While reading the NY Times today, I ran across an article (found online at http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/17/business/17soda.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=soda&st=cse) on the front page of the Business section about how a tax should be imposed on sugary beverages like soda. This, supporters argue, would help fight obesity and raise funds for the health care reform. As someone who doesn't drink soda, I can honestly say I am biased in favor of such a tax, but what do you think? Is it right for the government to influence what we drink?
1 comment:
Personally, I feel that the government should tax soda. It holds no health benefits and fuels caffeine and sugar addictions. If taxing soda will discourage people from drinking it, then that is a good thing.
This idea could be viewed from the perspective that morbidly obese people are not taking care of themselves so it is the government's responsibility to step in and do what's best for the people (being paternal). I think there are also similarities between this concept and taxing alcohol and cigarettes. Although alcohol is taxed, it doesn't stop people from buying it. But this could lead to the question of why the government keeps increasing cigarette taxes. This I believe is justified because cigarettes are harmful to those around you. One could argue that obesity is harmful to those around you as well, but I think there is a clear distinction between the two. Obesity I feel is also more harmful to oneself than to others while cigarettes are harmful to everyone. There are many health problems that are exacerbated and/or caused by obesity, which in turn put a strain on the health care system. By taxing soda and putting the funds into our health care reform we would only be helping ourselves.
Post a Comment