should us smokers really be taxed so much

[Ilovejapcrap]

Right,

I'm not wanting this to turn into a bh match just a genuine interest in people's views.

Now I am a smoker yes I know I should give up etc but let's try and keep that out of the argument.

A pack of 20 fags is now 9 quid. Is this really fair?

Que the usiual nhs arguments etc.

I'm honestly not so sure smokers die younger so in theory cost less in pension and care, I have lost several colleagues of late due to cancer yet non where smokers.

A report recently said cancer seems to be more to luck and genetics etc.

As I say I am not defending smoking or saying it does not have health issues.

I'm just saying is it a fair tax, or just an easy one as all none smokers think it's ok and use health care as main back up for this then a lot drink which is socially more acceptable, although in my eyes a match worse drug

[oilslick]

It's an optional tax, if you don't want to pay it don't buy any cigarettes

[anarki]

Not sure this topic belongs in general gassing but hey ho.

I used to smoke, smoked for 11 years since I was 17. Gave up last January and never looked back.

I now vape and am on 0% nicotine juices, without vaping I'd still be smoking now. I'm not saying they are the holy grail and everyone should switch but it helped me and I enjoy the fruity flavours that I choose to vape.

Now to answer your question, yes I think that fags should be taxed as much as they are. They stink, don't do anything for anyone's health and I hate dog-ends on the streets.

/militant ex-smoker mode.

[Baryonyx]

Yes, because you stink.

[fezst]

As an ex smoker, yes it is a fair tax. It's a stupid habit.

[Strawman]

There was a long term study done which showed the revenue raised from cigarette sales was less than the cost to society of smoking related illness. It was done over a 30 year period in N.Ireland IIRC. Now the study may have been flawed and actually there is a slight overall benefit from cigarette tax, but if there is it is only very small.
You seem to be saying if someone dies "young" that is a saving, but instead it could be a loss, if the person was a high earner and paid a high rate of income tax for example.

[Easternlight]

Give it up everyone's a winner!

[TooMany2cvs]

Duty on tobacco comes to about £10bn/year, plus £3bn in VAT. Between the two, that's about 10% of the NHS budget.
Direct costs to the NHS from smoking are reckoned to cost about half that £13bn, which leaves about £7bn extra coming from smokers. OK, so some of that is going to go in indirect costs to the NHS from smoking, but then again you're saving some costs by dying younger. Let's say that all balances out.

So if that £7bn didn't come from tobacco, it'd have to come from somewhere else, right? Or cut Government expenditure further, of course.

At least it IS a Gov't revenue source that's really easy to avoid if you don't think it fair...

[Jazoli]

fezst said:

As an ex smoker, yes it is a fair tax. It's a stupid habit.

It is, and its fair, don't like the tax, give up, you won't smell, your house won't smell, your car won't smell, you won't offend others, your skin will be much better and you'll probably live longer, winner!

[Projectx]

2 things are certain in life. 1) taxes 2) death and if you smoke there is a high chance you will end up with number 2 sooner than you think.

Is any tax fair these days?

People that smoke should pay more tax - wait ..... They do

[CAFEDEAD]

I don't like seeing it taxed so much on one level, but that's probably the lesser evil so short of a better idea... yes.

[motco]

I read somewhere that tobacco tax pays for the cost of smoking related diseases to NHS by a factor of about six times. Also smokers have the decency to die before drawing their state pensions far more often than non-smokers. Keep it up chaps!

[CubanPete]

Those are only the direct costs though.

Work lost with smokers disappearing off every hour for ten minutes, cost of carers, cost of health issues caused by passive smoking. Its also pretty unpleasant for none smokers.

But fundamentally the main motivation of the tax (like alcohol and fuel duty) is as a deterrent.

I think it is fair.

[BlackLabel]

CubanPete said:

But fundamentally the main motivation of the tax (like alcohol and fuel duty) is as a deterrent.

That may be the official line but I'm not so sure - there would be a massive black hole in the budget if fuel, tobacco and alcohol sales drop significantly.

[colonel c]

Personally I'm not in favour of using tax to force people to do or not do things. Be it smoking, drinking, driving cars etc etc. Nothing good ever comes out of politicians, do-gooders and busybodies interfering in out lives. Just look at the current diesel fiasco.

[CubanPete]

BlackLabel said:

CubanPete said:

But fundamentally the main motivation of the tax (like alcohol and fuel duty) is as a deterrent.

That may be the official line but I'm not so sure - there would be a massive black hole in the budget if fuel, tobacco and alcohol sales drop significantly.

Completely agree, the money has to be raised, but it is the apportioning of the tax - I.e. it isn't on fruit or veg - that forms the deterrent.

As an aside I'm now having to leave for work 10 minutes earlier for my (originally) 30 minute commute since the fuel prices have dropped!

[Willy Nilly]

If HMRC can get away with taxing tobacco so heavily they will.

[sidicks]

Ilovejapcrap said:

I'm honestly not so sure smokers die younger so in theory cost less in pension and care, I have lost several colleagues of late due to cancer yet non where smokers.

You are very wrong.

HTH

[Itsallicanafford]

Every few years I find out how much a pack of fags costs...I'm always amazed at how expensive they are

[sparkythecat]

With fags at £9 a packet the saving in giving up for a 20 a day man would be akin to getting free petrol.
So give up and go and buy yourself a fast car instead.