Today, research asserts soda is one of the leading causes of poor health outcomes in the United States. People define soda as carbonated beverages, or soft drinks, or fizzy drinks. A significant relationship exists between the consumption of carbonated drinks and obesity, type 2 diabetes and dental caries in the United States (Gollust et al., 52). Tax on soda is considered as a government intervention to regulate the consumption of these kinds of drinks. In fact, soda should be taxed in the United States because it discourages the consumption of soda, makes people healthier, and raises government funds. 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. Whenpeople 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. Subsequently, soda taxes would support our citizens to become healthier. Today, the consumption
Obesity and diabetes are diseases affected by poor diet. These health problems, caused by overdrinking sugary drinks are increasing the health care cost paid. Public funds are used to pay these cost through Medicare and Medicaid. Some people insist that these drinks should carry a higher tax to keep people from consuming and also to help cover medical cost. But these companies have battled hard against this , saying their products are being singled out unfairly.Some people argue that taxing sugary drinks won’t decrease the rate of obesity and even change the consumer behavior. However, studies have shown that increasing the price for sugary drinks have actually reduce purchase and also drop the rates of diabetes and obesity.
This law would have somewhat of a domino effect as it would also affect fast food chain restaurants as they wouldn’t make as much money with them losing money on the soda machines they purchase. On the contrary, the soda tax would help with “medical costs for overweight and obesity alone are estimated to be $147 billion or 9.1% of U.S. health care expenditures with half these costs paid for publicly through the Medicare and Medicaid programs”(Brownell). This quote means medical programs will invest that money into other people who have more severe conditions and not use them on some conditions that could’ve been prevented.
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
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,
For starters,if you do tax soda is will not effective some people.If you do add taxes to soda it obesity won’t end.Also if you add taxes to soda people will not make any better choices and also since people won’t make better choices people can find other stuff that they will enjoy and then they have to tax that as well until everything is taxed.People can find other sugary drinks if they tax soda.People can just buy energy drinks that does not taste bad and they can just drink that instead of soda if they tax soda.
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.
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
One of the biggest health concerns facing children in the United States to is childhood obesity. Childhood obesity has grown to become a major epidemic all across the nation effecting millions of children both physically and emotionally. One of the biggest contributors to this public health issue is sugar sweetened beverages. Sugar-sweetened beverages are an unregulated and out control beverages that is being consumed by millions of children each and every day. Progress is being made on the local level to treat and control this concern, but in order to truly make a difference a federal policy needs to be implemented. This federal policy needs to tax sugar-sweetened beverages to encourage consumer to make healthier and cheaper choices. A federal
If the idea was to get people to not drink the these beverages as much as we are used to then a tax would be going at it all wrong. It would be a better idea to have more marketing or information about the benefits of limiting their sugary drink intake. I don’t even think I have ever seen an ad or service announcement about not drinking soda. Everything shown to us is to encourage us to go to the store and pick up the pack of soda or a huge bottle of gatorade. But there are ads against smoking and drinking shown all the time. Ads are about awareness and are an easier approach to the public because it’s a win-win (Clemmit). These companies don’t lose customers to high taxes and the public learn some of the health issues that come with most of the products. If we were going to put the same taxes on sugary drinks they would have to be treated the same. “If you want to tax the hell out of soda, then you need to make people think that’s a drug, not a beverage - that downing a Coke is just like puffing on a cigarette (Engber 641).
In Marion Nestle’s blog post, she discusses the positive effect of the soda tax in Berkeley on soda consumption. She compared Berkeley’s soda intake data to the soda drinking of neighboring cities that do not have a soda tax. She noticed that the soda consumption decreased significantly in Berkeley and increased slightly in Oakland and San Francisco where there was no soda tax
To begin, it helps encourage people to stop drinking soda and start drinking water. Some people won’t like the new tax, and stop buying them, which make people stop. In history, people started boycotting, and so some people would stop buying so much soda too.
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.
“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.
Only 2% of children in the U.S. eat a healthy diet (“Facts about Childhood Obesity” 1). Junk food is a leading factor in the growing obesity epidemic in America. To help stop the epidemic a high tax must be placed on junk food. The “fat tax” would be added to items considered to be unhealthy. There are a plethora of potentially taxable items such as sugar, caffeine, artificial sweeteners, even salt. The “fat tax” will help deter consumers from purchasing these items in an effort to improve the overall health and nutrition of American’s. There are a plethora of ideas to help and prevent obesity as well as other health issues.
Considering that soft drinks 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 a infinite amount of choices with multiple varieties of flavors, different tastes, 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. Nowadays, people live a healthy life to avoid health problems, so taxes on soft