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.

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

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.

If done right the political side would be able to use this accurately, however it is not done right. The tax shouldn't be enforced because of the way obesity isn't drastically improved upon from these taxes. The people who don't want to pay high prices have alternatives available to them, so the taxes stopping obesity proves useless. The alternatives are going to be more tempting when consumers see the prices of the taxed drinks and still be consuming drinks that may not be healthy. This, on top of the political eye of the situation, are reasons that the tax can't be helpful to stop obesity; one of the main claims to stop the taxes being to stop obesity. Further support of this being that author Brian Gale points in his article, "What the Soda Tax Means for Consumers" that even with the drink's taxes reducing how much is being consumed, it is uncertain if it's changing the consumers' choices of unhealthy drinking choices. It is undeniable that gauging every singe persons drinking and health choices will prove difficult based solely on the taxing of sugary beverages, especially with the idea of multiple variables having an influence on the drinking habits of every

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.

I honestly believe Cook County should have a soda tax. It is a very poor County given the population desity. Poor physical health is very common in low-income communities.(Four Ways That Poverty Hurts Americans' Long-Term Health.) Given this, an incentive to not buy soda in a County such as Cook seems to make a lot of sense. In my opinion the country should

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

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

People are consuming large amounts of soda in the United states. This increase of soda consumption was significant enough that in 2010 the state of New York proposed to tax soda. The one cent per ounce in taxes was intended to help generate government revenue and to discourage soda consumption but the proposal did not pass (Desantis 2012). The average individual in America consumes 44.7 gallons of carbonated soft drinks in one year (Desantis 2012). If the proposal would have passed the state would have made $5, 721.60 in revenue per soda drinker. The increase of soda consumption continuing to rise, there has also been an increase of type two diabetes diagnosis in America. It is projected that 552 million people will be diagnosed with diabetes by 2030 (Harris, Oldmeadow, Hure, Luu, Loxton, & Attia 2017).

The government believes by cutting back the soda Americans will be less likely to get diabetes and hart problems. The government dose not understand that people will continue to buy fating

In 2010 alone sugary- drink consumption killed almost 200,000 people. Despite it being so detrimental to health, Soda is the most popular beverage in the US and makes up almost thirty percent of all beverages consumed annually. The average person drinks over six thousand ounces of soda each year Soda consumption has been directly linked to diseases such as cancer, diabetes, and obesity. It is time for us to take action and place a “junk food” tax on soft drinks to discourage people from purchasing them. . Some people believe that a soda ban would limit personal freedom, which they believe is essential in a democracy, and past proposals was rejected because of this. However, soda is taking many lives, and it is time for us to take action; we need to make our world a happier, healthier place.