can someone please review my LNAT section B Practice essay? would be very helpful!!
Should food and drinks be taxed, for public safety, in the UK?
Food and drinks containing high levels of sugar should not, for public safety, be taxed in the UK. "High levels" of sugar may be defined as the level of sugar which is officially determined, through testing by official government authorities, to be linked to negative health effects in individuals. "Public safety" in this case may not only refer to ensuring the general health of individuals in society, but also other facets of safety like economic stability. To "tax" food and drinks containing sugar would entail requiring either consumers or producers or both to pay an additional cost for the consumption or production of such products. Taxing such products with the aim of public health is a poor decision for two reasons - that it may not have a substantive impact on public safety in the UK, and that it would actually, contrarily, have adverse public health and economic consequences in the country.
To begin with, it is difficult to determine whether taxing sugary food and drinks would actually have a positive impact on public safety. It is reasonable to assume that the imposition of a tax, by making sugar products more expensive, would reduce their consumption. However, this assumes that the tax is substantive enough to actually dissuade consumption? In a likely scenario, the government may not actually exponentially increase the tax, so as to not upset the general populace or cause an extremely sudden uproar of the economy. When we consider that sugary products like candy and cake are often seen as a means of "indulging" - a "luxury" as opposed to a "necessity", more likely to be consumed by the middle to upper income groups, then these groups are unlikely to be much affected by reasonable tax increases as they will have sufficient income to still consume sugary products despite a reasonable tax. In this sense, the tax does not do much to disincentivize consumption of sugary products and thus holds little positive impact on public safety in terms of health.
Infact, I would argue the contrary, that such a tax would actually have a negative impact on public safety. We can look at public safety in two ways - public health, as has been discussed thus far, but also public economic safety in terms of a stable and conducive economy. First we will consider the fact that such a tax may have a negative impact on public health. A blanket tax on "products that contain high levels of sugar" fails to recognise that apart from "luxury" food items such as toffees or energy drinks, there are also necessary food items that contain considerable amounts of sugar in many the cuisines of the many cultures that live across the UK. Infact, there would be certain cultures with a more sugar centered diet than others. A tax would reduce the ability of low-income individuals from these cultures to be able to afford staple food items of their cultures, and thus would inhibit their ability to obtain essential nutrients that their body needs, thus reducing their health. Secondly, we can consider how it negatively impacts economic safety. Both a producer and consumer tax on sugary food and drinks lead to higher costs for producers, thus higher prices, which lower demand and thus lower revenue and profit for them. If we seek to apply a tariff as well to imports of sugary products, we disincentivize foreign producers in a similar way. By reducing investment in the country, we reduce the choice available to consumers, reducing their economic health. We reduce competition, thus increasing the possibilities of the existence of a monopoly that can handle the increased costs from a tax, which would in the long-term push up prices of these products even more, possibly even setting off inflationary pressures and thus reducing economic stability, further eroding public economic safety.
The opposition might argue that these points can be refuted by arguing that in the case of public health, there exists a proven causal relationship between sugary product consumption and phenomena such as obseity, making it a logical conclusion to come to that taxing sugar to reduce its consumption would reduce obesity. However, this argument assumes that the only means of obtaining sugar goods is through legal markets. Individuals addicted to sugar products will likely seek them out in underground markets at higher prices anyway, not doing much to reduce the consumption of these products or curb obesity. Those who were addicted to junk food as a whole, including sugar products may seek other alternative junk options to fulfil this addiction, therefore not taking active steps to improve their health. In the case of economic safety, they would argue that despite discouraging investment, sugary tax also benefits the government by providing it with an increased tax revenue, which it can invest in subsidies and other financial incentives to encourage investment. This is idealistic, I would argue, since a government that is attempting to curb sugar consumption would not reinvest in financial incentives for sugar producers. In any scenario, consumers of the sugar market end up with reduced choice and higher prices, ultimately detrimental to their economic safety.
In conclusion, to achieve public safety through taxation is inefficient, as there is no way of ensuring a notable positive impact of taxation on public safety, and rather potential for a negative impact on public safety, both in the obvious sense of public health, but also the other sense of economic safety. Therefore, food and drinks in the UK should not be taxed with the aim of improving public safety in the UK.
Food and drinks containing high levels of sugar should not, for public safety, be taxed in the UK. "High levels" of sugar may be defined as the level of sugar which is officially determined, through testing by official government authorities, to be linked to negative health effects in individuals. "Public safety" in this case may not only refer to ensuring the general health of individuals in society, but also other facets of safety like economic stability. To "tax" food and drinks containing sugar would entail requiring either consumers or producers or both to pay an additional cost for the consumption or production of such products. Taxing such products with the aim of public health is a poor decision for two reasons - that it may not have a substantive impact on public safety in the UK, and that it would actually, contrarily, have adverse public health and economic consequences in the country.
To begin with, it is difficult to determine whether taxing sugary food and drinks would actually have a positive impact on public safety. It is reasonable to assume that the imposition of a tax, by making sugar products more expensive, would reduce their consumption. However, this assumes that the tax is substantive enough to actually dissuade consumption? In a likely scenario, the government may not actually exponentially increase the tax, so as to not upset the general populace or cause an extremely sudden uproar of the economy. When we consider that sugary products like candy and cake are often seen as a means of "indulging" - a "luxury" as opposed to a "necessity", more likely to be consumed by the middle to upper income groups, then these groups are unlikely to be much affected by reasonable tax increases as they will have sufficient income to still consume sugary products despite a reasonable tax. In this sense, the tax does not do much to disincentivize consumption of sugary products and thus holds little positive impact on public safety in terms of health.
Infact, I would argue the contrary, that such a tax would actually have a negative impact on public safety. We can look at public safety in two ways - public health, as has been discussed thus far, but also public economic safety in terms of a stable and conducive economy. First we will consider the fact that such a tax may have a negative impact on public health. A blanket tax on "products that contain high levels of sugar" fails to recognise that apart from "luxury" food items such as toffees or energy drinks, there are also necessary food items that contain considerable amounts of sugar in many the cuisines of the many cultures that live across the UK. Infact, there would be certain cultures with a more sugar centered diet than others. A tax would reduce the ability of low-income individuals from these cultures to be able to afford staple food items of their cultures, and thus would inhibit their ability to obtain essential nutrients that their body needs, thus reducing their health. Secondly, we can consider how it negatively impacts economic safety. Both a producer and consumer tax on sugary food and drinks lead to higher costs for producers, thus higher prices, which lower demand and thus lower revenue and profit for them. If we seek to apply a tariff as well to imports of sugary products, we disincentivize foreign producers in a similar way. By reducing investment in the country, we reduce the choice available to consumers, reducing their economic health. We reduce competition, thus increasing the possibilities of the existence of a monopoly that can handle the increased costs from a tax, which would in the long-term push up prices of these products even more, possibly even setting off inflationary pressures and thus reducing economic stability, further eroding public economic safety.
The opposition might argue that these points can be refuted by arguing that in the case of public health, there exists a proven causal relationship between sugary product consumption and phenomena such as obseity, making it a logical conclusion to come to that taxing sugar to reduce its consumption would reduce obesity. However, this argument assumes that the only means of obtaining sugar goods is through legal markets. Individuals addicted to sugar products will likely seek them out in underground markets at higher prices anyway, not doing much to reduce the consumption of these products or curb obesity. Those who were addicted to junk food as a whole, including sugar products may seek other alternative junk options to fulfil this addiction, therefore not taking active steps to improve their health. In the case of economic safety, they would argue that despite discouraging investment, sugary tax also benefits the government by providing it with an increased tax revenue, which it can invest in subsidies and other financial incentives to encourage investment. This is idealistic, I would argue, since a government that is attempting to curb sugar consumption would not reinvest in financial incentives for sugar producers. In any scenario, consumers of the sugar market end up with reduced choice and higher prices, ultimately detrimental to their economic safety.
In conclusion, to achieve public safety through taxation is inefficient, as there is no way of ensuring a notable positive impact of taxation on public safety, and rather potential for a negative impact on public safety, both in the obvious sense of public health, but also the other sense of economic safety. Therefore, food and drinks in the UK should not be taxed with the aim of improving public safety in the UK.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- LNAT forum!
- LNAT
- LNAT essay
- Lnat help
- LNAT for 2025 Entry
- How do I start revising for LNAT?
- LNAT last minute tips (URGENT)
- Is specific information required for LNAT essay?
- LNAT
- LNAT Section B Essay Marking
- LNAT candidates 2024 (for 2025 entry)
- LNAT preparation method/tuition/coaching/platform
- KCL LLB Politics, Philosophy and Law applicants (2025 entry)
- How hard is the LNAT really?
- Law or Medicine?
- Studying undergrad law at a Russel Group uni
- Law university advice please!
- LNAT tips :)
- I got a 35 in the LNAT. Ask me anyting
- Could I get into Law at Oxford?
Latest
Trending
