

@icyfroth wrote:

A tax on sugar could cut soft drink consumption by 15 per cent and raise $500 million for the budget, recently released economic modelling shows.

......................................................................................................................................

But surely they can't have it both ways?  If taxing sugar works to cut soft drink consumption by 15% then it wouldn't raise the $500 million would it?  The predicted budget increase will only happen it people continue to buy the soft drinks at the new higher rate......which would mean it would not reduce consumption.

[imastawka]

---

@*tippy*toes* wrote:

---

---

Constantly increasing the cost of smokes doesn't stop people smoking. They go without other things instead. If they want soft drink or smokes, they'll buy them, regardless of the cost. The cost of smokes never stopped me. The only reason I quit was because I had a chest x-ray and they commented that my lungs looked great for someone my age who was a heavy smoker. I figured I may as well quit before they tell me that my lungs no longer looked great for a heavy smoker. If I hadn't had that x-ray I'd probably still be paying $30+ a pack.

---

  That's what I did Tippy.  Lungs were great - I quit.

 3 years later, they tell me I've got emphysema.

Have another x-ray to be sure.

[peteepie]

---

@ambercat16 wrote:

---

@icyfroth wrote:

A tax on sugar could cut soft drink consumption by 15 per cent and raise $500 million for the budget, recently released economic modelling shows.

......................................................................................................................................

But surely they can't have it both ways?  If taxing sugar works to cut soft drink consumption by 15% then it wouldn't raise the $500 million would it?  The predicted budget increase will only happen it people continue to buy the soft drinks at the new higher rate......which would mean it would not reduce consumption.

---

 too logical

[isabellerbookseller]

---

@ambercat16 wrote:

---

@icyfroth wrote:

A tax on sugar could cut soft drink consumption by 15 per cent and raise $500 million for the budget, recently released economic modelling shows.

......................................................................................................................................

But surely they can't have it both ways?  If taxing sugar works to cut soft drink consumption by 15% then it wouldn't raise the $500 million would it?  The predicted budget increase will only happen it people continue to buy the soft drinks at the new higher rate......which would mean it would not reduce consumption.

---

Well thought out there, Amber!

I think they may have been trying to factor in the cost of health care for diabetes and obesity sufferers.

[*tippy*toes*]

---

@imastawka wrote:

---

@*tippy*toes* wrote:

---

---

---

  That's what I did Tippy.  Lungs were great - I quit.

 3 years later, they tell me I've got emphysema.

Have another x-ray to be sure.

---

I wouldn't mind betting I've got a mild dose of that. Most of the time my lungs are pretty good.....until it's going to rain, then I get a terrible ex smokers cough. It's very predictable. I know when it's going to rain before the weatherman! We had so much rain through winter, totally smashed the records for June, July, Aug and Sept, so my lungs were carp. So bad that Mr Tippy asked if I'd fallen off the wagon. No, just as I said, it's the rain. People at work thought I was nuts, so now they watch. My chest goes carp and within 48hrs it rains, even if it's not forecast. I call it my raindar.