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 ROOMATES RESPONSE- If there was an additional tax on soda, I would not continue to buy soda since the marginal cost would be greater than the marginal benefit.

1. Instead, I would simply buy water or if I am craving something sweet to drink then I would buy juice.
2. I think in the immediate to short term, the cost to potential business would outweigh the health benefits like lose jobs, decrease in supply, etc. But in the long term, the health benefits will outweigh any business loss due to less government/private expenditure on healthcare related to obesity, type 2 diabetes, etc, meaning that more money could be used elsewhere.
3. I think an alternative to deal with this negative alternative is to make substitutes like healthy fruit juices or water receive a reduction in taxes at similar sizes like soda (e.g. 1 Liter) in order to drive down prices so it could better compete with soda.

MAIN QUESTION-

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