Tax Argument Analysis

The pool cost the petitioner over $19,000, and we cannot accept his contention that such amount was spent primarily for therapy for his leg in view of the limited need for such therapy and the alternatives which were then available.

Parent Corporation owns 85% of the common stock and 100% of the preferred stock of Subsidiary Corporation. The common stock and preferred stock have adjusted bases of $500,000 and $200,000, respectively, to Parent. Subsidiary adopts a plan of liquidation on July 3 of the current year, when its assets have a $1 million FMV. Liabilities on that date amount to $850,000. On November 9, Subsidiary pays off its creditors and distributes $150,000 to Parent with respect to its preferred stock. No cash remain to be aid to Parent with respect to the remaining $50,000 of its liquidation preference for the preferred stock, or with respect to any common stock. In each of Subsidiary’s tax years, less than %10 of its gross

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

In Anna Gorman’s article “Soda Taxes: Gaining Steam or Getting Steamrolled?” she discusses where advocates and critics stand on sugary beverages being taxed. If beverages with sugar are taxed the epidemic of diabetes could be reduced dramatically and Gorman uses Mexico and Berkeley as examples. Gorman explains that just two states in the U.S. have passed these taxes and hints that it is because The American Beverage Association and the beverage industry have too much power in the state legislature; they were willing to spend over $9 million dollars to defeat the “the proposed San Francisco tax in 2014.” (Gorman). Gorman points out that beverage taxes are just a strategy that can be used to reduce diabetes but ultimately the easiest solution would be to encourage people to consume more water.

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,

By imposing a sugar beverage tax, consumers will demand less of the good and drive demand downward. Similarly, the sugary beverage market is elastic to price changes ("Price elasticity of the demand for sugar sweetened beverages and soft drinks in Mexico"). If the prices of sugar beverages increase, the demand will decrease ("Price elasticity of the demand for sugar sweetened beverages and soft drinks in Mexico"). However, a counterclaim does arise which argues that even if consumers of these beverages decide to stop purchasing a taxed good, they will purchase substitute goods that have the same satisfactory effect at a price that isn't affected by the tax. This idea was presented by Jason Fletcher from the University of Wisconsin. In his published research, Fletcher found that BMI remained constant or increased even when consumers are confronted with a beverage tax (Fletcher, Frisvold & Tefft 2009).

Wetter and Hodge, Jr. argue how childhood obesity is a vital issue that needs to be addressed as it puts children at risk for long-term health problems. The authors’ solution to lowering the rate of obesity is by taxing sugar-sweetened beverages. They relay information from the World Health Organization and make comparisons between other products that are heavily taxed in order to help support their argument. Wetter and Hodge, Jr. state that the World Health Organization declared that raising taxes on tobacco products was very effective in reducing the demand for tobacco use. They also discuss the legal components regarding sugar-sweetened beverages taxes. One of their ideas includes the sweeter the sugar-sweetened beverage is, the higher it

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.

By imposing a sugar beverage tax, consumers will demand less of the good and drive the market downward. Similarly, sugar beverage market is elastic to price changes ("Price elasticity of the demand for sugar sweetened beverages and soft drinks in Mexico"). If the prices of sugar beverages increase, the demand will decrease ("Price elasticity of the demand for sugar sweetened beverages and soft drinks in Mexico."). However, a counterclaim does arise which argues that even if consumers of sugary beverages decide to stop purchasing from a taxed good; they will purchase substitute goods that have the same satisfaction effect at a price that isn't affected by the tax. This idea was presented by Jason Fletcher from the University of Wisconsin, in research he published, he found that BMI remained constant or even increased due to a sugar beverage tax (Fletcher, Frisvold & Tefft 2009).

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

As we approach election day, both front runners; Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton have proposed their policies if they were to take office. Hillary Clinton is advocating to increase tax on the top one percent, while Donald Trump wishes to cut tax (especially for the wealthy and middle class). Trumps policy mirrors the trickle down system; where we cut tax on the rich, leaving them with more money in which we assume they will invest. Yet, we have seen this to be a failure since the rich do not invest their money, rather, they save it. Trump's proposal is more of a tax relief when compared to Secretary Clinton's plan, however, Trump's proposal could cause more problems to rise.

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.

I do not agree with the SSA representative “revising the determination” of nine and one half years in the past. The determination was made correctly when I sat in their office and I was guaranteed that I had the quarters and earnings necessary to qualify for the benefits which I was paid during the past nine and one half years. That representative was checking his computer right in front of me as he gave me that reassurance. That decision was based upon my earnings reported and recorded by the IRS from my Partnership filings which was duly reported to the IRS according to the rules as they existed at the time. In 2010, the agency requested proof of my tax filing and timely filing, as well as, the paper which showed my partnership portion

Obesity is a world - wide issue that has detrimental effects on society and those that suffer from it. Due to the links from consumption of sugary food and beverages and obesity has led countries such as Hungary and France to implement sugar taxes. I personally support the idea of having sugary and unhealthy foods or beverages taxed. Throughout the course of this report I will analyse both sides of the argument; both for and against sugar taxes.

For such reason, the Mexican government is in the need of looking new strategies to make the statistics decrease. One of the most available options is taxing junk food places to slow the number of consumers among the population and get better health. “Those taxes would be about 20% to have a real impact on the population.” (World Health Organization, 2017). Among the possible benefits is the improvement in the amount of healthy food eaten which will lead to a better life condition to the Mexican population. Overweight and its consequences such as diabetes and heart diseases are quite dangerous as long as we do not take the right usage of junk