Argumentative Essay: Sin Taxes Are Positive for Society

With obesity rates increasing at an exponential rate, a tax on fat foods and specifically high sugar beverages of 20% or about 1 cent per ounce could reduce obesity rates by 3.5%, bringing the rate down to 30% among adults (Kalaidis). While 3.5% may not sound like a lot, if you take an approximate U.S. population of 350 million people, suddenly that mere 3.5% turns into over 12 million Americans who would no longer be considered obese. Marion Nestle, a well-respected expert in food policy, recently conducted a study investigating the impact of a junk food tax through predictive modeling. Her study revealed that 2,600 deaths, 9,500 heart attacks, and 240,000 new cases of diabetes could be prevented with a simple 1 cent per ounce tax on sugary beverages (Satran). A junk food tax of this kind could greatly increase the health of the American public as a whole by reducing death rates and healthcare

Sugar addiction is a problem that has been in our society for many years. In today's world this type of addiction is being composed into drinks. Sugary drinks are found everywhere from local stores, to in home refrigerators. Sodas, juices, and energy drinks, all fall under unhealthy remedies to thirst. Sugar addiction can only restrain us from accomplishing healthy goals in life. Sugary drinks can lead to harming one's body. Over the past few years, many cities and states have considered taxing sodas and other sugary beverages. Sugary drinks must be tax due to its unhealthy components and addiction.

More than 35% of American adults are obese and as a consequence, are at increased risks for health issues such as heart disease, high blood pressure, and diabetes ("Overweight & Obesity"). The U.S. taxpayer is supplementing much of the cost to treat obesity related health issues through public health programs such as Medicare and Medicaid ("Economic Costs"). A positive externality will occur in the form of decreased health care expenditures on Medicare and Medicaid. The U.S. government should impose an excise tax on soda and other beverages that contain sugar. Consumers who drink excess sugary beverages impose a negative internality on their health; as well as imposing a negative externality on the American

“Soda Taxes: Gaining Steam or Getting Steamrolled?” is an enticing article by Anna Gorman that focuses on the issue of taxing sugary beverages and the effect it will ultimately have on the health of the general population. She mentions that the tax could reduce the rates of obesity and diabetes in the affected areas. She also points out the counter to this claim, that soda taxes may not have any effect on obesity rates at all and may give the government too much power over the consumer choice. Overall, she seems to advocate that soda is an unhealthy beverage and should be cut down among consumers. Soda however, is not the only unhealthy options out there. There is a plethora of products on the shelves of supermarkets and sold at restaurants.

The debate on weather sugary drinks, especially soda, should be taxed or not has been a topic for years. Some people believe that they should be taxed for the improvement of health while on the other hand some people think that taxing the drinks won't do much and actually hurt people. Taxing sugary drinks is helpful to those who have a hard time with temptation for the drinks. In the article "Do Soda Taxes Really Work?" Sifferlin states that when researchers looked at Berkeley residents, they found that when taxing soda started "sales of sugary-sweetened drinks fell by close 10% and sales of water increased in Berkeley by about 16%" (4) Just by the percent difference rasing prices on soda made people decide against buying the sweet drinks,

Firstly, taxes on sodas would decrease the consumption of soda. People would think twice before buying a soft drink if there was an increased tax on carbonated beverages. They may choose bottles of water with a cheaper price. When people don’t spend on carbonated beverages, the consumption of soda would decrease. According to a survey of Powell et at., suggested that a 20% increase in price would reduce consumption by 25%. As a result, it would break the link between the consumption of soda and obesity. It also encourages the consumption of healthier beverages, such as water, vegetable drinks, etc. If people consume fewer sodas, in particular, they would have better health conditions as well as lower obesity rate. Therefore, these taxes would decrease the obesity rate in our country.

A bag of potato chips, for example, contains 10 grams of fat, 170 grams of sodium, and only 2 grams of protein. A whole pineapple, on the other hand, has 1.1 grams of fat, 9 milligrams of sodium, and about 5 grams of protein. The chips have about 10 times the fat, 18,889 times the sodium, and about half as much protein as the pineapple. Which is healthier? The pineapple, it is a no-brainer, right? Actually, 66.7 percent of the 18 people surveyed in a private poll would rather choose a $5.00 pineapple over a $2.50 bag of potato chips. Therefore, it would be smarter to raise the tax on junk foods, just like the government raised the tax on cigarettes. “Significant increases in tobacco taxes are a highly effective tobacco control strategy and lead to significant improvements in public health,” according to Chuck Marr and Chye-Ching Huang, authors for the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Meaning, raising the tax on fatty foods would encourage people to choose healthier options, limiting the amount of junk food consumption. Just like increased taxes on cigarettes decreased the amount of smokers. Both are bad for you, so it would make sense. So, by increasing the tax, people would be even more inclined to purchase healthier

Obesity and diet related disease like diabetes are one of the biggest challenges today in America. The situation continues to worsen every day; obesity becomes a serious health crisis. Cities like Philadelphia and Berkeley, California, are sounding the bell of danger by imposing a tax on the consumption of soda and sugary beverages to cutback sugar consumption; which is a major contributor to the obesity epidemic. Some people say that tax on soda and sugary drinks aren’t beneficial to society and don’t generate any positive effect on public health. Others say that it is a powerful weapon against the obesity epidemic invading the American population. I agree with the later. Taxes on sugary

If done right the political side would be able to use this accurately, however it is not done right. The tax shouldn't be enforced because of the way obesity isn't drastically improved upon from these taxes. The people who don't want to pay high prices have alternatives available to them, so the taxes stopping obesity proves useless. The alternatives are going to be more tempting when consumers see the prices of the taxed drinks and still be consuming drinks that may not be healthy. This, on top of the political eye of the situation, are reasons that the tax can't be helpful to stop obesity; one of the main claims to stop the taxes being to stop obesity. Further support of this being that author Brian Gale points in his article, "What the Soda Tax Means for Consumers" that even with the drink's taxes reducing how much is being consumed, it is uncertain if it's changing the consumers' choices of unhealthy drinking choices. It is undeniable that gauging every singe persons drinking and health choices will prove difficult based solely on the taxing of sugary beverages, especially with the idea of multiple variables having an influence on the drinking habits of every

Considering that soft drink are one of the most popular drinks to a lot of people all around the world, unfortunately, a lot of them love to drink it almost every day and may not live without it. Soda becomes addictive, preventing one from drinking what the body needs the most which is water. In the market, there is an infinite amount of choices with multiple varieties of flavors, different tastes, and ranges from classic soda to diet soda. However, consumers do not recognize clearly the negative effect of soft drinks that have a high chance of eroding their health away. Some of these examples include dental erosion, energy intake, obesity and other health issues. In order to combat these negative effects, taxes

Eating unhealthy foods is one of the major causes of obesity today; but should there be a higher tax on all soft drinks and junk food? Should people be punished for eating what they want? Yes, there are health risks involved with an unhealthy diet but is a higher taxing on these foods the right alternative? With the price of healthcare raising maybe the extra tax could help alleviate it, maybe not. Perhaps the higher tax will turn people away from buying unhealthy foods and drinks. Consuming unwholesome food can lead to clogged arteries, heart attacks and many other fatal illnesses. Buying the healthier substitute may help our

With a growing epidemic of obesity in America, some states and lawmakers have resorted to taking unconventional measures in order to counter the growing issue. Many legislators are debating the effectiveness of a “fat tax” would be on limiting the consumption of soda, high fat foods, and high sugar foods, and ultimately reducing the rate of morbidity and mortality due to obesity. The idea is that long term consumption of high fat, high sugar foods and drinks lead to many health problems, so making them more expensive and less accessible should decrease the health issues related to their consumption.

Although we all pay taxes is it right to tax junk foods and sugary beverages. Politicians has debated this for years. Taxation is an excellent form of raising money for governmental usage. This type of taxation should reach about 90% of the public. Hopefully it will be able to benefit these same people as well.

“Sin” taxes have been proven as a way to curtail known unhealthy behaviors. Soda taxes are most accepted if taxes collected are earmarked for health specific programs (Chaufin et al., 2010). The cons are the consumers are the voters and taxing may equate to loss of votes, taxing may not be equitable to individuals that do not have the disease, and finally, an undue burden may be placed on lower socio-economic demographics as these groups often have limited access to food vendors that primarily sale what would be considered taxed foods. Though these sin taxes are proven to work well with tobacco and alcohol consumption, altering a persons’ diet needs to be more individualized and realistically approached. Lower socio-economic individuals should not feel added burden as a tax; which would be a negative impact (Kuchar et al., 2005). Legality issues are regarded as low, but would require state government support to enact. This would likely not be popularly accepted and have a minimal impact for any increase in tax rate.

Most commonly, sin taxes are excise or consumption taxes that charge fees for guilty pleasures or human indulgence. (Lorenzi, Sin Taxes 60) Sin taxes, therefore, are intended to encourage citizens to consume or use taxed items responsibly or discourage behavior associated with the consumption of taxed items. Goods or services generally taxed through sin tax policy have some common characteristics including inelastic demand, promote behavior that is harmful to the individual, and promote behavior that is harmful to others. (Lorenzi, Sin Taxes 60) Goods or services targeted by sin taxes have an inelastic demand because they are generally habitual, addictive, or highly pleasurable. (Lorenzi, Sin Taxes 60) Further, these goods or services are targeted by sin tax legislation because consuming or utilizing the good or services can lead to self-destructive behavior, negative consequences for communities, and generally are considered socially undesirable. Thus, sin taxes are not prohibitive; citizens are allowed to consume targeted goods and services as long as the tax is not steep enough to make consumption of the good or service impossible. (Viscusi 556) Further, the voluntary nature of sin taxes is generally more tolerable than involuntary nature of income taxes. (Schmidt, Barr and Swanson 1677)