Recently there has been discussion in the news about taxing junk food (soft drinks, for example) in an effort to reduce the incidence of obesity in the U.S. Do you think the demand for junk food is elastic or inelastic with respect to price?Based on your knowledge of the price elasticity of demand, do you think the deadweight loss of a soda/junk-food tax would be relatively large or relatively small? Why? Do you think taxing junk food would be a good idea? Based on your analysis, would it really help reduce the number of obese people in the United States? Explain please give me details.

Answer:

Throughout the clarification segment elsewhere here, the definition including its concern is mentioned.

Explanation:

• Through me, the demand for amounts of unhealthy food seems to be inelastic in terms of costs. I acknowledge that as the cost goes up, consumers will consume less junk food, but perhaps the decrease in the supply is lower than that of the rising rise. It might be because, already though, substitutes for junk foods, particularly across the Us, are challenging to find. Unhealthy food is just the shortest and simplest meal to consume.
• The reasoning here seems to be that every customer would have to purchase food even though the price rises by 1%, so consumption will still decrease by somewhere around 1%. So perhaps we can assume that quality does not influence quantities throughout the Junk Food industry.
• The reduction of excess baggage would be small since it is inelastic. This symbolizes the corporation's low incompetence and as the cost is changed, the market for quantities is approximately the same, not so much impact.
• I thought taxing junk foods, especially to maximize welfare spending, is a smart option. But obesity over here Is not going to help. The incorrect method for combating obesity as well as making our diets balanced is taxes. The irony is that all clients are impacted by taxes regardless of their weight status. The impact of food taxes is unclear and may result in the replacement of items that may comprise of calories that seem to be equivalent or higher.

Final answer:

The demand for junk food is typically inelastic, meaning a small price increase from a tax wouldn't significantly reduce demand. The deadweight loss would be relatively small. A junk food tax could potentially promote healthier choices, but it's not guaranteed to lower obesity levels alone.

Explanation:

The demand for junk food is generally seen as inelastic because these are often low-cost pleasure products that many consumers are willing to purchase even with a slight increase in price. The price elasticity of demand refers to how sensitive the quantity demanded of a good is to a change in its price. In the case of junk food, a small price increase may not significantly reduce demand.

The deadweight loss refers to the inefficient allocation of resources, in this case resulting from the imposition of a tax. For an inelastic demand good like junk food, the deadweight loss would be relatively small because the quantity demanded does not decrease significantly with an increase in price. However, the impact on obesity rates is not clear cut since it also depends on people's dietary choices and lifestyle habits.

Implementing a junk food tax could be a good measure in incentivizing healthier choices, but it's not the only solution. The overall effect would also heavily depend on supplementary measures, like education on healthy eating and promotion of physical activity. Therefore, simply taxing junk food might not significantly reduce the number of obese people in the United States.

Learn more about Junk Food Tax and Obesity here:

brainly.com/question/35137577

#SPJ3