Many countries require cigarette smokers to pay particularly high taxes on their purchases of cigarettes; similar taxes are being considered for unhealthy foods. The policy of imposing high taxes on cigarettes and other unhealthy products has a number of social benefits.
First of all, the taxes discourage people from indulging in unhealthy behaviors. Raising taxes on cigarettes, for instance, leads people to buy fewer of them. Smoking has declined as taxes on tobacco have risen, showing that these taxes do work to make society healthier. It can be expected that imposing similar taxes on unhealthy food and beverages would help reduce obesity rates.
Second, taxes of this kind are financially fair. When people get sick as a result of their smoking or eating unhealthy foods, they create medical costs. It is unfair that everyone in the society, including nonsmokers and people who follow a healthy diet, should contribute equally to covering these costs. Taxing people who engage in unhealthy behaviors creates extra income that can be used to cover the medical costs. In this way, some of the financial burden is shifted from all of society to just those who choose to participate in the unhealthy activities.
Finally, the high rate of taxation on cigarettes significantly increases revenue for the government. In addition to using this tax revenue on medical assistance, governments often use the revenue for other projects that benefit public welfare, such as building stadiums or creating public parks. Even basic government-supported services like public education benefit from these taxes. Thus, the taxes on cigarettes, and the proposed taxes on unhealthy foods, benefit everyone.
The reading and the lecturer both about how taxes on cigarettes and other unhealthy products would produce number of social benefits. The author of the reading provides some reasons to support his claims. However, the lecterur says that these policies have some challenged and refutes each of the author's claims.
First of all, the article argues that increasing taxation of unhealthy food would have reduced obesity and unhealthy behaviors. In the article, it is said that for raising taxation on cigarettes has been declined tobacoo consumption. This specific argument is challenged by the lecturer. He says that lower-income people like to buying lower rate cigarettesand then make more health risks than high tax cigarettes because the substances are more harmful than high price cigarettes. Consequently, people's in lower-income prefer to buy lower prices food , thus unhealthy behaviors would rise and increase obesity rate.
Second of all, Unhealthy behaviors engaged people creates extra income that could be covered the medical costs and this way financial burden shifted from all of society those are willing to participate in the unhealthy activities. In contrast, the lecturer says that tax does not make any fairness also introduces some unfairness. The lecturer elaborates on this point that high and low-income peoples equally distributed for their unhealthy behaviors are not considered because high-income people do not needed the money the same way then lower-income people, this way ultimately benefited higher-income peoples rather than lower-income people's.
Finally, taxation helps for the government to contribute to various public welfare activities. In addition, unhealthy food on taxes also helps the government because of this way government's revenue increases. Nevertheless, the lecturer says that the government needed millions of dollars to completed their welfare works, so this way goverment would not possible to reach their goal. Furthermore, the government does not earn sufficient amount of money this way because lots of public and private places completely
band to smoking.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2020-01-26 | jewel | 80 | view |
| 2019-12-16 | jeffhjz | 90 | view |
| 2019-12-05 | lynn19971020 | 76 | view |
| 2019-12-03 | Alireza.ghasemi | 73 | view |
| 2019-11-29 | shrjhn1234 | 80 | view |
- Like many creatures, humpback whales migrate long distances for feeding and mating purposes. How animals manage to migrate long distances is often puzzling. In the case of humpback whales, we may have found the answer: they may be navigating by the stars, 80
- If a goal is worthy, then any means taken to attain it are justifiable. 76
- Agnostids were a group of marine animals that became extinct about 450 million years ago. Agnostid fossils can be found in rocks in many areas around the world. From the fossil remains, we know that agnostids were primitive arthropods-relatives of modern- 80
- In any situation, progress requires discussion among people who have contrasting points of view. 73
- Agnostids were a group of marine animals that became extinct about 450 million years ago. Agnostid fossils can be found in rocks in many areas around the world. From the fossil remains, we know that agnostids were primitive arthropods-relatives of modern- 76
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 552, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Put a space after the comma, but not before the comma
Suggestion: ,
...r-income prefer to buy lower prices food , thus unhealthy behaviors would rise and...
^^
Line 17, column 515, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... of public and private places completely band to smoking.
^^^^
Line 19, column 1, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: Band
...public and private places completely band to smoking.
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, consequently, finally, first, furthermore, however, if, nevertheless, second, so, then, thus, in addition, in contrast, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 7.0 10.4613686534 67% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 5.0 5.04856512141 99% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 7.30242825607 110% => OK
Relative clauses : 8.0 12.0772626932 66% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 23.0 22.412803532 103% => OK
Preposition: 33.0 30.3222958057 109% => OK
Nominalization: 11.0 5.01324503311 219% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1816.0 1373.03311258 132% => OK
No of words: 319.0 270.72406181 118% => OK
Chars per words: 5.69278996865 5.08290768461 112% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.22617688928 4.04702891845 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.82808011014 2.5805825403 110% => OK
Unique words: 176.0 145.348785872 121% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.551724137931 0.540411800872 102% => OK
syllable_count: 558.0 419.366225166 133% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.55342163355 109% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 3.25607064018 123% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.23620309051 97% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 2.5761589404 116% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 13.0662251656 115% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 21.2450331126 99% => OK
Sentence length SD: 64.4734570708 49.2860985944 131% => OK
Chars per sentence: 121.066666667 110.228320801 110% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.2666666667 21.698381199 98% => OK
Discourse Markers: 9.53333333333 7.06452816374 135% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 4.19205298013 72% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 2.0 4.33554083885 46% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 10.0 4.45695364238 224% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.27373068433 70% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.223385651172 0.272083759551 82% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0722303226642 0.0996497079465 72% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0687247370933 0.0662205650399 104% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.134938125784 0.162205337803 83% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0392993429845 0.0443174109184 89% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.0 13.3589403974 120% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 41.7 53.8541721854 77% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.7 11.0289183223 115% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 15.72 12.2367328918 128% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.18 8.42419426049 109% => OK
difficult_words: 91.0 63.6247240618 143% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 6.5 10.7273730684 61% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 10.498013245 99% => OK
text_standard: 16.0 11.2008830022 143% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 80.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 24.0 Out of 30
---------------------
Note: the e-grader does NOT examine the meaning of words and ideas. VIP users will receive further evaluations by advanced module of e-grader and human graders.