Is The Government's Soda Tax Fair?

Is The Government's Soda Tax Fair?

According to the American Heart Association, sugary drinks, including soda, are the single largest source of calories in the American diet. Subsequently, nine states and counties have been proactive in passing a tax that raises the price of soda. The hope is to reduce beverage calories consumed per person nationally by 20% by 2025 and get Americans thinking about their dietary choices. Although this seems to be in the best interest of the nation, many are questioning why government intervention is needed when deciding what groceries we buy.

The following are three arguments suggesting the soda tax is a sign of responsible American government, and three arguments questioning its place in American society.

fair 공정한 sugary 설탕이 든 subsequently 그 다음에, 차후에, 나중에 proactive 사전 행동의, 사전 대책을 강구하는, 적극적인

question 의문을 품다 intervention 개입

 

The Soda Tax Is a Good Idea

 

It can curb obesity

America is at the top of the list when it comes to the obesity epidemic, and rising consumption of sugary drinks has been a major contributor. This is because many people ignore the amount of calories in their soft drinks. A typical 20-ounce soda contains 15 to 18 teaspoons of sugar and adds around an extra 240 calories to one’s daily intake. For those who drink more than 20 ounces of soda a day, the soda tax may make them think twice before adding these “empty calories” to their meal. It may also help the nation’s fight against obesity.

 curb 억제하다  obesity 비만 epidemic 유행병 contributor 기여 요소  intake 섭취 

It worked with cigarettes

Just as the cigarette tax saw a decline in cigarette smoking, the soda tax has real potential in taking some of the power from the profit-driven soda industry. Research shows that, nationally, every 10% rise in cigarette prices has reduced smoking in adults by 2%, in young adults by 3.5% and in children by 6-7%. It’s not surprising, then, that the soda industry has spent at least $107 million at state and local levels over the past decade fighting soda taxes. However, these taxes, as well as warning labels, allow Americans to make educated decisions about their health and food choices. Evidence suggests that warning labels effectively reduced smoking. Similarly, a John Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health study also suggests that labels can reduce soda consumption.

 warning label 경고 표시  effectively 효과적으로 

Investing in America

The government uses its budget to provide for its citizens, and a soda tax seems to be a good way to grow the budget. Sources say it could lead to a rise in the budget of $24 billion over four years. It’s a win-win for Americans: they’ll either stop drinking unhealthy beverages or they’ll contribute to the country. Tax payers’ dollars could officially go towards paying back the national deficit. Alternatively, these tax dollars could go towards Medicaid and healthcare subsidies, serving the nation’s citizens over the long term. This budget increase could see the implication of better school lunch services, community playgrounds and health education classes to counter obesity.

 deficit 빚 alternatively  아니면 (두 번째 대안을 말할 때)  subsidies 지원금 implication  결과, 영향 

The Soda Tax Is Wrong

 

It infringes on free market principles

Soda taxes, as with all food taxes, infringe on Americans’ rights to a free market. Let’s break it down: Our forefathers decided that America would be a democratic system built on capitalism and fueled by the free market. Capitalism works on the basic principle of supply and demand, which is a consumer-driven system. If that’s the case, then shouldn’t each state’s  government listen to what their constituents want? A poll released by the Illinois Manufacturers’ Association found that nearly 87% of Cook County residents oppose a soda tax, and that more than 80% of respondents thought the tax was passed to raise money rather than improve the health of county residents. The basic DNA of a democratic society is choice. Once we start taxing people for beverages against their will, where does it end? Even when alcohol was banned during Prohibition, people still found a way to consume it. A soda tax won’t deter consumers from buying soda.

 infringe on ~을 침해하다 free market principle 자유시장원리 let's break it down 자세히 살펴보죠. (작은 파트로 나눠서 상세하게 보죠) forefather 조상 against will 의상에 반하여  prohibition 금지 deter 억제하다

It only treats a symptom

Around 90% of the calories we consume come from food while only 6% of calories come from drinks. This suggests that America’s preference for sugary drinks is part of a bigger problem. Therefore, a soda tax is merely a band aid to treat a symptom. Instead, government intervention should be about working with communities toward finding sustainable ways to bring communities affordable, healthy groceries and dietary education programs. One initiative, Yes, to Affordable Groceries  raises awareness unintended consequences of food and beverage taxes, especially for working families who can’t afford higher priced groceries. An alternative would be for the government and soda industry to invest their resources in developing healthier and affordable beverage (and food) options for consumers.

 band aid = quick fix 미봉책, 임시방책

Food stamp inconsistency

The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) is currently providing nutrition assistance to millions of low-income individuals and families who rely on food stamps for their dietary needs. According to SNAP, no American on its program is supposed to be hit with excess tax on food purchases made with food stamps. To keep in accordance with SNAP regulations, grocers provide refunds, after purchase, on foods or soda that is taxed to those on the program. However, once a low-income customer is refunded, he or she is then taxed an additional amount for the refund itself. It’s a lose/lose for these Americans.

 food stamp 식료품 할인권, 식료품 구매권 inconsistency 비일관성  

Bottom Line: The American diet is due for a change. But, should this change come from the government? Is it possible that the government’s soda tax is a quick fix to avoid developing long-term nutritional options needed for lasting change?

bottom line 결론 due for ~할 예정인