Time to tax sugar?

Harry said:A tax on something that even fruits have?

Dont give the thought police ideas.

Steve said:Diabetes UK doesn't accept that eating lots of sugar cause diabetes so I guess it would be a difficult arguement to make

slimsim said: Maybe that would give a clue as to how effective a tax would be?

Cuddles said:
I'm sure you realise that it is impossible to ever know, but it's impossible to ever know.
In order for your analogy to work, you would have to prove that sugar is as addictive as nicotine. I'm not saying it isn't, just throwing it out there.

Cuddles said:
I'm sure you realise that it is impossible to ever know, but it's impossible to ever know.
In order for your analogy to work, you would have to prove that sugar is as addictive as nicotine. I'm not saying it isn't, just throwing it out there.

slimsim said:
I don't think it is impossible to know. Business studies would class it as price elasticity of demand. There would definitely be a cut off point when people wouldn't be willing to spend the amount needed to purchase the goods. I don't think it would have anything to do with whether a substance it addictive or not, although addictive products probably have a higher elasticity as some people will be willing to pay almost whatever is necessary to get their fix of nicotine.

Cuddles said:
So first you say its about elasticities but its not about addictiveness and then you say addictiveness helps to determine elasticity?
My point about it being impossible to determine is quite clear. You can only determine a causitive effect by analysing a dependant and independant variable. You change the independant variable and observe the effect on the dependant variable. In Economics you use the ceteris paribus assumption, ie all other things being equal, and this allows you to model behaviour nad make predictions. However, in the real world, all other things aren't equal. So you will find that as taxes go up, people consumer less cigs, but what you cannot accurately determine that one causued the other.

Cuddles said:
So first you say its about elasticities but its not about addictiveness and then you say addictiveness helps to determine elasticity?
My point about it being impossible to determine is quite clear. You can only determine a causitive effect by analysing a dependant and independant variable. You change the independant variable and observe the effect on the dependant variable. In Economics you use the ceteris paribus assumption, ie all other things being equal, and this allows you to model behaviour nad make predictions. However, in the real world, all other things aren't equal. So you will find that as taxes go up, people consumer less cigs, but what you cannot accurately determine that one causued the other.

slimsim said:
You had me at ceteris paribus!
I'll tip my hat to your superior knowledge (and use of latin ) However, I was simply assuming (maybe wrongly) that all things are considered equal other than cost and this would determine demand.
I see your point on my comment about addictiveness/elasticity. I'm a 'tard!

Steve said:
I've been enjoying listening to Freakonomics podcasts recently which have some interesting ideas as to economic cause and effects. For example the crime rate drops in the US - the politians would like to claim is it due to the millions of pounds spent on policing etc but perhaps it is simply a side effect of legalised abortion resulting in less unwanted children.