MICROECONOMICS Microeconomics Trimester Individual Assignment

MICROECONOMICS 2 MICROECONOMICS Microeconomics Trimester Individual Assignment Student Id: Name of the Tutor: Author’s Note: Introduction 3 Economic Concepts 3 Discussion and Application of Economic Concepts 6 Conclusion 8 References 9 Appendix 10 Economic concepts linked with the learning objectives The economic concepts used in the article are: Negative externality and Pigouvian Tax Tax effect on Demand and Supply These concepts linked to various learning objectives including consider how a tax on a good affects the price of the

Running head: MICROECONOMICS
Microeconomics Trimester
Individual Assignment
Name of the Student:
Student Id:
Name of the Tutor:
Author’s Note:

2MICROECONOMICS
Table of Contents
Introduction......................................................................................................................................3
Economic Concepts.........................................................................................................................3
Discussion and Application of Economic Concepts........................................................................6
Conclusion.......................................................................................................................................8
References........................................................................................................................................9
Appendix........................................................................................................................................10

3MICROECONOMICS
Economic concepts linked with the learning objectives
The economic concepts used in the article are:
 Negative externality and Pigouvian Tax
 Tax effect on Demand and Supply
These concepts linked to various learning objectives including
1. consider how a tax on a good affects the price of the good and the quantity sold
2. learn the meaning and causes of the deadweight loss of a tax
3. see that the equilibrium of supply and demand maximizes total surplus in a market
4. examine the various government policies aimed at solving the problem of externalities
5. see why externalities can make market outcomes inefficient
Introduction
The sugar tax debate had been a common phenomenon to curb the usage of sugary drinks and it
has been considered good amongst the households but it has it cons to it. Consumption of sugary
drinks not only imposes costs that can be detrimental to an individual but also to the society
(Gertkin & Rifkin, 2018). In a scenario, like this a good tax by government can prove to be
helpful in terms of health care, but in the same an increase the inequality gap between the rich
and poor. The economic that can underlay the path of discussion is negative externalities leading
to market inefficiencies and the subsequent effects of the tax on sugary drinks leading to changes
in the demand and supply conditions in the economy as well (Heise, et al., 2016). Moreover,
with the help of government intervention, the means in which it solved using tax. Furthermore,

4MICROECONOMICS
the concepts lead to understand that sugar is a public health problem that requires legislative
control to act on market failures.
Economic Concepts
Negative externalities are the concept that arises when the cost to society because of the good in
demand is higher than the amount of price the consumer is shelling out for it. Although, the
consumer decides based on its marginal benefit and marginal cost (MB = MC). However, if
proper actions are not taken then it results in market inefficiencies. The negative externality
results in unregulated market that does not take the responsibility for the cost and is transferred
down to the society (Mankiw, 2015). The lower marginal costs shifts the supply curve
downwards based on the supply curve faced by the society. The product is hoarded and sold
leading to dead weight loss in the society. However, the same can be illustrated diagrammatically
as given below and where P* is the socially efficient price and Q* is the socially efficient
quantity.

5MICROECONOMICS
Figure 1: Negative Externalities and Pigouvian Tax
Source: (Baumol & Blinder, 2015)
The taxing of sugary debate is the idea of tax on unhealthy foods which directly prices the social
cost of good in the economy. The concept of tax that underlines its phenomenon is Pigouvain
Tax which is a solution to the negative externalities by generating socially efficient quantity at
marginal externality. The tax is the socially added quantity between the marginal social benefit
and marginal social cost (Lockwood & Taubinsky, 2016). This can be solved by creating a new
wave of supply curve in the economy and the new competitive equilibrium accounts tax and is
efficient in nature.
Moreover, the concept can be further underlined using demand and supply framework when the
negative externality where present and later after application of tax, the changes in price and

6MICROECONOMICS
demand had been depicted. Initially the supply and demand had been in the equilibrium position
but later after tax is imposed, the supply is restricted in the market, creating less demand in the
market (Mankiw, 2015). The basic framework using the changes in price can be depicted in the
diagram below.
Figure 2: Demand and Supply Framework
Source: (Mankiw, 2015)
On the other hand, markets decide to put taxes of sugary drinks like Coca Cola, alcoholic
beverages to discourage the intake. Also, these products hold inelastic demand that make equally
good way to curb the externalities.

7MICROECONOMICS
Coca Cola
Cost and
Benefit
D = MSB of Coca Cola
CC*CC1
MPC of Coca Cola
MSC of Coca Cola
DWL
P1
P*
Discussion and Application of Economic Concepts
Sugary drinks like Coca Cola imposes costs like lower productivity, higher health costs as well
as lower life expectancy. The over consumption of a diet like this not only creates major health
issues but also risks in creating other problems like obesity and other health related illnesses.
Also, it wishes to apply the money raised on different areas “It plans to spend all the money
raised on sport for kids”. On the contrary, the costs are reflected to be higher costs on the UK’s
health, as a result, social costs of Coca Cola is higher than the private cost of Coca Cola creating
negative externality in the economy in terms of further inequality. It can be illustrated as given
below.
Figure 3: Application of negative externality and tax on Coca Cola

8MICROECONOMICS
UK had been imposing tax to create a full tax on the good. As per the Murphy (2016), “The UK
says its tax will help children ‘grow up fit and healthy’” which depicts the tax is used for the
benefit of the children and they have already applied tax on other goods as well “We already
happily tax fuel, booze and cigarettes at quite high levels”. Although, this way lead to reduction
in demand as assumed and use of other alternatives but sugar drinks just like other products
(alcohol and cigarettes) is considered to be a “demerit” good (Heise, et al., 2016).
Coca cola has imposed tax so that there is excess supply in the market creating less demand
because of tax. The tax that had been imposed is volumes that will not only imply the usage of
Coca Cola in smaller amounts and avoiding excess usage based as clearly sated by Murphy
“Most people don’t drink them in an average day.” The further curbing of negative externality
can be corrected by Pigouvain tax on the product. Also, if the economy is applying alternative
then “Less and less is available cheap or free”.

9MICROECONOMICS
Figure 4: Application of tax on demand and supply on Coca Cola
Conclusion
To conclude, it can be said that the sugary drinks in UK had been taxed because that is a “feel
good” tax that not only lessens the sugary content in the economy but also paves the path for a
healthy environment. On the contrary, the one issue that could lead to imposition of tax is
inequality in income. However, the two concepts that had been analyzed based on the article are
demand and supply and negative externalities in the market that can be corrected through tax.
The overall impact is that the tax lowers the demand creating an excess supply and enabling the
stink in the sugar industry. On the contrary, tax is a government intervention that will help in
lowering the intake of sugary drinks in UK.

10MICROECONOMICS
References
Baumol, W. J., & Blinder, A. S. (2015). Microeconomics: Principles and policy. Cengage
Learning.
Gertner, D., & Rifkin, L. (2018). Coca‐Cola and the Fight against the Global Obesity
Epidemic. Thunderbird International Business Review, 60(2), 161-173.
Heise, T. L., Katikireddi, S. V., Pega, F., Gartlehner, G., Fenton, C., Griebler, U., ... & Lhachimi,
S. K. (2016). Taxation of sugar‐sweetened beverages for reducing their consumption and
preventing obesity or other adverse health outcomes. The Cochrane Library.
Lockwood, B. B., & Taubinsky, D. (2017). Regressive sin taxes(No. w23085). National Bureau
of Economic Research.
Mankiw, N. G. (2015). Principles of Microeconomics, Cengage Learning. Stamford, CT, 213.
Murphy, J. (2016). “Taxing your CocaCola: Refreshing”. News.com.au. March 19, 2016
Retrieved from http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/food/eat/taxing-your-cocacola-
refreshing/news-story/d5037ee7aa9718bb6808d38575edf7dd#.gzugo

11MICROECONOMICS
Appendix
Article 1.
Taxing your Coca-Cola. Refreshing!
IF YOU’RE rich, then you might not think twice about a tax like this. But
this ‘feel good’ tax proposal has a dark side.
Jason Murphy news.com.au MARCH 19, 20164:27PM
Mmmm Coke. Should this sugary drink be taxed?Source:ThinkStock
GET ready for a new tax on sugary drinks. The idea, which popped up after the UK
announced a tax on Coke, Fanta, etc. this week, is one of those things Australia will
love. But we should only do it on one condition.

12MICROECONOMICS
The UK says its tax will help children “grow up fit and healthy.” It plans to spend all
the money raised on sport for kids. Also, Jamie Oliver has come out in support of the
tax. Who could oppose such a thing?!
Australia loves this sort of “sin tax”. We already happily tax fuel, booze and
cigarettes at quite high levels.
If and when the idea comes to Australia, the sugar industry will raise a stink. But
Queensland canegrowers are a much smaller part of Australia’s economy these
days so they won’t have the sway they once did. And they export most of their
product anyway, so a local tax won’t break them.
As for the voters? We probably wouldn’t raise a peep. Most people don’t drink them
in an average day, with young men being the only exception. This graph shows that
less than 30 per cent of people over the age of 30 sip fizzy drinks on a given day.
SOFT DRINK CONSUMPTION BY AGE AND GENDER:

13MICROECONOMICS
Source: ABS 2012 Australian Health SurveySource:Supplied
The UK tax has loopholes you could drive a bus through. Soft drinks are taxed while
fruit juice — which is often just as sugary — isn’t. Same with flavoured milk.
Mexico’s soft drink tax is the same. It’s obviously not going to stop obesity on its
own, but that doesn’t mean it’s a terrible idea.
The UK tax is 24 pence per litre for Coca-Cola, and a bit less for Fanta, which has
less sugar. In our terms that’s 17c on a can of Coke, 27c on a 600mL bottle. Sounds
about right — not enough to stop you if you really want one, but maybe enough to
change your mind sometimes. That way the tax has a deterrent effect and raises
some revenue.
A tax on soft-drinks, with money going to support healthy living, might just be a
good idea. But it has a pernicious effect — making life more expensive. This matters
— a lot.
The one condition for bringing in a sugar tax should be that it doesn’t make
Australia more unequal.
Economists (for the record I am one!) often like to ignore household budgets. The
assumption is people cut expenditure in one area to spend more in another.
But when people’s budgets are really stretched, shuffling expenditure gets very
hard.
A tax on sugar would hit the poor most. And it’s not the only kind of tax economists
think is clever. Economists in high places want higher taxes on wine, and cigarettes.
They advocate for toll roads and congestion charging, and user-pays in a lot of
other scenarios too.
Each of these things, by itself, could be a good idea. We don’t want to give away
free subsidies, or let negative side-effects accumulate. It makes sense to make a
market for a congested road, for example, so people with alternatives have a
reason to use those alternatives. But as more and more of the economy becomes a
good with an “efficient price,” what happens? Less and less is available cheap or
free.

14MICROECONOMICS
That’s fine if you’re wealthy. A few dollars here or there make no difference. But the
creeping expansion of the market economy increases the relevance of income
inequality. Being poor gets even harder.
Income inequality in Australia is wide, as this next graph shows. The average
household makes four times as much as the bottom 10 per cent, and the top 10 per
cent makes ten times as much.
Source: ACOSS 2015
If we want to uses taxes and charges to fix certain consequences of consumption
(like obesity, lung cancer or traffic) — and I think we should — we also have to
make sure the economy is fair.
Income inequality has been getting worse in recent decades, even as more and
more aspects of society become user-pays. That just amplifies the effect of
inequality.
I’d like to live in a society where people don’t get fat because sugary drinks are
cheaper than water. But I also don’t want to live in a country where the gap

15MICROECONOMICS
between rich and poor is like America. The alternative could leave us all with a very
bitter taste.
News.com.au. “Taxing your CocaCola: Refreshing” Murphy jason, March 19,
2016 Retrieved from
http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/food/eat/taxing-your-cocacola-refreshing/news-story/
d5037ee7aa9718bb6808d38575edf7dd#.gzugo