Answered step by step
Verified Expert Solution
Link Copied!

Question

1 Approved Answer

Find TWO peers whom you learned something from and reply to their post letting them know what your takeaway was. Ely 1. I don't think

Find TWO peers whom you learned something from and reply to their post letting them know what your takeaway was.

Ely

1. I don't think an increased soda tax would push me to look for healthier options compared to a lower cost alternative. I already avoid SSBs most of the time, I really only get soda or iced tea if I'm going out to eat, which isn't that often. I mostly drink water and milk, and they're good options to have.

2. I think it is a good way to raise revenue for prevention programs. Programs such as obesity and diabetes education are underfunded, and they desperately need funds, and taxes are a good way to raise funds instead of relying on the generosity of the public to donate. If we want people to cut down on unhealthy consumption, then we need to educate more people.

3. As of now, I don't expect a huge change either way. Taxes on unhealthy products don't really cause people to suddenly put them down. Plenty of people are aware of the dangers of cigarettes, yet still pay high taxes on them because they're addicted. While soda isn't nearly as dangerous as cigarettes, plenty of people are addicted to soda and aren't going to just stop purchasing and drinking it. There are plenty of people who consume more soda than they do water, which is quite concerning. If there is to be a major health change, then I think something bigger than a tax is going to have to be the driving force.

Shantell Miller

Would a soda tax that increased the cost of SSBs compared to a lower cost alternative push you to look for a healthier option? Do you already avoid SSBs? Do you think this is a good way to raise revenue for prevention programs like obesity and diabetes education? No health outcomes are available yet. . .what do you expect to happen? Good/bad/no change? After Most people don't eat or drink healthier because it cost way more in the first place. I don't believe heavier taxes on the non-healthy products is going to make huge difference in its consumption. You also have to take into consideration that Starbucks charges almost 8 to 10 bucks and people still buy it. I don't drink a lot of sugary drinks I like teas and lemonades but I'm diabetic, so I have to watch my consumption. If they lowered the prices of the healthy foods and drinks, I think it would get better results. They don't use the taxes from cigarettes to pay for help stopping smoking programs so what makes me believe they would use these funds any differently. No it's not a good way to raise funds. I think it's going to show some change but not enough to justify the means. People will eat how they want to eat regardless; they will find a way to still consume it. Why is the answer to everything taxes for the government?

Step by Step Solution

There are 3 Steps involved in it

Step: 1

blur-text-image

Get Instant Access to Expert-Tailored Solutions

See step-by-step solutions with expert insights and AI powered tools for academic success

Step: 2

blur-text-image

Step: 3

blur-text-image

Ace Your Homework with AI

Get the answers you need in no time with our AI-driven, step-by-step assistance

Get Started

Recommended Textbook for

Theory-Based Data Analysis For The Social Sciences

Authors: Carol S Aneshensel

2nd Edition

1452287163, 9781452287164

More Books

Students also viewed these Psychology questions