Original practice question
Some people think governments should tax sugary drinks to improve public health. To what extent do you agree or disagree?
- 1
Position
Agree that a tax is worth using on the cheapest sugary drinks, and disagree that a drinks tax alone is a public-health policy.
- 2
Body paragraph 1
- Point
- A higher price is one of the few tools that reaches a purchase made in a hurry by people who already know the drink is not a health food.
- Explanation
- Information is not the gap. The drink is cold, sweet and often cheaper than water in the same cabinet. A tax that pushes the price above the plain alternative changes that cabinet. People who are price-sensitive, who are also often the heaviest buyers, respond.
- Example
- A corner shop where the large sugary bottle sat below the price of a small bottle of water until the tax reversed the order.
- 3
Body paragraph 2
- Point
- The same tax misses the sugar in untaxed food and can look like a policy while the meal deal stays cheap.
- Explanation
- If only drinks are taxed, manufacturers shift sweetness into food, and a shopper under pressure still builds a day of cheap energy. Calling the tax a solution overclaims it. It is a useful slice, and it needs the neighbouring products in view.
- Example
- A taxed cola beside an untaxed pastry and a cereal marketed to children, still the cheapest breakfast within reach of a school gate.
- 4
Conclusion
Tax the drinks, because the price comparison is currently absurd. Do not pretend the tax has dealt with diet.