Here is a particularly rancid individual writing in his industry's shit sheet The Conversation.
David Cameron has personally vetoed the [sugar] tax on the basis that it would disproportionately impact the poorest families.Quite rightly, too. The state taking money from poor people is a despicable thing to do, we can surely all agree on that. Well, apparently not.
He seems to have misunderstood that this is a major strength of the policy.Yep, a comfortably-off 'public health' professional thinks robbing the poor on the back of weak, ideological, lefty anti-industry sentiment is a fantastic idea.
Behavioural economics and scarcity theory help to explain why poor people are less able to act in their own best interests.No, they already act in their best interests, but these interests just don't happen to align with odious cock-munchers in 'public health' who have decided what their interests should be.
While it is possible to ignore “soft measures”, such as educational campaigns and expanded healthcare services, increasing tax does not rely on the ability to make healthy choices. In fact, because the poor are more sensitive to changes in price, they respond better and experience larger health gains than the more affluent.Who decided that "health gains" should be a priority amongst the less well off? Can you guess? Yes! It is elite, condescending, highly-paid middle class snobs like this guy.
If he really wants to help low-income families struggling to make healthier choices, surely the sugar tax is a perfect prescription.So we should "help" low-income households struggling to make ends meet by raising the cost of things they choose to buy? For their own good? And because nice, comfy, health-obsessed Luke has decreed that health should be their primary focus, eclipsing all else? What an almighty twisted, arrogant, patronising throbber he is.
Sadly, he's not alone. It's like Marie Antoinette never existed!