$2.439 trillion will come from additional taxes. The most significant card played in this category gained $1.235 trillion alone. Although it is a daunting task and somewhat unpopular, reforming and simplifying the tax code would definitely be a game changer for our current economic position. With this policy, the tax code will be simplified down to three brackets. Rates would drop to between 8 to 12 percent for the lowest wage earners, 14 to 22 percent for the middle bracket, and 23 to 29 percent for the top bracket. Additionally, we will reduce loopholes and tax breaks, eliminate the Alternative Minimum Tax, establish a territorial tax system for corporate taxes, and decrease corporate taxes from 35 to between 23 and 29 percent. Another significant, yet controversial, taxation would be to phase out the home mortgage interest deduction, which would effectively increase federal revenues by approximately $1.043 trillion. Next, $130 billion will be raised by taxing sugary beverages at one cent per ounce. Though some may argue that this additional sales tax would hurt the beverage industry and, by extension, the economy, there is strong evidence to the contrary. In general, the price elasticity of demand for sugar-sweetened beverages (SSB) is inelastic, between -0.8 and -1.0, according to Dr. Tatiana (Tania) Andreyeva, Director of Economic Initiatives at the Rudd Center for Food Policy & Obesity at Yale University (Andreyeva et al., 2009). Therefore, the small price hike is unlikely to bring about any significant movement along the demand curve for SSBs and the tax will, in fact, increase federal revenues, with the added benefit of helping to combat obesity and, to a lesser extent, reduce health care expenditures. This budget also calls for increased taxes on carries. As it stands, private equity and hedge fund managers enjoy only a 15 percent tax rate on carried interest. By…
The issue that is particularly interesting to me is the “sweetened beverage tax.” This proposal was made to help the children’s health and wellbeing. The proposed course of action and policy agenda Imposes a tax on every distributor for the privilege of distributing in this state bottled sweetened beverages, at a specified rate, and for the privilege of distributing concentrate in the state, either as concentrate or as sweetened beverages derived from that concentrate, at a specified rate of sweetened beverage to be produced from concentrate. Provides exemptions. Requires tax moneys to be deposited in the Children 's Health Promotion Fund for childhood obesity prevention activities and programs. Use of funds includes: improving access to and consumption of healthy, safe, and affordable foods and beverages, encouraging physical activity, regulating weight management intervention activities in the medical setting, improving or building school recreational facilities used for recess and physical education, implementing Safe Routes to Schools programs, improving the quality and nutrition of school breakfasts, lunches, and snacks, and ensuring free, clean drinking water access throughout the school day.…
The NY Soda Ban can be viewed in many different ways with many different understandings. Some people view the Soda Ban as a good thing, while others see it as just another restriction.…
In “Soda’s a Problem but…” Karin Klein distinguishes the government’s issue, “But the mayor’s initiative goes further than something like a soda tax... Bloomberg is playing nanny in the worst sort of way…”(Karin Klein, 289). Simply put, the author explains how the government is overseeing people’s lives and the choices they can make. The government is making decisions by themselves, without the people’s consent! Basically, the limitations on sugary drinks is unacceptable and should be…
In my opinion I think there should be tax for soda, and sweet drinks. First, it states in paragraph three that they are trying to encourage you to exercise more. Secondly, it also stated in paragraph three that they try to reduce suffering and save lives. Lastly, it stated in paragraph two that they try help stop obesity. This is my opinion what's your…
Some people blame the food or drink that one consumes for their health issues. But that is in fact false, If a person chooses to consume sugary or fattening food knowing that it may not be the best choice. It's not the food or drinks that are hurting these people, it's the people's choices thats hurting them. The right to choose is very important, it give us a variety instead of having one item to choose from. But what if that was ll stripped away?…
“How far should the Government go to protect us from ourselves?” (Huffingtonpost.com). That is a question some New Yorkers have been asking themselves since September 13th, 2012, when the New York City board of public health officially put into effect a ban of selling sugary, soft drinks over 16 ounces (about half a liter). This soda ban has divided the city separating residents into two distinct views. Will this new ban benefit New York City and create yet another stepping stone against the obesity epidemic, or is it an unnecessary abuse of power by the government, that is unfair to big corporations and businesses?…
Many men and women risk their lives every day trying to protect the freedom of every individual in the U.S. The soda ban will create an uneven playing field for thousands of small businesses and limit individual’s right to choose. Although sugary beverages can cause health problems, people should have a right to choose, even if it is unhealthy.…
Journalist Robert Pearlberg quotes, “In 2010, Denmark increased by 25 percent its excise tax on chocolate, ice cream, sugary drinks and confectionary products… and timing of ads for foods high in fat, salt or sugar (par. 4). With this intention, obesity can prevented for future generations. Moreover, Pearlberg quotes, “The groups in the United States most likely to become obese are racial minorities… least able to access quality medical care (par. 9). However, this solution has an obstacle. Americans have relied on fast food for so long that imposing taxes on unhealthy, or sugary foods is unreliable for them. The poorer families rely on cheap fast-food to feed their families, and Pearlberg quotes that “Regulating food ads is also more difficult in the United States because our courts treat such ads as “commercial speech” constitutionally protected under the First Amendment (par. 6). Stopping obesity will take longer because of their objections on placing soda taxes, or the food commercials being protected by the First Amendment because it is treated as “commercial…
The government regulation of people's dieting is wrong, they are collectivism. This is not right, everyone is not the same. It absurd to make people stop drinking what they want and what they want to eat. They are trying to become a dystopia state, the government is trying to control everything that a person is doing. Is not their chose to tell people to lose weight. I'm guessing they know what they are doing. Banning sodas and putting how many calories the food has is not really going to change their option. The government is making it seem like everyone need to lose weight. Who do they think they are, by telling and banning candy machines and soda from people. Plus, if you break that rule, they will have to pay $200. They are exaggerating with the power they have.…
Added taxes like cigarettes and soda are not helping improve our schools as promised. Our schools still look the same with no support, extra-curricular activities. The tax didn’t change anything for our schools. Our books still old and falling apart. People from Pepsi quit their job because they thought they weren’t getting paid enough. The soda tax should affect their paycheck. This is really an outrage and it is affecting not only the jobs at Pepsi Co. also it is effecting the stores who are not selling as much sodas and juices due to the tax. This affects the peoples’ families as well because the operations of those stores help to feed their families. This soda tax really isn’t helping the schools as stated when the tax was proposed. Additionally,…
From 1991 to 2000 the average weight of Americans increased by 8.5 pounds- not such a shocking detail. Higher taxes are imposed on healthy foods but not junk foods, making unhealthy foods easier and more convenient to obtain. With this kind of economic “strategy” obesity is to be expected. To encourage healthy eating, higher taxes should be imposed on soft drinks and junk food. This strategy will surely influence a better diet and put America back at number one.…
Consuming soda yields to many disadvantages. Fast food establishments may not be aware of the negative effects the large serving size of soda may cause. Most health experts agree that too much sugar that comes in soda is not healthy, especially if one is at risk of obesity, diabetes, and heart disease. Some consumers who are against this ban, might think that this is preventing them from freedom of choice. Looking at the facts on what negative effects drinking soda causes, the government of New York is simply trying to reduce the risks that consumers are already open too by decreasing the serving size in soda. Limiting the intake of soda can lead to healthier…
More than half of Americans have no idea what they are actually putting in their body, unless they grow the food themselves. The government has not even enforced that all foods must have GMO labeling. Some of the ingredients that are in the food we purchase, are not even labeled. But, in other countries they have warning labels on some of the food to be purchased. Not only is food labeling an issue, but also the restriction of portion size. If somebody wants to order a large coke, they should be allowed to. They will have to face whatever consequences later on down the road. “Former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s ham-handed attempt to ban large sodas earned him scorn from Jon Stewart and the New York Times editorial board. It also forced a broad coalition of unions, soda makers, restaurants, and minority businesses to sue to overturn the ban. Nevertheless, Bloomberg’s successor, Bill DeBlasio has vowed to forge ahead with the soda ban.” (Linnekin). The people of America should have the free will to choose and do as they please. The effects of getting a large soda or anything considered unhealthy affects them, not the government. Besides, someone could easily order two medium sized sodas for themselves rather than one large soda. The government cannot control the peoples’ food…
First of all Jen Kelaidis says that, “Two thirds of American adults are overweighed or obese, and The Center for Disease Control predict that nearly half will be obese by 2030” (qtd. The Week art. 240554 par 1). For example, in Mexico the parents make their children eat and eat and they become obese. Second, Jen Kelaidis says that, “Obesity rates in children have more than tripled in the past three decades” (qtd. The Week, art. 240554 par. 4). For example, everywhere you turn your head there is an obese child in Mexico. Also, Oliver Mytton says that, “In America a 20 percent tax and sugary beverages would reduce obesity levels by 3.5 percent” (qtd. The Week art. 240554 par. 11). For instance, parents let children eat junk food because it is cheaper. At last, The Archives Of International Medicine says that, “18 percent tax on pizza…