A Griffith University study published in BMJ Public Health on Wednesday found a levy applied to non-alcoholic drinks with added sugar, such as soft drinks and most juices, could prevent 3.7 million cases of tooth decay, 191,000 cases of gum disease, and 115,000 cases of complete tooth loss across Australia over the next 25 years.

    • zero_gravitas@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      It’s not proposed as a revenue raiser, it’s intended as a public health measure.

      The idea is that people buy less sugary drinks and have better dental health.

      Your concerns raise a valid point, though, that revenue raised (and $1.4B isn’t nothing) should be directly funneled into new programmes that benefit the working class. The study suggests that the money go into dental and other health services, but I’ve also seen proposals for using the revenue to cross-subsidise fresh food.

      Either way, the working class could see a net benefit to their bottom line from government subsidies (which benefit from efficiencies of scale) and because they’ll have less need of dental and other health services if they reduce their sugar intake.

      • king_comrade@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 day ago

        Look man, they can use all the fancy words they want to try to convince me it’s for the greater good or whatever. It really doesn’t matter to me, all I hear is ‘another thing you enjoy is going to rise in price’ and these days that’s all I fucking hear. Sick of it mate.

        • observes_depths@aussie.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          15 hours ago

          What if this meant something you like gets cheaper as a result? Say the extra revenue went to subsidising something else, fresh food maybe?

          • king_comrade@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            14 hours ago

            It still won’t be equal. No more tax that targets working folk, tax wealth!! There’s so much of it that Australia could very easily create the richest citizenry in the entire world just by nationalising the rocks we mine. Imagine if Gina and Clive and all those fat fucking rapists actually had to pay their fair share? Imagine the utopia that could fund! But no, instead let’s make yet another working class luxury become more expensive. Fuck this place.

              • king_comrade@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                4 hours ago

                I think a reduction is sensible yeah, any tax that targets working class consumers during a cost of living crisis is immoral IMO. The government has access to so many levers to generate wealth that doesn’t involve fucking us battlers in the ass, they can pull from one of those if they need the dosh.