Please read the following article and then answer the questions below:
- What is your view on this particular tax? Is taxing sugary drinks a viable solution to help end obesity?
- Look carefully at paragraph four; there is lots of juicy economics in that little passage. Based on what you read, is soda an elastic or inelastic good? Explain.
- What do you think of the beverage lobby's argument against the tax? Is this tax regressive (i.e. hurts the poor more than the rich?) Does that matter when it comes to taxes?
- Are these "sin taxes" morally correct? Is it okay for the government to use taxes to "nudge" us to proper behavior?
The first post for this blog question is due by midnight on Saturday, October 22nd. The second post is due by midnight on Sunday, October 30th (spoooooooky!).
26 comments:
I'm never a fan of being taxed more for anything but this one doesn't seem too steep: only three cents.
I highly doubt that this tax will make any sort of microscopic impact on obesity in America because, as the article notes, only poor Americans will be affected; soda is an inferior good so they might as well just raise taxes on the poor. I'm also tired of the government trying to force us to do things they consider healthy or right. It's extremely un-American.
Based on the reading, which implies that soda sales will stay consistent, I would say that soda is an inelastic good.
As I stated earlier, I think the soda companies are right in that this is a regressive tax. I guess that technically, since the good is inelastic, the fact that it's regressive won't matter economically but it's not right to just tax everything that poor people buy and nothing that the rich buy.
There is nothing that says these taxes are morally correct. If anything, they are morally incorrect because they discourage people from making their own decisions and take more money from the poor than anyone else (also un-American).
I don't think that the government should "nudge" people towards what they think is proper behavior because this country is supposed to be about freedom of choice.
I cant say I really have a view on this tax, because it just doesn't affect me. I hardly ever drink soda so I really don't care if they tax it. Overall though, I don't think a 3 cent tax is too terrible, but for families that consume a lot of soda (which is quite a few families) it could really start to add up.
I dont really think it is a viable solution to solve obesity? I mean really, taxing soda is not going to work the wonders they think it might. They have a tax on alcohol, but do people still buy just as much? Yeah, probably, so people may cut back on soda, but they people that buy it frequently probably aren't going to change their buying habits.
Based on the reading, I believe soda is a pretty inelastic good because even though the price was raised from the tax, as stated in the article, it would not lower consumption. I agree with what the lobby's said; it will just cause problems for the poor families and would not change unhealthy habits of families. The tax is regressive, so it hurts the poor more, but I don't think that matters to the ones imposing the tax, as long as they get their money. But it could hurt the economy even more, because if poor families are taking the hit, they have even less money and they're the ones that drive the economy. These sin taxes aren't morally correct at all. I really don't think its the government's place to "nudge" me to their opinion of a "proper behavior."
Since when is it the governments job to try and keep me from drinking soda or my parents from drinking alcohol. That is definitively just not right to me. Just step off, government, go try and be useful.
Taxes are never viewed particularly beneficial to individuals who want a certain product or produce the actual product. I find that when I am in a store, prices are a large impact on whether or not I buy a product. Yet, this tax is very small, so I probably would not even notice the price change on soda. I am a water drinker anyways. I do notice the price changes within different brands of water, so I always buy the cheapest for the amount of product sold. I don’t believe that this three cent tax would have a huge impact on consumer rates. Taxing sugary drinks would minimize people who buy these products, but it is not certain that it would reduce obesity. Those who love their Coke or Pepsi products most likely will not stop buying it because of a small increase in price.
As the article illustrates, soda is a rather inelastic good. Consumption only lowered about one percent. That’s nothing. Those who would stop buying the drinks would probably be those who don’t value them as much as other consumers. They gain less “warm fuzzies” from a Coke than another buyer would.
I assume that this tax is regressive because the poor are going to react more to a small increase in price because they tend to have to watch their spending anyways. A small increase in price may make them unable to afford sugary drinks. Taxes that are regressive matter when the product is essential to life. Coke is not essential to a person’s life, so for this scenario, I would say that the tax does not matter.
I don’t believe this tax to be particularly morally corrupt. They are not taxing drinks out of spite. They are trying to collect money towards health care, something we all need. An interesting view would be that this tax could actually raise consumer rates. If people knew their money was going towards health care, they may not be so negative about the higher prices. If the tax was uncalled for, I would say that the government has no authority to give such taxes, but this tax is very small. It is good that the government values our wellbeing. They also need to allow people to make decisions on their own. It is not the government’s responsibility to monitor everyone’s health, when it is induced by the person. We are responsible for our own health.
I think this tax would be fairly effective. For one, it is a possible solution to major problems in America: bad health and national debt. I don't think it would change the intake of soda in America at all. I don't think 3 cents will be the difference between somebody buying a soda or not. Based on the article, soda appears to be elastic for the rich and inelastic for the poor. This makes soda seem like an inferior good because as income increases, quantity decreases. I agree with the argument of the beverage lobby. Although the tax will increase revenue, I don't think it will solve these other problems including obesity. I don't think the tax will hurt the poor more than the rich. A 3 cent tax isnt't big enough to cause that. But, I think that it does matter who is affected by the tax more. Its not fair to tax the poor more, especiially if it is an inelastic good for the poor. Lastly, in this case I think it is OK to have sin taxes. Obesity is a major problem in this country that is seriously effecting the price of health care, which is a burden for everybody.
Obviously no one wants to be taxed so there is always some sort of argument to why or why not a tax should be passed. This tax is said to help lower the obesity epidemic in America but according to the article consumption will roughly stay the same. This is why the good is fairly inelastic. Even though there was a price increase the overall quantity demanded for the soda and soft drinks stayed the same. According to the article the tax will hurt the poor much more than the rich. Technically soda then is a good item to tax but the moral issues start to pop up, the idea that the tax will be taking away money from those who need it the most. I personally believe that people should make their own choices and that the government needs to stop controlling people in small ways. America is supposed to be the land of the free so let those who have chosen to live in America be free and make their own choices.
I’m not going to lie – I absolutely love soda. Granted, I don’t love it as much as that fat dude in Supersize Me who drank two gallons a day, blinded himself with sugar, and nearly ended up in a diabetic coma, but clearly I’m on my way.
That’s why I think this “sin” tax on soft drinks is, essentially, a good idea. Face it, America, you are one of the fattest countries on Earth. On average, nationally, more than half of U.S. adults aren’t just overweight, they’re obese, and rates of diabetes have risen so rapidly in the past decade that eight percent of the entire American population is afflicted with the condition.
A measly three cents seems like a big deal? Consider the tax on cigarettes; in 2009 cigarette prices increased by 13% and sales, in turn, decreased by more than ten. The elasticity of cigarettes can, in my opinion, be compared to that of soft drinks. Both are highly addictive, so much so that “users” of these products frequently wind up dead or permanently disabled – as with obesity, diabetes, or lung cancer. Therefore, this could mean that a tax would make absolutely no difference in terms of soft drink sales, though it certainly did with cigarettes. But the article states that a simple three cent tax is predicted to lower consumption by nearly one percent; take into account the amount of people buying and consuming soft drinks in this country, and that one percent starts looking a whole lot sweeter.
On the other hand and regardless of health concerns, America could use a little extra revenue on the side, even if we are exploiting those supple citizens who can’t seem to let go of their Mountain Dews. We’re in a recession here, guys. Please, by all means, continue to fuel the dragging economy by paying three more cents per can of your trusty carbonated syrup!
But in all seriousness, there is a great concern when it comes to linking soft drinks with socioeconomic class. Studies have shown that families and citizens with lower income rates are more likely have unhealthy diets that would include soft drinks. Therefore, some people say that imposing a “sin” tax on soft drinks would actually hurt the poor folks at the lower end of the food chain before it would have any beneficial impact on obesity rates. However, one of the more important aspects of a tax like this one is that fact that it actually raises revenue, which could then put to good use by way of socially beneficial welfare programs or other initiatives that would counteract the supposed regressive qualities of “sin” taxes.
Now, I’m not saying it’s up to the big, bad government to tell us what we can and cannot eat, drink, or smoke; believe me, I fully support a person’s personal freedom to pick his or her poison. But this is the real world, and while our bodies keep getting bigger and bigger, it seems that our IQs are doing the opposite, and maybe some people do need that little nudge in the right direction. These taxes are by no means a perfect solution for any problem, whether it be excessive drinking, smoking, soda-chugging, et cetera, but they do make sense in terms of making some extra money, and that’s all anybody wants anymore isn’t it?
I don't have a problem with this tax. I believe that this is tax will reduce obesity because people will be less likely to by these high calorie sugared drinks because it be too expensive. Soda is a inelastic good because no matter how high the tax, people will still buy the same amount of soda. This tax will hurt the poor more than the rich because the poor can not afford the extra money being tacked onto the soda. The fact that soda is an inelastic good and people would buy it no matter what the cost, the fact that soda is regressive doesn't matter because the poor will buy it anyway. I believe these son taxes are morally correct because you do not need soda to survive. You can drink water. The government shouldn't nudge you to eat a certain way; this is a free country and you should be able to eat the way you want to; healthy or unhealthy. .
I think this is some non taxable lame sauce. People will still be fat whether they pay three cents more for the indulgence that is increasing their body fat composition at an exponential rate or not. Soda is an inelastic good. The government will make a killing off of the tax because overweight consumers will always buy soda, or maybe just the average American will put up with typical government horse feces as we've become a costumed to. Three cents of a tax isn't a steep price to pay, but it will be aimed at the poor. Rich people aren't drinking coke at parties, they usually just snort lines of it. Which I might say, is much more expansive and exclusive than a soft drink beverage. Taxes aren't supposed to cripple anyone in society, they are supposed to benefit us in their own sick, demented, twisted ways. Quite frankly, all the government does is nudge us into the cookie cutter, equilibrium society in which we submit to the maniacal whims of the dictatorship without discontent.
No one ever really wants to be taxed, but if we want to maintain our lifestyle as Americans taxes are necessary. As for this particular tax, I think it is a good way to raise money that our country desperately needs. So many people buy soda, that the tax will quickly raise a large amount of money. It may deter some from buying as much soda as they would have without the three cent increase, but I don't think the drop will be enough to significantly impact the huge soda companies. I don't think that this tax will have much of an impact on obesity either. The number of people who would decrease the amount of soda they drink would be relatively small. Also, soda is only one factor contributing to obesity in America and cannot be seen as the only problem. Based on the article, I would say that soda is a fairly inelastic good. The amount of soda consumed is likely to stay close to the same despite this increase in price. The tax would mostly affect the poor, like the beverage lobby says. Soda is easily accessed and is often inexpensive, making it a popular choice in poorer communities. However, I think the tax is still viable. Rich people drink soda too, so the tax would be felt by everyone. Soda is a viable good to tax because it is so widely consumed, not because it is unhealthy. The federal government does not have a place in deciding what is consumed most by Americans. We, as citizens of this country, have the right to make our own decisions without government intervention. Taxes should be placed on goods that are widely consumed, bring in a large revenue, or are relatively inelastic, not goods that the government deems inappropriate.
I say tax away! Soda is terrible for you. The tax should be even higher than three cents because soda is not a necessity by any means. Water is free and much healthier, so there should be no argument for those who say that a soda tax would harm the poor. Maybe three cents won’t make a huge difference in reducing obesity, but a larger tax will definitely make an impact. It would encourage people to buy less soda, which could lower revenue depending on how elastic soda is, but as a result people would be drinking less soda and more water, milk, and juice.
According to paragraph four, soda is relatively inelastic because each additional penny added to the tax only reduces consumption by one percent. Each penny of tax produces a significant profit.
I disagree with the lobbyist’s argument against the tax. The tax would hurt the poor just enough to teach them to drink water which is much more healthy and spend their budget that they would have spent on soda instead on juice or milk.
This sin tax is not sinful at all. The government needs to do everything in its power to reduce the obesity rate that is getting out of control.
I'm against the tax mostly as a matter of principle. The federal government shouldn't be trying to control our consumption of legal substances (especially when the substance is only potentially harmful if consumed in extreme excess), through taxation or otherwise. The reasoning behind the tax is also shallow and obviously flawed. Soft drink consumption is only linked to obesity because fat people like sugary drinks. High sugar intake alone won't make someone gain weight, it's just an indicator of bad dietary habits, and obese people obviously won't switch to water just because of a 3 cent tax. Soda and energy drink prices are also too damn high already.
Based on paragraph 4, soda is fairly inelastic because it states that a one cent increase in price (over 1% considering most 12oz sodas cost less than $1) will cause a 1% decrease in quantity demanded. In reality though, it is much more inelastic than that, especially in the short run and with such a small increase in price.
I agree with the beverage lobby's argument. The tax is regressive because soda consumption is likely much higher among the poor than among the rich, who probably prefer non-sugary drinks such as Perrier, Champagne, 100+ year-old wine, liquid gold, ect.
Sin taxes aren't okay simply because this is the United States, and therefore, the federal government controlling any aspect of peoples' lives is against our beliefs on the extent of the government's power. The tax is obviously just an attempt to sneak some money from Americans, using the weak health arguments to gain support. I would be more comfortable with sin taxes from the state government because the reasoning would most likely be more sincere and because the money would go to local projects instead of just funding Obama's stupidly expensive ideas.
This tax wouldn't affect me very much because I usually don't drink soda, most of the time I only order it at a restaurant. My family tends to drink more soda than I do, so it would affect them more. I think that this tax is so small that it won't affect how much soda people buy, the only way it would cause people to buy less would be if the tax was a lot higher. I'm don't think using "sin taxes" is morally correct because it is intentionally manipulating people, but in this case it is trying to get the population healthier.
Ermmmm... My stupid android won't let me view the article, so this entire response is going to be a massive shot in the dark. So. Soda. Well, I think I drink it, what, maybe five times a year? Give or take. This tax I suppose had been placed on the abominable drink will most likely have little to no effect on me. If it were being placed on something like, I don't know, corn, then I would be highly affected because I eat this delicacy quite often. I don't think that this is going to curb obese habits or anything. If they want to curb obesity, they should regulate the food business more. And by they, I mean the government. The man. Whatever. I think soda will prove inelastic, because caffeine and sugar and just plain bad habit are addictive. I think any tax that focuses on non-luxury items is recessive because the poor had less money to spend in the first place than the rich do. Sin taxes are neither good nor bad when it comes to morals. They are purely economics, purely business.
This tax would be very effective in regards to raising government revenue, however, I do not think it would be useful in stopping one of America's largest problems: obesity. People who drink enough soda and other drinks to be effected by the tax are obviously not going to stop buying these sugary drinks. it is a somewhat addictive substance because of the caffeine and sugar in it. Some people may decrease the amount of these drinks that they buy, but i think that the amount of revenue would not be affected largely in the long run.
Soda and other goods are, therefore, an inelastic good. As it said in the reading, only one percent of consumption would disappear if the tax were implemented. This shows that people will still buy the same amount of sugary drinks if the price is increased.
Saying that soda is a regressive tax is a viable argument. Poor Americans drink more soda than wealthy people. Also, as the article said, consumption will not change. I do think this matters, but I don't think the tax is "wrong". There should be a similar good targeted to wealthy people that is being taxed as well.
I think these "sin taxes" are morally correct. it is the peoples choice whether they drink soda or not. They could also drink diet soda, which would not be affected by this tax, but has the same effects. As I stated before, I don't think the people who consistently consume sugary drinks are going to change their behaviors based on a three cent tax, but I also think that there is no problem with the government attempting to make people make healthier choices. If this will make people choose water over sugary drinks and create tax revenue, while still giving people options, why not implement this tax?
I believe that this tax will not effectively change the habits of any Americans, in other words it won't effect obesity, and will never pass. Soda, like cigarettes, will retain a high rate of consumption among its regular drinkers (most Americans) because hey...the stuff is good. I believe that soda is a fairly inelastic good because raising the tax on it would only reduce consumption by about 1% per penny. On a 3-cent tax, the consumption, that is demand, only decreases by 3%. I would be inclined to agree with the beverage lobby's argument that the tax would be regressive. I mean think about it...people who are wealthier drink Perrier and Fiji Water. What does that leave poor people? Soda. I think sin taxes in some cases such as with cigarettes and alcohol are morally correct, but for the governement to try to influence my consumption habits of something that is not addictive is too intrusive.
I believe that this tax will not effectively change the habits of any Americans, in other words it won't effect obesity, and will never pass. Soda, like cigarettes, will retain a high rate of consumption among its regular drinkers (most Americans) because hey...the stuff is good. I believe that soda is a fairly inelastic good because raising the tax on it would only reduce consumption by about 1% per penny. On a 3-cent tax, the consumption, that is demand, only decreases by 3%. I would be inclined to agree with the beverage lobby's argument that the tax would be regressive. I mean think about it...people who are wealthier drink Perrier and Fiji Water. What does that leave poor people? Soda. I think sin taxes in some cases such as with cigarettes and alcohol are morally correct, but for the governement to try to influence my consumption habits of something that is not addictive is too intrusive.
An extra three cents for a soda is not very much. If adding three cents to every soda sold raises billions of dollars for something like healthcare, I am happy to pay an extra three cents. I don't think however that an extra three cents will deter Americans too much from drinking soda. Three cents extra on a soda is not enough to end obesity in America and if people believe that then they are crazy. I think that this shows that soda is an inelastic good. If the amount consumed will only decrease by 1% with the tax and the government will make $1.5 billion annually, it would be an easy way for the government to make money. Sin taxes are inelastic goods that people will continue to consume even if the price goes up and I believe that people will always drink soda. The beverage's lobby argument against this tax seems a bit ridiculous. They make it seem like soda is something that people need and if poorer people cannot afford it then it is going to "hit poor Americans hardest." Well gee, I didn't realize that drinking soda was such an important part of life. If the industry truly believes that it will discourage poorer people to buy soda maybe it will become a national trend a soda consumption and obesity WILL actually fall. Soda is not a necessary good and should not be treated as so by the industry. I do not think that people should be left out of healthcare due to lack of funds because people didn't want to pay three extra cents for a soda. If we are being realistic, those same poor Americans that will not be able to pay those three extra cents are probably the same Americans that would benefit most by having free healthcare. I think that they would rather have the healthcare personally; I know I would. I am unsure of my opinion of whether "sin taxes" are "morally correct." Do I think the government should tax people on these items? Definitely. Do I think that the government should tell me what I should or should not do? Depends on the case. I believe that there is a reason we have a representative government. I sure as heck wouldn't want to make all of the decisions made in our country today and that is why we vote for people to do it for us. I do also think that there is a difference between a three cent tax on soda and choosing if something is legal or not such as marriage, marijuana, or abortion. So should the government tax on inelastic, popular yet not really "necessary" goods? Yes, most definitely. Tell us what is right and wrong? Not so much.
I don't feel that this small tax on sugary drinks will really cause that big of an impact on the level of consumption. Not only that, but it definitely isn't a viable solution to end obesity. There are so many other goods that contribute to obesity and other health related issues much more than those sugary drinks do.
Based on the 4th paragraph of the article, soda is an elastic good. This is because the demand can be changed by the price. The demand will rise or fall based upon the price rising and falling.
I do think it would hurt the poor more than the rich because the rich aren't really hurt at all by a 3 cent increase in beverages. Poor people however are paying closer attention to that one penny. Also, I don't believe this small tax will really make people stop drinking sugary drinks even if they are poor. So as they continue to drink it those pennies will add up.
I don't really think that "sin taxes" are immoral, I more so think that they are pointless. I don't think the "sin taxes" will stop people from using that product, so it is just making people poorer on a good they will continue to buy. For example, a drug addict will go out and spend their last dollar on their drug of choice. Basically, what I'm saying is if a person wants it, he/she will get it regardless of the price as part of human nature. As I already stated, I don't think it's wrong to attempt at using taxes to dissuade people's purchases, I just think it's pointless because it won't really ever work how they expect, or want it to.
I think this tax is a good idea, but it is only a part of the solution to end obesity. I think people who want to buy the drinks will continue to do so because it is only 3 cents and that isn't going to change lifestyles. Even if the tax doesn't change people's lifestyles, it will at least raise some needed revenue.
Soda, according to the article, is inelastic because even though the price increased, consumption decreased only one percent.
I think they are using that argument so they won't lose business, but they are also partially correct. This tax most likely won't change consumption habits except of those who are poor and will not be able to afford it any more. It is a regressive tax because it hurts the poor more than the rich because that small of a tax increase will not affect the rich. I think it should matter whether it affects mainly the poor because taxes should help raise the overall welfare but not at the expense of the poor. It should be taken into consideration who the tax will affect.
I think the "sin" taxes are morally correct because I am sure that if people don't have a soda or a cigarette, they will be fine and they don't really need it. I don't think it is the government's job to "nudge" people to better lifestyle habits but don't see the harm in the government doing so in this situation.
Late again >:(... I'm horrible at this.
Alright well morally this tax is right. It's going to bring in government revenue while at the same time taxing an "evil" entity. Soda is a clear factor in weight gain, as it doesn't satisfy hunger and it spikes your blood sugar. So I, who am not in great favor of taxes, actually give my approval to this legislator. Realistically though, this isn't going to assuage the obesity epidemic one bit. If soda is only 20 cents higher than water (this is an estimate) that increasing that price by 3%(around 3 cents) most soda consumers aren't even going to notice. Even if the tax was greater, those who are "addicted" and consuming liters and liters of the stuff will still buy it. On the political side, I'd say this is a good bet to help pay for Obama's ONE TRILLION dollar plan, on the grounds that they are at least related.
It seems to me that soda is pretty inelastic. There aren't many substitutions that would be safe from the tax, were it imposed. Like cigarette buyers, these people are addicts. They're going to get their fix and an increase of a meager 3 percent will have a hard time convincing these people to pick up water bottles.
I wouldn't say that it will really hurt many people. I'm also not certain who would be more affected: upper or lower class. I'm going to go with the upper class though, declaring this is not a regressive tax. Soda, unlike water, doesn't come from taps (at least in catonsville) so people have to buy it from the store. If a family has a lower income, they're more likely to be cutting back on excessive spending. Soda has alway benn pricier than water anyway. I guess I can't speak for everyone, but if I needed to cut back, I'd cut back on things that cost more than they're worth. In addition, it's not like poor people are more likely to be dependent on soda. We aren't dealing with narcotics just yet. The Coca Cola rep is of course going to retaliat. If they lose the 1% of consumers predicted, that's ahunge chunck out of her salary and the salaries of her fellow big-wigs. Her excuse that poor people will be hurt is a deflection and her crap about "taxes are not going to teach our children how to have a healthy lifestyle" is grammaticaly incorrect and illogical. Heck yea this is gonna teach 'em. If thing cost more we're gonna buy less; if we buy less we're going to become less dependent on CRAP. Case and point, she's wrong.
Like I said already, I'm not out lobbying for taxes. But the government needs revenue. If they're going to tax, let them tax those who make poor decisions with regards to their health, instead of taxing the pants off of people who make decent money from their middle class white collar career. And yea, the government can also use this as an excuse to teach people a lesson and encourage better behavior. That's about as oppressive as a parent. Anyone that feels he/she is now under facist rule because soda, which is increasing his/her rish for all sorts of health issues, is three cents higher is clearly unable to find serious fault in anything else/ has too much time on their hands.
I don't mind if the tax is passed or not. I barely ever drink soda so it will barely affect me if it is passed. I do not think it will solve obesity though. Even though quantity of demand is expected to go down 10 percent, the people that buy it a lot are still going to have enough money to not worry about a three cent tax. This shows that soda is an inelastic good because the price is going up and yet the companies are only expected to lose one percent and in the long run they are expected to raise money and any time prices are raised and revenue increases, the product is inelastic. I think soda companies should stop lobbying against it because it seems like an almost unnoticed way to raise money. I think it does matter with taxes because if a bunch of people would get together to make sure a tax doesn't happen, it would be less likely to be put into effect. I don't see why this wouldn't be morally correct. Everything else is taxed so why should soda be exempt?
Personally, I think this tax is a great idea. Soda and all those other sugary poisons are a huuuuge reason why everyone in America is fat. The typical fat American will go out to Applebees, order a nice salad, (even though it's probably 800 calories anyway) but go through about 2 Sprites. Assuming the glass holds 20 oz's of Sprite, that person has now consumed 480 extra calories from his or her soft drink alone. While taxing sugary drinks certainly won't wipe out obesity entirely, it will surely make some people think twice about ordering the Sprite. At the same time, it will generate hefty revenue from the people who could care less. According to paragraph 4, soft drinks are just as inelastic as alcohol and cigarettes, so the tax will certainly generate healthy revenue. Honestly, I don't care who this tax hurts more, the poor or the rich, because I believe that no one should be buying sugary drinks anyway. Now the lower class will clearly feel greater affects than the rich, but that's the case with most taxes anyway, and the rich will buy much more soda either way. I do, however, agree with Susan Neely in that a better solution to help hinder our obesity problem is to change drinking habits with kids in schools. And yes, it is definitely okay for the government to save lives by trying to "nudge" Americans away from fat, lazy, worthless lifestyles, and towards healthy, efficient, conscious ones.
I think this would be a great tax. I dont believe that this tax will end obesity, because people are still going to drink soda. I believe soda is failry inelastic because I said earlier people are still going to buy soda. There will be a price at which people will stop buying but for the most part soda is fairly inelastic. She is right that people wont stop buying but it is the consumer who choses to buy the product. I dont believe this tax is regressive; This tax just effects people who drink soda no matter what income level. I dont believe that this is a sin tax because the product is not a necessity. I believe the government has the power to nudge our behavior to a certain extent because there needs to be taxes and why not use them on products that are not physically beneficial.
I hate Soda!!!! I mean i can handle a glass of sprite every once in while or a nice mug of root beer, but so many health problems are associated with the beverage that it is nothing but a burden on our otherwise angelic society. So many people drink it that the product is fairly inelastic. Estimates show that taxing the good could give the state $24 billion in 4 years, so i don't see the problem from taxing it. It gives people incentives to eat and drink healthily and, in all honesty, a 3cent tax really isn't going to put a dent into people's wallets. A tax on a inelastic good allows for producers to keep their surplus with little to no deadweight loss. The only person truly damage by the tax would be the consumer which isn't a problem b/c if your going to tax anything it may as well be a good with more cons than pros. I mean, would you rather the government tax medicine over soda. Something needs to be taxed and it may as well be a tax on poison(a.k.a soda)
I never drink of the corrupted water, for water in its pure state is a beautiful thing; why poison it so? It really is an unnecessary addition to someone's diet. There is no requirement or law that states one must buy the liquid of fizz. People should be responsible enough to just not buy things or indulge in substances that are harmful to well-being. I mean, I can understand that there is an innocent motive in a sin-tax, but decent people would just decide not to indulge, even if the substance were free.
I must say that a 3 cent tax would have no effect on soda sales as soda seems to be a fairly inelastic good. I mean, it is only 3 cents. I don't think most people would even notice that. I am aware that this tax will hurt poor people, but like I said, there is no doctrine that states that poor people have to drink soda. Water comes right from the tap, and if a water filter is bought it is divine. It is pretty much the only drink the body will ever require.
This tax will certainly not put an end to obesity. Healthy diet, exercise, and responsible lifestyle choices will put an end to obesity. People could just not drink soda at all and there would be an incredible boost in overall health.
I think this tax might be a step in the right direction for solving the obesity problem. Since soda shows no health benefits, trying to reduce consumption is a start. A 3 percent tax doesn't sound a lot to me, but for the heavy soda drinkers it could be. Hopefully they realize how much soda they are drinking and reduce their consumption because of this tax.
Based on the reading soda is an inelastic good. I find this hard to believe because they compare soda to two addictive goods. I wouldn't think soda is this addictive that even with heavier taxes consumers would still buy the same amount. Go ahead and tax it there are no benefits from soda.
The tax will probably hurt the poor more than the wealthy because the poor probably consume more soda. But it serves them right don't spend the little money you have on soda. The tax might not be the best way to nudge our behavior, but hey it might work.
Post a Comment