Sin+Tax+Debate+Podcast

Ashley, Emily, Jenny 10, Priscilla

media type="file" key="Ashley Econ Podcast Sin Taxes.m4a" width="300" height="50"
 * Podcast:**


 * Script (not exact):**

Introduction E: This second debate we had in class was on whether or not to expand sin taxes to different items. It’s a very controversial issue today, and was on the news recently. A: Well, what are sin taxes? E: Basically, as the name suggests, they are extra taxes put on what the government thinks are “sinful actions” A: As in… E: Smoking and drinking. Actually, they’re not really “sinful,” but they’re what the government wants to discourage people from doing, mostly for health issues. A: There are currently sin taxes on alcohol and cigarettes, and the debate was on whether the taxes should be expanded to other unhealthy products such as soft drinks and junk food. E: Exactly. A: Oh that’s not fun. I wouldn’t want to pay extra for my Big Mac. E: And that’s what the opposition side was arguing. Let’s take a closer look at what they had to say.

E: Jiyoon and Joorhee argued NO to expanding sin taxes to things like junk food for several reasons. A: Number one. E: Low-income families would not be able to afford the extra taxes, nor the healthier foods that the government wants them to eat. A: Because junk food is much cheaper than organic food or other healthy stuff. E: Yes A: And number two E: is that if people are not able to afford it then less people will buy junk foods and soft drinks, which will lead to economic slow-down in those industries. A: And number three is E: The third reason is that although it is kind of mean, if the obese people die early, then that means the government will save the money it would have had to spend for pensions. A: That’s really mean! So basically, it’s good that they die early, because the government can save money? E: Yes, it’s sad but true. A: What’s the last reason? E: The last reason is that the whole sin tax thing wouldn’t really work. The group showed graphs proving how even though there are taxes put on cigarettes right now, people haven’t stopped smoking. Also, the group argues that the taxes on petroleum hasn’t stopped people from driving. You still see streets filled with cars. A: That makes sense. E: Yeah, so you can really see that expanding sin taxes to a wider range of items will not only arouse great opposition from the people, but also will just be ineffective. Thus, NO EXPANDING SIN TAXES!

A: Well, wait until you hear the other side, advocating the sin tax expansion. A: Well, The argument that sin taxes should be expanded is based upon the fact that the health of the citizens is the most important. E: Well firstly, A: Junk food, soda and video games are a few of the main causes of obesity in the US. E: And obesity causes bad health, right? A: Yeah – it’s the number one cause of death in the U.S. and this also costs a lot of money when people come to the hospital with illnesses that were caused by obesity E: Oh, so if someone gets really fat and gets has a heart attack it would cost the government a lot of money to treat them A: sin taxes they would have this money and the so with the sin taxes they could fund the health centres E: Also, secondly A: And taxes have been shown to be effective E: Why? A: You can see by looking at how the number of smokers in the US has gone down E: However, telling the public about negative effects of these commodities is not enough right? A: Yeah, we need to discourage them by creating a financial inventive not to buy them. So if we put sin taxes on things that make people fat: fat taxes, this will make them not buy these things in the first place. E: but obesity isn’t the only cause of death though A: Yeah, but its one of the main causes and the important thing is that its easy to stop it from happening, so fat taxes could help us save up to 3200 lives each year E: Wow: WE SHOULD HAVE SIN TAXES!

Conclusion A: So you can see both arguments make sense E: This is too difficult A: Both sides have their merits E: And both sides have their flaws A: Now that you know both E: What do YOU think?