A Tax on Soda 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 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, raises government funds, and makes people healthier. Firstly, taxes on sodas would decrease the consumption of soda. With the increasing the price by collecting larger tax on carbonated beverage, people would think twice before buying a soft drink. These taxes would save the cost for customers. According a survey of Powell et at., suggested that a 20% increase in price would reduce consumption by 25%. Consequently, the consumption of soda would lower. Therefore, it would break the link between the consumption of soft drink and obesity. It also encourages the consumption of healthier beverages, such as water, vegetable drinks. If people consume fewer sodas, in particular, they would have better health as well as lower obesity rate. As a result, these taxes would decrease the obesity rate in our country. Subsequently, soda taxes would support our citizens to become healthier. Today, the consumption of carbonated
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
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.
Sugar addiction is a problem that has been in our society for many years. In today's world this type of addiction is being composed into drinks. Sugary drinks are found everywhere from local stores, to in home refrigerators. Sodas, juices, and energy drinks, all fall under unhealthy remedies to thirst. Sugar addiction can only restrain us from accomplishing healthy goals in life. Sugary drinks can lead to harming one's body. Over the past few years, many cities and states have considered taxing sodas and other sugary beverages. Sugary drinks must be tax due to its unhealthy components and addiction.
Outline I. Introduction A. States around the nation are trying to put taxes on sodas. The main reason behind this tax is that it will reduce medical cost, obesity, diabetes, and the taxes will provide money for the states. B. Negative Externalities are the failures that happen because the producers do not take into account the costs that are impose on others. The producers do not pay for these costs and they produce more of that product because they avoid these costs. II.
In the “Allowing Guns Won’t Make Campuses Safer” article, the president of Drexel University in Philadelphia John A. Fry, who happens to be the author of this article, made plenty valid points to support his point of view. He goes back into recent American history and provides incidents where guns have led to extreme violence. For example, last year a student killed six and injured thirteen near the University of California in Santa Barbara. Another incident was in 2013 when a twenty-three year old shot his father and brother before killing three others at Santa Monica College, and that is just to name a few. Mr. Fry said, “Only in America do we respond to shootings with the need for more guns. Arming college campuses will do little to reduce mass attacks, and will likely lead to more shooting deaths” revealing his stance on guns on campuses and in our country.
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
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
This law would have somewhat of a domino effect as it would also affect fast food chain restaurants as they wouldn’t make as much money with them losing money on the soda machines they purchase. On the contrary, the soda tax would help with “medical costs for overweight and obesity alone are estimated to be $147 billion or 9.1% of U.S. health care expenditures with half these costs paid for publicly through the Medicare and Medicaid programs”(Brownell). This quote means medical programs will invest that money into other people who have more severe conditions and not use them on some conditions that could’ve been prevented.
Soda companies “dramatically announced that they would aim to cut the number of sugary drinks calories by twenty percent over the next ten years by reducing the portion size and trying to sell more zero-calorie and low calorie options.” By reducing the portion size, Americans could be drinking more cans, and possibly drinking more ounces than they were originally. As for the zero-calorie and low calorie options, the drinks are considered by doctors to be worst than the original because they contain artificial sweeteners that are not ‘natural sugars’, but chemically made sugars that puts an individual at greater risk of being morbidly obese by slowing their metabolisms, and is also known to elevate their blood pressure. Mexico’s soda consumption and obesity rate was once worst than the United States a few years ago, Mexico then established “a significant tax on soda and junk food.. Soda consumption in Mexico fell by a couple of percent points almost immediately.. there was almost as large increase in the sale of bottled water (not taxed).” Mexico had went ahead with its initiative to stop their nation’s problem, as for the United States, soda has become a major part of our diets. I believe that is restricting us from progressing from this aggravated problem.
Many store owners might argue that if they ban super-sized soda drinks they will be receiving less money because the bigger the drink the more it costs; however, the health of the U.S citizens is much more important because the more they consume those sugary foods and
Similes. Metaphors. Alliteration. Figurative language. They are everywhere. In books, papers, signs, clothes, everything. They roam our world just like us people. Are incorporated in our lives just like other vitals in our life. Figurative language is the oxygen of literature, it is found in every part of the world, and is a necessity in living. Authors especially love figurative language. There's not one book that you will find that will not incorporate figurative language. Authors live off of figurative language. In the course of the stupefying novel, The Five People You Meet in Heaven, the main character Eddie’s rollercoaster of life has finally been cut short, and the new journey of his life is just about to begin. The place we call heaven
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.
Two learners have been selected in St. Mary’s East Primary School to be the central focus of analysis within the study. The participants, *Dylan and *Cain, are two Caucasian males within an 17 student mixed gender inclusion kindergarten classroom. To gather data that will benefit all learning styles within the classroom, *Dylan was chosen as he is classified as gifted, and *Cain because he is currently on an individualized education program (IEP). The results from a pre-test and an end of unit number formation test as well as informal observations, visual representations on whiteboards, and discussions from both focus learners, will be analyzed to determine the effectiveness of assessments for improved knowledge of number formation between
“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