Rates of obesity in the United States are alarming -- and efforts to reverse the trend seem ineffective. According the Center for Disease Control and Prevention 38 percent of U.S. adults are obese and 17 percent of teenagers are as well. Another third or so of Americans are overweight. Obesity can lead to serious health condition such as heart disease and diabetes. Some governments have attempted or considered paternalist interventions to stem the tide of obesity. For example, New York City attempted to ban the sale of soda pop in sizes greater than 16 oz. Other cities such as Berkeley and Philadelphia have passed a soda tax. In Philadelphia distributors are taxed 1.5 cents per once on soda pop and other sweetened drinks: a 2 liter bottle of pop that used to cost $1.79 sells today for $2.79 because of an added dollar in tax. These laws are intended to help consumers in these cities -- but have they gone too far? Are these laws and taxes justified? Why or why not?
I think laws that tax sodas are justifiable. While taxes on cheaper foods can be hurtful for lower income families who survive off of cheaper food soda is just as much if not more that water in most places. Water is a cheaper and healthier option of a beverage and just as available as soda. I also think that it is better to tax unnecessary items like soda instead of necessities. Then more people will be less inclined to purchase these drinks or the companies will want to promote their other drinks that aren't soda.
ReplyDeleteObesity is a severe problem for the United States. With so many health risks obesity poses, it is wise for the government to help keep the population safe. However, imposing taxes may limit some citizen’s ability to have free will. The government is cutting off options rather than giving more options. The better alternative for the government to fight obesity would be cheaper gyms and access to healthier food. The government’s job described by Mill is that to provide avenues for citizens to explore choices. Currently, the government is the opposite, where the government is cutting off options to buy unhealthy food. Even after someone is given the opportunity of affordable food and access to gyms and chooses to live an unhealthy life, that is their choice.
ReplyDeleteA sin tax to disincentivize the purchase of soda is justified because it is necessary to the state’s continued enforcement of the harm to others principal and because it is necessary to prevent harm to children. Though Mill adamantly disagrees with a sin tax on principle, he decides that sin taxes are practically necessary for the government to generate revenue. When he explains that a sin tax could therefore become justified, he sets some additional parameters. Mill explains, “taxation for fiscal purposes is… inevitable[. The state must consider] what commodities the consumers can best spare and… [what commodities], beyond a very moderate quantity [are] positively injurious” (100). Soda clearly meets the criteria that Mill sets for justifying a sin tax, as consumers can easily spare soda (there are a plethora of other drinks to buy) and its consistent consumption beyond a small quantity can have long-lasting negative health effects, like obesity. Clearly, then, if a government needs to make money somehow, it might as well tax a commodity like soda to prevent obesity. Even deeper, the reason the state needs to make money is so that it can fund police and courts and other bodies to enforce the harm to others principle. Thus, taxation on certain inessential commodities is essential to the state’s continued ability to enforce the harm principle. One could also justify a sin tax on soda in particular because obesity is a growing problem in children, but children do not have the rationality or self-restraint to care for their own health. So, the state is justified in disincentivizing parents from harming their own children with a soda tax. Mill elaborates, “children… who are still in a state to require being taken care of by others, must be protected against their own actions as well as against external injury.” Because soda is heavily consumed by children, and it can lead to obesity and serious health issues from childhood onward, it fits entirely under the preventing harm to children principle to enact a soda tax. Overall because a soda tax is a common sense way for the state to make the revenue it needs to enforce the harm to others principle, and because disincentivizing soda purchase protects childrens’ interests, it should be implemented.
ReplyDelete