Many countries require cigarette smokers to pay particularly high taxes on their purchases of cigarettes; similar taxes are being considered for unhealthy foods. The policy of imposing high taxes on cigarettes and other unhealthy products has a number of social benefits.
First of all, the taxes discourage people from indulging in unhealthy behaviors. Raising taxes on cigarettes, for instance, leads people to buy fewer of them. Smoking has declined as taxes on tobacco have risen, showing that these taxes do work to make society healthier. It can be expected that imposing similar taxes on unhealthy food and beverages would help reduce obesity rates.
Second, taxes of this kind are financially fair. When people get sick as a result of their smoking or eating unhealthy foods, they create medical costs. It is unfair that everyone in the society—including nonsmokers and people who follow a healthy diet—should contribute equally to covering these costs. Taxing people who engage in unhealthy behaviors creates extra income that can be used to cover the medical costs. In this way, some of the financial burden is shifted from all of society to just those who choose to participate in the unhealthy activities.
Finally, the high rate of taxation on cigarettes significantly increases revenue for the government. In addition to using this tax revenue on medical assistance, governments often use the revenue for other projects that benefit public welfare, such as building stadiums or creating public parks. Even basic government-supported services like public education benefit from these taxes. Thus, the taxes on cigarettes—and the proposed taxes on unhealthy foods—benefit everyone.
Both the article and the lecture talks about the taxes on unhealthy food or cigarettes. It is obvious that they have completely different ideas.
First, according to the author, taxes can prevent addiction to unhealthy things. Since higher taxes indicates more expendature, the purchases amount will just decrease, hindering those unhealthy behaviors. However, the lecturer argues against this point, as this can cause further degradation of the buyers' health. Namely, they spend more money on the highly taxed commodities or just turn to low-quality products comprising harmful substances.
Additionally, the author contends that it will be more fair to have such taxes, since those with healthy habits don't need to share the medical costs. Nontheless, the lecturer refutes that this may cause inequality among the customers. For those low-income people, it is unfair for them to have the same tax as those who are affluent, which imposes a great financial burden on them.
Thirdly, the arthor holds that this can bring about more revenue for the government, which in turn increases the public welfare finances. This idea displeases the lecturer who argues that it will make the government depend too much on this income. Since this revenue is rather remarkable, the government may be unwilling to ban some public unhealthy behaviors like smoking in closed buildings etc, and thus harm the public sanitation.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 301, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'buyers'' or 'buyer's'?
Suggestion: buyers'; buyer's
...is can cause further degradation of the buyers health. Namely, they spend more money o...
^^^^^^
Line 5, column 113, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: don't
... taxes, since those with healthy habits dont need to share the medical costs. Nonthe...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
first, however, if, may, so, third, thirdly, thus
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 6.0 10.4613686534 57% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 5.04856512141 178% => OK
Conjunction : 4.0 7.30242825607 55% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 9.0 12.0772626932 75% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 24.0 22.412803532 107% => OK
Preposition: 23.0 30.3222958057 76% => OK
Nominalization: 6.0 5.01324503311 120% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1196.0 1373.03311258 87% => OK
No of words: 223.0 270.72406181 82% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.36322869955 5.08290768461 106% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.86434787811 4.04702891845 95% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.63271094591 2.5805825403 102% => OK
Unique words: 139.0 145.348785872 96% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.62331838565 0.540411800872 115% => OK
syllable_count: 360.9 419.366225166 86% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 3.25607064018 123% => OK
Article: 6.0 8.23620309051 73% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 1.25165562914 320% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 2.5761589404 155% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 12.0 13.0662251656 92% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 21.2450331126 85% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 34.6845907188 49.2860985944 70% => OK
Chars per sentence: 99.6666666667 110.228320801 90% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.5833333333 21.698381199 86% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.08333333333 7.06452816374 58% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 1.0 4.33554083885 23% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 4.45695364238 157% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.27373068433 94% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.165921173953 0.272083759551 61% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0642062529384 0.0996497079465 64% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0652568632334 0.0662205650399 99% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.107313331328 0.162205337803 66% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0565264060493 0.0443174109184 128% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.1 13.3589403974 98% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 53.21 53.8541721854 99% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 11.0289183223 93% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.81 12.2367328918 113% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.92 8.42419426049 106% => OK
difficult_words: 62.0 63.6247240618 97% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 7.0 10.7273730684 65% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 10.498013245 88% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.2008830022 125% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 85.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 25.5 Out of 30
---------------------
Note: the e-grader does NOT examine the meaning of words and ideas. VIP users will receive further evaluations by advanced module of e-grader and human graders.