The push against tobacco took decades of fighting against companies and lobbyists to force change through congress. Sugar is similarly dangerous to the average American; causing diabetes, obesity, and heart disease. Though admittedly the consumption of sugar does not affect others around you the way secondhand smoke does. However, sugar can be just as addictive as tobacco (Leech), but it causes a similar amount of health problems. In order to cut down the average American 's sugar intake; taxation will assist in solving this issue. Just as tobacco and alcohol have a sin tax. In order to cut down on obesity in the U.S., sugar advertisement needs to stop targeting children, and the government should issue a sin tax. With no change, we may have
…show more content…
Sin taxes are known to work because of their use on alcohol and tobacco products, also taxes on sugar have been tested in Denmark and are found to have very positive benefits . Inflated prices of junk food should lower the prevalence and severity of diseases related to sugar intake and will lessen pressure on healthcare spending in the short and long term . It is estimated that “even 1 cent per ounce tax on sugary beverages would raise approximately $15-20 billion per year” (Joyner). If a sugar tax is imposed; the money would be used to “subsidize care for the uninsured, buffer the fiscal pressures associated with Medicare and Medicaid, promote increased physical activity and better nutrition in the population.” (Joyner). If the United States introduced a tax on high saturated fat food, it’s estimated to generate $120 billion over 10 years, given the population is about 60 times that of Denmark (Leech).
However one of the major arguments against sin taxes is that they will impact the poor the most. They typically eat unhealthy foods due to the cheapness and ease of fast foods. This is a little ironic because the poor tend to also use tobacco and alcohol the most; which are also highly taxed goods. Behavioral changes resulting from the sin taxes would disproportionately benefit the poor in both improved health and health
Sin taxes are known to work because of their use on alcohol and tobacco products, also taxes on sugar have been tested in Denmark and are found to have very positive benefits . Inflated prices of junk food should lower the prevalence and severity of diseases related to sugar intake and will lessen pressure on healthcare spending in the short and long term . It is estimated that “even 1 cent per ounce tax on sugary beverages would raise approximately $15-20 billion per year” (Joyner). If a sugar tax is imposed; the money would be used to “subsidize care for the uninsured, buffer the fiscal pressures associated with Medicare and Medicaid, promote increased physical activity and better nutrition in the population.” (Joyner). If the United States introduced a tax on high saturated fat food, it’s estimated to generate $120 billion over 10 years, given the population is about 60 times that of Denmark (Leech).
However one of the major arguments against sin taxes is that they will impact the poor the most. They typically eat unhealthy foods due to the cheapness and ease of fast foods. This is a little ironic because the poor tend to also use tobacco and alcohol the most; which are also highly taxed goods. Behavioral changes resulting from the sin taxes would disproportionately benefit the poor in both improved health and health