There needs to be a separation of concerns, and do I really need to give a history lesson why taxing the disadvantaged is not a long term solution? History must repeat, but almost always from ignorance, huh?
Because it isn't the 'disadvantaged', many of whom are going to need it.
* Income Tax
* National Insurance
* VAT
* Corporation Tax
In terms of amounts received, the first is by far the largest and is overwhelmingly paid by 'higher earners'. The top 50 % pay over 90% of it. The top 1% pay ~30% of it.
National Insurance is less progressive. I would argue that should change but it is what it is.
I can't argue against VAT being regressive, but breakdown of 'amount of VAT paid by income' isn't available.
Please do make your best argument for why taxing horribly unhealthy junk foods will actually harm poor people more than it helps. No sense holding back and merely threatening to make that argument. Do you figure that expensive cola will cause famine or something? I'm eager to know.