Hey Pablo I just discovered that Spain has an autonomous city in the north of Africa directly south of Gibraltar and I would love to see a video from you talking about it, just a suggestion 😁
Acabo de encontrar y ver éste video. Me encantó! Leí todos los comentarios... pienso que entiendo bien los puntos de vistas. Hay mucho por decir de este tema. De hecho, para mí, desafortunadamente no tengo la confianza en gobiernos...ni sus impuestos. Muchas gracias por el video.
I'm not sure where I stand on this issue myself, but I agree with Anna when the topic of smoking came up. I believe when smoking was first around the industry did everything to hide the negative health effects it had and I believe (my opinion) that the huge reduction in smoking rates doesn't have to do with the tax (that may help some), but more to do with how much society now tries to educate us on how bad it is for our health. I think that more open and honest discussion has had the biggest effect in helping bring the rates down a lot. If it's true that smoking/sugary drinks are consumed more by poorer people vs richer I think that kind of helps show that the choice is not all economic, I think education plays a bigger part. I think a similar thing approach could be taken to choosing healthier foods/drinks, trying your best to educate your society on healthy choices you could make. Also here in the US the corn industry is heavily subsidized, making unhealthy artificial foods cheaper. I think the gov here should stop subsidizing artificial food options and if anything do that for the farmers and help bring the cost down of natural food.
Tax absolutely helps. One of the core principles of economics is that people respond to incentives. Lets take a simple supply and demand function for example. The higher the price, the lower the quantity demanded. If you are poor however, raising the price lowers the maximum quantity you can buy. Lets say you could buy 10 packs a month with your salary, but the price went up, now you can only afford 8 packs. 8 packs is not healthy either, but its certainly better than 10.
@@thorthewolf8801 I understand the theory, but if economics was the main factor why don't we see higher income people with higher rates of smoking or diabetes (say from drinking sugary drinks) and instead we see the inverse (lower income with higher rates of smoking and diabetes and lower rates of smoking with higher education).
Good debate. Personally, I side with Pablo. One reason is that I am paying for the expensive consequences of the unhealthy behavior of others: a person with morbid obesity, or diabetes, or inability to work because of weight or disease passes much of their costs onto other people, including me. I want freedom from paying for their mistakes! But, I understand what Alma says: if they don't drink a one-liter Coke, they will have a half dozen donuts with a slice of pizza.
Me encantó mucho el debate. presté mucha atención. La respuesta no es cual es lo correcto porque todos de nosotros tenemos niveles de riesgos diferentes. Y por eso, y para permanecer justo, la gente debería votar sobre estos asuntos.
Una buena discusión. Por supuesto que es mejor ser delgado y saludable. Nadie en el mundo está en desacuerdo con eso. Es mejor para la persona y para la comunidad. Pero Alma tiene razón. Estamos en contra de los impuestos coercitivos por otras razones. Es un cuestión de libertad. No quiero un gobierno que tenga tanto poder que comience a dictar mis opciones de vida. Qué pasará entonces? ¿Tendré que subirme a una balanza para que me pesen, y si estoy gordo, mis alimentos serán gravados más fuertemente? ¿Me penalizará mi impuesto sobre la renta por negarme a tomar un medicamento para reducir la presión arterial alta, por ejemplo, o por negarme a otras intervenciones médicas? Creo que no.
It’s interesting, although I understand this, I’m so use to advanced content that is scripted, and there isn’t the uhhs and umms and thinking of one thought then switching to another, all that type of stuff we do in discussions like this, bc they aren’t “scripted”. Its like your brain learning how to separate what’s meaningful speech and what’s to be discarded. Pretty neat
El nivel de su debate era alto. Alma quiere proteger la libertad de la gente vivir en la manera que les conviene aun si eso se supone algunos riesgos. Es realmente una cosa, o sea una cuestion, moral: queremos que el estado nos obliga a vivir una vida sin riesgos? Claramente que no! El riesgo es algo que necesitamos en una medida determinada, y la dignidad humana exige que elegirnos cada uno por si mismo si queremos un poco mas o menos de riesgo independientemente del Estado.
I think that they should't be taxed but for slightly different reasons than the ones Alma gives. Unhealthier products are easier to prepare and consume compared to healthy ones, poor people usually don't have the time nor energy to be able to invest more money nor time. The tax disproportionately affects poorer people so you're only creating pressure for those who are already disadvantaged which are the ones who require the most help. I also think Alcohol/Smoking aren't comparable because those products aren't competing with an alternative healthier product in the same category whereas food items are - no matter how high you raise the tax for food items people still need to buy food. Generally speaking, more money means more freedom and more freedom means higher likelihood of making "better" decisions so if you want people to choose healthier products make it easier to choose those products - increasing the tax for unhealthy products just restricts it more but doesn't actually make it easier to choose healthier products if you're poorer (unless you literally tax every sugary product such that it's equal to unhealthy products but at that point you're running into a plethora of other problems especially when a lot of people barely have enough money to make ends meet). Side note, the disagreement sounds more philosophical in nature as opposed to scientific or due to a misunderstanding of facts - Pablo is arguing the morality of a decision based on the outcome while Alma is arguing the morality of a decision based on the decision itself irrespective of the outcome. edit: When she says we shouldn't mess with people's choices or decisions she's also pressuming that this isn't already the case and that everyone already acts as a free agent without outside or environmental influence which isn't the case ofc.
This might be fine for Spain, but I wouldn't want this to happen in America. What I think would happen in America is that big business would get involved. They would pay for scientists to run a study to come to a conclusion that X product (their competitor) is very unhealthy and that it should be taxed more. Then they would have their lobbists do their thing and call in favors to the politicians that they donated money to to have their competitors taxed more. All the time we hear a study like "one beer a day is actually good for you." What is the likehood that beer is beneficial for the normal person? Very unlikely to be true, but we hear about studies like that all the time, most likely because a beer company paid a research company to come to that conclusion. I just think the system would get abused in America because big business holds too much power. They would fund a bunch of fake studies and have the politicians that they donated to raise taxes for their competitors or remove the taxes for their product.
No sé si eso es la solución. Aun con impuestos altos, muchas personas aun fumen mucho. Si tienen hábitos malos, un cambio de precio no va a cambiarlo creo. Debe de ser más atención a otros métodos.
Es mi derecho vivir de una manera poco saludable. ¿Qué tal si el gobierno hiciera estudios que dijeran que vivir sin casarse es psicológicamente dañino? ¿O que no tener hijos daña a la sociedad? Hasta qué punto vas a dejar que el estado decida? ¿Debe el gobierno tomar medidas para que el vivir como soltero sea más caro? Al fin y al cabo el estado no tiene el derecho de controlarme con tal de que yo no haga daño a mi prójimo y mucho menos el derecho de poner impuestos con el propósito de castigar a los que no quieren priorizar un alto nivel de salud. O sea, tengo el derecho de decidir que el placer de consumir azúcar vale la pena si el coste que tendría que pagar es solo el de vivir unos cuanto años menos. Para mi, evitar un exceso de azúcar es una buena decision ...pero es decisión mía. El estado puede educar a la gente pero no debe forzar/obligar a la gente hasta tal extremo.
Nice and slow!!! Aprendí el español mio en la república dominicana en 2005. Ojalá que me hablaran así tan lento!!! I guess the benefit is other dialects sound matrix slow to me 😂😂
La clave de este debate es control versus libertad. ¿Debería el gobierno imponer impuestos a los refrescos pero no al queso ni a la carne roja? Ambos pueden argumentarse como malos para la salud (en exceso). Estoy de acuerdo en que tales leyes tienden a ser arbitrarias. La clave es esta: ¿mi elección afecta a los que me rodean? Si no, debe prevalecer la libertad de elección. ¡Dame libertad o dame muerte!
If alcohol was twice as cheaper as it is now, do you think more people would start to drink alcohol? Shouldn't we be free to choose what we want to drink? Does your choice affect others? Yes, indeed. As Pablo said, your choice of not eating healthily means that you are more likely to develop a disease directly caused by your unhealthy habits --> it will be paid from other people's pockets, not yours.
@@Joachim1010 so why not tax all processed food, all fast food, etc. How about fast cars and skateboards etc. You can find a reason to add a tax onto anything. But anything to put more money into politicians pockets, right?
If alcohol was twice as cheaper as it is now, do you think more people would start to drink alcohol? Shouldn't we be free to choose what we want to drink? Shouldn't I be free to rape women and take drugs? Isn't that freedom?
@@Joachim1010 libertarians tend to believe in the non-aggression principle which means drink/consume what you want, but harming others, such as your other example, is not part of the philosophy, unless in defense.
@@andreab616 What if you harm others non-directly? In this case, people's taxes are spent on the treatment of obesity rather than global warming, for example.
@@Joachim1010 I would question the effectiveness of this process. If spending people's tax dollars on the treatment of obesity was working, there wouldn't be such an obesity problem. I think if we do our best to apply the non-aggression principle, we'd reduce the chances of harming others indirectly as much as possible. Hope you're well!
@@andreab616 I'd venture to say that non-aggression - that is: low prices for tobacco, fizzy drinks, and alcohol - harms people more in the long run than allowing them to consume whatever they want in the present.
Pablo makes sense. There are many faults with Alma's reasoning. Her main reasoning for no taxes was that it impedes on people's freedom to purchase what they want. However, taxes don't prohibit one from buying products. It's to create a barrier to lower consumption of that product to create a healthier community. Companies spend billions of dollars to market their products to influence our buying habits, which "impedes our freedom" to choose, but that was never mentioned. Taxes on harmful products have been proven to decrease consumption. It was both the tax and the increased knowledge of harm that decreased cigarette smoking It's not a one or the other thing, both played roles in decreased smoking. Also, yes, poorer populations tend to drink more sugary beverages and smoke more, however most people fail to realize that companies purposely target poorer populations to take advantage of their lower education and need for coping mechanisms from environmental stress that are generally associated with lower socioeconomic status. So increased taxes are there to place a barrier to counter the marketing and product placement actions that multi-billion dollar companies take to get poor people to buy their products. Great topic, looking forward to hearing more discussions!
Un tema, debate y video muy interesante. Estoy de acuerdo contigo, no veo hay un problema poner un impuesto a las bebidas azucaradas. Personas pueden decidir si quieren pagar mas o no. El problema, en mi opinion, es si personas tener hábitos que no son saludables, estos hábitos tienen un impacto negativo en el sistema de salud en el país y eventualmente cuesta mas para toda la gente.
sí, tanbién tiene la cuestión de la grande cuantidad de personas obesas al redor de lo globo, especialmente nos Estados Unidos.. los chicos e chicas tanbién estón en el percentual.
Sorry Pablo, but this time I'm #TeamAlma. A desire to eat healthy has to be our own desire, not the government desire. Since the sugary drinks were taxed in Poland maybe I almost do not drink Pepsi, instead I drink a lot of "unbranded" soda and eat chips. Even if I did not do that, that would not change much. I hate preparing food so basically when I'm studying 95% of things I eat is milk with cereal or sandwich with jam. If sugary drinks and other unhealthy things were cheaper I could at least save some money which I could spend eating outside enriching my "diet" a bit.
While I would love for people to consume fewer sugary drinks, to stop smoking and drinking, I just don't think taxing items is going to discourage it for the majority of people who already consume these items. It feels unethical to think the government will make extra money off typically poorer people who are addicted to these items. For me, I see the price of cigarettes and think, I would never, it's so expensive. But I've also never smoked. But I know another race pops up and I find a way to scrape together the money to pay the fee to do it. So people who are addicted will find a way to pay it, taking away from their needs or going into debt because it's way to easy to get credit cards and such these days even if you have terrible credit. It's got to stop somewhere else. It's seems hypocritical to tax sugary drinks but then subsidize dairy farmers and pay for kids to drink milk at lunch which is filled with a ton of extra sugar. Not just the chocolate, even white milk is so sugary to make it palatable. We can't control parents, but can we cook fresh and healthy meals at schools. Put money into that and universal health care so the next generation grows up making better choices so they feed their kids well at home. Just me trying to sum up my thoughts on a complicated topic.
En lugar de una legislacion que se manda las impuestas a las bebidas azucaradas, tal vez, una impuesta puede aplicar a la publicidad de la empresa. Entonces solamente la empresa se paga la pena, por intentar a poner su productos entre a nos mentes. Quiza si la gente verian menos de los anuncios, ellos compraran menos de los productos. Si no se funciona asi, las corporaciones gastarian menos dinero en la publicidad. ...O quiza, hay que crear una limite a la cantidad de la publicidad que se permite por una empresa.
A mi me ha encantado el tema y el debate, me parece informativo y enrevesado , ambos hicieron un buen punto pero en esta platica, desde mi punto de vista, concuerdo con el hombre, al principio, la mujer hacía buenos puntos y su argumento me fue bastante fuerte e irrompible, pero al reflexionar, como dijo, el gobierno no debería intervenir a los gustos de los ciudadanos, Luego, Sin embargo, dijo que al final de cuenta, somos nosotros el que decide que consumir, entonces, por mas que incrementen el impuesto que pronto, hará que los precios de estos productos suban, las personas seguirán consumiendolo pese a que los precios han subido, y más temprano dijo algo como en el caso de que eso pase, el gobierno estaría dando por sentado a la comunidad, al inicio, pues , pensé para mis adentros que tenía razón, eso seria cruel en el parte del gobierno, ahora pienso que el resultado va a depender al gobierno, si es bueno o no, porque si lo realizan y el gobierno es corrupto entonces, no va a habar un buen cambio sino que terminará perjudicando más. No sé HAJAHHAHAHAHAH nomas comento para practicar mi español, Gracias, saludos desde Filipinas 🇵🇭
los impuestos sufragan los costes sanitarios de personas insanas que llevan una vida insana. no se trata de hacer que la gente no sea insana. se trata de recaudar ingresos para compensar los costes sanitarios de la diabetes y otros costes de la sanidad pública.
Es una cuestión de "externalidades", los efectos que tus actividades tienen sobre el mundo que te rodea, los efectos sobre otras personas. ¿Quién debe pagar los costos de atención médica causados por decisiones poco saludables?
esta tema es muy interesante. La gente pobre consume mucho porque les gustan a comer muchisimo y relmente gastar mas dinero que si gastran los productos de mejor calidad. Mi amigo dice, la gente no quiere libertad, la gente quiere tragar...
@@javiertoranzo5495 Hola, Que tal? ... no es facil responder para esta pregunta, depende de donde erse, que pais, que productos compramos. La verdad, es que no necesitamos a comer mucho 3,5.6 veces cada dia.el hecho de que en algunos países tener acceso a alimentos las 24 horas del día no significa que tengas que comer cada vez que ves productos.muchos productos que la gente come son de mala calidad, sin valor, tapan el estómago, pero igual tienen hambre, no escribiré sobre la cantidad de comida que se tira a la basura... Bueno, el tema es muy extenso. Salut.
Los impuestos sobre las bebidas azucaradas solo afectan a las decisiones de los pobres y solo quita la libertad de elegir entre los pobres. Aumentan la desigualdad de libertad entre la población.
She is defending the modern relativism but health is not a matter of taste. It can be measured how much unburnt metabolic waste the obese people carry in their bodies. And it isn't only their personal problem. Unhealthy people can let their family and the society too early down. Their unnecessary health problems are expensive and their turn from assets into burdens many years earlier than people who stay fit. It is a fact, not an opinion to discuss. It is immoral to seduce people with cheap junk food and junk drinks.
mucho gobiernos en el mundo hablo sobre la comida buena,que nos necesitamos a comer muy bueno, sano, pero cuando tu venir a l tienda lo que ve a ti alrededor? muchos alcochol, productos con muchas azucar papas fritas, galletas, etc.y luego dicen que es culpa nuestra y los gobiernos gastan millones en nos a sanar. Y la verdad es que tu empezas comer azucar, productos con muchas azucar, no es fasil detener.
Please more debates. This was attention grabbing for me.
Soy de la India y estoy aprendiendo español y tu video me ha ayudado mucho en el aprendizaje.
Hola , Yo soy de Nepal y yo hablo Hindi con fluidez y ahora yo tambien aprendiendo español
OMGosh! If Alma had took a sip of coke right then I would have DIED! 🤣
More discussions! ALMA IS THE BEST
Estoy de acuerdo con Alma. :)
Alma tiene razón.
Hey Pablo I just discovered that Spain has an autonomous city in the north of Africa directly south of Gibraltar and I would love to see a video from you talking about it, just a suggestion 😁
Actually in controls 5 enclaves in North Africa,Morocco.
@@alwayslearning7672 Melilla and Ceuta? What are the other 3?
he might be thinking of Peñón de Vélez de la Gomera, which is a super tiny spanish town in Morocco ..the rest are just islands off the coast
I live near Philly. People could easily shop for sugary drinks in the neighboring county that’s really close. The tax didn’t work.
Acabo de encontrar y ver éste video. Me encantó! Leí todos los comentarios... pienso que entiendo bien los puntos de vistas. Hay mucho por decir de este tema. De hecho, para mí, desafortunadamente no tengo la confianza en gobiernos...ni sus impuestos.
Muchas gracias por el video.
I'm not sure where I stand on this issue myself, but I agree with Anna when the topic of smoking came up. I believe when smoking was first around the industry did everything to hide the negative health effects it had and I believe (my opinion) that the huge reduction in smoking rates doesn't have to do with the tax (that may help some), but more to do with how much society now tries to educate us on how bad it is for our health. I think that more open and honest discussion has had the biggest effect in helping bring the rates down a lot. If it's true that smoking/sugary drinks are consumed more by poorer people vs richer I think that kind of helps show that the choice is not all economic, I think education plays a bigger part. I think a similar thing approach could be taken to choosing healthier foods/drinks, trying your best to educate your society on healthy choices you could make. Also here in the US the corn industry is heavily subsidized, making unhealthy artificial foods cheaper. I think the gov here should stop subsidizing artificial food options and if anything do that for the farmers and help bring the cost down of natural food.
Tax absolutely helps. One of the core principles of economics is that people respond to incentives. Lets take a simple supply and demand function for example. The higher the price, the lower the quantity demanded. If you are poor however, raising the price lowers the maximum quantity you can buy. Lets say you could buy 10 packs a month with your salary, but the price went up, now you can only afford 8 packs. 8 packs is not healthy either, but its certainly better than 10.
@@thorthewolf8801 I understand the theory, but if economics was the main factor why don't we see higher income people with higher rates of smoking or diabetes (say from drinking sugary drinks) and instead we see the inverse (lower income with higher rates of smoking and diabetes and lower rates of smoking with higher education).
Good debate. Personally, I side with Pablo. One reason is that I am paying for the expensive consequences of the unhealthy behavior of others: a person with morbid obesity, or diabetes, or inability to work because of weight or disease passes much of their costs onto other people, including me. I want freedom from paying for their mistakes! But, I understand what Alma says: if they don't drink a one-liter Coke, they will have a half dozen donuts with a slice of pizza.
Me encantó mucho el debate. presté mucha atención. La respuesta no es cual es lo correcto porque todos de nosotros tenemos niveles de riesgos diferentes. Y por eso, y para permanecer justo, la gente debería votar sobre estos asuntos.
Love the way you all teach!
Deberías crear un podcast y añadir estos tipos de videos a el. Sería genial.
Una buena discusión. Por supuesto que es mejor ser delgado y saludable. Nadie en el mundo está en desacuerdo con eso. Es mejor para la persona y para la comunidad. Pero Alma tiene razón. Estamos en contra de los impuestos coercitivos por otras razones. Es un cuestión de libertad. No quiero un gobierno que tenga tanto poder que comience a dictar mis opciones de vida. Qué pasará entonces? ¿Tendré que subirme a una balanza para que me pesen, y si estoy gordo, mis alimentos serán gravados más fuertemente? ¿Me penalizará mi impuesto sobre la renta por negarme a tomar un medicamento para reducir la presión arterial alta, por ejemplo, o por negarme a otras intervenciones médicas? Creo que no.
It’s interesting, although I understand this, I’m so use to advanced content that is scripted, and there isn’t the uhhs and umms and thinking of one thought then switching to another, all that type of stuff we do in discussions like this, bc they aren’t “scripted”. Its like your brain learning how to separate what’s meaningful speech and what’s to be discarded. Pretty neat
I hope they let the other finish before they start speaking.
Estoy totalmente de acuerdo con ella
Eso video verdaderamente era muy útil! Gracias por la charla plena de expresiones!
El nivel de su debate era alto. Alma quiere proteger la libertad de la gente vivir en la manera que les conviene aun si eso se supone algunos riesgos. Es realmente una cosa, o sea una cuestion, moral: queremos que el estado nos obliga a vivir una vida sin riesgos? Claramente que no! El riesgo es algo que necesitamos en una medida determinada, y la dignidad humana exige que elegirnos cada uno por si mismo si queremos un poco mas o menos de riesgo independientemente del Estado.
Muy interesante! Los dos tienen puntos importantes 👍
I think that they should't be taxed but for slightly different reasons than the ones Alma gives.
Unhealthier products are easier to prepare and consume compared to healthy ones, poor people usually don't have the time nor energy to be able to invest more money nor time. The tax disproportionately affects poorer people so you're only creating pressure for those who are already disadvantaged which are the ones who require the most help. I also think Alcohol/Smoking aren't comparable because those products aren't competing with an alternative healthier product in the same category whereas food items are - no matter how high you raise the tax for food items people still need to buy food. Generally speaking, more money means more freedom and more freedom means higher likelihood of making "better" decisions so if you want people to choose healthier products make it easier to choose those products - increasing the tax for unhealthy products just restricts it more but doesn't actually make it easier to choose healthier products if you're poorer (unless you literally tax every sugary product such that it's equal to unhealthy products but at that point you're running into a plethora of other problems especially when a lot of people barely have enough money to make ends meet).
Side note, the disagreement sounds more philosophical in nature as opposed to scientific or due to a misunderstanding of facts - Pablo is arguing the morality of a decision based on the outcome while Alma is arguing the morality of a decision based on the decision itself irrespective of the outcome.
edit: When she says we shouldn't mess with people's choices or decisions she's also pressuming that this isn't already the case and that everyone already acts as a free agent without outside or environmental influence which isn't the case ofc.
@@techtutorvideos yup, that'd be great but, sadly, at this point I can't see any money- grabbing government doing that for its citizens ☹️
Very good points. Reminds me of racial issues...sure one can change laws but that sure doesn't change the hearts and/or minds of the people.
100 % de acuerdo con Alma. La libertad no está en venta y depende de cada individuo tomar sus propias decisiones
This might be fine for Spain, but I wouldn't want this to happen in America.
What I think would happen in America is that big business would get involved. They would pay for scientists to run a study to come to a conclusion that X product (their competitor) is very unhealthy and that it should be taxed more. Then they would have their lobbists do their thing and call in favors to the politicians that they donated money to to have their competitors taxed more.
All the time we hear a study like "one beer a day is actually good for you." What is the likehood that beer is beneficial for the normal person? Very unlikely to be true, but we hear about studies like that all the time, most likely because a beer company paid a research company to come to that conclusion.
I just think the system would get abused in America because big business holds too much power. They would fund a bunch of fake studies and have the politicians that they donated to raise taxes for their competitors or remove the taxes for their product.
Pablo, tiene que parar interrumpiendo los que entrevistar. Es sobre ellos.
17:30 Desearía que Alma hubiera abierto una Coca-Cola y tomado un trago.
Wow I had no idea Alma was such a Libertarian! 😂
pablo let no one finish their opinons, let them finish their debate :)))
No sé si eso es la solución. Aun con impuestos altos, muchas personas aun fumen mucho. Si tienen hábitos malos, un cambio de precio no va a cambiarlo creo. Debe de ser más atención a otros métodos.
18:33 nice to hear Pablo is a fellow consequentialist 😎lol.
Gracias por este video! me ayudo un monton! saludos desde India! Estoy tratando de aprender Espanol Castellano
Es mi derecho vivir de una manera poco saludable. ¿Qué tal si el gobierno hiciera estudios que dijeran que vivir sin casarse es psicológicamente dañino? ¿O que no tener hijos daña a la sociedad? Hasta qué punto vas a dejar que el estado decida? ¿Debe el gobierno tomar medidas para que el vivir como soltero sea más caro? Al fin y al cabo el estado no tiene el derecho de controlarme con tal de que yo no haga daño a mi prójimo y mucho menos el derecho de poner impuestos con el propósito de castigar a los que no quieren priorizar un alto nivel de salud. O sea, tengo el derecho de decidir que el placer de consumir azúcar vale la pena si el coste que tendría que pagar es solo el de vivir unos cuanto años menos. Para mi, evitar un exceso de azúcar es una buena decision ...pero es decisión mía. El estado puede educar a la gente pero no debe forzar/obligar a la gente hasta tal extremo.
como fumar????????
What a great video Pablo , thank you
Nice and slow!!!
Aprendí el español mio en la república dominicana en 2005.
Ojalá que me hablaran así tan lento!!!
I guess the benefit is other dialects sound matrix slow to me 😂😂
Deberían gravarse todos los tipos de azúcar? como el azúcar de uva y el jugo de naranja?
La clave de este debate es control versus libertad. ¿Debería el gobierno imponer impuestos a los refrescos pero no al queso ni a la carne roja? Ambos pueden argumentarse como malos para la salud (en exceso). Estoy de acuerdo en que tales leyes tienden a ser arbitrarias. La clave es esta: ¿mi elección afecta a los que me rodean? Si no, debe prevalecer la libertad de elección. ¡Dame libertad o dame muerte!
If alcohol was twice as cheaper as it is now, do you think more people would start to drink alcohol? Shouldn't we be free to choose what we want to drink? Does your choice affect others? Yes, indeed. As Pablo said, your choice of not eating healthily means that you are more likely to develop a disease directly caused by your unhealthy habits --> it will be paid from other people's pockets, not yours.
@@Joachim1010 so why not tax all processed food, all fast food, etc. How about fast cars and skateboards etc. You can find a reason to add a tax onto anything. But anything to put more money into politicians pockets, right?
Respeto la postura libertaria de Alma aquí y estoy de acuerdo con ella. Alma tiene un alma por la libertad
If alcohol was twice as cheaper as it is now, do you think more people would start to drink alcohol? Shouldn't we be free to choose what we want to drink? Shouldn't I be free to rape women and take drugs? Isn't that freedom?
@@Joachim1010 libertarians tend to believe in the non-aggression principle which means drink/consume what you want, but harming others, such as your other example, is not part of the philosophy, unless in defense.
@@andreab616 What if you harm others non-directly? In this case, people's taxes are spent on the treatment of obesity rather than global warming, for example.
@@Joachim1010 I would question the effectiveness of this process. If spending people's tax dollars on the treatment of obesity was working, there wouldn't be such an obesity problem. I think if we do our best to apply the non-aggression principle, we'd reduce the chances of harming others indirectly as much as possible. Hope you're well!
@@andreab616 I'd venture to say that non-aggression - that is: low prices for tobacco, fizzy drinks, and alcohol - harms people more in the long run than allowing them to consume whatever they want in the present.
At 7:30 I thought that was coke it would have been hilarious 😂😂😂
Pablo makes sense. There are many faults with Alma's reasoning. Her main reasoning for no taxes was that it impedes on people's freedom to purchase what they want. However, taxes don't prohibit one from buying products. It's to create a barrier to lower consumption of that product to create a healthier community. Companies spend billions of dollars to market their products to influence our buying habits, which "impedes our freedom" to choose, but that was never mentioned. Taxes on harmful products have been proven to decrease consumption. It was both the tax and the increased knowledge of harm that decreased cigarette smoking It's not a one or the other thing, both played roles in decreased smoking. Also, yes, poorer populations tend to drink more sugary beverages and smoke more, however most people fail to realize that companies purposely target poorer populations to take advantage of their lower education and need for coping mechanisms from environmental stress that are generally associated with lower socioeconomic status. So increased taxes are there to place a barrier to counter the marketing and product placement actions that multi-billion dollar companies take to get poor people to buy their products. Great topic, looking forward to hearing more discussions!
Un tema, debate y video muy interesante. Estoy de acuerdo contigo, no veo hay un problema poner un impuesto a las bebidas azucaradas. Personas pueden decidir si quieren pagar mas o no. El problema, en mi opinion, es si personas tener hábitos que no son saludables, estos hábitos tienen un impacto negativo en el sistema de salud en el país y eventualmente cuesta mas para toda la gente.
sí, tanbién tiene la cuestión de la grande cuantidad de personas obesas al redor de lo globo, especialmente nos Estados Unidos.. los chicos e chicas tanbién estón en el percentual.
Anything to put more money in the pockets of politicians right? I mean, they barely get by as it is.
si el gobierno tenia interes en la salud de la gente, por que no pasaria una ley limitando el azucar en vez de ley que anadaria plata al gobierno?
17:30 ...Ojalá Alma tuviera una Coca-Cola gigante en lugar de una botella de agua! 🤣
Yo también, pero probablemente eso es desde la compañía de Coca-Cola jaja.
siiiii, habría una "power move", como se dice en inglés, jaja
Alma se siente mas fuerte de esta tema!
Ver tres veces.
Sorry Pablo, but this time I'm #TeamAlma.
A desire to eat healthy has to be our own desire, not the government desire.
Since the sugary drinks were taxed in Poland maybe I almost do not drink Pepsi, instead I drink a lot of "unbranded" soda and eat chips.
Even if I did not do that, that would not change much. I hate preparing food so basically when I'm studying 95% of things I eat is milk with cereal or sandwich with jam.
If sugary drinks and other unhealthy things were cheaper I could at least save some money which I could spend eating outside enriching my "diet" a bit.
While I would love for people to consume fewer sugary drinks, to stop smoking and drinking, I just don't think taxing items is going to discourage it for the majority of people who already consume these items. It feels unethical to think the government will make extra money off typically poorer people who are addicted to these items. For me, I see the price of cigarettes and think, I would never, it's so expensive. But I've also never smoked. But I know another race pops up and I find a way to scrape together the money to pay the fee to do it. So people who are addicted will find a way to pay it, taking away from their needs or going into debt because it's way to easy to get credit cards and such these days even if you have terrible credit. It's got to stop somewhere else. It's seems hypocritical to tax sugary drinks but then subsidize dairy farmers and pay for kids to drink milk at lunch which is filled with a ton of extra sugar. Not just the chocolate, even white milk is so sugary to make it palatable. We can't control parents, but can we cook fresh and healthy meals at schools. Put money into that and universal health care so the next generation grows up making better choices so they feed their kids well at home. Just me trying to sum up my thoughts on a complicated topic.
Would have been really funny if instead of water she drank it was a coca-cola!
Ahorita, puedo escuchar en el fondo y endender cien por ciento
En lugar de una legislacion que se manda las impuestas a las bebidas azucaradas, tal vez, una impuesta puede aplicar a la publicidad de la empresa. Entonces solamente la empresa se paga la pena, por intentar a poner su productos entre a nos mentes. Quiza si la gente verian menos de los anuncios, ellos compraran menos de los productos. Si no se funciona asi, las corporaciones gastarian menos dinero en la publicidad. ...O quiza, hay que crear una limite a la cantidad de la publicidad que se permite por una empresa.
A mi me ha encantado el tema y el debate, me parece informativo y enrevesado , ambos hicieron un buen punto pero en esta platica, desde mi punto de vista, concuerdo con el hombre, al principio, la mujer hacía buenos puntos y su argumento me fue bastante fuerte e irrompible, pero al reflexionar, como dijo, el gobierno no debería intervenir a los gustos de los ciudadanos, Luego, Sin embargo, dijo que al final de cuenta, somos nosotros el que decide que consumir, entonces, por mas que incrementen el impuesto que pronto, hará que los precios de estos productos suban, las personas seguirán consumiendolo pese a que los precios han subido, y más temprano dijo algo como en el caso de que eso pase, el gobierno estaría dando por sentado a la comunidad, al inicio, pues , pensé para mis adentros que tenía razón, eso seria cruel en el parte del gobierno, ahora pienso que el resultado va a depender al gobierno, si es bueno o no, porque si lo realizan y el gobierno es corrupto entonces, no va a habar un buen cambio sino que terminará perjudicando más. No sé HAJAHHAHAHAHAH nomas comento para practicar mi español, Gracias, saludos desde Filipinas 🇵🇭
So do you speak fluently
@@M70-s1s Well, my comment was 5 months ago, I'd say I progressed. Lol.
los impuestos sufragan los costes sanitarios de personas insanas que llevan una vida insana. no se trata de hacer que la gente no sea insana. se trata de recaudar ingresos para compensar los costes sanitarios de la diabetes y otros costes de la sanidad pública.
un debate genial.
Es una cuestión de "externalidades", los efectos que tus actividades tienen sobre el mundo que te rodea, los efectos sobre otras personas. ¿Quién debe pagar los costos de atención médica causados por decisiones poco saludables?
9:00 can't believe i'm hearing used unironically a slippery slope argument
esta tema es muy interesante. La gente pobre consume mucho porque les gustan a comer muchisimo y relmente gastar mas dinero que si gastran los productos de mejor calidad. Mi amigo dice, la gente no quiere libertad, la gente quiere tragar...
Ya pero date cuenta que con la subida de impuestos a estos productos, la gente pobre compra menos
@@javiertoranzo5495 Hola, Que tal?
...
no es facil responder para esta pregunta, depende de donde erse, que pais, que productos compramos. La verdad, es que no necesitamos a comer mucho 3,5.6 veces cada dia.el hecho de que en algunos países tener acceso a alimentos las 24 horas del día no significa que tengas que comer cada vez que ves productos.muchos productos que la gente come son de mala calidad, sin valor, tapan el estómago, pero igual tienen hambre, no escribiré sobre la cantidad de comida que se tira a la basura... Bueno, el tema es muy extenso. Salut.
ps. Yo tengo mi amigo, que nunca tenia dinero para gasolina, la comida pero siempre tenia el dinero para tabacos.
Así es!!
Como se dice "taxation is theft" en Espanol...?
De acuerdo, quizás 'impuesto es robo' pero no estoy seguro.
@@travelcrip715 gracias
@@gringoenespanol por qué?
@@gringoenespanol Cálmate
Nice!
Los impuestos sobre las bebidas azucaradas solo afectan a las decisiones de los pobres y solo quita la libertad de elegir entre los pobres. Aumentan la desigualdad de libertad entre la población.
Girl is based.
Pablo tiene mucha razón.
hecho inútil, antes del impuesto sobre la renta, el gobierno de los EE. UU. Obtuvo la mayor parte de sus ingresos fiscales de gravar el alcohol
No to all social engineering!
She is defending the modern relativism but health is not a matter of taste. It can be measured how much unburnt metabolic waste the obese people carry in their bodies. And it isn't only their personal problem. Unhealthy people can let their family and the society too early down. Their unnecessary health problems are expensive and their turn from assets into burdens many years earlier than people who stay fit. It is a fact, not an opinion to discuss. It is immoral to seduce people with cheap junk food and junk drinks.
But they also die sooner, potentially easing healthcare costs down the line.
mucho gobiernos en el mundo hablo sobre la comida buena,que nos necesitamos a comer muy bueno, sano, pero cuando tu venir a l tienda lo que ve a ti alrededor?
muchos alcochol, productos con muchas azucar papas fritas, galletas, etc.y luego dicen que es culpa nuestra y los gobiernos gastan millones en nos a sanar.
Y la verdad es que tu empezas comer azucar, productos con muchas azucar, no es fasil detener.
Creo que los impuestos son necesarios porque la obesidad ejerce una presión innecesaria sobre los hostipales.