Benefits and Costs of the fat-tax--论文代写范文

这依赖于肥胖税造成的外部性因素。另一种是肥胖税与肥胖相关的额外的医疗成本问题。在这种情况下,节省医疗成本可能是一个极其复杂的实证问题。下面的paper代写范文进行论述。

Abstract
  Every economic analysis, whatever is its focus, is based on juxtaposition of benefits and costs. Their mere identification and sorting12 will help to find faults with many opinions and proposals that gained their acclaim because people’s evaluations of them are one-sided or otherwise biased. Thus, in order to judge the desirability of the fat-tax, one cannot proceed without pointing out and properly considering both benefits and the cost factors.

 Benefits 
  Benefits of the prospective tax on fat – as opposed to its cost – are relatively easy to identify and are known quite well as they are extensively cited in support of the proposal. The prime benefit of the fat-tax (which seems to be the ultimate source of concern and the rationale for it) is the lower health care cost. The mechanism through which this is supposed to happen is quite simple: by increasing the price of food containing fat, the tax induces people to decrease the caloric intake which reduces the average weight in population which in turn diminishes the cost of care of obesity-related health problems. This relies on the fat-tax as a deterrent from causing the externality. An alternative route through which the fat-tax may contribute to a similar end is to yield revenue that can be used to cover the extra health-care cost of treating obesity-related problems. In this case, the fat-tax is relied on as a generator of revenue to remedy the existing externality.

  To quantify, even vaguely, what the saved health-care cost may amount to is an extremely complex empirical problem we cannot pretend to be solving here. It involves multidisciplinary analyses, each of them highly contingent on place and time, and likely to be unreliable as it comes from biased source advocating particular policy stance.14 Without engaging in such an enormous task, let us proceed on the premise that there are plausible economies to be derived from the imposition of the fat-tax. Before we turn to costs of the fat-tax, however, it has to be pointed out that there may be some important slips between imposition of the fat-tax at the beginning and lower health care cost at the end. Let us see then where the above mechanisms may not work as expected. We look at each mechanism – both deterring and fiscal – in the order of appearance.

 Higher tax, less fat 
  The first link in the chain of reasoning is the assertion that higher price of fats will induce people to consume less of them. High-fat food, as unhealthy as it is supposed to be, is demanded for its good taste. Though not addictive, one can conjecture that demand for favorite tasteful food will be quite inelastic. This is the case of other “sinful” commodities that too are known to hinder health but whose consumption people give up only very reluctantly. The relative inelasticity conjecture is all the more so justified as the tax would be imposed on a large variety of foodstuffs, which will make it more difficult to substitute the taxed food with something else. Should the demand indeed turn out to be relatively inelastic, it will have the familiar consequences for the power to influence quantity through price. In order to trigger substantial cuts in quantity of fat consumed, the fat-tax rate would have to be set rather high, similar to excise taxes on alcohol, which easily double or triple the price of such commodities to consumers. This, however, may not only be politically untenable but may also cause additional problems that could mitigate the partial benefits of the tax.15 Unless the fat-tax is set high enough,16 it may be expected to bring about only a very moderate reduction in the quantity of fat consumed, and the ultimate end (and benefit) will not be obtained.

 Less fat, lower weight 
  Even if the first link is empirically shown to hold the initial part of the story together, the mechanism might not produce the desired outcome due to the weaknesses in the second link: the implication that lower fat consumption will lead to lower weight in population. The robustness of the second link is dependent on people’s reaction towards the tax. It does not automatically follow that cutting the consumption of fat will be the end of the story, i.e. that people will simply eat less, and as a consequence, lose weight. The fat-rich food in people’s diet is likely to be substituted by higher consumption of other ingredients. And there is no reason to suppose that these will be necessarily low-caloric and healthy. 

  In fact, it is not very unlikely that people would substitute fat in their diets for something similarly contributing to weight gains. For instance, the place of fat can be taken by sugar – also an tasteful and hard-to-give-up ingredient – which, after the fat-tax is imposed, will appear comparatively cheaper and hence more attractive to the consumers. Also, even if the switching to other weightcontributing ingredients was prevented by an analogous tax (a “sugar tax”), it is possible to switch to comparatively cheap foodstuffs and enjoy greater quantities of them. In short, taste (an attribute of unhealthy and thus taxed food) can be substituted by quantity (a further variable in the consumer’s utility function), and that can in the end be of the same consequence as the consumption of foodstuffs taxed for its unhealthiness. Should this be the case, the fat-tax lowers the consumption of fat but fails to deliver the reduction in the weight, which is necessary for the achievement of the ultimate goal.

 Lower weight, lower health-care cost 
  Lastly, even if it is granted that the tax will bring about both lower fat consumption and lower average weight in population, it is still premature to conclude that the end of the tax is achieved. In order to produce the reduction in the health care cost, it does not suffice that the individuals on average lose weight – it must be the overweight and obese individuals, whose treatment strains the health care budgets. These people, however, may turn out least sensitive to the changes in the price. It is precisely ardent food fans (representing by assumption18 the great majority of overweight and obese people) that will find it hard to forgo their fat consumption. Far more sensitive to the price will be those individuals who can more easily restrain themselves from eating food rich in fat. (paper代写)

  But these will be generally individuals who are not overweight in the first place and who are not imposing extra cost on the health care system. This is parallel to the way that excise taxes on alcohol do not reduce alcoholism, despite the fact that they reduce the amount of alcohol consumed. The problem is that the targeted group turns out to be the most immune to this kind of incentive program. Should it be the case that overweight and obese individuals are indeed the least responsive to the increases in price, the fat-tax can reduce the average weight but is found wanting in doing the task it was designed to accomplish: reducing the weight (and the number) of overweight individuals. Failing to do this, it must naturally fail at reducing the health care cost.(paper代写)

  51Due原创版权郑重声明：原创范文源自编辑创作，未经官方许可，网站谢绝转载。对于侵权行为，未经同意的情况下，51Due有权追究法律责任。
  51due为留学生提供最好的服务，想获取更多论文代写范文，亲们可以进入主页 www.51due.com  为留学生提供论文代写服务，了解详情可以咨询我们的客服QQ:800020041哟。

标签：paper代写  Benefits and Costs  assignment代写