this post was submitted on 12 Jul 2024
506 points (98.7% liked)

World News

39004 readers
2789 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News [email protected]

Politics [email protected]

World Politics [email protected]


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 10 points 4 months ago (4 children)

Fuck this, people should be able to drink soda if they want to. We're on a dying planet, this just penalizes poor people and takes away their choices. Let people have a moment of pleasure. You can drink soda and drink water.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 4 months ago (1 children)

They can. They just need to pay a little more. We’re talking 25 pence per liter at most compared to no sugar tax. Higher sugar intake is correlated with obesity which means more health problems which is more expense for the NHS. It’s like a train ticket or gas taxes or taxes in general, some percentage of usage that causes the problem needs to pay for the thing that deals with the consequences or expenses that solve it.

It’s the companies who have decided that they would rather sell shit soda, and consumers who are probably unwilling to pay anything except the cheapest price possible - wealth inequality and poverty problems aside because that’s a different social policy that should not be addressed through a sugar tax.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 4 months ago

Well, wealth inequality can't be set aside until it doesn't exist. This is a regressive tax.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Telling someone they should give up something that's bad for them is not stopping them from doing it.

The person you replied to is not stopping anyone from drinking soda and, as long as you have an extra 25p, no one is stopping anyone in Britain from drinking a litre of the most sugary of sodas.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 4 months ago

no one is stopping anyone in Britain from drinking a litre of the most sugary of sodas.

The soft drink companies stopped us. With the exception of Coke, after the sugar tax came in, all the manufacturers replaced most of the sugar in their products with sweeteners on the presumption that consumers would not pay more for sugar. So the choice was taken away from us - you can't buy the sugary versions any more!

[–] [email protected] 0 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I'd be happy to tax the coca cola corporation, but targeted sales taxes are regressive ... meaning they disportionately impact the poor.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

You argue as if water was more expensive than soda.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 months ago

You're not understanding the argument.

[–] [email protected] -5 points 4 months ago

You can drink soda and drink water.

No, you can't. You're not an open pipe.