Canadian government considering taxes on sugary drinks

[DisposableHero]

So you support the idea of only spending where your votes are? lol

That's not how government works.

That's how the liberal government worked their last time around .

[Tradewind]

That's how the liberal government worked their last time around .

Indeed. The Crony Party in full Chretien era form already.

[GreenJesus]

Fine by me. I almost never consume these drinks. If the fools who do are a few dollars poorer then they deserve that.

Okay... This is definitely a troll thread. Increased taxes on common items people consume is never a good idea. People will eat/drink what they want. Besides, prices listed on shelves don't include tax so people will only be paying more. Soft drinks in general has been decreasing. Pepsi and Coca cola are diversifying because they notice a huge decline in soft drink sales. So if 10 years from now you say "See Canada worked", it is because soft drink consumption is going down in general.

Increase education/awareness of how unhealthy sodas or sugary drinks are and let people decide what they want.

[analmoose]

As a canadian, this will have 0 effect on my life. Not because I don't eat sugar, but because the tax would have to basically double the price of said item before i'd really give a shit, and they just can't do that.

At the end of the day this tax has nothing to do with their facade of a reason, just like the carbon tax the morons from the NDP recently put on Alberta. Alberta's carbon footprint is non existent in the big picture. And it hasn't changed a thing except putting businesses in a shitty situation. Pretty soon Canadians will be paying 100% tax on everything, after pst, gst, hst, carbon tax, sugar tax, income tax. Fucking unreal, I'm already giving 30% income away annually. Don't forget EI, CPP etc. Our generation will never see a cent from CPP either, I guarantee that.

[TwoNineMarine]

Not if they can't afford it.

And taxing a consumer good out of the range of normal folk for "health" reasons is fucking stupid.

And if you can't see that then well....I'm sorry.

- - - Updated - - -

Your blind trust in the goverment is borderline scary.

Isn't it?

I'm more and more impressed by his utter blindness and loyalty.

- - - Updated - - -

As a canadian, this will have 0 effect on my life. Not because I don't eat sugar, but because the tax would have to basically double the price of said item before i'd really give a shit, and they just can't do that.

At the end of the day this tax has nothing to do with their facade of a reason, just like the carbon tax the morons from the NDP recently put on Alberta. Alberta's carbon footprint is non existent in the big picture. And it hasn't changed a thing except putting businesses in a shitty situation. Pretty soon Canadians will be paying 100% tax on everything, after pst, gst, hst, carbon tax, sugar tax, income tax. Fucking unreal, I'm already giving 30% income away annually. Don't forget EI, CPP etc. Our generation will never see a cent from CPP either, I guarantee that.

I think you'd be surprised at just what they can do if they had a mind to.

[stabetha]

Okay... This is definitely a troll thread. Increased taxes on common items people consume is never a good idea. People will eat/drink what they want. Besides, prices listed on shelves don't include tax so people will only be paying more. Soft drinks in general has been decreasing. Pepsi and Coca cola are diversifying because they notice a huge decline in soft drink sales. So if 10 years from now you say "See Canada worked", it is because soft drink consumption is going down in general.

Increase education/awareness of how unhealthy sodas or sugary drinks are and let people decide what they want.

actually what will happen , just like what we're seeing here in the US with the vapeing industry, people switched from smoking to a healthier alternative and now the government is losing so much money the FDA just classified vaping the same as smoking, attached crippling regulations, and opened the door to tax it just as heavily as tobacco.

Once the government has a revenue source it doesn't like to see it go away.

[Tennis]

So you support the idea of only spending where your votes are? lol

That's not how government works.

Please. Go look at Steve and his Canada Action plan.
Did you forget how he had the Clerk of the Privy council writing reports on signage for his plan.

[Tradewind]

Please. Go look at Steve and his Canada Action plan.
Did you forget how he had the Clerk of the Privy council writing reports on signage for his plan.

Did I say anything about it being ok when the Cons did it too? No. Though I'm not sure how it was an exercise in pandering to a voter base. Perhaps you would like to provide some evidence.

Just highlighting your naivete. "Because they did it too" is not a valid argument for continuing to do so either way.

[Karamaru]

So besides Tennisace hate for fat people we can add poor people to that list as well.

[Yvaelle]

The problem with that is we use false information to educate students and just replace all the drinks in vending machines with diet sodas which cause all the same issues.

Since studies have shown that switching to diet drinks has had virtually no measurable impact in weight loss, I absolutely think we lump diet soda in with sugary drinks.

Scary pictures are more effective than economic disincentives?. That's some bold claim.

Incentives only work when they alter behaviour, if the increase in cost is a microtransactional rate increase - such as a can of coke goes from $1 to $1.20, that is not substantial enough to change the purchasing behaviour of consumers in any significant way. This is why companies routinely practice incremental rate increases over time, they measure the degree of price sensitivity of consumers - and then try to go 1 cent under the point where consumers will take notice and react.

The same is true for a small tax on sugary drinks. Unless you are willing to go big, like say, a $19 dollar tax on each $1 can of Coke - so that the final price is now $20 - consumers will not stop drinking coke. Nobody is talking like that, and rightfully so, because nobody thinks that's fair: that's incredibly prohibitive to both the company and consumer choice.

Small taxes do not work as disincentives. It's not at all a bold claim, it's one of the most certain things in the study of consumer behaviour.

Scary pictures are absolutely effective, because consumer behaviour is all about image - scary pictures are images which are able to disrupt the perception of the product image: which are tailored to elicit a positive emotional association between the product and the consumer. Consumers are not rational agents purchasing based on the lowest cost equivalent alternative, they are emotionally driven - and cost is at best - a limitation. I said 'at best', because not even that is consistently true, people routinely go deep into debt to purchase things they don't actually need, but which they feel they need: that's the power of branding, and product image.

Apple is a classic example. They don't make the best phones, tablets, computers, apps, operating systems, etc - in every product category for which they compete - someone out there probably made a better product (from a specification perspective) a year or more before them.

Apple doesn't sell tech, they sell cool - if you pay them money - you will be cool. Coolness is their only product, it's the only value they add to their supply chain. Someone else invents the tech, someone makes all the parts, someone assembles it, someone distributes it: Apple makes it cool.

They sell tech because it is at the optimal price point for extracting value from the most number of customers, who are willing to purchase their real product, 'cool'. If everyone were just buying phones based on tech specs, we'd all be using Nokia's.

Coolness is a positive trait added to products, but the dark side of branding is the ability to attribute negative traits: and it is just as valid and effective as Apple is at adding cool. Coke tells you that drinking coke will bring back your childhood, better days, sunshine, smiles, people in your life will be sexier, everyone will be having fun, polar bears will lovingly embrace penguins instead of savaging their bodies for mild amusement. You can purchase all these things and more, for $1, by consuming Coke. Plus, if people see you drinking Coke, they will associate you with the commercials of people having fun - and they will think you are fun/sexy/happy/huggable. Scary pictures take that image, and tack on the additional associations of dying young, fat, unhealthy, suffering from failing organs, rotten teeth, etc.

[spin] do you think rap culture instead of poverty increases crime rate?[/spin]

I know you think this is some sort of gotcha', so allow me to shock you.

Yes, but let's single out gangsta' rap to be specific - because rap is a very very broad genre. Gangsta rap glorifies criminal activity, by portraying a world in which - by committing crimes such as selling drugs or stealing cars or shooting people - you can have everything your 12 year old heart desires: half-naked women, stacks of money, fast cars, big mansions, expensive alcohol, etc.

Gangsta rap absolutely convinces people that criminal activity is better than it actually is - this leads them into taking steps which - outside the glorified tales of gangsta rap - becoming a gangsta mostly leads to addiction, poverty, jail, suffering, loss, and death: not exactly all it's portrayed to be.

So yes, one of the outcomes of gangsta rap is a cycle of poverty and crime/jail - but it absolutely cannot take full credit the way you are implying it does (obviously you're spinning it RAA). Poverty also increases the crime rate, because people have needs - and if those needs are not met - people would rather steal than starve. This is the downward spiral - a negative feedback loop which can exist when people are not provided for.

Finally, gangsta rap itself comes from people who have nothing - who are impoverished. Rich people don't dream of a fistful of bills, a bottle of champagne, and a fast car - because that's called Wednesday. So this cycle begins and is perpetuated by poverty, gangsta rap is an exacerbating negative effect - but removing gangsta rap would not resolve the relationship between crime and poverty - it at best would slow the procession from poverty to crime: but without resolving poverty this is inevitable.

[Cyberowl]

Not every tax is supposed to stop consumption; instead it can be applied to generate money to counter the negative effects.

Obesity is a big burden on social security.

[Release]

Since studies have shown that switching to diet drinks has had virtually no measurable impact in weight loss, I absolutely think we lump diet soda in with sugary drinks.



Incentives only work when they alter behaviour, if the increase in cost is a microtransactional rate increase - such as a can of coke goes from $1 to $1.20, that is not substantial enough to change the purchasing behaviour of consumers in any significant way. This is why companies routinely practice incremental rate increases over time, they measure the degree of price sensitivity of consumers - and then try to go 1 cent under the point where consumers will take notice and react.

The same is true for a small tax on sugary drinks. Unless you are willing to go big, like say, a $19 dollar tax on each $1 can of Coke - so that the final price is now $20 - consumers will not stop drinking coke. Nobody is talking like that, and rightfully so, because nobody thinks that's fair: that's incredibly prohibitive to both the company and consumer choice.

Small taxes do not work as disincentives. It's not at all a bold claim, it's one of the most certain things in the study of consumer behaviour.

Scary pictures are absolutely effective, because consumer behaviour is all about image - scary pictures are images which are able to disrupt the perception of the product image: which are tailored to elicit a positive emotional association between the product and the consumer. Consumers are not rational agents purchasing based on the lowest cost equivalent alternative, they are emotionally driven - and cost is at best - a limitation. I said 'at best', because not even that is consistently true, people routinely go deep into debt to purchase things they don't actually need, but which they feel they need: that's the power of branding, and product image.

Apple is a classic example. They don't make the best phones, tablets, computers, apps, operating systems, etc - in every product category for which they compete - someone out there probably made a better product (from a specification perspective) a year or more before them.

Apple doesn't sell tech, they sell cool - if you pay them money - you will be cool. Coolness is their only product, it's the only value they add to their supply chain. Someone else invents the tech, someone makes all the parts, someone assembles it, someone distributes it: Apple makes it cool.

They sell tech because it is at the optimal price point for extracting value from the most number of customers, who are willing to purchase their real product, 'cool'. If everyone were just buying phones based on tech specs, we'd all be using Nokia's.

Coolness is a positive trait added to products, but the dark side of branding is the ability to attribute negative traits: and it is just as valid and effective as Apple is at adding cool. Coke tells you that drinking coke will bring back your childhood, better days, sunshine, smiles, people in your life will be sexier, everyone will be having fun, polar bears will lovingly embrace penguins instead of savaging their bodies for mild amusement. You can purchase all these things and more, for $1, by consuming Coke. Plus, if people see you drinking Coke, they will associate you with the commercials of people having fun - and they will think you are fun/sexy/happy/huggable. Scary pictures take that image, and tack on the additional associations of dying young, fat, unhealthy, suffering from failing organs, rotten teeth, etc.



I know you think this is some sort of gotcha', so allow me to shock you.

Yes, but let's single out gangsta' rap to be specific - because rap is a very very broad genre. Gangsta rap glorifies criminal activity, by portraying a world in which - by committing crimes such as selling drugs or stealing cars or shooting people - you can have everything your 12 year old heart desires: half-naked women, stacks of money, fast cars, big mansions, expensive alcohol, etc.

Gangsta rap absolutely convinces people that criminal activity is better than it actually is - this leads them into taking steps which - outside the glorified tales of gangsta rap - becoming a gangsta mostly leads to addiction, poverty, jail, suffering, loss, and death: not exactly all it's portrayed to be.

So yes, one of the outcomes of gangsta rap is a cycle of poverty and crime/jail - but it absolutely cannot take full credit the way you are implying it does (obviously you're spinning it RAA). Poverty also increases the crime rate, because people have needs - and if those needs are not met - people would rather steal than starve. This is the downward spiral - a negative feedback loop which can exist when people are not provided for.

Finally, gangsta rap itself comes from people who have nothing - who are impoverished. Rich people don't dream of a fistful of bills, a bottle of champagne, and a fast car - because that's called Wednesday. So this cycle begins and is perpetuated by poverty, gangsta rap is an exacerbating negative effect - but removing gangsta rap would not resolve the relationship between crime and poverty - it at best would slow the procession from poverty to crime: but without resolving poverty this is inevitable.

Right now if you want a carrier bag with your shopping in the UK you pay 5p for the privilege. That to most of us is very little but it has severely reduced the number of carrier bags being purchased.

Whilst it is not an exact analogy because you can factor in the annoyance of making a 5p purchase etc. I think it definitely illustrates that small taxes when done correctly can make a difference.

[SL1200]

Stop trying to run people's lives. I'm sick and tired of this nanny government bullshit.

[Yvaelle]

Right now if you want a carrier bag with your shopping in the UK you pay 5p for the privilege. That to most of us is very little but it has severely reduced the number of carrier bags being purchased.

Whilst it is not an exact analogy because you can factor in the annoyance of making a 5p purchase etc. I think it definitely illustrates that small taxes when done correctly can make a difference.

The difference in this case is that you're leaping between something which was previously free and didn't require a decision (do you need carrier bags? how many?), to something which is now an identified cost (5p) and requires you to make decisions. So drawing attention to the risk (added cost in the case of carrier bags), and requiring consumers to make a decision (how many bags?) - is quite different than the cost hike itself.

The equivalent would be if they increased the cost of all grocery transactions, without telling/asking consumers, by 5p per transaction to pay for a bag. That likely wouldn't influence behaviour.

The equivalent to your example, as it pertains to pop, would be more like if - everytime you purchased Coke whether at a store or through a machine - you were asked, "This will make you fat, rot your teeth, destroy your organs, give you diabetes, and take years off your life (the risk). Do you accept the additional 20 cent tax per can? (the choice)".

Guess how many people are going to want to stand in a grocery line while the cashier calls them fat/unhealthy every day, or have a vending machine sass them in a robot voice about how they are destroying their puny pink meatsack just so they can drink Coke?

I'm not advocating that we should do that, but it's the sort of risk identification and decision making that your example includes.

[Release]

The difference in this case is that you're leaping between something which was previously free and didn't require a decision (do you need carrier bags? how many?), to something which is now an identified cost (5p) and requires you to make decisions. So drawing attention to the risk (added cost in the case of carrier bags), and requiring consumers to make a decision (how many bags?) - is quite different than the cost itself.

The equivalent would be if they increased the cost of all grocery transactions, without telling/asking consumers, by 5p per transaction to pay for a bag. That likely wouldn't influence behaviour.

The equivalent to your example, as it pertains to pop, would be more like if - everytime you purchased Coke whether at a store of through a machine - you were asked told, "This will make you fat, rot your teeth, destroy your organs, give you diabetes, and take years off your life (the risk). Do you accept the additional 20 cent tax per can? (the choice)".

Guess how many people are going to want to stand in a grocery line while the cashier calls them fat/unhealthy every day, or have a vending machine sass them in a robot voice about how they are destroying their puny pink meatsack just so they can drink Coke?

I'm not advocating that we should do that, but it's the sort of risk identification and decision making that your example includes.

I understand what your saying and as I said the analogy I gave wasn't perfect and is perhaps more clear cut. For the consumer to make a decision you just need to alter the price and how it pertains to that customer. As others have been saying poor people generally drink sugary drinks because they are cheap. Adding even a small relative adjustment to every single can of soda that person will ever buy now and in future can force a decision from a customer in poverty on how much do they really want that coke.

If this is a good thing is up for debate. I personally think an interesting way to go would be to make healthier alternatives like flavoured water cheaper and increase sugary drinks to compensate and still provide customers with a choice.

[nextormento]

I know you think this is some sort of gotcha', so allow me to shock you.

That wasn't very socking. I'm more than comfortable with the idea that image and economic environment work together. I mean... the major reason why tobacco was consumed massively was because it was cool among your friends, and sometimes the sign of an independent woman too.
The bold claim is the relative quantification, not the endless possibilities. On the specifics of tobacco, "small tax" doesn't quite apply for the hikes it was subjected worldwide; perhaps Canada took it more lightly?.

There is a very clear asymmetry on this one: the success of the positive spin doesn't translate well to the success of the negative one. Creating negative associations is a rather difficult thing to do. Not without also mobilizing other people to ostracize your behavior.
Heck, one of the most successful organizations doing that has been the Catholic church. And even they couldn't get it to work without also promising the ridiculously positive eternal life.

Interestingly Apple's strategy does mobilize other people to spread that positive spin: they engineer hordes of insufferable fans shilling for them. Apple is not just products: it's a culture on its own. They may be successful on that strategy, but it also severely polarizes consumers. Many people don't just prefer another product: they strongly hate theirs.
Image is a niche market.

We can do many things, indeed. Claiming higher success with an strategy when other strategies are also in place is a very suspect, and very bold claim.
Then again, I wasn't out to get you. Your bold claim is very subversive, and I happen to enjoy that. Pointing out that it's bold is more of an invitation to provide hard data and evidence, rather than anecdotes and rationalizations. /shrug

[Jotaux]

Since studies have shown that switching to diet drinks has had virtually no measurable impact in weight loss, I absolutely think we lump diet soda in with sugary drinks.

Yes but people are stupid and these people are in government who will then just go "dur we can just give them diet sodas!"

[primalmatter]

Why are my countrymen excited to be taxed more?

They realize that is all this is right? A desperate attempt to generate more revenue to help our nightmarish debt we are accumulating...

[Deleted]

The UK has had VAT (20% sales tax) on things like sugary drinks for years, though most food and drink is zero rated.

It's a little more complicated than that.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/p...permarket.html

Okay... This is definitely a troll thread. Increased taxes on common items people consume is never a good idea. People will eat/drink what they want.

I'll have a low sugar soft drink which isn't loaded with artificial sweeteners except there aren't any.

[Tennis]

So besides Tennisace hate for fat people we can add poor people to that list as well.

I love poor people. I don't see how this is hurting those who can only afford tap water?