There is some discrepancy over whether the
government have has to increase the tax
on cigarettes or not. (통합형에는 굳이 위에 와 같은 문장을
넣지 않아도 됩니다.) In the reading
passage, there is ample support for the author's claim that there are several
benefits for raising the tax on tobacco. However, the professor in the lecture
gives three reasons as a rebuttal to the author's point.
To begin with, the lecturer contends that increasing the tax cannot deter
young people from smoking. Black markets and smuggling are rampant in society.
These are why a lot of young people are not affected by higher tax. Furthermore, he argues that
smugglers offers cigarettes more cheaply at
a cheaper price and did do not
check the receiver's identity. Thus it is more
handy easier for teenagers to buy them in
black markets. This refutes the reading passage's claim that paying more tax
prevents the youth from starting to smoke.
In addition, the lecturer points out that it does not benefit for reviving
the environment. In other words, it does is not
helpful for cleaning maleficent chemicals or planting new trees. This is
because the more expensive cigarettes are, the fewer the
number of people who buy them. Thus more
tax will result in less revenues which are opposite results
to the projection. This counters the reading passage's assertion that
increasing the tax will enable the government to repair damaged regions.
Lastly, the
lecturer maintains that it does not make sense that more tax can relieve
poverty. According to his suggestion, the
tobacco industry creates a lot of jobs such as
agriculture, transporting, and retailing. If the
government requires more taxes on cigarettes,
careers related to cigarettes might disappear. Therefore, it will make poverty
far more serious. This casts doubt on the reading passage's claim that the
revenue made by raising tax can be advantageous to reduce poverty. This is
because it can be utilized to develop social welfare system. s