Now listen to part of a lecture on the topic you just read about.
Each of the arguments about the benefits of cigarette and other such taxes can be challenged.
First, these taxes don't necessarily lead to healthier behavior. For instance, high cigarette taxes have led some smokers to buy cheaper lower quality cigarettes. Such cigarettes typically contain even more harmful substances than better quality cigarettes and present even greater health risks. Similarly, imagine how some consumers might react to higher taxes on unhealthy foods. They might continue buying the unhealthy foods they prefer even if they're more expensive. And as a result, have less money left to spend on healthy foods. That certainly wouldn't benefit their health.
Second, there are different ways of thinking about fairness. It might seem fair for people indulging in unhealthy behaviors to pay for the consequences of those behaviors through high taxes. But some people would argue that these taxes are unfair, because they don't take into account people's incomes. If a high-earning person and a lower-earning person are addicted to cigarettes and each smokes a pack of cigarettes a day. Paying the tax would be a greater expense for the low earner relative to his or her income. The same argument applies to the food taxes. So many people believe that these taxes are not fair because they create a much greater burden for those with smaller incomes than for those with higher incomes.
Finally, the fact that governments can use this tax revenue for various projects has the downside. This income represents millions and millions of dollars and governments become dependent on it and don't want to lose it. In consequence, the governments might not be forceful enough pursuing policies and implementing laws that might eliminate unhealthy habits altogether. For example, they are unlikely to adopt radical measure such as not allowing smoking in outdoor public areas such as parks or even banning smoking in all outdoor areas, public or private, because they don't want to lose this income.
According to the reading passage, high taxation which is applied for smokers
should be applied to unhealthy food people consume as well for the social benefits it
offers. However, all three reasons can be challenged and are not practical and convincing
enough.First, considering higher taxes for unhealthy food and smoking may decrease the
rate at which people smoke or eat unhealthy food due to the fact that their affordability
for doing such harmful behaviors diminishes. Nonetheless, a closer observation shows
that this way addicts end up buying cheaper cigarettes which are of less quality. As a
result, they will be more subjected to the diseases associated with smoking cigarettes
which contain more toxic chemicals. Similarly, people may continue buying their desired
food despite its high expenses, which, accordingly, results in less money left for buying
healthy food.
Second, high taxes on cigarettes and unhealthy food seems to be fair due to the
fact that people who smoke or eat not quality food are more likely to get severe diseases,
which, in turn, causes medical costs for the government, and the taxation can be a
considered as somewhat compensation for the medical costs. Nevertheless, people are
not paid equally for their jobs and are not of the same financial status so the taxes will be
more burdensome for people with low incomes. That is also true about the food which
brings about more burden for poor families according to their relatively lower salaries.
Therefore, higher taxation is not as fair as it may seem at first, and people's income should
be considered as well.
Finally, although the rate of taxation pays dividends for the government to increase
public prosperity by disbursing the money for different projects, its disadvantages
outweigh. The downside is that the money the governments earn from higher taxes is so
huge that the governments may feel totally dependent on that money, and as a result, do
not pass laws to ban smoking or fine smokers for economic interests.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2020-11-10 | yasy.j728@gmail.com | 80 | view |
| 2020-11-10 | yasy.j728@gmail.com | 80 | view |
| 2019-10-06 | farshad_hom | 86 | view |
- The benefits claimed for electronic medical records are actually every uncertain First the costs savings are unlikely be as significant as the reading suggests For example there probably won t be any savings related to record storage You see doctors who a 76
- Do you agree or disagree with following statement it is more important for government to spend money to improve internet access or improving public transportation 90
- Now listen to part of a lecture on the topic you just read about Professor Many people think that if you want to go into business for yourself it s best to buy a franchise But recently a study looked closely at franchises and some of the findings call tha 85
- Professor There should definitely be stricter rules adopted for handling and disposing of coal ash First the regulations we have now for example those that require companies to use liner are not really sufficient Under the current regulations liner has to 85
- Professor Setting up a permanent station on Venus may not be without challenges but it is certainly possible One solution that s been proposed is to establish a station that would be floating in Venus s atmosphere like a balloon rather than standing on it 83
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 4, column 8, Rule ID: SENTENCE_WHITESPACE
Message: Add a space between sentences
Suggestion: First
...re not practical and convincing enough.First, considering higher taxes for unhealthy...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
accordingly, also, finally, first, however, if, may, nevertheless, nonetheless, second, similarly, so, therefore, well, as a result
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 17.0 10.4613686534 163% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 5.04856512141 198% => OK
Conjunction : 11.0 7.30242825607 151% => OK
Relative clauses : 13.0 12.0772626932 108% => OK
Pronoun: 17.0 22.412803532 76% => OK
Preposition: 28.0 30.3222958057 92% => OK
Nominalization: 8.0 5.01324503311 160% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1732.0 1373.03311258 126% => OK
No of words: 330.0 270.72406181 122% => OK
Chars per words: 5.24848484848 5.08290768461 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.26214759535 4.04702891845 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.73612032879 2.5805825403 106% => OK
Unique words: 174.0 145.348785872 120% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.527272727273 0.540411800872 98% => OK
syllable_count: 515.7 419.366225166 123% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 3.25607064018 123% => OK
Article: 2.0 8.23620309051 24% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 1.25165562914 160% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 1.51434878587 198% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 2.5761589404 116% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 11.0 13.0662251656 84% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 30.0 21.2450331126 141% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 67.7052435192 49.2860985944 137% => OK
Chars per sentence: 157.454545455 110.228320801 143% => OK
Words per sentence: 30.0 21.698381199 138% => OK
Discourse Markers: 11.9090909091 7.06452816374 169% => OK
Paragraphs: 24.0 4.09492273731 586% => Less paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 4.33554083885 92% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 4.45695364238 112% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.27373068433 47% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.196828739569 0.272083759551 72% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0795332343476 0.0996497079465 80% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0415346074538 0.0662205650399 63% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0605649479775 0.162205337803 37% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0483991056279 0.0443174109184 109% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 18.3 13.3589403974 137% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 41.03 53.8541721854 76% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 15.0 11.0289183223 136% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.76 12.2367328918 112% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.24 8.42419426049 110% => OK
difficult_words: 86.0 63.6247240618 135% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 10.7273730684 131% => OK
gunning_fog: 14.0 10.498013245 133% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.2008830022 125% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 20 minutes.
Maximum four paragraphs wanted.
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.