Do you have news to tell us? Send your e.mails with news and inquiries to: w.nation@mail.com

Register with us for free to follow our news on the right-hand tab




Article posted  by: White Nation correspondent Witbank   March 06  2017




A NEW(factually very old)  illegal tax system comes into effect next month and is expected to generate around R2 billion in revenue for the ANC kleptocracy again.

The introduction of the euphemistically called ‘health promotion tax’(New smart name for the old American sugar tax)  – a tax on sugary drinks – is expected to generate around R2 billion in tax revenue which the ANC rats could line their pockets again. The tax becomes effective next month (April 1) and it seems more “health promotion measures” may be heading South Africans’ way. National Treasury said in the 2018 Budget Review a policy brief on the use of taxes to encourage “healthy choices” will be published shortly. Watch out people- they again are using all kinds of deceptive corners to rob your food from your plate again. 

Jerome Brink, senior associate in Cliffe Dekker Hofmeyr’s Tax and Exchange Control practice, says to his knowledge studies done so far are inconclusive in respect of the causation between the imposition of the sugar tax and a reduction of non-communicable diseases such as diabetes. “That said, only one country which is often mentioned is Mexico, which has shown a decrease in the consumption of sugary beverages since the introduction of the tax,” he adds.

The final rate has been fixed at 2.1 cents per gram of the sugar content that exceeds 4 grams per 100ml. If one liter of “sugary soda” has about 106 grams of sugar the first 4 grams per 100ml are free. This means 40 of the 106 total grams of sugar is levy free. The balance is then subject to the levy at a rate of 2.1 cents per gram. This equates to approximately R1.39 per liter of sugary soda which will be added to the existing price.

Brink says the new tax will be administered through existing customs and excise systems. “Since it is a new tax, one should be mindful that there will likely be some challenges and additional costs involved to administer and collect the tax.” The South African Heart and Stroke Foundation had previously expressed its support for the tax. Gabriel Eksteen, health promotion officer at the foundation, nonetheless warned that sugar was not the only cause of obesity.

“In addition to our efforts in educating consumers, we need the food industry to provide healthier food options. Despite being aware of the health risks associated with high sugar consumption, many food producers continue to saturate the market with cheap sugar-laden products,” he noted in an earlier interview. Eksteen told Moneyweb in an earlier interview that tackling obesity needs a comprehensive approach that addresses food accessibility and affordability, consumer education and marketing guidelines as well as safe and accessible places to exercise.

Some studies have indicated that consumers substitute sugary drinks for other sweet foods. But, says Brink, it may be premature to predict one way or another. “One should always appreciate that every country is different with various socio-economic factors influencing consumer patterns. Tax is just one of the factors. One will have to wait and see the outcome insofar as South Africa is concerned.” He says several countries have implemented the tax or levy on a slightly different basis. The main difference has been in the actual rate of the tax. “While some of the studies have suggested that one requires a tax rate of 20% to effect any impact on consumption patterns, Mexico introduced an effective rate of tax of 10% which nevertheless saw positive effects.”

Brink expects the tax cost to be passed on to consumers. This will certainly be beneficial from their profit perspective. It will also be in line with the intention behind the need to impose the tax. Keith Engel, CEO of the South African Institute of Tax Professionals, disagrees and says soft drink companies are loath to fully pass on all costs to consumers in this environment. “The costs will be shared. Companies are also repackaging their products in response.  At the end of the day, the real question is the negative symbolic value that this tax will have on the market, being that sugar is now being treated as a rough equivalent to cigarettes and alcohol.”

Engels says the tax will most likely have a more negative impact for the poor, as would any other price increase on food, given that food plays such a large relative role in their overall budgets. He expects more sin taxes on other products to follow. Brink adds that soda drinks with their usual sugary content will probably still be available. Many producers will likely innovate, be proactive as well as react to changes in the market accordingly. “Some of the large beverage companies have already began introducing lower sugary content beverages well before the introduction of the tax, given the continuous growth in health consciousness in our society,” says Brink.

The sugar content must be certified on a test report obtained and retained from a testing laboratory recognized by the National Regulator for Compulsory Specifications of South Africa. In the absence of such a valid test report, a deemed sugar content of 20 grams per 100ml is assumed. The South African Revenue Service has embarked on roadshows to address practical implementation issues on the coalface. The registration and licensing process will commence thereafter with a view to ensuring all processes are in place on implementation day.

Well– If I ever heard a mouth full of baloney bullsh*t it will be this caper. SO– they now want to tax cool drinks…but what about other products using sugar such as cakes, tarts, Cocoa, sweets, flavorants, wines, the liquor industry, chocolates , sugar itself, pharmaceuticals, – and God knows what else? Seeing that about 60% of all consumable products have a sugar content-  that in fact means we are going to see another barrage of price hikes from the shrewd Jew-controlled retail market again. Now they have this very questionable libtard “clever Johnnies “ trying to literally scrape the barrel for some very dilapidated excuses to introduce this obvious slippery tax scam onto the public under very smart terms such as ” health promotion tax” to rip you off again! Good Lord- this ANC  bandits is getting more and more erratic and devious each day! No wonder they lately follow Malema as their new ” leader in waiting.” 


The first “sugar tax” already were implemented as early as 1764 in America. The Sugar Act, also known as the American Revenue Act or the American Duties Act, was a revenue-raising act passed by the Parliament of Great Britain on 5 April 1764. The preamble to the act stated: “it is expedient that new provisions and regulations should be established for improving the revenue of this Kingdom … and … it is just and necessary that a revenue should be raised … for defraying the expenses of defending, protecting, and securing the same.” The earlier Molasses Act 1733, which had imposed a tax of six pence per gallon of molasses, had never been effectively collected due to colonial evasion. By reducing the rate by half and increasing measures to enforce the tax, the British hoped that the tax would actually be collected.These incidents increased the colonists’ concerns about the intent of the British Parliament and helped the growing movement that became the American Revolution.

The Sugar Act also increased enforcement of smuggling laws. Strict enforcement of the Sugar Act successfully reduced smuggling, but it greatly disrupted the economy of the American colonies by increasing the cost of many imported items, and reducing exports to non-British markets. The Sugar Act empowered customs officials to have all violations tried in vice admiralty courts rather than local colonial courts where the juries often looked favorably on smugglers. Protests against the Sugar Act led to boycotts of some British luxury goods, which did boost local manufacturing in some instances.

The language and official name of the bill made it clear that the purpose of the Sugar Act was not to simply regulate the trade (as the case with the Molasses Act), but to raise revenue. Americans protested the Sugar Act primarily because of its economic impact, but for some “no taxation without representation” became a rallying cry against Parliament’s right to tax the colonies.SO– as you clearly can see- the ANC rats are no more concerned about your “health” – than they are about raising TAXES to clear their 52 billion rand tax deficit. They now try to pull another Mickey on you by naming it the ”  health promotion tax.”  (How sweet- how considerate of the government to think about your health….they even want to TAX you to death in order to live “healthier.” I wonder what idiot came up with a deceptive term like that?  They now even decided to use an old, very old moth-balled British/American stunt to rip you off once again. Now we await their next bogus tax- the “Carbon Tax” to be socked to the public as well I suppose! 




Sugar tax may be first of several ‘health promotion’ measures