Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Dishevelled Den]

Go on then I'll stick my neck out again just for a change.

Q1 What is so wrong with taxing carbonated drinks?//.....

Q2 .......// UK speed limits//.....

Yes this is the feature of many of these Liberal/Democrat ideas; they appear to be quite reasonable - in the absence of any in-depth analysis, that is.

A couple of thoughts on question 1; 

Many would indeed think this to be a reasonable idea however, in the real world, how would this be implemented without introducing a tax rise so unpalatable that the purchase of these drinks all but impossible in the financial sense.  And if this were not the case, would not any modest tax rise simply be accepted by those addicted to such beverages?

In addition, how much additional bureaucracy would be needed to account for this new tax band – and, should it be considered to be a success (in the warped minds of those who championed its cause), what is the likelihood that similar moves would be made to discourage the use of other substances considered to be injurious to health or contrary to political doctrine.

And on question 2;

Many drivers do not adhere to the presently established speed restrictions – even in the face of cameras, monetary fines and penalty points – so how likely is it that they will obey this reduced limit?

To try to make this work, surely the installation of a much enhanced surveillance network would be necessary in an attempt to police the new regulation – this again raises the question of additional bureaucracy, furthermore, what do you do when people carry on regardless, much as they do at the moment when driving in existing speed regulated areas?

No, when one looks closely at such ideas from most of these groups who like to consider themselves to be ‘enlightened social democrats’ one can easily see that to implement them measures would need to be adopted that would be anything but democratic or liberal in substance and may well be downright oppressive in practice.

[STMO123]

I just ignore the bastuds me.

[Kevin Wood]

There are no big beasts in British politics at the moment, Nick....

I read that quite wrong the first time. That's what we need, of course. More big breasts in British politics.

We're not short of complete t1ts as it stands, of course.

[Varche]

Putting a reasonable  tax on fizzy drinks would be easy enough. It has worked with cigarettes for long enough. I take the point that most people feel they can make their own choices. Sadly there are plenty who can't or won't. They then become a tax burden on the rest when they become obese and cost money to fix on the NHS.

If you don't know anything about Aspartame then read here for 92 known side effects of this modern evil :

http://www.sweetpoison.com/aspartame-side-effects.html/

Policing speed limits. Difficult area. We all know that speed cameras are just a money collecting device although ultimately they are a deterrent when you clock up enough points. If the vast majority are abiding by the limits then in traffic the rest have little choice to also do so. This isn't about the few who live permanently outside the law but those that do give a damn about their environment and fellow man.

Having said all that , I agree there are much more important things for the goverment to get their teeth into. As I said when the crisis came to a head, Austerity and more austerity (Plan A) just wasn't going to work. It needs more. Hopefully the good trade missions held during the games will bring more export opps. Maybe even more tourism. Did you knwo that there are more middle class Chinese with disposable income to spare than there are Americans and yet Britain has less Chinese tourists than France or Germany. Gulp.

[STMO123]

Aspartame should be classed as a WMD. If Assad has got this we'd better watch out. 

[Rods2]

Education is ALWAYS better than taxation. Look how taxes have risen on cigarettes. Has it stopped smoking? No. The people doing well are the smugglers and black-marketeers.

If something is that bad for humans then ban it, like trans-fats have now been banned in many countries. 

Once you start on this route where does it end up? Salt, animal fats, red meat, alcohol, crisps, fried foods, milk chocolate, sugar, artificial sweetners are all bad for you so why not also put prohibitive taxes on each of these and when they don't work, keep putting the taxes up until they do. The reason they will make consumption almost zero, will be due to shopping trips over to France to stock up on all of these items, so French economy gains, UK loses, home brewing etc.

Unlike tobacco and for some people alcohol, all of the above are not addictive, so just ban them all along with any other known problems, cars cause pollution and deaths, solution ban them, make it compulsory to cycle to work, so workforce much thinner and healthier.

Fatness and obesity are bad for humans, so have a BMI tax and if that doesn't work, make health farm prisons compulsory for anybody with a BMI of over 30, until there BMI is below 25.

Now you might think I'm crazy with these extreme thoughts, but at the end of WWI about 97% of men smoked and tobacco was promoted for their health benefits. Image if you had explained to somebody in 1914, how restricted they would be by 2014. No smoking in public buildings, no cigarette and pint in a pub, inside at work, on trains or buses, a packet costing 30 minutes average earnings, no public display in big shops, plastered with big health warnings, advertising banned, no promotions like cigarette cards. They would have thought you were mad at these suggestions and then explain all you won't be able to say due to political correctness, how Robinsons jam label and broaches would have to go and most public areas will have movie cameras spying on you as you go about your everyday life, with officials ready to swoop on any minor transgression with on-the-spot fines. How cars stopped at the side of the road have to pay an hourly hire charge for that piece of tarmac and if you overstay, another type of official called a 'traffic warden' issues another on the spot fine.

He would of thought you were still suffering shell shock from being in the trenches. 

So once you start on this oppressive slippery slope it will end up over the next 100 years at my crazy suggestion level, you have been warned, this is a very oppressive, very slippery slope.

[Kevin Wood]

It's the attitude that the government is there to work all these things out for us that gets to me.

If you couldn't give a cr@p what you eat, drink and smoke it's nobody else's business. Any other attitude will indeed result in ever more nannying legislation that requires an ever more bloated public sector to dictate police.

.. and if you do die young as a result, does it really make any difference to the "state"? We all have to die of something at some point in time. Regardless of age, many of us will slip away quickly, of course. Many others will need months or years of state-funded healthcare. Those who don't die relatively young of obesity, aspartame poisoning, liver failure or smoking related diseases will die later, possibly after years of being in care homes and years claiming a state pension.

From a financial perspective, it probably makes no odds to the state; surely the only other consideration should be that we are allowed all the freedom of choice during our lives that can reasonably be afforded?