Plastic and Sugar Taxes.

[NorthBrit]

Is it me?  Am I missing something here?

 

I do not EVER throwing plastic in the sea.   I do not know anyone who has.  YET I have the privilege of paying 5p per bag.  Will that 5p per bag go to clean the oceans?   Somehow I doubt it.

 

If the 'Sugar Tax' is supposed to make the drinks companies reduce the amount of sugar they put in their drinks;  WHY, on day one supermarkets and stores have increased the cost of buying a drink?  After all, they have had those drinks 'in stock' prior to the tax being enforced.

 

Somehow, the cynic in me thinks the drinks companies will not reduce the sugar in the products, but increase the price to the consumer.

[Titan]

Is it me?  Am I missing something here?

 

I do not EVER throwing plastic in the sea.   I do not know anyone who has.  YET I have the privilege of paying 5p per bag.  Will that 5p per bag go to clean the oceans?   Somehow I doubt it.

 

If the 'Sugar Tax' is supposed to make the drinks companies reduce the amount of sugar they put in their drinks;  WHY, on day one supermarkets and stores have increased the cost of buying a drink?  After all, they have had those drinks 'in stock' prior to the tax being enforced.

 

Somehow, the cynic in me thinks the drinks companies will not reduce the sugar in the products, but increase the price to the consumer.

 

Firstly, since the 5p per bag charge was introduced, plastic bag use has dropped by about 90% - that means 90% less bags to find their way in to the ocean, so yes the 5p charge is most definitely going to result in cleaner oceans.

 

Secondly the supermarket tax will be paid at point of sale, not when the supermarket bought them. So whatever the supermarket paid for them, no matter how long ago or how long they have been in stock, the cost of selling on day 1 will be the cost of buying the drink when it was bought + the cost of the new tax.

 

Edit: It is actually on the manufacturers rather than the point of sale, having read the blurb, lesson - check a bit more carefully before posting!

Edited April 9, 2018 by Titan

[The Stationmaster]

Is it me?  Am I missing something here?

 

I do not EVER throwing plastic in the sea.   I do not know anyone who has.  YET I have the privilege of paying 5p per bag.  Will that 5p per bag go to clean the oceans?   Somehow I doubt it.

 

If the 'Sugar Tax' is supposed to make the drinks companies reduce the amount of sugar they put in their drinks;  WHY, on day one supermarkets and stores have increased the cost of buying a drink?  After all, they have had those drinks 'in stock' prior to the tax being enforced.

 

Somehow, the cynic in me thinks the drinks companies will not reduce the sugar in the products, but increase the price to the consumer.

 

Various companies have reduced the sugar content to get it below the trigger level for the tax - this includes some products from Coca Cola (but not 'original recipe' Coca Cola) and such things as Irn Bru.  And do you really think supermarkets actually hold stocks of anything apart from what you see on the shelves - they all work on a 'just in time' basis with daily restocking of whatever is not on the shelf from distribution depots which restock on a similar basis.  Something in some 'high demand' categories you see on a supermarket shelf today probably hadn't even been produced 10 days ago although in some cases there are long lead items such as Easter Eggs which some supermarkets take into stock some time in advance.

 

The plastic bag tax certainly seems to work according to information by various organisations and 'single use' bags are in far lower demand than they were prior to the tax - now quite unusual to see shoppers with them in our local supermarkets.   The origin of the plastic stuff in the sea is far more comp;lex than a 40p tax on bags in various countries as some places and cultures clearly don't have the slightest concern about dropping their rubbish in the sea.   Yes it needs, urgently, to be cleaned up but I doubt our (very occasional in my case) 5ps will be paying for it anyway.

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

While you didn't personally directly put the plastic in the ocean, Omnimegaplasticorp put in a smidge on your behalf from all the plastic components of the device you used to make that post. So just pay up for your plastic bag and acknowledge that you are the problem. It is I will grant you a rather wrongheaded approach to 'polluter pays' but then we elected these knuckledraggers that produce such legislation which brings us around to...

 

Not only will the soft drinks companies increase the price, they will push the price still higher on their new 'Sugamax' ranges with aggressive marketing on the lines of 'Ain't no govment gonna tell me notta getta bese, if its what I wanna do'. The accompanying visuals all with young slender specimens with their own teeth and minimal bathing costumes, rather than some late twenties balloon who has fallen through the bedroom floor of his house, and whose remains are being removed by bulldozer.

 

.

[Nearholmer]

I don't suppose it will go to the clean the oceans, but then I don't think that's the idea.

 

Isn't the point to make us all think twice before grabbing another carrier bag that will get slung away in five minutes?

 

Ditto sugar tax, it's supposed to make buying sugary stuff more expensive, more painful, I think.

 

Personally, I think that the carrier bag one works, up to a point, but that a sugar tax would need to be set at about £200/gram to make it an effective deterrent to purchase (not of fizzy drinks in my case, because I can't abide them, but fudge, which is my sugar-drug of choice).

[Karhedron]

Somehow, the cynic in me thinks the drinks companies will not reduce the sugar in the products, but increase the price to the consumer.

 

On the contrary, they have already reduced it quite a bit to try and minimise the tax, so much so that the government has had to cut its estimates of the revenue it expects to raise from it. More details here.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-43659124

 

Whether it will have the desired effect remains to be seen but as obesity is an increasing cost to the NHS, there is some sense in taxing the products that are the biggest cause of it (much like tobacco).

[kevinlms]

But when you see stuff like this, the only conclusion you can come to, is that something needs to be done.

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-43312464

 

It's a world wide problem and while you personally may not contribute to it, others certainly do!

 

This is pretty shocking.

 

 

 

Charging people to use plastics, is a good way to make people think, because most don't want to pay, more than they need to.

[great central]

On the contrary, they have already reduced it quite a bit to try and minimise the tax, so much so that the government has had to cut its estimates of the revenue it expects to raise from it. More details here.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-43659124

 

Whether it will have the desired effect remains to be seen but as obesity is an increasing cost to the NHS, there is some sense in taxing the products that are the biggest cause of it (much like tobacco).

But yet again, what I see as the biggest problem causer seems to escape. Tobacco is now behind closed doors, sugary drinks cost more, but alcohol which causes a multitude of problems, not just to the consumer themselves but often those around them gets away without penalty?

I'm no killjoy but it seems rather perverse that smokers are treated like lepers although the main person they are harming is themselves, the same goes for sugary drinks. Yet a drunk is a serious danger to those around them as well as themselves, how many people have been killed on the roads by smokers compared to drink drivers??

[kevinlms]

But yet again, what I see as the biggest problem causer seems to escape. Tobacco is now behind closed doors, sugary drinks cost more, but alcohol which causes a multitude of problems, not just to the consumer themselves but often those around them gets away without penalty?

I'm no killjoy but it seems rather perverse that smokers are treated like lepers although the main person they are harming is themselves, the same goes for sugary drinks. Yet a drunk is a serious danger to those around them as well as themselves, how many people have been killed on the roads by smokers compared to drink drivers??

Perhaps you're right about smokers & drinkers, but plastic affects everyone's environment, as well as that of animals, birds and fish. Obviously they have ZERO say or control at all. To many, it looks like food, nothing could be further from the truth.

[Fat Controller]

Not a lot of smokers may have killed people with their habit whilst driving, but they will have caused a lot of damage to non-smokers, including children, who have found themselves in enclosed smoke-filled spaces such as cars.

[Nearholmer]

Isn't that where taxation for revenue, and taxation as a deterrent, get very tangled? Tax has been applied to alcohol for both purposes, in a sort of alternating, intermingled and confused way for about two centuries, and is now a very high percentage of the purchase price, c50% in the case of wine I think, but drink is still clearly 'cheap' enough to be very widely consumed.

 

It begs the question whether deterrent taxes might have a short 'half life', whereby their effectiveness drops with time, as the pre-tax situation is forgotten.

 

The undoubted reduction in drunk driving has probably been a function of it becoming far less socially acceptable than it was, ditto the reduction in smoking. Profligate use of plastic might go the same way, but it is notable that "everyone" feels wary of saying that being obese is socially unacceptable, for all sorts of complex reasons ........ be interesting to see how that goes over time.

Edited April 9, 2018 by Nearholmer

[Classsix T]

I thought we beat Napoleon, we're due some cracking income tax rebates...

 

C6T.

[wombatofludham]

But yet again, what I see as the biggest problem causer seems to escape. Tobacco is now behind closed doors, sugary drinks cost more, but alcohol which causes a multitude of problems, not just to the consumer themselves but often those around them gets away without penalty?

I'm no killjoy but it seems rather perverse that smokers are treated like lepers although the main person they are harming is themselves, the same goes for sugary drinks. Yet a drunk is a serious danger to those around them as well as themselves, how many people have been killed on the roads by smokers compared to drink drivers??

I can remember one crash on a motorway that was believed caused by a lorry driver dropping a lit cigarette and being distracted by it. However, I can't agree that smokers only harm themselves. Roy Castle was believed to have developed lung cancer from passive smoking, and I have a legacy of Bronchitis triggered by the fact most of my family used to smoke. Fortunately the public area smoking ban has largely addressed that for forthcoming generations but people of my age who were subject to widespread workplace smoking will continue to develop complications from it for a while yet.

 

I do agree on the alcohol bit though. Although excise duty has been ramped up, it goes nowhere towards the true social and financial cost of the results of excessive drinking. Personally I would slap a hypothecated additional tax on all alcohol sold in supermarkets. used to fund police and NHS costs of policing drunkenness, as the easy availability of alcohol in shops has led to a serious social problem. I'm of an age to remember when alcohol for home consumption was only sold at pub off licences or a restricted number of retail outlets, or the Davenports mobile sales. It was heavily policed and carefully licenced, but I'm sure it's no co-incidence that binge drinking and youth drinking was far less of a problem back then. So, realistically we need to restrict ready availability of cheap alcohol with lax management and replace it with a more restricted, tightly policed, and more accurately taxed system of alcohol availability. Of course, pubs would be exempt (a) to protect the dying trade and (b) because most landlords will properly police their customers for fear of losing their licence.

 

Sadly I don't see any political party removing the ready availability of supermarket alcohol in favour of a return to the "offy", but it's in reality what is needed.

[great central]

Perhaps you're right about smokers & drinkers, but plastic affects everyone's environment, as well as that of animals, birds and fish. Obviously they have ZERO say or control at all. To many, it looks like food, nothing could be further from the truth.

Sorry, perhaps I didn't come across too clearly. I have no problems at all with the idea of taxation of things to try to reduce their usage, having a holiday home right on the seafront and walking along the beach a lot I'm absolutely disgusted by too many people's attitude to the sea.

A couple of years ago after a Sunday afternoon driving me scratty with their damned jet skis and the row I went down to the waters edge where they had been. They had simply abandoned a broken kite complete with yards and yards of fine plastic based line, I brought it back and binned it. The amount of plastic is heartbreaking knowing the damage it causes but too many see it as not their problem.

[duncan]

As I drive to work, the majority of the roadside rubbish appears to be soft drink plastic bottles & cans, particularly at laybys.  I suspect most are thrown out the vehicle windows, rather than taken to home or work to be binned.  It used to be smoking rubbish, so maybe higher taxes sometimes has an indirect benefit.

Edited April 9, 2018 by duncan

[Horsetan]

.....pubs would be exempt (a) to protect the dying trade ....

A side issue, but half the reasons why the trade appears to be dying are the aggressive contracts imposed by pubcos on their Tenants.

[NorthBrit]

Firstly, since the 5p per bag charge was introduced, plastic bag use has dropped by about 90% - that means 90% less bags to find their way in to the ocean, so yes the 5p charge is most definitely going to result in cleaner oceans.

 

Secondly the supermarket tax will be paid at point of sale, not when the supermarket bought them. So whatever the supermarket paid for them, no matter how long ago or how long they have been in stock, the cost of selling on day 1 will be the cost of buying the drink when it was bought + the cost of the new tax.

 

Edit: It is actually on the manufacturers rather than the point of sale, having read the blurb, lesson - check a bit more carefully before posting!

 

Firstly - I know the use of plastic bags has reduced.  If you read my thread, I say I have never thrown any plastic bags (or any plastic for that matter) in the oceans.  I do not know anyone who has.  Yet people have jumped on a bandwagon and wish to penalise us.  If they want to stop the use of plastic carrier bags then go back to paper ones.  (Remember those?)

 

Secondly  --  I know the tax is is at the point of manufacture.    If YOU check before posting and went into a supermarket or store and checked the price of drinks prior to and now introducing  of the tax, you will see an increase in price.

 

The same is now happening regarding the cups (of coffee) from Costa, Starbucks ETC.

[Nearholmer]

Yep. It’s to put us off buying them, and provoke conversations like the one in this thread.

 

None of us will suffer unduly if we carry our own shopping bag, drink less coke, and buy fewer takeaway cups.

Edited April 9, 2018 by Nearholmer

[Guius]

I live a few tens of yards from the Irish Sea and during the better weather many people have beach parties on the foreshore and dunes, unfortunately many campers (but not all) leave the resultant rubbish behind. This includes tents, sleeping bags, clothes, plastic bottles, glass bottles, tin/beer cans all for someone else to dispose of. I often wonder why come to a SSI and deliberately foul the unique surroundings they have come to experience. The answer, I fear, is just because they can. Witness many National Trust car parks only to see fast food packaging that has been jettisoned after a "happy meal" again for someone else to remove. Personally I would impose an additional "Take-a-way Food Tax" to pay for the disposing and recycling of abandoned packaging.

 

Guy

[Dunsignalling]

Isn't that where taxation for revenue, and taxation as a deterrent, get very tangled? Tax has been applied to alcohol for both purposes, in a sort of alternating, intermingled and confused way for about two centuries, and is now a very high percentage of the purchase price, c50% in the case of wine I think, but drink is still clearly 'cheap' enough to be very widely consumed.

 

It begs the question whether deterrent taxes might have a short 'half life', whereby their effectiveness drops with time, as the pre-tax situation is forgotten.

 

The undoubted reduction in drunk driving has probably been a function of it becoming far less socially acceptable than it was, ditto the reduction in smoking. Profligate use of plastic might go the same way, but it is notable that "everyone" feels wary of saying that being obese is socially unacceptable, for all sorts of complex reasons ........ be interesting to see how that goes over time.

The Sugar Tax seems to have been a great success in persuading the obesity industry to reduce sugar content, during the two years notice of it they were given, in a way that decades of "self regulation" barely touched. Any income accruing to the public purse will be the icing on the cake (sorry, I couldn't resist that).

 

As the Coca Cola Classic diehards gradually die hard, I suspect that will get quietly dropped in favour of the no-sugar version they are already marketing heavily.

 

Of course, in a couple of years, we'll no doubt be deluged with tabloid claims that the artificial sweeteners are worse for us than sugar ever was and it's all the government's fault.......

 

 

John

Edited April 9, 2018 by Dunsignalling

[Dava]

Now the gardening season is here, check out the amount of unrecyclable plastic packaging used by your garden centres, DIY outlets etc with every pack of geraniums, tomatoes etc, no use at all is made of recyclable alternatives which could work just as well

such as waxed cardboard. Yet no proposals to tax it.

[beast66606]

The problem is not that individuals throw plastic bags into the ocean but they get there because they are not recyclable and can get into such systems via poor handling of the waste product.

 

I disagree with taxing to prevent consumption - the answer is education not enforcement, I strongly disagree with being punished for others lack of self control.

[Dunsignalling]

I live a few tens of yards from the Irish Sea and during the better weather many people have beach parties on the foreshore and dunes, unfortunately many campers (but not all) leave the resultant rubbish behind. This includes tents, sleeping bags, clothes, plastic bottles, glass bottles, tin/beer cans all for someone else to dispose of. I often wonder why come to a SSI and deliberately foul the unique surroundings they have come to experience. The answer, I fear, is just because they can. Witness many National Trust car parks only to see fast food packaging that has been jettisoned after a "happy meal" again for someone else to remove. Personally I would impose an additional "Take-a-way Food Tax" to pay for the disposing and recycling of abandoned packaging.

 

Guy

What we see on the shoreline is a small segment of the problem and the stuff that can be seen is the easiest to deal with.

 

Unfortunately, we all add, invisibly, to the microplastics in the oceans every time we wash a garment made from synthetic materials.

 

I also harbour doubts about "bio-degradeable" plastic bags/packaging - do they break down into harmless compounds or just smaller, less visible, bits of plastic? 

 

John

Edited April 9, 2018 by Dunsignalling

[beast66606]

Of course, in a couple of years, we'll no doubt be deluged with tabloid claims that the artificial sweeteners are worse for us than sugar ever was and it's all the government's fault.......

 

 

Articial sweetners are already claimed to be damaging to health.

[wombatofludham]

It's funny how things come back full circle.

 

Apparently shoppers are abandoning the monthly mega shop and are buying smaller amounts every week. Just like we used to do before widespread fridge and freezer ownership.

 

Home delivery of groceries is another growth area, just like the old delivery boy, only nowadays with a Mercedes Sprinter rather than a sit up and beg bike, or Moggy Minor.

 

We're encouraged to re-use bags. Just like the old baskets my late mother used to take to the shops.

 

Non-disposable cups? Yep, done that, it's called crockery.

 

Buying from smaller shops and market stalls is growing. Been there, done that.

 

Catching the bus to go to the shops? We did that until I passed my test and got a car in 1980.

 

Pop bottles with a deposit? I've handed out a few 10ps in my time when I worked Saturdays in a newsagent that sold Corona pop.

 

Ditching plastic bags in place of paper? Again nothing new there.

 

Seriously we've only got to look back to how things were done in the 1960s and 70s to see how we could reduce the amount of travel, plastic and waste. It's not that long ago. I seem to remember that the growth in plastic bags came from the need to use the huge amounts of by-products that arose from petrol refining. OK having a waterproof, relatively tough carrier soon caught on but those of us in our 50s can remember life before plastic bags. In fact I remember when plastic carriers first came in the store charged you for them but offered you a free box (usually left over from stacking shelves) to help you carry things to the car.

 

It seems a whole different planet.