Soda Tax

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.

As an attempt to reduce the rising obesity and obesity-related disease rates, Mayor Bloomberg of New York City has proposed a ban on soft drinks larger than 16 oz. According to an infographic created by the Huffington Post, extra large soft drinks have accounted for an average of 301 extra calories in people’s diets across the US. Although measures need to be put into place to improve the unhealthy diets and lifestyles of many Americans, a ban on large soft drinks is not the solution. The ban on soda would be an ineffective attempt at reducing obesity and obesity-related diseases, as well as an infringement of civil liberties and an attack on businesses in New York City.

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

According to the WHO (World Health Organization) the health of the people in the United States has not always been the greatest. With an obesity rate of 33.9 percent, which translates into over 106 million obese Americans, this has caused many problems to arise and impact the daily lives of Americans. Many have tried to help in regards to this issue by improving school foods or attempting to encourage more physical activity. Unfortunately, these may have helped but only in a small scale. However, a fellow at the Union of Concerned Scientists, Mark Bittman believes that he may have a definitive solution. On May 25, 2016, in “Taxing Sugar to Fund a City” New York Times food journalist, Mark Bittman, by using the taxing of sugary beverages in Philadelphia - America’s poorest big city - earnestly

This memo is an application of some of the policy ideas Cass Sunstein has described in his book “Simpler,” to a proposed “soda tax” in Oakland California. The introduction of the tax, contained in “Measure HH” (as it appears on the ballot) has been met with stiff opposition by some members of the Oakland area while others have embraced the idea. Three ideas from “Simpler” will be tested in this California case.

Yes, because if you really think about it, if soda is not taxed then everyone would have diabetes if they drink soda.But the funny thing is that if you do tax soda it will not be effective,the tax soda will hurt people, and soda is unhealthy.

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.

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

"' They are literally holding hostage the jobs of hardworking people in their battle to overturn the tax.'" ( Sifferlin 5). How could the taxing of sugary drinks, specifically soda, be beneficial if it's the cause of soda companies like Pepsi putting the jobs of their employees in the hands of taxes? How do people expect these taxes to work if they are being misguided on their cause? How will these taxes work if the drinks are still available, and if all these questions arise, how is it possible for these taxes to actually be anything but a hassle? The questions that surface can support the fact that as they are enforced,the taxes are unnecessary and causing less help than people think; they can be presented as an inconvenience

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

Sugar; viewed as tasty, satisfying and irresistible treats to distract you from the toxic, addicting and deadly attributes it holds against you. It is so abundant in our everyday life. Our government must start a change. Taxing sugary products will reduce the physical effects of obesity, dental health and countless diseases caused from the simple ingredient of sugar. The potential impact of money gained from the tax is promising and will benefit a broad range of ages. Addiction is formed and sugar can become as deadly as drugs causing a vicious cycle of cravings. However, targeting one product will not change people's outlook, we need education, not tax gain alone to change their lifestyle.

By carefully analyzing and breaking down the soda tax with considerations to all of Kass’s criteria, it can be determined that the soda tax passes all of the ethical considerations that are relevant to public health, and is thus ethically sound.

“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.

Starbucks is a major reason why things have changed for Coca-Cola and Pepsi Co, they have emerged in the market with balancing their menu with gourmet, coffee beverages that offer sweet and sugary options for their customers. In 2016, the soft drink industry is in the middle of the growing policy debate in the United States regarding taxation of sugar-sweetened beverages. Therefore, it hasn’t been a great year for Coca-Cola, Pepsi Co, and Dr. Pepper Snapple due to the public’s concern on the health issues of sugary sodas. The health problems with the sugar content in soft drinks have increased political pressures, as well as slowed the growth of these giant beverage companies.

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