so, in short, you're saying we'd pay for it?
let them smoke, nobody's forcing them.
B@
Tobacco and Duty
- Thread starter sanaxe1
- Start date
so, in short, you're saying we'd pay for it?
let them smoke, nobody's forcing them.
B@
No... I'm saying that whatever the figures for tobacco expenditure, that money isn't just going to stay in would be smoker's pockets, it will get spent and filter down into the system through other taxes, and further to that there's no reason the NHS would be impacted specifically by it. There is no tobacco duty == NHS funding. They're completely seperate things.
And nobody's really going to implement an escalator on smoking age, or indeed legislate a smoking age. As admittedly a fairly vehement anti-smoker I think it would be a good thing to gradually try and stop younger people from smoking. I know very very few people who started smoking later in life.
It's already been stated that there's next to nothing which is taxed as heavily as cigarettes; it wouldn't balance out. You can't make up that much money with increased sales in jeans, porn and gadgets because the tax revenue at current percentages on the large majority of things is not high enough, so you'd have to increase tax. IE. You and I will be paying for it, no thanks.
I know it's not going to happen, because it can't happen. It can't happen because it's a bad idea, a non-starter, and I'm here telling you why.
B@
Last edited:
You really think that even in the case of all that money remaining out of government coffers the 4bn difference couldn't be swallowed up over the 60 or so years it would take?
And you really think you'd notice that as an increase in tax? I can assure you the countries tax bill will go up by a hell of a lot more than that in the next 60 years.
The way tax is worked out on cigarettes is quite odd, but it is basically 85% plus VAT.
If an Xbox game sells for £45, under the same tax regime it would be £80.
Last edited:
What i was trying to say was :
£1000 worth of cigarettes = £850 to the government in Duty.
And if you was to purchase £1000 worth of other goods it might not all go strate to the government at the point of sale but by the end of the fiscal year that money would have paid :
20% VAT cost
a % would pay staff wages which will get taxed
a % would pay other things like business rates , rent , etc which again get taxed
and then what profit is left over will be taxed at 28% corporation tax
£1000 worth of cigarettes = £850 to the government in Duty.
And if you was to purchase £1000 worth of other goods it might not all go strate to the government at the point of sale but by the end of the fiscal year that money would have paid :
20% VAT cost
a % would pay staff wages which will get taxed
a % would pay other things like business rates , rent , etc which again get taxed
and then what profit is left over will be taxed at 28% corporation tax
Last edited:
I get your point but it is much more efficent for people to pay 85p in the pound and then 30% will have a shorter pension and less long term care i.e. cancer treatment and you die.
Soldato
- Joined
- 3 Jan 2004
- Posts
- 3,489
- Location
- At Home
Quote "When looking at the costs to the NHS, they calculated that treating cancer caused by smoking costs 0.6bn a year and cardiovascular diseases cost 2.5bn a year. Long-term lung conditions cost £1.4bn. "
This is just 3 things.. There is really no way to quantify the indirect cost if you consider the whole host of additional diseases, conditions and appointments / consultants / time etc that smoking is responsible for (some even estimate as high as 20% of the NHS budget - which more or less corresponds with 21% of adults smoking)
This is just 3 things.. There is really no way to quantify the indirect cost if you consider the whole host of additional diseases, conditions and appointments / consultants / time etc that smoking is responsible for (some even estimate as high as 20% of the NHS budget - which more or less corresponds with 21% of adults smoking)
Last edited:
If the cost of diseases/ailments DIRECTLY related to smoking amounts to £4.6bn, the remaining £5.4bn is not entirely consumed by diseases/ailments with partial attribution to smoking. Fags are overpriced because they are priced above their true external cost as a deterrent to smokers. You're missing the point here.
Bottom line is that smokes should be taxed just like the vast majority of other goods - VAT and done. The NHS should be run as a government insurance scheme; those who smoke pay high premiums as should those who drink and let that be an end of it. That way everybody pays the fair amount actuarially, rather than having arbitrary duties slapped on prices as part of some bull**** nanny-state mantra.
Light smokers are still at a greater risk of smoking-induced cancer than non-smokers.
It's the same argument I have with my car insurer every year. I'm a 21 year old male, never had an accident, never had a ticket or driving offence, don't do a great amount of mileage, but still get shafted like any other young male driver. Still, if I write my car off, in the grand scheme of things it's a lot cheaper to have insurance than to not.
I am as pro smoking as you can get but that is a load of tripe.
Why? I've outlined basically how to raise the required revenues from elsewhere.
It isn't just about raising money, it is about putting people off smoking.
I agree they could tax it less but to tax to it the same as a pack of digestives is guff.
I don't tend to mind tax on tobacco/alcohol because they're luxuries. You could give them both up and only find benefits to doing it.
Plus they cost the NHS so much per year, all those people need to put something back into the system. It's either that or charge those who end up in hospital through alcohol or tobacco related stupidity.
Plus they cost the NHS so much per year, all those people need to put something back into the system. It's either that or charge those who end up in hospital through alcohol or tobacco related stupidity.
And how much would it cost to administer that? The most efficient way to raise revenue is at point of sale with a product like tobacco.
The average 75 year old will not have lovely pink lungs and establishing whether someone smoked for 20 years in their younth will be a bugger to prove legally.
In an ideal world i would get cigarettes for free but i think around £4-5 is fair, I would not bother to go abroad on a semi regular basis if they were around this (for a premium brand).
For starters, significantly less than it costs to run the NHS. Administering the tax at the point of sale is no cheaper than making everybody pay for what they get with health care. If anything, it would be a money saving exercise across the board.
Also, you can only stomach paying £5 for a pack of smokes because they're now flirting with £7.
For starters, significantly less than it costs to run the NHS. Administering the tax at the point of sale is no cheaper than making everybody pay for what they get with health care. If anything, it would be a money saving exercise across the board.
Also, you can only stomach paying £5 for a pack of smokes because they're now flirting with £7.
I disagree with your first point but the latter is fair.
My basis for the £5 argument is that all over Europe the price is less than this and they can be reached for under £50.
If i whacked 6 months worth of cigarettes on a 0% card it would cost £750 + £100 travel.
Buying the same amoutn here would cost almost £1300.