https www youtube com watch v DQQXtqQfMf8 Taxing SSBs is one way of dealing with the negative externality Imagine a world where the US introduced a tax on SSBs such that a 2 liter of soda cost as much as the average six pack of beer or bottle of wine (say, around $7 00) Would you continue to buy soda Why or why not If not, what would you buy instead Do you think the potential health benefits would outweigh the potential costs to businesses What is an alternative way to deal with this negative externality that you think might work better than the tax on SSB MY response 1 Given that there are many factors that we need to consider when we talk about Sugar Sweetened Beverages (SSBs), I think that after all the video has explained, I will continue to buy soda But it is under a restriction of minimality It is simple because I must think about my health but, at the same time answer the call for craving Perhaps once every two weeks 2 Instead of decision making changes after considering various impacts like pricing and other economic and health risks, if I ought to say, 'no to SSBs,' I think the introduction of fresh fruit juice will be the healthiest option in this regard The natural sweetness glucose and no terrible after effects to our immune system Nothing is more exciting than squeezing your own choice of fruit to extract its juice puree If we think of the benefits that it may give us, we can save much from buying highly taxed SSBs 3 As a matter of fact, yes It truly outweighs the cost of any business Now, if we refer to the video, let us focus on the SSBs discussed the higher the tax implemented in a specific item or product, the lesser sales it may be This is because (from my point and observation) of the following reasons There will be a shock in the customers consumers unknowingly why the price seemed to go higher and faster than their wages When companies experience cut offs in their sales, the possibility is that their employees' employment would be at risk Companies must abide by rules and prohibitions about health impacts and externalities to sustain their marketability Therefore, researching would be their resort however, it would cost them much, like resources, time, and monetary allocation I think there is no better way to deal with an externality that tackles health impact on human beings but increasing the tax on products that may cause terrible effects and harms when consumed heavily However, it will be a company's initiative to cope with government regulations in certain areas If sugary beverages are of concern, why not formulate a non sugar based drink Or why not extend the product line of sodas to fruit based drinks My point is that such externality may be solved when companies also motivate their consumers not to hurt the business For instance, an introduction of the non sugar Pepsi variant from Pepsi Cola Or fruit based drink, good for the colons like that of the Del Monte's pineapple drinks, grapefruit, oranges, and many other fruit flavors good for burning fats MY roommateS RESPONSE I wouldn't keep on purchasing soft drinks since they do not merit that much and I would go for an elective decision that is less expensive It would rely on in the event that it was name brand beverages or store brand since I would go for the store brand then, at that point On the off chance that not, then, I would go for water or lemonade Let's say you don't actually think often about groups wellbeing and would prefer to bring in cash, then, at that point, no it wouldn't offset the expenses Although ethically it shouldn't matter if the cost benefits are better, there will always be certain people that are greedy and wouldn't care that consuming SSBs would cause cancer In the event that you esteem people groups wellbeing, it would offset the expected expenses for the business Youcould promote soft drink gravely, show the confirmed realities concerning how soft drink treats human beings Us as people wouldn't want to drink something if they are adversting it is bad for you but atleast then the companies are being honest on their end MAIN QUESTION How different was your response to the tax on SSBs compared to YOUR ROOMMATE Give constructive feedback on the alternative to the tax on SSBs that they suggested Do you think it will work Why or why not

The Answer is in the image, click to view ...

Answered step by step

Verified Expert Solution

Link Copied!

Question

1 Approved Answer

Posted on Jun 21, 2024

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DQQXtqQfMf8 Taxing SSBs is one way of dealing with the negative externality.Imagine a world where the US introduced a tax on SSBs such that a

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DQQXtqQfMf8

Taxing SSBs is one way of dealing with the negative externality.Imagine a world where the US introduced a tax on SSBs such that a 2-liter of soda cost as much as the average six-pack of beer or bottle of wine (say, around $7.00).

Would you continue to buy soda? Why or why not?
If not, what would you buy instead?
Do you think the potential health benefits would outweigh the potential costs to businesses?
What is an alternative way to deal with this negative externality that you think might work better than the tax on SSB?

MY response -

1. Given that there are many factors that we need to consider when we talk about Sugar-Sweetened Beverages (SSBs), I think that after all the video has explained, I will continue to buy soda. But it is under a restriction of minimality. It is simple because I must think about my health but, at the same time answer the call for craving. Perhaps once every two weeks?

2. Instead of decision-making changes after considering various impacts like pricing and other economic and health risks, if I ought to say, 'no to SSBs,' I think the introduction of fresh fruit juice will be the healthiest option in this regard. The natural sweetness glucose and no terrible after-effects to our immune system. Nothing is more exciting than squeezing your own choice of fruit to extract its juice puree. If we think of the benefits that it may give us, we can save much from buying highly taxed SSBs.

3. As a matter of fact, yes! It truly outweighs the cost of any business. Now, if we refer to the video, let us focus on the SSBs discussed; the higher the tax implemented in a specific item or product, the lesser sales it may be. This is because (from my point and observation) of the following reasons:

There will be a shock in the customers/consumers unknowingly why the price seemed to go higher and faster than their wages.
When companies experience cut-offs in their sales, the possibility is that their employees' employment would be at risk.
Companies must abide by rules and prohibitions about health impacts and externalities to sustain their marketability. Therefore, researching would be their resort- however, it would cost them much, like resources, time, and monetary allocation. I think there is no better way to deal with an externality that tackles health impact on human beings but increasing the tax on products that may cause terrible effects and harms when consumed heavily. However, it will be a company's initiative to cope with government regulations in certain areas. If sugary beverages are of concern, why not formulate a non-sugar-based drink? Or why not extend the product line of sodas to fruit-based drinks? My point is that such externality may be solved when companies also motivate their consumers not to hurt the business. For instance, an introduction of the non-sugar Pepsi variant from Pepsi Cola. Or fruit-based drink, good for the colons like that of the Del Monte's pineapple drinks, grapefruit, oranges, and many other fruit flavors good for burning fats.

MY roommateS RESPONSE- I wouldn't keep on purchasing soft drinks since they do not merit that much and I would go for an elective decision that is less expensive. It would rely on in the event that it was name brand beverages or store brand since I would go for the store brand then, at that point. On the off chance that not, then, I would go for water or lemonade. Let's say you don't actually think often about groups wellbeing and would prefer to bring in cash, then, at that point, no it wouldn't offset the expenses. Although ethically it shouldn't matter if the cost benefits are better, there will always be certain people that are greedy and wouldn't care that consuming SSBs would cause cancer. In the event that you esteem people groups wellbeing, it would offset the expected expenses for the business. Youcould promote soft drink gravely, show the confirmed realities concerning how soft drink treats human beings. Us as people wouldn't want to drink something if they are adversting it is bad for you but atleast then the companies are being honest on their end.

MAIN QUESTION-

How different was your response to the tax on SSBs compared to YOUR ROOMMATE?
Give constructive feedback on the alternative to the tax on SSBs that they suggested. Do you think it will work? Why or why not?