Essay On Tax Policy Memo

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

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.

The levels of sugar contained beverage consumption is still high, and a public health cost hike is expected to treat obesity related illnesses. Costs for Medicare and Medicaid are expected to balloon to an estimated $550 billion in upcoming decades ("Obesity and Severe Obesity Forecasts Through 2030").

Consumers think that it is awful that they have to pay for someone else’s health care while that person may just as well be drinking twelve cans of soda daily and continually destroying their health. (“Should there be a”, n.d.) These consumers are hoping the soda tax will encourage people to stop abusing soda and at the same time lowering the obesity rate in our country, which now about 66% of our population. Some commenters also said that the government is doing the right thing to try and stop this

“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.

Taxing unhealthy food and beverages is practiced internationally and was examined extensively in the 2011 United Nations summit as a means to encourage healthy dietary choices among individuals. As interest in this area grows, more research is needed to study the relationship between food taxation and an individual’s food choice, so informed policy can be created and successfully implemented. Economics plays an important role in persuading an individual to buy a product. As the price of a food product increases, theoretically,

If you take one look at an average adults daily sugar consumption that is encouraged by these companies, you will soon be raising your eyebrows too. 14.6 kilograms…. That’s how much sugar the average Australian soft drink lover is consuming every year from soft drinks alone, this is equivalent to indulging in three bags of potatoes, instead filled with pure sugar. This huge amount of sugar intake is leading to high rates of overweight and obesity which intern lead to type two diabetes, heart disease and cancers. But there’s a simple way to reduce sugary drink consumption and that’s by increasing the price through a 20 percent tax on sugar drinks. This would decrease the consumption of sugary drinks and also reduce the rates of overweight and obesity, therefor reducing the amount of Australians with type 2 diabetes, heart disease and

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

They argue that this tax would be ineffective in reducing obesity given that SSBs make up a small amount of calories in a Canadian’s diet (7). From my experience working as a Dietitian, I have noticed that education and promotion of healthy diets cannot solely address the issue that obesity poses on our nation. We need policies in place that guide Canadians to choose healthier foods. After Mexico implemented a SSB tax there was a 7.3% decrease in SSBs sales and a 5.2% increase in plain water sales (8). Furthermore, a review of studies suggests that a SSB tax and decreased SSB consumption can actually lead to moderate weight loss (9). This evidence gives hope to health advocates across Canada in the future battle against

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.

This is a transcript that addresses the problem with Mexican government trying to impose tax on sugary drinks. According to the article, one of the major argument against taxing sugary drinks is that tax will have hardly any effect on slowing weight gain. The purpose of the Mexican tax was to bring down sales and reverse the obesity rate but evidence have shown that it did not have any effect on health. This article states how the Mexican taxing bring more revenue leaving the poor with a regressive tax

Sugar in drinks and food contributes to many diseases such hypertension, tooth decay, diabetes, and obesity. By increasing taxes on sugary products, will in return reduce the consumption rate by people. This

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