Tax Hike For Fast Food, Carbonated Soft Drinks

[TAWP]

So you feel taxes should be a tool for the government to be a morality police on how to live their lives?

Morality has nothing to do with it. The Health of its people should be the concern of the government.

No, it shouldn't. The governments job is to garantee individuals rights and access to accurate information.

An enlighted choice far outways one based on economy.

No problem, be my guest, BUT pay your way.

You aren't proposing that people should pay for themselfs. You are proposing that a large number should pay for a limited few.

Most people are too dumb to figure out to stop doing things that hurt them.

Supply the information. Don't penalise those that have made a choice if aren't at any risc for healthproblems or will ever be of added weight to the healthsystem due to the choices.

And anyone that thinks added tax will be earmarked towards preventative measures or after-care are living in fantasyland.

But I shouldn't be suprised seeing as how many nannycountry-supporters this forum inhabits.

[Mid]

I'm a big fan of consumption taxes

aka , Singapore .......... ok

aka , Australia ............no

[swain]

So you feel taxes should be a tool for the government to be a morality police on how to live their lives?

Morality has nothing to do with it. The Health of its people should be the concern of the government.

No, it shouldn't. The governments job is to garantee individuals rights and access to accurate information.

An enlighted choice far outways one based on economy.

No problem, be my guest, BUT pay your way.

You aren't proposing that people should pay for themselfs. You are proposing that a large number should pay for a limited few.

Most people are too dumb to figure out to stop doing things that hurt them.

Supply the information. Don't penalise those that have made a choice if aren't at any risc for health problems or will ever be of added weight to the healths ystem due to the choices.

And anyone that thinks added tax will be earmarked towards preventative measures or after-care are living in fantasyland.

But I shouldn't be suprised seeing as how many nannycountry-supporters this forum inhabits.

Hmm your argument that the government should not be concerned with the health of its people is interesting and you further believe that the only thing the government should to is make sure the information is there so that you can make an informed choice. So the government protecting us from ourselves is out of line as far as your believe structure goes? Would you say the same about someone who was mentally handicapped or suicidally depressed? When can the government intervene for the safety of its people . Where do you draw the line?

How does the government inform us in a way that would be acceptable to you? Example, cigarettes in Thailand get the nasty picture on the front of the pack, is this acceptable or by making this mandatory they are being too invasive?

Is it fair that that people who don't smoke subsidize this excess in others with tax dollars that pay for the added burden on society? I would agree that in Thailand the added tax most likely wont go where its supposed to and this alone is enough for me to be on the apposing side of this argument. In a perfect world the taxes would actually be going to pay for the added burden placed on society.

Your world has no safety railings. I get the feeling you are saying "you pays your money you takes your chances"

Edited July 25, 2007 by swain

[PeaceBlondie]

I get the feeling you are saying "you pays your money you takes your chances"

Maybe somebody is saying, "you pays your money and the state taxes your choices."

[swain]

I get the feeling you are saying "you pays your money you takes your chances"

Maybe somebody is saying, "you pays your money and the state taxes your choices."

Yes, but only if that choice is an unhealthy one. Buy an apple .. NO TAX ........Buy a Mars Bar and PAY A TAX

Edited July 25, 2007 by swain

[samran]

I'm a big fan of consumption taxes

aka , Singapore .......... ok

aka , Australia ............no

explain....?

[Mid]

example a ) 3% GST and an income tax regimen that encourages earning ,

example b ) 17+% GST and an income tax regimen that penalises endeavour .

[TAWP]

Hmm your argument that the government should not be concerned with the health of its people is interesting and you further believe that the only thing the government should to is make sure the information is there so that you can make an informed choice. So the government protecting us from ourselves is out of line as far as your believe structure goes? Would you say the same about someone who was mentally handicapped or suicidally depressed? When can the government intervene for the safety of its people . Where do you draw the line?

How does the government inform us in a way that would be acceptable to you? Example, cigarettes in Thailand get the nasty picture on the front of the pack, is this acceptable or by making this mandatory they are being too invasive?

Is it fair that that people who don't smoke subsidize this excess in others with tax dollars that pay for the added burden on society? I would agree that in Thailand the added tax most likely wont go where its supposed to and this alone is enough for me to be on the apposing side of this argument. In a perfect world the taxes would actually be going to pay for the added burden placed on society.

Your world has no safety railings. I get the feeling you are saying "you pays your money you takes your chances"

My argument is that the government should inform and educate it's people, not whip them into making 'choices of the day', that are deemed 'good' for the moment. Do I really have to remind you that the last 30 years we have had warnings and fear, then retraction about the dangers - and sometimes added again, regarding fat, sugar, msg, addatives and hundreds of other things in food.

If the goverment then, as they should by your point in their aim to protect us against ourselfs, tax each and every of these things as they are warned against - and remove it when conflicting reports come in...should they perhaps give people their money back if the initial descisions was based on flawed data? Well, that aint gonna happend...

Listen, it's very simple: As little as the government should regulate victimless crimes should they add additional 'health penalty' taxes on some - often oddly limited and badly implemented - items/ingreadienses. Their job isn't to be your second mom. They always end up being lousy at it...

If they truly believe there is something important to inform about, do just that. Inform. They did it here regarding HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases some years back but apparently decided it wasn't money well spent. Nonwithstanding the increasing amount of people that contracts HIV of late. So health of the people perhaps isn't the most important thing on their mind in reality? What do I know...

Edited July 25, 2007 by TAWP

[Scott]

I don't have a problem with things being done to limit unhealthy things. I just don't see that the country is at the point where it can be done fairly. Alcohol and cigarettes are poor examples, since they are very specific. Sugar, salt, etc. are a little more insidious....you find them in many unexpected places.

So, the people making extremely sweet Khanom will be taxed the same as the Mars bar--I don't think so. And that's my problem. She doesn't have to pay taxes, she doesn't have to follow safety or health standards in making her product and it is cheaper. This is where the unfairness comes in. Then there are people who believe that since it is a tradition sweet it's somehow healthy.

Fats are in the same category.

If the country starts with labeling and works up to educating folks, then taxing may actually be somewhat effective. I must say that all the taxes on these things in the US doesn't seem to be solving the problem of weight though.

[farang prince]

The only thing worse than having no law, is having a law that can't be enforced. Other than taxing the usual suspects such as soft drinks and western-style fast food, how do you tax the rest? The only positive thing that might come out of this is to start the public debate about leading a healthy lifestyle. But does anyone else in here start to get a queasy feeling that the government is taking more and more steps to intrude into the lives of its citizens?

[tijnebijn]

I agree to disagree with many posters here . Although they have a good point in taking care the health issue .

But what do you think about giving everybody in Thailand good healthcare insurances , pensions to the elderly '

fairness for the average people who are trying to make a business and get ripped of from their renters who ask

extra money for this and that , scam the taxrevenue in putting lower amounts for rent , and the average people making

less income . So many to discuss about , isn't that much more important to get these things in line first ?

[steveromagnino]

No problem, be my guest, BUT pay your way.

please explain how you propose to make this FAIR to all sections of society ?

a straight % is beneficial to the rich as the poor will subsidise them .

am I to assume your advocating tiered pricing to maintain equality ?

cheers

No, we already have tiered income tax for that; the poor don't pay it and the rich do. We also now have:

- interest free loans

- subsidised healthcare

- subsidised housing projects

- student loans

etc

to assist the poor - whether they do a half decent job is debateable; however suffice to say I can estimate that there are swings and roundabouts.

If the poor don't want to pay a tax on non essential items (e.g. cigarettes, booze, fast food) then they have a choice; don't consume those products! Since we don't often see the rural poor driving around imported sportcars which carry a 100%+ tax on import, we can assume that they are indeed astute enough to respond with their feet with regards to tax. In this way, a 'luxuries' tax is very different to a consumption tax like GST, VAT, etc - we are choosing to apply it to selected products that a consumer is financially encouraged not to consume.

There are so many things I would like to do for the poor of Thailand, but giving them an equal chance to pay tax as a % of income regarding eating fast food or smoking ciggies is very very low on the list - the whole point of a consumption tax is to tax the people who consume something!

And incidentally, the biggest single tax on the poor at the moment would probably be the lottery.

TAWP - you claim education is the solution here. I totally agree.

However, if we are talking just marketing 'how to eat healthily' this is not a product category which it is ever likely that the Thai govt could possibly hope to compete against. As a marketer I can assure you the media spend of coke, pepsi, McDs etc will dwarf anything that a government could produce. I can totally understand and agree with the idea that each rubbish food producer should also have to educate the public; however if people don't want to read or listen to the info on the side of a pack or the organisation chooses to misrepresent their health position (e.g. Subway is supposedly healthy, but only when you don't bury the sandwich in mayonnaise, cheese and dressing which they usually don't mention in their marketing; McDs owns the rights to the phrase good times great taste, and nutritious food - whereby even though 50% of almost all their burger calories are fat (McDLT and McChicken I think are the exceptions) this is part of a balanced diet to eat a lot of fat, and therefore is by definition, nutrition. Nice. Let's see how far we get against these monster empires.

I would be willing to bet 100% that even the most unhealthy of Thai desserts doesn't have quite the nasty effects of coke, McDs and Lays; simply because people don't consume them as a complete meal, at least not the majority of THai people I have ever met. Coke replaces water, McDs replaces a healthier equivalent...they are a <deleted> cancer on the diets of every country they go to! They are also marketing geniuses in most of their markets on par with the cigarette industry; McDonalds for instance have been ruthless in lobbying advertising authorities to ensure access to their primary target market - children who, let's face it, are unable to distinguish between 'good times great taste', a nice friendly clown, and the realities of diabetes, bowel cancer and obesity as a result of eating bad diet year on year. Comparing that to a little old lady down the road who grows some tobacco in her back yard or chews some beddle nut - about on par with the marketing prowess of another little old lady who cooks up a few Roti or similar.

BUT....we can get all the little old ladies and their pox products as well with a tax on the items used to produce the Thai desserts; condensed milk; sugar; salt etc. That is what I would love to see, here in THailand and around the world.

Will that actually happen? The reality is no country can easily do a tax against McDs without a trade problem with USA. And health is not just eating, it is also exercise and many other things.

So....while a wonderful pipe dream, regulation is probably where it will start; a few repercussions from USA and this will all die away. After all, we already have a patchwork of sorts; beer is taxed at one rate, cigarettes at another, wine at another and whisky at another. Not only is it an international trade issue, it is also a reality that taxing the poor on any of their vices will be a massive vote loser/winner.

Sad really, a country that can successfully ban McDs, Kraft, Pepsi, Fritolay, Coke and their pals probably will have a massive windfall from the health benefits. And on the flip side, education and health services such as gyms should probably receive tax breaks.

It starts to reek of social engineering. Plllllllllllllllease let me be in charge of the 'getting women aged 18-30 to becoming unhealthily slim and len geelah nai rom mahk kuen..........gup pom' component of this engineering.

Edited July 26, 2007 by steveromagnino

[Mid]

There are so many things I would like to do for the poor of Thailand, but giving them an equal chance to pay tax as a % of income regarding eating fast food or smoking ciggies is very very low on the list!

good rebuttal , lots of individual points to find agreement with ,

however , I may have to contest this appointment .

Plllllllllllllllease let me be in charge of the 'getting women aged 18-30 to becoming unhealthily slim and len geelah nai rom mahk kuen..........gup pom' component of this engineering.

,

which of course outlines my argument against

to wit social engineering

[quiksilva]

I don't mind paying more taxes just so long as they get spent on items that will benefit everyone, like say, education.

[steveromagnino]

Plllllllllllllllease let me be in charge of the 'getting women aged 18-30 to becoming unhealthily slim and len geelah nai rom mahk kuen..........gup pom' component of this engineering.

,

which of course outlines my argument against

to wit social engineering

he shoots........he scores. Nice point.

Of course, I can now use the TRT approach....but you'll get 20% of any of the girlies even some of the really hot ones.

To which you can say.....'pics or it didn't happen'.

[dog412]

didn't i in the recent past read of the "very high" amounts of "unhealthy" bacteria making it's way into the average SOM TAM composition?

[jackspratt]

example a ) 3% GST and an income tax regimen that encourages earning ,

example b ) 17+% GST and an income tax regimen that penalises endeavour .

And where does the 17% come from? It is certainly not a consumption tax based on my understanding of Oz tax law.

[Mid]

stand corrected on 17 , more like 10 ,

appoligies

[Phil Conners]

What happened to the idea of not messing about with the laws until a democratically elected government had been formed?

[Scott]

I am against this type of taxation in principle, even though it doesn't affect me. I eat at McDonald's maybe once a month; pizza every three months; don't drink soft drinks, not a big fan of sweets, although I occasionally get a real craving for chocolate and will drive nearly anywhere and pay most anything to satisfy it! I have no problems with blood sugar, pressure, or weight so I don't need to limit these things.

The gov't needs to start to with good labeling and information--including what's in locally made foods and who and how it effects your health.

This is followed by education and public service ads.

The big companies will respond by decreasing salt, sugar, and fat--or changing to healthier fats. And so it goes. In this way, hopefully everybody gets a little healthier.

[dttk0009]

I am against this type of taxation in principle, even though it doesn't affect me. I eat at McDonald's maybe once a month; pizza every three months; don't drink soft drinks, not a big fan of sweets, although I occasionally get a real craving for chocolate and will drive nearly anywhere and pay most anything to satisfy it! I have no problems with blood sugar, pressure, or weight so I don't need to limit these things.

The gov't needs to start to with good labeling and information--including what's in locally made foods and who and how it effects your health.

This is followed by education and public service ads.

The big companies will respond by decreasing salt, sugar, and fat--or changing to healthier fats. And so it goes. In this way, hopefully everybody gets a little healthier.

Absolutely agree, and the best reply in this thread so far. When I look at some products made by thai companies, it merely lists the ingredients in percentages, ie. flour 20%, sugar 40% etc. It doesn't list the amount of fat, protein, carbohydrates or the calories. It should be mandatory to have this information on every package of food sold in the country.

[steveromagnino]

I am against this type of taxation in principle, even though it doesn't affect me. I eat at McDonald's maybe once a month; pizza every three months; don't drink soft drinks, not a big fan of sweets, although I occasionally get a real craving for chocolate and will drive nearly anywhere and pay most anything to satisfy it! I have no problems with blood sugar, pressure, or weight so I don't need to limit these things.

The gov't needs to start to with good labeling and information--including what's in locally made foods and who and how it effects your health.

This is followed by education and public service ads.

The big companies will respond by decreasing salt, sugar, and fat--or changing to healthier fats. And so it goes. In this way, hopefully everybody gets a little healthier.

Absolutely agree, and the best reply in this thread so far. When I look at some products made by thai companies, it merely lists the ingredients in percentages, ie. flour 20%, sugar 40% etc. It doesn't list the amount of fat, protein, carbohydrates or the calories. It should be mandatory to have this information on every package of food sold in the country.

I agree....but....

Given that this doesn't occur to the majority of fast food or coke anywhere in the world, please can you explain to me how Thailand is going to be a world leader in this area successfully?

And the 'fact' that you can theoretically get the information about McDs etc via website, brochures and so forth IF You are interested doesn't make up for the issue that the food itself has no direct warning or outline as to what it contains. Plus a huge number of the chemicals are buried in a 'flavour enhancer' type catch all - read Fast Food Nation for more info on this sort of thing. As far as I am concerned, just like cigarettes or drinking, a little is fine, but people should be clearly informed on the packet that consuming more than 600ml of coke per day or 1 burger per day is bad for them. Ditto for the Thai snacks; although despite how incredibly bad they are for you, most are more healthy than anything in the McD menu; Thai snack type stuff the major issue is hygiene.

And it will be a mighty nice day iceskating around bangkok on the day that the fast food/junk food industries give in to that one.

My own belief is that the initiatives like aerobics and encouraging people to exercise is hitting one end, but not enough. More health related programs on TV about healthy slimming and so on (perhaps subsidised by govt) would be a good thing as would organised sport for kids/adults - however any subsidy requires funding and opens up the chance to skim.

So....charge whatever the subsidy is plus 20% :_) to cover it, then implement a tax on the ingredients used to make this muck. Same as with plastic bags; people can have one, but they have to pay. Recycling, carbon tax, etc etc - they all work the same exact way in the developed world.

Every social ill is freedom of choice, some education to help make the right choice, and a supply/demand response in the market to let the market do its work - free market with light handed regulation and a tax to cover the negative externalities.

Seems fair enough to my simplistic brain.

[samran]

example a ) 3% GST and an income tax regimen that encourages earning ,

example b ) 17+% GST and an income tax regimen that penalises endeavour .

Hey mid,

I think you'll find that all told, australian tax levels are some of the lowest in the OECD. When the GST was introduced, income taxes were reduced substantially, so that most people will only ever hit the 30% bracket. Taking into account government transfers (maternity allowances, family benefits), exemptions (contributions to superannuation are not taxed) and the social wage (medicare) you'll find that the tax incidence for the average aussie is incredibly low, and provided pretty good value for money as far as these things go.

The whole debate about taxes penalising endevour, to an extent that is a philsophical argument and you can show stats one way or another.

The 10% GST is for all intents and purposes locked in as far as OZ goes. The only way it can ever rise is if all 6 state governments and the federal goverment agree that it should rise. Having the planets align is more likely.

As I said, consumption taxes are inherently unfair in the sense that they disproportionally hit lower income earners harder (most of their income is used on consumption items) but there are fairly straight forward ways to 'compensate' them so they are left no worse off, such as raising the tax free threshold.

[Mid]

thanxs ,

apologies for the wrong figure quoted .

without prolonging the argument my bottom line as per the original post by moi is that the Singapore regime is preferable to the Oz one , IMHO .

[samran]

thanxs ,

apologies for the wrong figure quoted .

without prolonging the argument my bottom line as per the original post by moi is that the Singapore regime is preferable to the Oz one , IMHO .

hehe, but their government can do that when it is really a giant holding company.

having said that Australia is moving in that direction, having set up the 'future fund'.

Swings and roundabouts - as always.

[TAWP]

I agree....but....

Given that this doesn't occur to the majority of fast food or coke anywhere in the world, please can you explain to me how Thailand is going to be a world leader in this area successfully?

What do you mean? The declaration is mandatory in several countries already.

[lazeeboy]

I agree....but....

Given that this doesn't occur to the majority of fast food or coke anywhere in the world, please can you explain to me how Thailand is going to be a world leader in this area successfully?

What do you mean? The declaration is mandatory in several countries already.

hit the family where it hurts most ,in the pocket,tell the kids fast food is too dear ,and they;ll call you mean

[PeaceBlondie]

Steveomagnariorineo, you've got me a bit worried. You say "people should be clearly informed on the packet that consuming more than 600ml of coke per day...is bad for them." I've cut back to only about 2,400 ml of Pepsi Max per day, and my doctors say I'm eating healthily. Of course, diet colas just rot your teeth (carbonic acid), whilst they have no calories. But maybe they'll feed the sugar substitute that's in diet colas now to rats at the human equivalent of 29,589 ml per day, and one of them will get cancer. I don't know what to believe. If red wine's healthy, so is dark chocolate. In fact, if any alcoholic beverage is really healthy overall, so is cyanide and benzene drunk straight from the pump at the petrol station.....

Perhaps what some of us are trying to say is that even the healthiest health experts disagree about what's healthy. Surely there is a lot of crap in foods, lots of empty calories in sugared colas and booze, and some of those additives must be poisonous.

[Moruya]

There is certainly a big fear that Thailand, along with many other countries in SEA and beyond, is a diabetes time bomb. The reason for this is the number of refined carbohydrates and sugars that have fast become the norm in the Thai diet - largely because they are cheap, easy to buy and taste good.

One of the good things about Thailand's government is that it can act very quickly (although not always making the right decisions as when they made the changes to foreign investmant last year - but they put that right very quickly!) They could put a ban on the use of all trans-fats very quickly and could, say, double the price of sugar. Won't stop my wife from spooning it all over her noodles, but at least I have got her using sweeteners as an alternative when she cooks for me!

What scares me is the restaurants in every mall that you go to. KFC, McD, BK, donuts, cakes etc. etc.

[TAWP]

The sugar is subsidiced heavily. So they could always remove that...