Because not only will it disproportionately affect the poor but I really despise the idea of the government attempting to restrict people's diets through arbitrary changes in tax policy.

Tax is supposed to raise revenue for public services, I don't agree with tax policy being used punitively.

It's not punitive. It's representing the true cost to the tax payer of looking after people who harm themselves by eating too much junk.

It's no different to taxing cigarettes.

I would see it as an encouragement to eat healthier foods. Some food manufacturers group thinks it would target the less well off. It could be implemented well, or not.

Of course it's punitive, you're artificially making something far more expensive because of the excesses of a minority.

If the NHS needs more funding then so be it, but I don't expect the burden to fall on a select few. Everyone pays NI contributions, therefore I expect everyone to receive treatment.

Ironically, many of the less well off seem to spend proportionately more money of their food budget on expensive junk food than on cheap healthy alternatives.

It really annoys me when I hear people complain that they "can only afford fish and chips" or some such nonsense, when I'd consider it an expensive luxury. It was only a couple of generations ago that only the rich elite could afford someone else to cook for them, and everyone else learned to boil potatoes all by themselves.

Taxing junk food would remind me of the idiocy and laziness you got from crap teachers - a few people won't behave, so everyone gets punished

I have the same thoughts about taxing booze per unit etc. I also suspect we'd lose a lot of jobs if such notions were taken to their logical conclusions and were 'successful'... which probably wouldn't help with the 'increased birth rate due to boredom' factor either

Of course it's not punitive. It's damages.

It's passing on the true cost, in exactly the same way that cigarette and alcohol tax does.

I presume from your argument that you are also vehemently against the duty on alcohol?

Indeed I am - IMO there should be one basic rate of tax applied to all products (ie. 17.5%), with exemptions for essentials such as food, children's clothing and fruit juice.

If you need revenue beyond that then raise income tax, instead of hiding the tax burden away on taxes for other products. When the population inevitably complains about the high proportion of income they are losing, the government can point the finger squarely at the cause - who knows maybe social attitudes will change.

If NI was like other insurances then you would pay according to many personal factors. This would be just another way of doing it.

Even BUPA don't ask you what you eat. The NHS is a universal service and should always remain so. What's next, you're going to ask families with a history of cancer to cough up for MRI machines?

I'm not a fan of alcohol duty myself, especially at it's current level, but I do believe that goods should be taxed according to how much mess they leave for the government to clear up.

When you buy something, the cost should include paying for the aftermath as well as the construction. That is the true cost, and should be apparent at the point of sale. This applies to everything. The alternative is selfish and thoughtless people taking advantage of decent people, which makes me very angry.

People don't choose to have cancer. The issue is about something that people have control of, and therefore a choice over.

I drink alcohol responsibly, the most "mess" I leave for the government to clean up is putting the bottles out for recycling. Hell, I don't cause any bother when I'm drinking alcohol irresponsibly. Why therefore should I be penalised and pay an artificially higher price?



So when do the exorbitant taxes on chocolate bars, 500ml/330ml drinks, crisps and anything-else-you-can-buy-in-a-vending-machine/local-shop-which-subsequently-ends-up-as-litter come in then?

As it happens I believe these taxes are just revenue raising methods, sneaky ones at that. It allows the government to say "LOOK! TAX IS ONLY 20% OF INCOME!11111" instead of representing the true tax burden, which is probably over 50%.

So should we charge people who sleep around extra when they contract STDs?

The NHS was never supposed to be on the basis that everyone pays the same. The NI scheme was invented so that the richer portion of society subsidised those who couldn't afford to pay for their healthcare or retirement

There is, at least to my mind, a world of difference between subsidising child innoculations and subsidising fat people getting fatter.

I am fat.

I am likely to cost the NHS more than if I wasn't

I could have chosen to be not fat

I should pay more