It is argued that governments should levy a tariff on junk food because the number of health risks associated with consuming this kind of food is on the rise. This essay agrees that a higher rate of tax should be paid by fast-food companies. Firstly, alcohol and tobacco companies already pay higher taxes and secondly, higher taxes could raise prices and lower consumption.
Firstly, higher excise on liqueur and cigarettes has proven to be successful at curbing the harm caused by these substances. This revenue has been used to treat health problems associated with these products and has proven useful in advertising campaigns warning people about the dangers of alcohol and tobacco abuse. Tax from fast food could be used in the same way. The United Kingdom is a prime example, where money from smokers is used to treat lung cancer and heart disease, while at the same time, pumped into health campaigns in schools to warn children about the dangers of smoking.
On the other hand, increasing taxes would raise prices and lower consumption. Fast food companies would pass on these taxes to consumers in the form of higher prices and this would lead to people not being able to afford junk food because it is too expensive. Junk food would soon become a luxury item and it would only be consumed occasionally, which would be less harmful to the general public’s health. For instance, the cost of organic food has proven prohibitively expensive for most people and that is why only a small percentage of the population buy it regularly.
In conclusion, junk food should be taxed at a higher rate because of the good precedent set by alcohol and tobacco and the fact that the increased cost should reduce the amount of fast-food people buy.
It
is argued
that
governments
should levy a tariff on
junk
food
because
the number of
health
risks
associated with consuming this kind of
food
is on the rise. This essay
agrees
that a higher rate of
tax
should
be paid
by
fast
-food
companies
.
Firstly
, alcohol and tobacco
companies
already pay higher
taxes
and
secondly
, higher
taxes
could raise prices and lower consumption.
Firstly
, higher excise on liqueur and cigarettes has proven to be successful at curbing the harm caused by these substances. This revenue has been
used
to treat
health
problems associated with these products and has proven useful in advertising campaigns warning
people
about the
dangers
of alcohol and tobacco abuse.
Tax
from
fast
food
could be
used
in the same way
. The United Kingdom is a prime example, where money from smokers is
used
to treat lung cancer and heart disease, while at the same time, pumped into
health
campaigns in schools to warn children about the
dangers
of smoking.
On the other hand
, increasing
taxes
would raise prices and lower consumption.
Fast
food
companies
would pass on these
taxes
to consumers in the form of higher prices and this would lead to
people
not being able to afford
junk
food
because
it is too expensive.
Junk
food
would
soon
become a luxury
item and
it would
only
be consumed
occasionally
, which would be less harmful to the
general public
’s
health
.
For instance
, the cost of organic
food
has proven
prohibitively
expensive for most
people
and
that is
why
only
a
small
percentage of the population
buy
it
regularly
.
In conclusion
,
junk
food
should
be taxed
at a higher rate
because
of the
good
precedent set by alcohol and tobacco and the fact that the increased cost should
reduce
the amount of
fast
-food
people
buy
.