Latest news with #ParliamentaryBudgetOffice
Yahoo
16-07-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
Bold push for new tax on soft drink, juices
A sugar tax on soft drink, sweetened juice and cordial is being backed as a way to reduce soaring rates of obesity and diabetes. Coinciding with National Diabetes Week, the Australian Medical Association has called for a new tax at a rate of 50c per 100g of added sugar, to be paid by beverage manufacturers. Under the proposal, a standard 375mL of full-sugar Coke with 39.8g of sugar would incur a tax of 19.9c, while a 600mL bottle of Berry Ice Powerade would be hit with a 17.8c levy for its 34.8g of sugar. Macarthur MP Michael Freelander, who is also a practising pediatrician, said a levy on sugar-sweetened beverages would encourage companies to put less sugar in drinks, however a tax should be considered alongside of broader education measures. 'I think that we owe it to the next generation to try and make sure they are healthier than our generation,' he told NewsWire. 'And what we're now seeing is children presenting with obesity and with type two diabetes. And we should not be seeing that.' In 2024, costings released by the Parliamentary Budget Office and requested by Dr Freelander found a 20 per cent tax on sugar-sweetened beverages would boost revenue by more than $1.3bn in two years, however he said any policies should be trialled before further implementation. Dr Freelander stressed education was the best way to improve public health outcomes. These included town planning to ensure children could walk to schools and shopping centres and not fast food outlets, plus increased access to healthy food, like subsidies on 'certain forms of food'. 'We do now see lots of societal changes that are causing health problems and one of the issues is the access to highly processed foods,' he said. 'So it's not just about drinks, it's also about making people aware of the dangers of high calorie highly-processed foods.' The Australian Medical Association have renewed calls for a sugar tax on sweetened drinks like soft drink, juice and cordials. AMA Vice President Julian Rait said the sugar tax was the 'best chance' or reducing rates of obesity and chronic disease like type 2 diabetes. He said the proposal would drive down consumption by 2kg per person and increase the budget bottomline by $3.6bn which could be 'invested in other crucial preventive health measures'. He added that more than 100 jurisdictions have implemented a sugar tax, like the UK, France, Mexico and Ireland. 'For people at risk of developing type 2 diabetes, reducing sugar intake through swaps like drinking water over soft drinks can make a profound difference to their long-term health,' he said. 'Last year it was revealed the sugar content in popular soft drink Fanta had increased by 60 per cent, despite industry assurances that sugary drinks were being reformulated.' Health Minister Mark Butler said Labor had ruled out a potential levy or tax, and said the government's priorities were on 'front-of-pack labelling' and working with companies to reduce the amount of sugar in foods. 'There is no plan in our government for a sugar tax. We're instead focusing on education and also working with food manufacturers to reduce the amount of sugar that they put into their products,' he said in late May after the federal election. As it stands, health labels are administered by the Health Star Rating system which companies can voluntarily adhere to. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data
News.com.au
16-07-2025
- Health
- News.com.au
AMA, Labor MP Michael Freelander calls for sugar tax on sweetened drinks
A sugar tax on soft drink, sweetened juice and cordial is being backed as a way to reduce soaring rates of obesity and diabetes. Coinciding with National Diabetes Week, the Australian Medical Association has called for a new tax at a rate of 50c per 100g of added sugar, to be paid by beverage manufacturers. Under the proposal, a standard 375mL of full-sugar Coke with 39.8g of sugar would incur a tax of 19.9c, while a 600mL bottle of Berry Ice Powerade would be hit with a 17.8c levy for its 34.8g of sugar. Macarthur MP Michael Freelander, who is also a practising pediatrician, said a levy on sugar-sweetened beverages would encourage companies to put less sugar in drinks, however a tax should be considered alongside of broader education measures. 'I think that we owe it to the next generation to try and make sure they are healthier than our generation,' he told NewsWire. 'And what we're now seeing is children presenting with obesity and with type two diabetes. And we should not be seeing that.' In 2024, costings released by the Parliamentary Budget Office and requested by Dr Freelander found a 20 per cent tax on sugar-sweetened beverages would boost revenue by more than $1.3bn in two years, however he said any policies should be trialled before further implementation. Dr Freelander stressed education was the best way to improve public health outcomes. These included town planning to ensure children could walk to schools and shopping centres and not fast food outlets, plus increased access to healthy food, like subsidies on 'certain forms of food'. 'We do now see lots of societal changes that are causing health problems and one of the issues is the access to highly processed foods,' he said. 'So it's not just about drinks, it's also about making people aware of the dangers of high calorie highly-processed foods.' The Australian Medical Association have renewed calls for a sugar tax on sweetened drinks like soft drink, juice and cordials. AMA Vice President Julian Rait said the sugar tax was the 'best chance' or reducing rates of obesity and chronic disease like type 2 diabetes. He said the proposal would drive down consumption by 2kg per person and increase the budget bottomline by $3.6bn which could be 'invested in other crucial preventive health measures'. He added that more than 100 jurisdictions have implemented a sugar tax, like the UK, France, Mexico and Ireland. 'For people at risk of developing type 2 diabetes, reducing sugar intake through swaps like drinking water over soft drinks can make a profound difference to their long-term health,' he said. 'Last year it was revealed the sugar content in popular soft drink Fanta had increased by 60 per cent, despite industry assurances that sugary drinks were being reformulated.' Health Minister Mark Butler said Labor had ruled out a potential levy or tax, and said the government's priorities were on 'front-of-pack labelling' and working with companies to reduce the amount of sugar in foods. 'There is no plan in our government for a sugar tax. We're instead focusing on education and also working with food manufacturers to reduce the amount of sugar that they put into their products,' he said in late May after the federal election.
Canada Standard
13-07-2025
- Business
- Canada Standard
Canada's proposed east-west energy corridors should prioritize clean energy
Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney has made establishing east-west energy corridors a priority for Canada. He suggested that such corridors would include new oil and natural gas pipelines, designed to reduce dependence on the United States. Energy and Natural Resources Minister Tim Hodgson has gone even further in pushing for subsidization of carbon capture and storage projects that would effectively underwrite the long-term continuation of the fossil fuel industry at taxpayer expense. While there might be short-term political reasons for backing fossil fuels, such an approach goes against Canada's long-term interests. Prioritizing fossil fuels undermines the country's commitments to reduce emissions and takes away the investment needed for it to realize its potential to become a green energy superpower. Creating energy corridors is in the national interest, and would allow Canada to take full advantage of its abundant and diverse energy and mineral resources. The government also needs to be involved, as the corridors are interprovincial and will require substantial investment. However, the government has limited resources and so Canada must think strategically about its priorities for such corridors. Canadian taxpayers should not be subsidizing an already lucrative oil and gas industry. Instead, the federal government should prioritize funding clean energy supply solutions. Canadian governments have long faced opposition to building new pipelines. The provinces of Quebec and British Columbia and many First Nations have strongly opposed new pipeline proposals. More recently, there is some signs of softening under the duress of U.S. tariffs. Even if such shifts are lasting, it's for the private sector to step up and invest into these projects. Previous federal investments, such as the Trans Mountain pipeline (TMX), were reflections of the private market's unwillingness to invest in pipelines because they are bad investments. The 2024 Parliamentary Budget Office report estimated that selling the TMX would result in a loss. There are reasons to question the soundness of fossil fuels on a purely financial basis. A 2022 Parliamentary budget office report found that climate change reduced GDP by 0.8 per cent in 2021, or around $20 billion. This number is expected to rise to 5.8 per cent per year by 2100 (or $145 billion in 2021 dollars). By contrast, from 2017 to 2021, federal, provincial and territorial governments received an average of $12 billion annually in revenues from the the oil and gas industry. The gap between the costs and benefits is only going to increase over time. The costs cut across all aspects of life, including food security, health care, global instability and threats to coastal cities due to sea level rise. On the other hand, every dollar invested in adaptation today has an estimated return of $13-$15. Furthermore, a recent study indicates a likely glut in global natural gas markets, and the future prospects for oil are equally questionable. For example, one of Canada's target markets, Japan, has been reselling its liquefied natural gas imports to other countries, suggesting the glut of oil and gas is likely to continue as cheaper producers, including those in the Middle East and Southeast Asia, who are cheaper and closer to consumers, flood the market. Cheaper and closer oil producers are also flooding markets in anticipation of declining prices. There are important opportunity costs of investing money in fossil fuels that could otherwise be invested in the clean energy economy. When new technologies arise, there is a limited window of opportunity for global competitors to enter into an emerging industry. In light of the shift to electric vehicles, heat pumps and artificial intelligence, it's clear that energy demand is bound to increase significantly in Canada in the coming years. Canada can become a global competitor, but only if it enters the race now, while the window is open. Solar and wind prices have declined by 83 per cent and 65 per cent respectively since 2009. However, they suffer from the fundamental issue of intermittency; the sun is not always shining and the wind isn't always blowing. While battery prices are declining, they remain an expensive solution. An easier solution is at hand: Canada's hydroelectric resources. Quebec, B.C. and Manitoba have abundant hydro resources that can reduce energy costs throughout the rest of the country. Alberta and Saskatchewan have potential for significant geothermal power generation. Ontario and the Atlantic provinces could contribute wind and solar. Trading electricity through an integrated national grid increases the investment capital and reduces the need for batteries while diversifying the energy mix. But we need an east-west electricity market to make this happen. An east-west grid would reduce the need for every province to run its own power generation system. Creating a pooled market would allow provinces to trade electricity, giving consumers more choice and investors a larger market and potential return on their investment. More valuable still is the fact that electricity capacity has to be built for the few peak hours and seasons. But most of the time demand is well below full capacity, such as the middle of the night or early summer, when neither heat nor air conditioning is needed in many areas. As peak times and seasons vary across the country, Canada can reduce overall costs by trading the electricity in the lowest cost producing province at a given time to where it's needed in the other. By locating some of the new clean energy in First Nations, Canada can also move reconciliation forward. There is potential for a win-win situation whereby Canada increases renewable energy generation while creating new jobs and income for First Nations wherever feasible. The first step is for regulatory reform across the provinces to support a Canada-wide electricity market, and to provide the funding for the massive infrastructure investment required to connect provincial grids. This would be a federal investment with incredible long-term payoffs for employment, taxpayers and future generations. Following this plan could truly make Canada an energy superpower on the right side of the energy transition, create thousands of jobs and give the country a global competitive edge - all while helping to save the planet in the process.
Canada News.Net
13-07-2025
- Business
- Canada News.Net
Canada's proposed east-west energy corridors should prioritize clean energy
Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney has made establishing east-west energy corridors a priority for Canada. He suggested that such corridors would include new oil and natural gas pipelines, designed to reduce dependence on the United States. Energy and Natural Resources Minister Tim Hodgson has gone even further in pushing for subsidization of carbon capture and storage projects that would effectively underwrite the long-term continuation of the fossil fuel industry at taxpayer expense. While there might be short-term political reasons for backing fossil fuels, such an approach goes against Canada's long-term interests. Prioritizing fossil fuels undermines the country's commitments to reduce emissions and takes away the investment needed for it to realize its potential to become a green energy superpower. Creating energy corridors is in the national interest, and would allow Canada to take full advantage of its abundant and diverse energy and mineral resources. The government also needs to be involved, as the corridors are interprovincial and will require substantial investment. However, the government has limited resources and so Canada must think strategically about its priorities for such corridors. Canadian taxpayers should not be subsidizing an already lucrative oil and gas industry. Instead, the federal government should prioritize funding clean energy supply solutions. Canadian governments have long faced opposition to building new pipelines. The provinces of Quebec and British Columbia and many First Nations have strongly opposed new pipeline proposals. More recently, there is some signs of softening under the duress of U.S. tariffs. Even if such shifts are lasting, it's for the private sector to step up and invest into these projects. Previous federal investments, such as the Trans Mountain pipeline (TMX), were reflections of the private market's unwillingness to invest in pipelines because they are bad investments. The 2024 Parliamentary Budget Office report estimated that selling the TMX would result in a loss. There are reasons to question the soundness of fossil fuels on a purely financial basis. A 2022 Parliamentary budget office report found that climate change reduced GDP by 0.8 per cent in 2021, or around $20 billion. This number is expected to rise to 5.8 per cent per year by 2100 (or $145 billion in 2021 dollars). By contrast, from 2017 to 2021, federal, provincial and territorial governments received an average of $12 billion annually in revenues from the the oil and gas industry. The gap between the costs and benefits is only going to increase over time. The costs cut across all aspects of life, including food security, health care, global instability and threats to coastal cities due to sea level rise. On the other hand, every dollar invested in adaptation today has an estimated return of $13-$15. Furthermore, a recent study indicates a likely glut in global natural gas markets, and the future prospects for oil are equally questionable. For example, one of Canada's target markets, Japan, has been reselling its liquefied natural gas imports to other countries, suggesting the glut of oil and gas is likely to continue as cheaper producers, including those in the Middle East and Southeast Asia, who are cheaper and closer to consumers, flood the market. Cheaper and closer oil producers are also flooding markets in anticipation of declining prices. There are important opportunity costs of investing money in fossil fuels that could otherwise be invested in the clean energy economy. When new technologies arise, there is a limited window of opportunity for global competitors to enter into an emerging industry. In light of the shift to electric vehicles, heat pumps and artificial intelligence, it's clear that energy demand is bound to increase significantly in Canada in the coming years. Canada can become a global competitor, but only if it enters the race now, while the window is open. Solar and wind prices have declined by 83 per cent and 65 per cent respectively since 2009. However, they suffer from the fundamental issue of intermittency; the sun is not always shining and the wind isn't always blowing. While battery prices are declining, they remain an expensive solution. An easier solution is at hand: Canada's hydroelectric resources. Quebec, B.C. and Manitoba have abundant hydro resources that can reduce energy costs throughout the rest of the country. Alberta and Saskatchewan have potential for significant geothermal power generation. Ontario and the Atlantic provinces could contribute wind and solar. Trading electricity through an integrated national grid increases the investment capital and reduces the need for batteries while diversifying the energy mix. But we need an east-west electricity market to make this happen. An east-west grid would reduce the need for every province to run its own power generation system. Creating a pooled market would allow provinces to trade electricity, giving consumers more choice and investors a larger market and potential return on their investment. More valuable still is the fact that electricity capacity has to be built for the few peak hours and seasons. But most of the time demand is well below full capacity, such as the middle of the night or early summer, when neither heat nor air conditioning is needed in many areas. As peak times and seasons vary across the country, Canada can reduce overall costs by trading the electricity in the lowest cost producing province at a given time to where it's needed in the other. By locating some of the new clean energy in First Nations, Canada can also move reconciliation forward. There is potential for a win-win situation whereby Canada increases renewable energy generation while creating new jobs and income for First Nations wherever feasible. The first step is for regulatory reform across the provinces to support a Canada-wide electricity market, and to provide the funding for the massive infrastructure investment required to connect provincial grids. This would be a federal investment with incredible long-term payoffs for employment, taxpayers and future generations. Following this plan could truly make Canada an energy superpower on the right side of the energy transition, create thousands of jobs and give the country a global competitive edge - all while helping to save the planet in the process.
Irish Times
09-07-2025
- Business
- Irish Times
Is the Help to Buy scheme fit for purpose or should it be abolished?
Help to Buy is marketed as a scheme that assists first-time buyers to bridge the gap between their savings and the 10 per cent deposit required by Central Bank mortgage rules. It has survived for almost a decade despite widespread criticism by experts, and its continued existence reflects the power of Ireland's construction lobby and the political cynicism around housing. The first criticism of Help to Buy is that it has become a money pit. Initially conceived as a modest scheme that would cost €130 million over its 2016 to 2019 lifetime, Help to Buy has been extended multiple times, and will now remain in place until at least 2029. It has gained weight since its introduction, with the maximum subsidy rising from €20,000 (or 5 per cent of the home purchase price) to €30,000 (or 10 per cent of purchase price). Consequently Help to Buy has become much more expensive than originally envisaged; Claims amounted to €225.5 million last year , and the cumulative sum of claims approved has reached almost €1.3 billion . This might be palatable if Help to Buy was well designed and working effectively. However reports by the Parliamentary Budget Office (PBO) ( 2019 and 2022 ), Mazars and the Central Bank give rise to many concerns. Evaluations highlight that the scheme carries considerable 'economic deadweight'. According to the PBO a third of recipients did not need Help to Buy to achieve their 10 per cent deposits. Meanwhile Mazars , which was commissioned by the Department of Finance to review the scheme, found almost half of the funds spent played no part in achieving its objectives. READ MORE A further critique is that Help to Buy is socially regressive. Both Mazars and the Central Bank found that it mainly benefits richer households. This is not surprising as higher incomes are almost a prerequisite for considering home purchase in Ireland. However the Central Bank's analysis showed that the average income of Help to Buy households was €15,500 greater than that of other first-time buyers. Help to Buy also funds more expensive homes. The PBO established that 63 per cent of claims relate to properties whose prices exceed the national average. Meanwhile the Central Bank found that Help to Buy properties were €62,800 more expensive than those purchased by other first-time buyers. Reinforcing the perception that this scheme finances luxury rather than supporting necessity, the Central Bank noted that homes bought using Help to Buy were also bigger. Mazars, the consultant employed to evaluate Help to Buy, found it unfit for purpose and recommended its withdrawal in 2024. Instead the Government doubled down and extended it for five years Despite these problems, successive governments have persevered with Help to Buy. This is because it stimulates home building. Indeed, the words of then minister for finance Michael Noonan when he announced the scheme reveal that this is its real purpose; 'There is an acute shortage of new houses being built in Ireland and I am introducing a Help to Buy scheme to address this problem.' Unfortunately, the way in which Help to Buy achieves increased supply exacerbates rather than mitigates our housing problems. People believe and have been led to believe that increasing housing output will automatically bring down house prices and rents. But this is not necessarily so. Construction activity follows the profit margins that are available, and the outcome for consumers depends on whether these margins are driven by low costs or high selling prices. With a low cost base, developers can earn a profit while delivering homes at an affordable price. However the policies required to suppress development costs involve difficult, slow-acting interventions that lack voter appeal. Examples include planning reforms which reduce delays and deliver more predictable outcomes for developers, regulation of professional services such as solicitors, architects and estate agents, the encouragement of competition to drive down professional fees, and financial sector initiatives to reduce development finance costs. Although Irish governments have done some of this, they have favoured the easier approach of subsidies such as Help to Buy, the First Home Scheme and the local authority home loan. These 'supports' enable consumers to pay higher prices, and this is what creates the development margin that draws out more supply. Clearly, higher prices are hard-wired into this process. The International Monetary Fund , the European Union and the National Economic and Social Council have all warned that Help to Buy could drive up prices. However senior figures from the property industry have denied this, referencing the Help to Buy and First Home Scheme price caps as a safeguard against inflation. Clearly, such caps can contain price growth only if they are set at an appropriate level and implemented firmly. Neither seems to be the case in Ireland. The Help to Buy cap stands at €500,000. This is well above the €417,680 median price paid by first-time buyers of new homes, and is exceeded in only two local authorities – so it is hardly binding. Nevertheless, estate agent Savills is campaigning for it to be raised to €621,000. Last week The Irish Times reported that agents Sherry FitzGerald offered to circumvent the Help to Buy cap by unbundling the cost of flooring from the official price of a new home in Wicklow. The company said it had begun an internal investigation. Days later, the First Home Scheme price caps were raised, chasing up the market for the fourth time in three years. Mazars, the consultant employed to evaluate Help to Buy, found it unfit for purpose and recommended its withdrawal in 2024. Instead the Government doubled down and extended it for five years. This is because it ticks two political boxes. Firstly, Help to Buy is popular, as it is perceived as free money. But the benefits to consumers are illusory because the subsidies result in higher house prices, and everybody pays more tax to fund them. Secondly, by drawing out more supply, the scheme helps the Government to meet its housing targets. Somehow, this has become an objective in itself. But, as we have seen, increased housing output achieved in this way will not deliver the lower prices that consumers expect. Dr John McCartney is a lecturer in property economics at TU Dublin and adjunct associate professor at UCD.
