TPO-53
#LECTURE
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 many social benefits.
First of all, the taxes discourage people from indulging in unhealthy behavior. 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 following their smoking or eating unhealthy foods, they create medical costs. It is unfair that everyone in 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 medical costs. In this way, some financial burdens are shifted from all society to just those who choose to participate in 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, like building stadiums or creating public parks. Even basic government-supported services like public education benefit from these taxes. Thus, taxes on cigarettes, and the proposed taxes on unhealthy foods, benefit everyone.
#LISTENING
Each of the arguments about the benefits of cigarettes and other such taxes can be challenged.
First, these taxes don’t necessarily lead to healthier behavior. For instance, high cigarette taxes have led some smokers to buy cheaper lower quality cigarettes. Such cigarettes typically contain even more harmful substances than better quality cigarettes and present even greater health risks. Similarly, imagine how some consumers might react to higher taxes on unhealthy foods. They might continue buying unhealthy foods they prefer even if they’re more expensive. And consequently, I have less money left to spend on healthy foods. That certainly wouldn’t benefit their health.
Second, there are different ways of thinking about fairness. It might seem fair for people indulging in unhealthy behavior to pay for the consequences of those behaviors through high taxes. But some people would argue that these taxes are unfair because they don’t account for people’s incomes. If high-earning people and lower-earning people are addicted to cigarettes, each smokes a pack of cigarettes a day. Paying the tax would be a greater expense for the low earner relative to his or her income. The same argument applies to food taxes. Many people believe these taxes are not fair because they create a much greater burden for those with smaller incomes than for those with higher incomes.
Finally, the fact that governments can use this tax revenue for various projects has the downside. This income represents millions and millions of dollars and governments become dependent on it and don’t want to lose it. As a consequence, governments might not be forceful enough pursuing policies and implementing laws that might eliminate unhealthy habits altogether. For example, they are unlikely to adopt radical measures like not allowing smoking in outdoor public areas like parks or even banning smoking in all outdoor areas, public or private, because they don’t want to lose this income.
Some nations claim to levy high taxes toward harmful products, especially cigarettes and unhealthy foods. The reading section has provided three reasons for supporting the benefits of the policy while the listening part reveals the shortage of them one by one.
The first reason is to help people switch direction toward healthy behaviors according to the high taxes rate from unhealthy products. However, the professor argued that this reason is unnecessary and helpless for directing individuals to choose to live healthier. If the taxes of harmful products which they favor, most people would purchase the lower quality products or more likely continue their toxic lifestyle although they need to suffer the high taxes. Therefore, it is only a vicious circle.
Another solution is the equal rights of citizens. The professor found faults with this advocate and indicated another perspective of considering fairness. The policy probably seems fair to everyone, but actually, it isn't right. The high rate of taxes would only enlarge the gap between the rich and the poor; consequently, low salary population would be more indigent but exclude the rich people.
Yet another resolution is the enormous revenue for the government that governments could use this cash in different ways to improve the development of society. Nevertheless, the professor disputed that this thought is merely focusing on the positive side of the government. For this tempting amount and number of money, governments would be more likely to adopt a blur attitude in executing these policies for gaining more income.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 157, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_BEGINNING_RULE
Message: Three successive sentences begin with the same word. Reword the sentence or use a thesaurus to find a synonym.
...er perspective of considering fairness. The policy probably seems fair to everyone,...
^^^
Line 5, column 232, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_BEGINNING_RULE
Message: Three successive sentences begin with the same word. Reword the sentence or use a thesaurus to find a synonym.
...veryone, but actually, it is not right. The high rate of taxes would only enlarge t...
^^^
Line 7, column 1, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_BEGINNING_RULE
Message: Three successive sentences begin with the same word. Reword the sentence or use a thesaurus to find a synonym.
...ndigent but exclude the rich people. The last one is the enormous revenue for th...
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, but, consequently, first, however, if, nevertheless, second, so, therefore, while
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 9.0 10.4613686534 86% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 5.04856512141 119% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 7.30242825607 110% => OK
Relative clauses : 4.0 12.0772626932 33% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 15.0 22.412803532 67% => OK
Preposition: 28.0 30.3222958057 92% => OK
Nominalization: 6.0 5.01324503311 120% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1347.0 1373.03311258 98% => OK
No of words: 253.0 270.72406181 93% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.32411067194 5.08290768461 105% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.98822939669 4.04702891845 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.65225932486 2.5805825403 103% => OK
Unique words: 158.0 145.348785872 109% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.624505928854 0.540411800872 116% => OK
syllable_count: 415.8 419.366225166 99% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 3.25607064018 61% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.23620309051 109% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 0.0 2.5761589404 0% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 13.0 13.0662251656 99% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 21.2450331126 89% => OK
Sentence length SD: 44.6059671758 49.2860985944 91% => OK
Chars per sentence: 103.615384615 110.228320801 94% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.4615384615 21.698381199 90% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.0 7.06452816374 99% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 4.19205298013 72% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 4.33554083885 161% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 4.45695364238 112% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 4.27373068433 23% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.238957576211 0.272083759551 88% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0695278634668 0.0996497079465 70% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0808324577353 0.0662205650399 122% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.137803961898 0.162205337803 85% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0638739173117 0.0443174109184 144% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.4 13.3589403974 100% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 52.19 53.8541721854 97% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 11.0289183223 97% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.58 12.2367328918 111% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.45 8.42419426049 112% => OK
difficult_words: 78.0 63.6247240618 123% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 10.7273730684 103% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 10.498013245 91% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.2008830022 98% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 80.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 24.0 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.