Class-links

• The blog regarding the Expression of Anti-Muslim Feelings in the U.S. explores the trends in society. It discusses current issues such as the Quran burning incident and the Ground Zero mosque debate to prove the existence of these negative feelings.  Personal experiences and beliefs enhance the arguments of the blog because the writer has both experienced and witnessed anti-Muslim feelings. The use of videos and a poll make the blog interactive and fun to follow.

• The Holy War is a topic that I, as a Christian, should be interested in. Prior to the blog project, I had barely any knowledge on this issue which is hard to believe because the war has been going on long enough now. Now that I have been following this blog, I have acquired information from the author and although I had no opinion to change in the first place, I now have a stance. It was interesting to see how the opinion of the author changed over the month of intense research he pursued.

• The Illegal Immigration Issues blog was also an interesting find. The beginning of the blog introduced the history of illegal immigration and provided a lot of statistics regarding the number or people crossing the border and things of that sort. It offers a realistic view on the subject- it most likely will not be resolved in the near future although the writer argues something needs to be done soon.

Links

Food democracy provides statistics involving soft drinks, ranging from obesity to consumption to revenue generated.

Pediatrics displays the outcome of a study that researched the effects of decreasing soda consumption which proves that SSBs do affect health.

The New York Academy of Medicine is leading a petition to impose the SSB tax, which is supported by hundreds of other organizations and citizens. They bluntly list their evidence that supports their argument.

This eclectic research brief provides evidence that SSBs are a trigger for unhealthiness and delves into the promising outcome of imposing a tax.

Target Population shows the potential correlation between the efficiency of cigarette tax and an SSB tax.

Dairy Makes Sense proves there are healthier and cheaper options than soda such as milk or water.

Wikipedia’s definition of excise and state taxes differentiated the two to allow further understanding of the SSB tax.

Economists present an unbiased approach of analyzing all aspects of the SSB tax.

Politicians currently running for office smartly refuse to acknowledge their support for the SSB tax.

Bellows and Roach explain how the nutritional choices made directly affect health not only weight-wise.

Lack of discussion

Although the SSB tax has not been directly addressed in the media as much as other issues, I believe the tax has stirred up a big discussion politically. Behind the scenes, there are politicians that are both for and against the tax. However, there are not a lot of politicians running for the upcoming elections openly supporting the tax. Politicians are smart enough to not campaign for the SSB tax because they know they won’t be elected if they plan to impose an additional tax. Americans feel as if we are being taxed to death.

Politicians currently in office, such as Governor Robertson in New York, play a bigger role in the support of the tax. Interestingly enough, he is not running for the upcoming elections. Kirstin Gillibrand is a supporter of fighting childhood obesity and programs advocating healthier lifestyles. It is very likely that she will fight for an SSB tax if she gets elected. However, she is currently remaining neutral on the subject. The other person running for Governor in New York, Chuck Schumer, refuses to comment on the tax. I find this interesting because it reinforces my idea that politicians always have plans that aren’t mentioned before they get elected. They only want to stand for things they know will get them elected by citizens. An SSB tax is just another tax, which is something all Americans do not want.

Self-analysis

Before completing this blog, my stance on the taxation of SSBs was biased because I have not consumed an SSB in a while- I can’t even recall when the last time was. I haven’t consumed SSBs for years because I knew they were unhealthy and the taste wasn’t always desirable. I solely drink milk and water.  Now that I have been thoroughly researching this topic for about a month, I have found evidence to enhance my support of reducing the consumption of SSBs and also sufficient reasons to tax SSBs. I examined the implications of consuming SSBs such as obesity and the struggle of the government to pay for healthcare.  I came to the conclusion that although taxation is something undesirable, this tax would change the dynamics of our country in a beneficial way. Primarily I thought the tax would just decrease consumption. The more websites I visited, the more I read about the impact taxes can have. Tax would bring in sufficient revenue for the government. The generated revenue could be used for educational programs to reduce childhood obesity or healthcare. Following the example of the cigarette tax, the SSB tax would be just as successful. The nutritional value of SSBs is just as empty as a pack of cigarettes. Researching has also broadened my knowledge of the difference between excise and state taxes. Excise taxes are taxes on the production of goods while state taxes are taxes imposed when a consumer purchases products. The issue of taxing SSBs is more complex than I originally thought. The analysis post forced me to explore the opposing side. Although avid drinkers of SSBs make arguments against the tax, they are just as biased as mine and sometimes not as logical because their lives revolve around the consumption of sugary drinks to make it through the day. If they researched as thoroughly as I have, their opinions and choices would perhaps be impacted.

political cartoon

http://www.politicalcartoons.com/cartoon/f7f7552f-7320-4443-931b-93c3d50abe03.html 

Implications

There are both positives and negatives to the taxing of SSBs.  The consequences of putting in place an SSB tax would benefit us more than the current situation is benefitting us. If the issue of SSB taxation remains unresolved, I am sure the government will find other means of taxing us. The consumption of SSBs will either remain constant with the current rates or even continue to increase.  The health of Americans overall will not improve since the rates of consumption will be unaltered. Therefore, the amount the government is paying for healthcare for those with diabetes and heart problems associated to obesity will also be just as high as it is currently.

Resolving the Issue of SSB Taxation

My proposition to resolve the debate over the SSB tax issue is to allow the local governments to make a decision whether or not they want an SSB excise tax. Since this is the lowest level of government, they have the most direct control over its citizens. They can look at the specific statistics of their area and decide if the health and financial stance needs assistance or not. The federal government should not impose a nationwide tax; however, they should encourage state governments to make a decision on whether or not they want to impose an additional excise tax.

State governments can impose excise taxes in order to assist both health crises and financial crises. 46 states have faced budget shortfalls in 2010. If states imposed an excise tax, their budget deficits would shrink. State governments can then use this money to get out of the millions 2010 marks the largest state budget shortfalls in history. Since states already have state taxes and/or small excise taxes, they might want to reconsider the amount of taxation and may decide to raise the amount of excise tax.

Excise Tax vs. State Tax

The SSB tax would be an excise tax .Excise taxes can be present at all levels of government: local, state, and federal.  State taxes, unlike excise taxes, are imposed upon the customer when they purchase from a product and are generally a fraction of the total price. Excise taxes are taxes on goods produced for sale and are heftier than state taxes. Since the producers and sellers are being taxed, they will raise their prices when the consumers purchase their products. The new tax would be very efficient because the state tax will still be present, along with the new excise tax.

The revenue from the excise tax would go directly to the hands of the government. This is where many people have a problem. The government generally is not resourceful with tax money. Many question whether or not the revenue will actually benefit us. The government is supposed to use the money for educational programs to help fight obesity and other programs that are similar.

Revenue calculator

Visit this website and you can calculate the potential revenue generated by a city, state, or nation from a tax on SSBs.

Election 2010- NY

The SSB tax is being the most debated in the state of New York. Their current governor, Governor Paterson, has taken initiative in trying to implement the tax. He is a member of the Democratic Party. It is good news to the New Yorkers that are against the tax that he is not returning to the NY government this round of elections.

With the election coming in the next few weeks, I will am curious to see which politicians oppose or support the tax. Kirsten Gillibrand and Chuck Schumer are the two Democratic incumbents. Gillibrand is a notorious supporter of encouraging better eating habits, especially those of children. She has two young kids and does not have soda in her house. However, she does not fully support the Governor’s current push to bar SSBs from being purchased with food stamps. She would prefer different means of decreasing consumption. Charles Schumer did not comment when questioned on the efforts of Governor Paterson to decrease the consumption of SSBs.

Many complain that Democrats have policies that are too involved with Americans’ lives. New Yorkers should be worried that although the excise tax may not be implemented soon, there may be changes made at the state level that will involve an anti-SSB movement.

Analysis Post

The SSB tax has historically been a sales tax implemented by the states. Currently, 33 states have sales taxes on soft drinks, but the taxes are too small to affect consumption. The average sales tax is a mere 5.2%.  The revenues are not earmarked for programs related to health. A recent debate has risen over whether or not a new tax should be tacked on top of the state’s sales taxes due to a concern of the health of Americans. The tax would be an excise tax of a penny per ounce. In Alaska alone, that would produce over 33 million dollars in tax money annually.  The tax money would belong to the government in which they plan to spend the yield on health care reform for low income Americans, healthy food options for the poor, as well as educating the public with an aim on children. 

The debate is specifically intense in New York, a state with an atrocious obesity rate of over 60% among adults. Heavy state-wide campaigning, including this vicious video, has been taking place to reduce the amount of consumption and raise awareness and support of the possible new tax.  However, many Yankees believe that the government is solely wasting away money that could be spent on something more important. . They insist their drinking habits will be consistent with their current rates of consumption. In their opinion, the government should not intervene because it is not in their power to control what Americans drink or the amount of what they drink. The SSB tax is expected to be as successful as the cigarette tax that was recently imposed. Although the chances of success are high, it ethically may be the wrong thing for the government to have this much control on people’s lives. Thomas Briant, the executive director of the National Association of Tobacco Outlets, agrees. He says, “using taxes to legislate use of a legal product is not a good policy.”  

The tax would also lead to a loss of revenue for all the businesses involved in sugar sweetened beverage production and selling. The aim of the tax is to reduce the demand for SSBs, which will increase the supply.  To counter the increased supply, production of SSBs will decrease. This means not as many bottles or ingredients will be needed. Bottling producers and the companies that supply the ingredients will face a deficit as well since their products will no longer be needed as much as they were before the introduction of the tax.  The stores that sell SSBs will also suffer from the tax since not as many people will be expending money to purchase the drinks. The tax would potentially harm the economy and result in a few job cuts and revenue loss for companies.

With elections rapidly approaching, it could be the answer to these citizens’ prayers that their Governor Paterson is not running again. However, to the dismay of many Americans that religiously consume sugar sweetened beverages, the tax idea proposed by Paterson in January 2010 has already made it to the 2010-2011 Executive Budget.

The trend of consumption of SSBs has been increasing since the introduction of soda to society in the late 19^th century.  Scientists and researchers have been studying the impact of SSBs on its consumers. They’ve found that consumption of sugar sweetened beverages is a major contributor to obesity. The amount of calories consumed by drinking 12 ounces of soda a day can increase a person’s weight by 15 pounds a year.   Obesity is associated with life threatening conditions such as heart disease, diabetes, high blood pressure and cancer. The strong link between the SSBs and obesity gives the government reason to worry. New Yorkers alone spend an estimated $7.6 billion annually to treat obesity related health care costs.

Seemingly the only way to curb the appetite of Americans and cost of health care is to incorporate an SSB tax. A tax would provide a financial incentive for people to change their behavior. Public education campaigns are rarely effective in changing behavior.  Although most people know that drinking sodas aren’t a healthy choice, they still consume them. An effective public awareness campaign to discourage soda consumption would be quite expensive. An SSB tax would encourage people to make healthier choices in the same way the tobacco tax discouraged people from smoking.

With regards to economic issues, there is already a sales tax on foods and beverages with low nutritional value such as soda and candy.  Since the proposed tax doesn’t prohibit people from buying SSBs, it is the choice of the person to choose what they buy. They can buy fewer SSBs and save money and improve their health since water and low-fat milk isn’t taxed.  The tax is expected to cause a change in SSB consumption, somewhere around a 10-15% reduction. These values would not cause a significant decrease in production or significant amount of lay-offs. Some people will replace SSBs with alternative beverages which might be produced by the same company. There may be an increase in demand for healthier beverages such as water and unsweetened iced tea which would partially compensate for the reduced demand for SSBs.

Effectiveness of SSB taxing

There are doubts as to whether or not the implementation of SSB taxing would affect the overall consumption. Some people assert that they will be unscathed by the tax and it will have no impact on how much they drink. I believe the patterns of consumption due to an SSB tax will follow those of the cigarette tax. Once a tax was instilled per pack of cigarettes, the rate at which consumers purchased them declined sharply. The pattern of decreased consumption should hold true with SSBs as well. The tax would be one cent per ounce which is fairly hefty. That would lead to an increase of 68 cents per two liter bottle, a 12 cent increase for a can, and $1.44 increase for a 12 pack of cans. With the current condition of the economy, the amount of people that will be able to continue purchasing these beverages at these prices will not stay consistent with the amount of people purchasing them currently pre-tax.

We should follow the road the cigarette tax took because SSBs are just as unhealthy as cigarettes and pose an equal threat. The benefits from the tax will also be used in a way to help society, as did the cigarette tax.

SSB economic impact

Some argue that SSB taxes would affect the economy in a negative fashion. They assert that the reduction of consumption of SSBs would lead to job cuts in the industry of SSB production and loss of revenue for the companies. The smaller the demand for SSBs is, the smaller the supply needs to be produced. Therefore, jobs will be cut. However, an excise tax on SSBs would aid in the prevention of obesity. I recently discussed the health implications of SSB on the health of its consumers and the effects such as heart disease and type 2 diabetes. In New York alone, these health issues cost the state an estimated $7.6 billion yearly. This amount does not compare to the amount of revenue that would be lost if the SSB tax was imposed.  Contrary to popular belief, reducing the circulation of SSBs would actually benefit the economy.

Calculate our own BMI!

By calculating your BMI, you're able to see how your weight compares to that of the rest of the population that are the same age and gender.

Childhood obesity and SSB

While the many other motivational ways of making our country healthier are not working, this may be the push we are looking for. Free gym memberships, weight loss supplements and diets, and plastic surgeries are all not the answer to the obesity problem we face. Ethically, the SSB tax is the correct move for our country.  We cannot keep living with the same unhealthy habits we have recently acquired. Since we are unable to take care of our own health, someone needs to for the sake of our future generations. As the Center for Disease Control reports, in the last 30 years, childhood obesity has more than tripled. Although the reasons of this threefold increase has many causes, such as lack of exercise, there is no doubt a major role player in the addition of weight is due to the bad dietary behaviors of American children. What would the future of America be if we continue to disregard this epidemic of obesity? According to Bellows and Roach, health complications associated with childhood obesity such as cardiovascular disease (CVD), including high blood pressure, high cholesterol, dyslipidemia, and type 2diabetes will plague our children. Additional health complications associated with overweight children include sleep apnea, asthma, and liver damage. Further, overweight children and adolescents are more likely to become obese adults. For example, one study found that approximately 80 percent of children who were overweight at 10 to 15 years old were obese at 25. That statistic is flabbergasting and unacceptable. Having a generation of children that have a cloudy future due to obesity is totally preventable, and it must be prevented. It isn’t fair if we keep allowing our children to consume the amount of calories they are presently. Scientific studies produced by the American Academy of Pediatrics have proven that decreased consumption of SSBs leads to decreased body weight in adolescents. We must prevent them in some way from drinking SSBs since they are a source of the trouble.

Should the government get involved?

Just had a rigorous workout? Grab a Gatorade. Just pulled an all-nighter studying for that midterm? Grab a Monster. Just sat down to watch the new Jersey Shore? Grab a Dr. Pepper. These beverages that are currently the answer are now being questioned. Some politicians and other influential groups are pushing for Sugar Sweetened Beverage taxes or SSB for short. SSBs include carbonated sodas, sweet teas, energy drinks, flavored water, and sports drinks.

The consumption of SSBs in America is astounding. Every year, 13.15 billion gallons of carbonated drinks are devoured... and that is only soda! It has detrimentally impacted the health of our country as a whole. I believe government intervention is needed in this situation because attempts to educate the public have not relieved America’s addiction. It is the government’s role to be concerned about the health and wellbeing of its citizens. The population is already overwhelmingly obese and overweight. The numbers keep climbing and something must be implemented to stop the growth of our waistlines. We can’t do this alone and action must be taken now before matters get worse.