should us smokers really be taxed so much
Discussion
Ilovejapcrap said:
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
The links between smoking and cancer, especially lung cancer, are very clear. Years and years of research has linked the two. As with most things medical and scientific you will get the odd report which rubbished the link however the general consensus amongst researchers says otherwise.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
The report you mention actually says lung cancer is one of cancers less effected by 'bad luck'.
guardian said:
The scientists say that bad luck plays a stronger role in some cancers than in others. In two-thirds of the cancers – 22 cancer types – random mutations in genes that drive cancer could explain why the disease occurred. The other nine cancers occurred more often than the random mutation rate would predict, suggesting that inherited genes or lifestyle factors were the main cause. They included lung cancer, where smoking is the major cause, and skin cancer, which can be triggered by sun exposure.
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/jan/02/two-thirds-adult-cancers-bad-luckBlackLabel said:
The report you mention actually says lung cancer is one of cancers less effected by 'bad luck'.
'course, it's worth remembering that there's a huge difference between "two thirds of cancers" and "two thirds of people with cancer". The four most common cancers - out of ~30-odd - account for over half of all cases (roughly evenly) and just under half of all deaths (lung alone accounting for nearly a quarter of all cancer deaths).guardian said:
The scientists say that bad luck plays a stronger role in some cancers than in others. In two-thirds of the cancers – 22 cancer types – random mutations in genes that drive cancer could explain why the disease occurred. The other nine cancers occurred more often than the random mutation rate would predict, suggesting that inherited genes or lifestyle factors were the main cause. They included lung cancer, where smoking is the major cause, and skin cancer, which can be triggered by sun exposure.
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/jan/02/two-thirds-adult-cancers-bad-luckhttp://www.cancerresearchuk.org/cancer-info/cancer...
RYH64E said:
It's a very fair tax imo, after all, how many other taxes can you name that can be completely avoided without incurring the ire of HMRC? It's one of very few UK taxes that I've never paid, I wish others could be avoided so easily.
Off the top of my head: VED Tax
Stamp duty.
Gambling duty.
Insurance Premium Tax.
Air Passenger Duty.
I'm very grateful to all the smokers for the extra tax they pay, same for the heavy drinkers, the tax paying wealthy and those who drive huge gas guzzling cars and spending loads on fuel(I fall into the last group)
What I struggle to understand is why society in general seems to treat all these groups like outcasts they/we are all paying extra tax which in most cases is voluntary. The least the government could do is say thanks you :-) Seriously if they want to reduce the number of smokers and drinkers on health grounds then make it illegal
What I struggle to understand is why society in general seems to treat all these groups like outcasts they/we are all paying extra tax which in most cases is voluntary. The least the government could do is say thanks you :-) Seriously if they want to reduce the number of smokers and drinkers on health grounds then make it illegal
colonel c said:
RYH64E said:
It's a very fair tax imo, after all, how many other taxes can you name that can be completely avoided without incurring the ire of HMRC? It's one of very few UK taxes that I've never paid, I wish others could be avoided so easily.
Off the top of my head: VED Tax
Stamp duty.
Gambling duty.
Insurance Premium Tax.
Air Passenger Duty.
CubanPete said:
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.
I don't believe that for a second - they know folk will pay and take full advantage of that. Imagine the drop in the tax take if everyone stopped boozing and smoking.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.
bad company said:
colonel c said:
Off the top of my head:
VED Tax
Stamp duty.
Gambling duty.
Insurance Premium Tax.
Air Passenger Duty.
OK if you don't want to buy a house, run a car or go on an overseas holiday. In the real world some of those are hardly optional.VED Tax
Stamp duty.
Gambling duty.
Insurance Premium Tax.
Air Passenger Duty.
Murph7355 said:
BlackLabel said:
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.
Don't be foolish.There are a million ways they would fill this black hole with other taxes.
Axionknight said:
CubanPete said:
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.
I don't believe that for a second - they know folk will pay and take full advantage of that. Imagine the drop in the tax take if everyone stopped boozing and smoking.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.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff