Why Should We Reject Soda Taxes?

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.

He earnestly states “ The soda producers and distributors, as well as the Teamsters members who deliver the product, argue that the tax is a job killer…” Bittman uses this strategy as a vessel to communicate his enthymeme that the soda producers and distributors only care about the profit they make as they “..may spend as much as 10 million dollars to make that case.” however, Bittman believes that the health of the impoverished is more important than the tax being referred to as a “job killer”. This strategy is effective towards his audience because they now have a clear understanding of what Bittman is arguing. He states “ The logic of taxing sugar-sweetened beverages has been clear for a decade…” here in this quote he explicitly states that the tax is a logical concept in which if it is applied then it will yield great results. Such as, decreasing the percent of children with a threat of diabetes and other

To begin with, the article, “Philadelphia’s Soda Tax Bust” is based on Philadelphia's soda tax made earlier this year, the purpose of the tax was to finance universal pre-K education as well as prevent child obesity within the city. Although

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.

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.

"' 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

However this argument is weak due to the most popular places, such as fast-food chains, are affected by the ban. You would also have to go out of your way to buy more soda, which is a huge inconvenience and it will cost more money, simply because you want an unhealthy beverage. The text “Soda’s a Problem But...” Klein argues against the ban, but a lot of her pieces of reasoning are not logical, for example “People would simply buy two 16-ounce cups” (Klein 289). This is illogical because it will cost more money to buy multiple cups of soda, which would cost more money, and they may not finish the soda’s that they bought at the convenience store or restaurant.  If you bought more cups of soda you would be taking up space within your car, if you have less space you will not have anywhere else to store more valuable objects like your phone or wallet. Soda being harder to get will help us make a healthier society because it will discourage people from buying more soda than they actually

We are at the halfway point of our Reformation Journey. Since Reformation Sunday, the Bethany Walkers have been walking, running, climbing steps, and many more physical forms of activity. It with those calculated miles, the Bethany walkers made it to Wittenberg, Germany. The fun continues as we are now counting our miles back to Altoona. Since Reformation Sunday, we have collected 5,173 miles (this has us somewhere in the Atlantic Ocean). If you haven’t sent your miles in lately, please do…we hope to collect enough miles to reach Altoona before Reformation Sunday 2017.

Here they are talking about large quantities of soda getting banned. Although it is bad for you and people shouldn't be drinking a lot, people should be able to make their own choices in life. If they wanna drink soda and risk getting diabetes and more, it is their fault. It shouldn't have to come to the government banning soda. Another reason if the government bans soda, then soda places like gas stations and other stores are going to also be losing lots of money and potentially run out of business.

A deadweight loss from a market of over five million people would have had major implications for US soda distributors. Deadweight loss is without a doubt bad for soda produces in this situation, but perhaps what made the tax unpopular with residents is related to a concept called the benefits principle. The benefits principle is, people should pay taxes based on the benefits they receive from government services. In Cook County the tax was established for the purpose of filling a 1.8 billion dollar hole in the budget. With no quantifiable benefit to the community, it is understandable that people were opposed to paying a new fee when they buy sweetened soft drinks. In Philadelphia on the other hand proceeds go directly into an educational fund which helps pay for pre-kindergarten and community schools. So the residents of Philadelphia see a real, quantifiable benefit of the extra fee for the soda, which they buy and any attempts to repeal the Philadelphia soda tax would likely be met with fierce opposition from families.

Cupertino needs a soda tax to decrease the consumption of soda. Having a soda tax is like a food chain. By putting an additional tax sugary drinks with high calories and low nutrition we can lower the amount of purchased soda. Cutting back on the consumption soda can result in a healthier lifestyle. A healthy lifestyle can increase one's lifespan by 10 years. If we can get people to drink less soda the risk of obesity will decrease. If obesity decreases, the risk of high cholesterol and heart attack decreases. The chances of diabetes will also decrease. Once these health issues commence to fade, the government will spend less money on healthcare and more money on schools. More money for schools will allow students to have a better education.

Considering that soft drink 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 an infinite amount of choices with multiple varieties of flavors, different tastes, and 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. In order to combat these negative effects, taxes

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

The soda industry has been influential since its breakthrough such as companies like Coca-Cola “giving money to and maintaining a cozy relationship with the Global Energy Balance Network, a nonprofit that promoted exercise over diet to combat obesity, the financial relationship between soda companies and public health groups have been scrutinized” (Blackmore). The city of San Francisco is bringing back the soda tax proposition which will add 2 cents on soda per ounce. Last time around it wasn’t as successful only getting half of the votes when they needed, at least, seventy-five percent. This time around they will only need the half of votes they got the last time. San Franciscan's should pass the soda tax because it would discourage people