Both listening and reading are about increase the tax for unhealthy food as what done for th cigarettes

Both listening and reading are about increase the tax for unhealthy food as what done for th cigarettes. Where as the reading argues that increasing the tax for unhealthy food could have a number of social benifits and provides three benifits. The professor explains that these argument could be challenged, and cast doubt on each benifit. To start with, the passage postis that increasing the tax over unhealthy food could make people to buy less as what happend with the cigarettes. Moreover, this could help to reduce the obesity rate. However, the lecturer challange this point by saying that increasing the tax on cigarettes lead to make some of the smokers to buy low quality cigarettes. As a concequances, the might have more problems for smoking low quality one. The same for the unhealth food, the buyer could buy more expensive unhealthy food, which might leave them with less money to buy healthy food. Secondly, according to the author, this kind of tax is fair for the people who engaged in unhealthy behaviour like smoking or buying unhealthy food. On the contrary, the lectuerer expalins how people with low income pay same tax on cigarettes like the high income, and this could make these people to feel that it is just not fair. Finally, the article claims that this high tax revenue could benefit every one. The professors explain how this benefit is true. The government could make more restriction on smoking like prohebit it in the parks. But it does not, because they depends a lot on this high tax income.