Professor:
Today we’re going to discuss whether the government should tax unhealthy products, such as sugary drinks and junk food. On one hand, taxing these products could discourage people from consuming them and reduce health problems. On the other hand, some argue that such taxes unfairly target lower-income families who may rely on these products as affordable sources of food. If you had to choose, would you support or oppose taxing unhealthy products? Why?
Answer:
I am positive that the government should impose corrective taxes on unhealthy foods. That is because such unhealthy products as instant foods are not only instantaneously consumable but also low-priced. These factors can easily entice people, who would otherwise choose nutritious and healthy foods, to opt for them instead. Thus, taxation on them will discourage such customers from purchasing them by increasing the market price of those products. Some argue that laying taxes on unhealthy foods would indiscriminately affect low-income families who rely on these products as affordable sources of sustenance. Concerning this, I suggest that the government should embark on providing them with further benefit payments with which they can adequately cope with the price of healthy foods that may be slightly more expensive than that of unhealthy ones. Implementing these strategies, the government may well not solely reduce the consumption of various types of unhealthy foods but furthermore encourage firms to reformulate the compositional ingredients of their products, thus ultimately improving public health.
Professor:
Next week, we’re going to spend a lot of time in class discussing the positive and negative ways in which companies affect the world around us. Before we start talking about that in class, I want to hear what you think about the topic. So, here’s a question for the message board: In your opinion, what is the best way for a company to have a positive impact on society?
Answer:
I firmly believe that companies can contribute to shaping a better society by advancing technology while competing with other firms in the industry. Many people consider philanthropy to promote social welfare the most. Companies, indeed, can conspicuously enhance the well-being of the community in this way, but it only encompasses such an exclusive group as underprevileged people who are economically discriminated against in society either explicitly or implicitly. Conversely, technological advancement, which is brought about by the competition of companies to get more consumers in free market, poses positive impacts on rather conclusive groups of people than charitable giving does. For example, it was with the motivation to grasp victory in the rivalry between electronics companies that Steve Jobs came up with and created the first product ever to be categorized as smart phone. And smart phones, in turn, have been proved to influence society positively in many respects and an unprecedented scale across the globe; they facilitate people’s access to information via the Internet, make sure people kept in contact with others in distance 24 hours a day, or help consumers alluviate their stress by playing games that thrid-party corporations invented to seize the lead in the game industry. Another example in the line with this topic would be vehicles. As it is known, Carl Bentz created and manufactured the first automobile, which was the outcome of competition as well. Vehicles, since then, have brought plenty of convenience to society; they shortened the average commuting time, made an abundance of remote regions accessible to outsiders, thus fostering tourism in part, and contributed to the distribution of urban developments across regions in a macroscopic view. Therefore, I remark that the best way for companies to influence society positively is to stimulate technological advancements resulting from the competition between companies to lay a hold on the lead in free market.
첫댓글 수고했다,,,홧팅,,,