You may recall that the loathsome former NYfC Mayor Bloomberg once declared war on super-sized drinks in that poxy city because people were getting too fat from the drinking thereof, or something. So as an actual ban would essentially be unenforceable, he slapped a consumption tax on them.
How nice: promote health while raking in the dollars. (I’m sure the latter had no bearing on his action, of course. [eyecross] )
I was reminded of this when I read that the equally-loathsome British Labourite Wes Streeting has slapped a tax on sugary drinks. (Okay, he just extended and raised the “temporary” tax on food on this particular category, but the effect is the same.)
The oily little shit then made this nauseating statement:
“This government will not look away as children get unhealthier,” the Health Secretary told the Commons.
Makes you want to give him a swift slap, dunnit?
And as with Bloomberg, the poison is in the details, as the tax may raise as much as £45million a year or more for the Treasury.
What about all those obese children?
Whitehall’s own estimates suggest it will only trim 0.3kcal off the daily intake of 5 to 10 year olds and 0.4kcal off 11 to 18 year olds.
Well, there ya go, then.
What I really love is all the contortions necessary to make all this happen:
The change will affect packaged milkshakes and coffees, but not drinks made in cafes and restaurants.
The exemption for milk-based drinks will be replaced with a ‘lactose allowance’ to account for the natural sugars in the milk component of the drinks.
I’m thinking that HMG could save a lot more than £45million a year by just firing all the goblins involved in implementing and enforcing all these tax minutiae, but no doubt that might be seen as too simplistic.
Whether control freaks like Bloomberg or unctuous figures like Streeting, they’re all just bastards.
:
