Free Argumentative Essays-Town: The New Tax In Town

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.

This policy memo will address why the policy maker should impose a sugar beverage excise tax on the American Beverage Association's member corporations. 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 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

I honestly believe Cook County should have a soda tax. It is a very poor County given the population desity. Poor physical health is very common in low-income communities.(Four Ways That Poverty Hurts Americans' Long-Term Health.) Given this, an incentive to not buy soda in a County such as Cook seems to make a lot of sense. In my opinion the country should

In many households, these options are the only options to eat at all. Taxing soda is only a gateway into placing a sin tax on many other unhealthy products and this will have a detrimental effect on low income families that rely on cheap, fast, easy processed food to eat. A better option to combat obesity and diabetes would be to make healthy options more accessible to the average home. There is no reason that eating organic can cost almost twice as much as eating non-organic. There is no reason that a burger costs a dollar when a salad costs five. If instead of focusing on making more profit off of taxing soda, and more focus was placed on making fresh meats, produce, and dairy accessible, the demand for unhealthy products will naturally decrease without damaging low income households. Gorman touches on this briefly by saying, “[t]he biggest solution is to encourage and support people to drink water instead of sugar.” (Gorman) Just the act of encouraging people to make healthy choices could make a world of difference, but instead the advertising markets are dominated by big cooperate soda companies. A balance of public announcements about healthy options could help knock down the consumption of

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,

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’s 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.

As William Shughart states in the article: “Should There Be a Tax on Soda and Other Sugary Drinks?”, published in the Wall Street Journal “taxes on sugary beverages are regressive and would hurt the poor”. While it is true that sodas and sugary beverage are the most consumed by low income working family; however, the amount of tax per ounce and the effect aren’t harming the poor families. In fact, it is the opposite; they are the biggest beneficiary of this tax in the short and the long term. First, the tax is not big enough to hurt the pocketbooks of the poor. In fact, it is around “1.5 cents per-ounce” in Philadelphia (Cuellar). Moreover, we could never consider the tax harmful, if we understand the aim of such a sin tax and we remember the nature of the taxed product. Actually, considering the health effect of consuming it, the taxed product is indeed the real harm. The tax will prevent the poor and the working families from consuming soda drinks in big quantities, and protect them from the consequences of excessive sugar consumption. Accordingly, because poor and low income families had suffered the most from the consumption of sugary beverages, by high rates of diabetes diseases and obesity, we will see the biggest positive changes in those

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

Sugar tax will not help to solve health or budget issues to reduce debt. Sugar has caused many problems such as revenue and health problems. Firstly, sugar drinks has a high cost on the society, and the overconsumption of sugar causes lots of health problems such as type 2 diabetes, obesity, tooth decay and heart diseases “Already we know that the burden of obesity, diabetes, and cardiovascular diseases are greater among population of socioeconomic status “ (Riediger,year, para 14). Sugar is addiction and it mainly affects to people who have low incomes , not because they can’t buy , but they don’t have enough knowledge on how it might affect them back since they have a low literacy even though, dozen of cities and states have launched public

Congress hereby finds and declares that the United States of America has experienced a dramatic increase in the number of obese people and the number of deaths caused by the symptoms of obesity. Obesity is the leading cause of preventable deaths and accounts for 18% of all deaths in America (Fox 2013); thus, a one-cent-per-ounce tax on sugary beverages will decrease consumer rates and lower the obesity level. The rise in sweetened beverage consumption is parallel to the increase in obesity rates. Soda and other sugary substances are the largest contributors to sugar and calorie intake; soft drinks, energy drinks, sweet teas, and sports drinks are considered the top most consumed beverages in America (Kickthecan 2014). The annual medical costs due to obesity and overweight Americans is also staggering. The proposed solution will not hinder the necessary diet and nutritional value of one 's meal, but rather improve it by reducing the amount of sugar American 's consume, especially since sugary beverages are a large factor of obesity that can be costly and life threatening.

Did you know that of 39,000 people surveyed that drink sugary drinks 26% of those people are also obese. Also a full 42% of the annual $142 billion in health care costs attributable to obesity. One pro of taxing sugary drinks is it will raise money. Another pro would be deterring customers from buying so many sugary drinks and maybe instead buy something healthy. Some people say that taxing sugary drinks would only make customers buy sugary drinks different places so the tax is lower. Although people would buy them other places to get a lower price it would still raise money. These are reasons why sugary drinks should be taxed.

Sugar sweeten beverages has taken over where tobacco left off. Sugary sodas are another item which is being mass marketed at the cost of the health of the nation as it does not have any nutritional values. The time has come to do something about it. The sugary drink tax is a good place to start. Sugar tax is an added tax on sugar sweetened beverages to help reduce overall sugar sweetened beverages consumption. Main aim is to discourage unhealthy diet and cost of increasing obesity. The best way to decease the intake of sugary drink is to limit its consumption. The advantage of taxing sugar sweeten beverages will help to discourage purchase of sugary drinks and will hopefully help to get people’s health back on the track. Number of health care organization has to tackle the health issues associated with intake of excess sugar or sugar sweeten beverages has made a call to introduce tax on sugary drinks. In order to reduce added sugar beverages intake, public health policy is

“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.

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