Australian Government approves bill to tax soft drinks in order to fight obesity

[Guest The Costco Guy]

I don't have a link, but I saw on the news today that the Australian government is passing a bill that will tax soft drinks much like cigarettes in order to discourage the consumption of them. This bothers me because not to long ago New York did this, and I can see many other countries, states, and cities following suit with this idea. I'm not personally very angry with this law it self, but I feel that this is the first step to countries actually taxing body weight, which shows lawmakers overstepping their boundaries, and not focusing on priorities. Any thoughts?

[Guest AirJordanFan93]

Oh I fucking hate this government so much. In less than 2 years they have fucked this country beyond belief. Fucking taxing soda. The fuck does it matter to you if someone wants to drink a can of Coke. Fuck I really I hate this country a whole lot.

[Guest pangzi]

All fat taxes to date have failed.  Mexico has imposed a tax on sugary drinks since the start of 2014 without a single show of success.  What's more, sugar consumption in Australia has decreased over the last several decades while Australian people keep getting fatter.

Regulators look to the tobacco taxes for inspiration, but the situation is entirely different.  Taxing tobacco was effective because tobacco smokers have no other options.  There's either smoke or don't smoke.  Now, of course, tobacco companies are set to lose out against E-cigarettes.  Sugary drinks are easily replaced, however.  Tax them and people will turn to something, or just keep purchasing them despite the tax.

[wilan]

Finland is fighting obesity too,

Because fat is bad – I'm afraid it's true.

http://www.epha.org/4814

[SayHelloToMyLittleFriend]

I'm not personally very angry with this law it self, but I feel that this is the first step to countries actually taxing body weight, which shows lawmakers overstepping their boundaries, and not focusing on priorities.

So... you're just angry about something they haven't done, and have neither the means, reason or intention to ever do?

Right.

[Hirsch von Bork]

Trust me, they will never tax body weight.

[maajinbu]

So... you're just angry about something they haven't done, and have neither the means, reason or intention to ever do?

Right.

Americans passed prohibition once.

[wilan]

Americans passed prohibition once.

And how well did that work?

[Guest The Costco Guy]

So... you're just angry about something they haven't done, and have neither the means, reason or intention to ever do?

Right.

I'm saying that this type of law isn't necessarily constitutional, and gives government too much power,over its citizens but hey it's fucking Australia, not the US, and who gives a shit about the rights of the people.

[maajinbu]

And how well did that work?

It worked splendidly. That's why they banned drugs too. Gotta keep crime syndicates' profits high, dont'cha know?

No one cares that in 1900 you could buy all kinds of narcotics in pharmacies..

[SayHelloToMyLittleFriend]

I'm saying that this type of law isn't necessarily constitutional, and gives government too much power,over its citizens but hey it's fucking Australia, not the US, and who gives a shit about the rights of the people.

Wrong on literally every conceivable level. The practice of taxing things that are considered luxuries, indulgences and all-round wastes of resources (sports cars, emissions, alcohol and cigarettes, entertainment, certain imports) whilst giving tax breaks for constructive/socially virtuous activities (charity donations, superannuation, buying domestic goods, healthcare) is a pillar of good governance. You don't get to cherry-pick cases that offend your lifestyle while ignoring the thousands of other cases that don't affect you.

Also, virtually all food is taxed to varying degrees. In fact Australia has what's called a Goods and Services Tax (GST) that takes 10% from every transaction, and basically every country in the world practices stamp duty. Whilst you can argue the merits of each individual case, the overall approach is perfectly within a government's lawful purview, and violates no one's rights - nor would it have done at any point in the history of Western civilization. Putting a tax on shit that makes people unhealthy (especially something that is already uncompetitively cheap owing to the global market hegemony these soft drink manufacturers have) to avoid putting pressure on the national healthcare system is a completely normal government practice.

And Australia doesn't have a constitution.

[Dr. Feeder]

I share most of the opinions expressed, but soda really is bad stuff, I must say. And the tax may work: http://www.wsj.com/articles/survey-shows-mexicans-drinking-less-soda-after-tax-1413226009

[Guest The Costco Guy]

Wrong on literally every conceivable level. The practice of taxing things that are considered luxuries, indulgences and all-round wastes of resources (sports cars, emissions, alcohol and cigarettes, entertainment, certain imports) whilst giving tax breaks for constructive/socially virtuous activities (charity donations, superannuation, buying domestic goods, healthcare) is a pillar of good governance. You don't get to cherry-pick cases that offend your lifestyle while ignoring the thousands of other cases that don't affect you.

Also, virtually all food is taxed to varying degrees. In fact Australia has what's called a Goods and Services Tax (GST) that takes 10% from every transaction, and basically every country in the world practices stamp duty. Whilst you can argue the merits of each individual case, the overall approach is perfectly within a government's lawful purview, and violates no one's rights - nor would it have done at any point in the history of Western civilization. Putting a tax on shit that makes people unhealthy (especially something that is already uncompetitively cheap owing to the global market hegemony these soft drink manufacturers have) to avoid putting pressure on the national healthcare system is a completely normal government practice.

And Australia doesn't have a constitution.

Look, I don't care if your ok with the government controlling every facet of your life, but I for one enjoy a little freedom.

[maajinbu]

Don't tax soft drinks, tax obesity. Just put a race track next to each tax office, whoever can't run fast enough to pass appropriate age-relevant limits pays more...

[Guest The Costco Guy]

Don't tax soft drinks, tax obesity. Just put a race track next to each tax office, whoever can't run fast enough to pass appropriate age-relevant limits pays more...

The scary thing is I could see some screwed up government doing that.

[Guest high]

I gotta laugh.

People want more government, and now they can have it real good, right between the eyes.

Does anyone think that government knows better than you?

[maajinbu]

I gotta laugh.

People want more government, and now they can have it real good, right between the eyes.

Does anyone think that government knows better than you?

Nope. But many people are so fucking stupid that many a gov't does really indeed know better than them.

[moby_jones]

You'd think that overweight people making up 1/3 of the world population would result in politicians knowing even the slightest about the obesity epidemic. They don't, natch:

The rise in obesity amongst the UK population has been primarily caused by a decline in physical activity. Using government figures, this new study debunks the popular belief that the rise in obesity in recent decades is the result of increased calorie consumption in general, and sugar in particular.

In The Fat Lie, Christopher Snowdon studies evidence from DEFRA, the National Diet and Nutrition Survey, the ONS and the British Heart Foundation, finding that all the evidence indicates that per capita consumption of sugar, fat and calories has been falling in the UK for decades.

Despite public health campaigners portraying Britain’s obesity ‘epidemic’ as a result of increased availability of junk food, this conventional wisdom has no basis in fact. People have reduced the number of calories they consume, but have reduced the amount they move around even more.

Hurray for fatfact-free politics!

[jakemcduck]

In America we call this the Nanny-State.  I wish people would send these idiots home and vote for someone else regardless of party.  It's none of any government's business whether someone is fat or not, nor is it their responsibility to harass people into being thin.

[maajinbu]

You'd think that overweight people making up 1/3 of the world population would result in politicians knowing even the slightest about the obesity epidemic. They don't, natch:

Hurray for fatfact-free politics!

I suspect that is bogus. Speaking of the US, portion sizes have been increasing since the 1950 or so, and if food is both relatively cheaper and sold in greater unit quantities, it only stands to reason people are eating more of it. Also, this report is pretty certain calorie consumption has increased in the US..

[SayHelloToMyLittleFriend]

Look, I don't care if your ok with the government controlling every facet of your life, but I for one enjoy a little freedom.

My God you're fucking stupid. Your government (and every functioning liberal democracy since the dawn of fucking time) has taxed goods and services in proportion to the burdens they place on public infrastructure, such as the healthcare system. It's the reason that the economy and society in general works, even if you're too stupid to realize that. 

This is as much an infringement of your "freedom" as jury duty or being pulled over by the police. Which is to say, if you don't like it then go form your own fucking state. Because right now you don't pay for a single fucking piece of food that isn't already taxed, nor has there ever been a time when that wasn't the case. Get that into your fucking head.