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.
what if instead of exercising a tax on the bottling companys that would be affected by an SSB tax we simply made a law that every American had to run 10mil a week. Just think of the revenue that could be saved by this simple law well over $7.6 billion from obesity but respiratory functions as well. This way we could save revenue from job loss too. No I hate to say but as an economics major this simply isn't a well thought out plan to generate economic growth. Growth is generated by jobs, like those offered by Pepsi and Coke. Additional government revenue would undoubtedly be squandered some where else if not on obesity. Furthermore you neglected to remember that government revenue comes from taxes paid from corporations and working citizens so any profit made by the new tax would simply be a replacement of the profit lost of corporate supported tax.
ReplyDeleteThis option is simply not feasible. Americans have no time to exercise- we are always on the run as it is. It would be nice if we could enforce people to exercise because that would lead to a healthier America. However, in reality since we have no time to exercise, we must do other things such as eat healthier.
ReplyDelete