Sugary Drinks Should Not Be Taxed

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.

I already stated in questions one above the New York City limitation on the size of sodas has the same constitutional issues with the Philadelphia “Soda Tax”, both are unconstitutional even the major justified that it will be to promote better health of the population of New York, no law can really dictate what people has to put in their body. The tax is discriminatory as it only targeted on big sodas. The only difference between the two is that the New York City limitation on the size of sodas is not to raise any revenue and there was no tax per size or ounce while the Philadelphia “ soda Tax “ is mainly to boost the state revenue.

Yikes! Did you just see a really fat boy over there drinking soda! Why’s he so fat? Because of soda. There is also a sign over there saying that there are taxes. Do you think soda taxes are fair? It is fair and there are lots of reasons why.

The soda ban in New York City will not decrease this rate at all. Citizens can find a way around it by ordering more drinks or going to a different store that isn’t affected by the ban. Some people say that the ban will help people realize how much soda they drink and quick. This will not work and will end up having the same results as a New Year’s resolution list; nothing happens. Instead, I propose that high schools have a home economics class that teaches about healthy living. This way kid will be taught at an earlier age and know the effect of unhealthy living. Parents will be paying schools to teach their kids both book and street (body and mind)

Consumers pay for ingredients and the nutrients inside them. Therefore, an apple, which helps you stay full longer, and contains vitamins, minerals, antioxidants, and fibers, would costs more, because it contains more. Even though this pricing is logical, only banning soda is not going to make a difference, because people will just replace the sugary content with something more unhealthy. Honestly, if obesity is such an important issue, and is risking the lives of many, causing people to be unhealthy, the government should be finding new ways to lessen the price of healthy foods and products in order to increase a healthy lifestyle. Instead of supporting the idea of lessening the amount of soda able to be consumed, more pressing matters should be focused upon. Such as, lowering the cost of healthy foods and services. People will be more willing change to a healthier lifestyle, if this lifestyle is an obtainable goal. Unemployment is high, and people barely make enough to provide a roof over their heads. It makes sense that individuals would purchase products that are less in price, which happens to be products that are unhealthy for

“…..the government subsidizes the corn and soybeans used for animal feed and vegetable oil” (636) This practice makes unhealthy food more cost effective and healthy options more expensive. With the revenue from a sugary drink tax the fruit and vegetable farmers could potentially see some subsidizing. If healthier options were more affordable then consumers would eat healthier. When a family of five can eat a frozen pizza for four dollars or have a healthy meal of stir fry chicken for sixteen dollars, it is most likely they will choose the pizza. On the opposite side of the scale is the manufacturers. Ultimately the food manufacturers will produce what makes them money. If the healthier foods are in higher demand, then that fact may force their hand to create healthier options. In the end society wins. Junk food is in high demand because it is affordable and fast. Making unhealthy options less affordable takes away much of the

One reason the government should not ban sugary drinks is that people should have the right to choose their own beverages."We are smart enough to make our own decisions about what to eat and drink" stated Liz Berman from the group New York of beverage Choices in

We’ve come to a conclusion soda and sugary drinks are a pernicious disease. “Welcome to the Coke Side of Life” “Red Bull Gives You Wings” “Six Million a Day” those are just three of the thousands of slogans these billion dollar companies use to lore you into your casket a little earlier than expected. It is true that “Fully 42% of the annual $142 billion in health-care costs attributable to obesity are paid with public funds through Medicare and Medicaid, and obesity is but one disease affected by poor diet”. A person who consumes one can of soda a day is 26% likely to have type 2 diabetes and 20% likely of a heart attack, the overall good to be gained is by adding taxes on sugary drinks less people who buy them then the obesity rate will

Statements have been made asking why not increase the choices of healthy eating in schools and other public establishment rather than banning soda. A major issue the citizens are facing as if they ban soda, what could they possibly been next? (Michael. “60% in city oppose Bloomberg’s soda band, poll finds.” The New York City Times. Times 22 August, 2012. March 23, 2018

Over the past few years the soda tax policy has become increasingly widespread, and several cities have taken a multifaceted approach to not only aim to improve public health, but to also raise total revenue to help these communities. These excise taxes are being imposed on cities like Philadelphia, which is “the poorest of the 10 largest US cities, and for many years, one of the unhealthiest” (Lavizzo- Mourey). Philadelphia’s mayor, Jim Kenney decided that a $1.5 per ounce soda tax would be efficient to restore the city’s economy and improve the public’s health. The city planned to raise approximately $92 million per year, with a goal of $7.6 million a month in tax revenue; however, city officials predicted that only $2.3 million will come through in the first collection (Vargas). A month after the tax went into full effect, the state of the economy went downhill and these communities and small

That's crazy. Life is already hard enough; I shouldn't have to pre plan to go and buy pop." The tax is basically just causing trouble for the residents. It'd also be somewhat annoying to have to go to another county to buy groceries and soda, something that isn’t considered “exciting”. Not only have people stopped buying sugary drinks in their county, but also most products. For instance, "I don't even want to buy any products here anymore." The towns shops and stores will suffer because of the tax, the residents aren't just buying soda from different counties, they're also buying food and many other products. On the other hand, the tax could decrease consumption and naturally wean people away from drinking sugary drinks. There’s a big difference between soda and cigarettes, right. However, "...The trend suggests that soda consumption may follow a pattern similar to that of products traditionally

There has been a popular debate around the world on the topic of whether or not sugary drinks should be taxed. In this article in particular, the officials and policymakers realize the public health may be in danger because of the vast intake of unhealthy food and drinks such as high-calorie sugary drinks. The high intake of sugar have lead to tooth decay, diabetes, heart disease and contributes to obesity – which can cause death. They recognize that the sugar levy on sugary drinks will bring benefits to the society and discourage consumption of unhealthy good. In addition, the raise in price of sugary drinks can benefit firms and is a chance for all governments to respond to market failures in food. Countries such as Hungary, France, and Mexico

In the last ten years or so, sugary bevearges have been a argument in American cities such as New York, North California, and Philadelphia. For thiis reason tax on soda and realitives have increase so wildly that made some cites stop selling taxed beverages. For example, Philadelphia pays three cent per ounce but they recommend two cent is more acceptable then three cent. as a result, of soda companies paying taxes provide city needs and communities. As some people say soda taxes are poor people taxes but, poor people are the ones always targeted in the market. In either case, taxes might be unreasonable however, it help our

Obesity, diabetes, and heart disease, these are just some of the things sugary drinks can do to your body and I think that a tax will decrease some of those problems. So therefore the tax on sugary drinks should be enforced. For example, the tax should be pressed is that it will discourage people to buy sugary drinks is because it can lead to obesity and other health problems.

“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.