should us smokers really be taxed so much
Discussion
MrHorsepower said:
I don't believe smoking should be taxed so heavily. Instead, I think that treatment for illnesses caused by smoking should not be available on the N.H.S. That way, smokers can smoke freely while taxpayers don't have to fund the illnesses they might bring upon themselves.
You might want to rethink that one...colonel c said:
It's interesting that some posters agree smokers should be heavily taxed because they think smoking is harmful and should be discouraged. Is it also ok to support those that think motorists should be taxed more because motoring is harmful and should be discouraged.
Motoring is already taxed heavily, very heavily. Tax on smoking is optional, I don't pay it, my wife doesn't pay it, and my children don't pay it. My mother in law used to pay it, right up until she died of lung cancer. Good lesson for the kids there, she stunk of fags, her house was virtually uninhabitable to the extent that we used to stay in a local hotel when visiting rather than spend the night there, and it killed her in her early 60s. What's the point (other than the satisfaction of knowing that you're making a very generous donation to HMRC every time you buy a pack)?
Edited by RYH64E on Sunday 1st February 17:45
colonel c said:
It's interesting that some posters agree smokers should be heavily taxed because they think smoking is harmful and should be discouraged. Is it also ok to support those that think motorists should be taxed more because motoring is harmful and should be discouraged.
In what way is motoring NOT already heavily taxed?!Edited by sidicks on Sunday 1st February 18:38
I had two lumps in my throat. I was told I was going into hospital for a biopsy but in talking to the Mr, he told me that if it was malignant then I'd wake up with a tracheotomy. So worrying times. I asked him for a risk assessment and he told me that his norm was three days a week doing 8-9 (nine on my day) such ops. In that time around 70% or so had a tracheotomy.
He asked if I smoked: No. This reduced my risk factor by around 4-6x.
Did I drink alcohol: No, tee-total. This reduced my risk factor a little more on its own.
However, as I did not drink and smoke at the same time, i.e. glass in one hand, fag in the other, it reduced my risk of having throat cancer by a factor of 80 he said at first, then said 100. Eventually he said that the only time in the dozen or so years he'd been doing the operations he'd found malignant cancers in someone who neither drunk nor smoked there had been other risk factors.
My lumps were cancer but benign (funny word to use on something that caused me and my family a lot of heartache) but of the other 8, one was sent home as his cancer was inoperable - light smoker but worked on engines at Gatwick so exposed to the residue of burnt kerosene, highly risky - and the other 6 all had tracheotomies. All smoked.
These would have been shown as not dead because, apart from the very pleasant aero engineer, they lived. But they were a burden on their families and the NHS.
I replaced a bloke as head of department. He smoked and drank. He had his foot and a leg amputated. He tried to stay at work but his fingers were giving up the unequal effort against whatever disease it was. He wasn't dead, but a burden on the NHS, his family and his pension scheme.
With modern advances in fighting cancer, the death rate is remarkably reduced. Nowadays you can live for years with a cancer that would, 20 years ago, have killed you within months. It all costs the NHS, and the rest of us, a lot of money to keep those with avoidable cancers alive.
Then there's heart disease. The best way to avoid heart disease is to exercise. However, the next one down is don't smoke. Then it is overweight. But the NHS, bless it, will keep you alive on expensive medication, and lots of doctors. Quadruple heart operation? of course sir. Step this way, but put that fag out.
They are shown as alive but boy to they cost.
Most reports tend to suggest that, if on costs are taken into consideration, such as a partner giving up work to be a carer, so no tax and government subsidies, then taxes for smoking does not come close to paying for the costs.
In one argument a smoker suggested that the medical research into smoking diseases meant that those with similar non-smoking caused illnesses benefited, a bit like non-stick frying pans. However, that argument is flawed, rather obviously, but it is frequently introduced.
He asked if I smoked: No. This reduced my risk factor by around 4-6x.
Did I drink alcohol: No, tee-total. This reduced my risk factor a little more on its own.
However, as I did not drink and smoke at the same time, i.e. glass in one hand, fag in the other, it reduced my risk of having throat cancer by a factor of 80 he said at first, then said 100. Eventually he said that the only time in the dozen or so years he'd been doing the operations he'd found malignant cancers in someone who neither drunk nor smoked there had been other risk factors.
My lumps were cancer but benign (funny word to use on something that caused me and my family a lot of heartache) but of the other 8, one was sent home as his cancer was inoperable - light smoker but worked on engines at Gatwick so exposed to the residue of burnt kerosene, highly risky - and the other 6 all had tracheotomies. All smoked.
These would have been shown as not dead because, apart from the very pleasant aero engineer, they lived. But they were a burden on their families and the NHS.
I replaced a bloke as head of department. He smoked and drank. He had his foot and a leg amputated. He tried to stay at work but his fingers were giving up the unequal effort against whatever disease it was. He wasn't dead, but a burden on the NHS, his family and his pension scheme.
With modern advances in fighting cancer, the death rate is remarkably reduced. Nowadays you can live for years with a cancer that would, 20 years ago, have killed you within months. It all costs the NHS, and the rest of us, a lot of money to keep those with avoidable cancers alive.
Then there's heart disease. The best way to avoid heart disease is to exercise. However, the next one down is don't smoke. Then it is overweight. But the NHS, bless it, will keep you alive on expensive medication, and lots of doctors. Quadruple heart operation? of course sir. Step this way, but put that fag out.
They are shown as alive but boy to they cost.
Most reports tend to suggest that, if on costs are taken into consideration, such as a partner giving up work to be a carer, so no tax and government subsidies, then taxes for smoking does not come close to paying for the costs.
In one argument a smoker suggested that the medical research into smoking diseases meant that those with similar non-smoking caused illnesses benefited, a bit like non-stick frying pans. However, that argument is flawed, rather obviously, but it is frequently introduced.
Derek Smith said:
Most reports tend to suggest that, if on costs are taken into consideration, such as a partner giving up work to be a carer, so no tax and government subsidies, then taxes for smoking does not come close to paying for the costs.
I'm in agreement with all the bits that I snipped, however the taxes on cigarettes more than pay for the NHS costs.I am an ex-smoker. I stopped on the 2nd May 2014(at 1:05pm).
Unlike other ex-smokers, I don't have a problem with the smell of cigarette smoke. I quite like it. I am infinitely more sensitive to it than when I smoked. I can detect cigarette smoke at great distances. However, I don't find it unpleasant, nor does it make me crave another cigarette.
A lot of ex-smokers seem to behave like a "w
e turned nun".don4l said:
Derek Smith said:
Most reports tend to suggest that, if on costs are taken into consideration, such as a partner giving up work to be a carer, so no tax and government subsidies, then taxes for smoking does not come close to paying for the costs.
I'm in agreement with all the bits that I snipped, however the taxes on cigarettes more than pay for the NHS costs.Derek Smith said:
I had two lumps in my throat. I was told I was going into hospital for a biopsy but in talking to the Mr, he told me that if it was malignant then I'd wake up with a tracheotomy. So worrying times. I asked him for a risk assessment and he told me that his norm was three days a week doing 8-9 (nine on my day) such ops. In that time around 70% or so had a tracheotomy.
He asked if I smoked: No. This reduced my risk factor by around 4-6x.
Did I drink alcohol: No, tee-total. This reduced my risk factor a little more on its own.
However, as I did not drink and smoke at the same time, i.e. glass in one hand, fag in the other, it reduced my risk of having throat cancer by a factor of 80 he said at first, then said 100. Eventually he said that the only time in the dozen or so years he'd been doing the operations he'd found malignant cancers in someone who neither drunk nor smoked there had been other risk factors.
My lumps were cancer but benign (funny word to use on something that caused me and my family a lot of heartache) but of the other 8, one was sent home as his cancer was inoperable - light smoker but worked on engines at Gatwick so exposed to the residue of burnt kerosene, highly risky - and the other 6 all had tracheotomies. All smoked.
These would have been shown as not dead because, apart from the very pleasant aero engineer, they lived. But they were a burden on their families and the NHS.
I replaced a bloke as head of department. He smoked and drank. He had his foot and a leg amputated. He tried to stay at work but his fingers were giving up the unequal effort against whatever disease it was. He wasn't dead, but a burden on the NHS, his family and his pension scheme.
With modern advances in fighting cancer, the death rate is remarkably reduced. Nowadays you can live for years with a cancer that would, 20 years ago, have killed you within months. It all costs the NHS, and the rest of us, a lot of money to keep those with avoidable cancers alive.
Then there's heart disease. The best way to avoid heart disease is to exercise. However, the next one down is don't smoke. Then it is overweight. But the NHS, bless it, will keep you alive on expensive medication, and lots of doctors. Quadruple heart operation? of course sir. Step this way, but put that fag out.
They are shown as alive but boy to they cost.
Most reports tend to suggest that, if on costs are taken into consideration, such as a partner giving up work to be a carer, so no tax and government subsidies, then taxes for smoking does not come close to paying for the costs.
In one argument a smoker suggested that the medical research into smoking diseases meant that those with similar non-smoking caused illnesses benefited, a bit like non-stick frying pans. However, that argument is flawed, rather obviously, but it is frequently introduced.
Citations please? You've made alot of bold statements but not referenced the evidence. What are these "most reports"? Are they independent or funded by anti smoking organisations? I remember reading a report on here that said car ownership was a massive drain on the country and had to be subsidised, but the details said that VED and duty and tax on fuel wasn't off-set as they "weren't ringfenced" for roads etc and just went into general taxation.He asked if I smoked: No. This reduced my risk factor by around 4-6x.
Did I drink alcohol: No, tee-total. This reduced my risk factor a little more on its own.
However, as I did not drink and smoke at the same time, i.e. glass in one hand, fag in the other, it reduced my risk of having throat cancer by a factor of 80 he said at first, then said 100. Eventually he said that the only time in the dozen or so years he'd been doing the operations he'd found malignant cancers in someone who neither drunk nor smoked there had been other risk factors.
My lumps were cancer but benign (funny word to use on something that caused me and my family a lot of heartache) but of the other 8, one was sent home as his cancer was inoperable - light smoker but worked on engines at Gatwick so exposed to the residue of burnt kerosene, highly risky - and the other 6 all had tracheotomies. All smoked.
These would have been shown as not dead because, apart from the very pleasant aero engineer, they lived. But they were a burden on their families and the NHS.
I replaced a bloke as head of department. He smoked and drank. He had his foot and a leg amputated. He tried to stay at work but his fingers were giving up the unequal effort against whatever disease it was. He wasn't dead, but a burden on the NHS, his family and his pension scheme.
With modern advances in fighting cancer, the death rate is remarkably reduced. Nowadays you can live for years with a cancer that would, 20 years ago, have killed you within months. It all costs the NHS, and the rest of us, a lot of money to keep those with avoidable cancers alive.
Then there's heart disease. The best way to avoid heart disease is to exercise. However, the next one down is don't smoke. Then it is overweight. But the NHS, bless it, will keep you alive on expensive medication, and lots of doctors. Quadruple heart operation? of course sir. Step this way, but put that fag out.
They are shown as alive but boy to they cost.
Most reports tend to suggest that, if on costs are taken into consideration, such as a partner giving up work to be a carer, so no tax and government subsidies, then taxes for smoking does not come close to paying for the costs.
In one argument a smoker suggested that the medical research into smoking diseases meant that those with similar non-smoking caused illnesses benefited, a bit like non-stick frying pans. However, that argument is flawed, rather obviously, but it is frequently introduced.
I tend to find that reports such as these make large estimates, they say if a smoker takes 30 minutes of cigarette breaks in a day thats 4 million hours of lost productivity; they don't consider that he may have had that break anyway, smoking or not, or that he is combining it with the same coffee breaks everyone has, they just presume that it's extra and add a few billion on the cost. And then pileit all on the "cost of smoking".
I would be interested to read these most reports however, I usually find they are written by those with an axe to grind, pro or anti.
sidicks said:
colonel c said:
It's interesting that some posters agree smokers should be heavily taxed because they think smoking is harmful and should be discouraged. Is it also ok to support those that think motorists should be taxed more because motoring is harmful and should be discouraged.
In what way is motoring NOT already heavily taxed?!Green Party web site/Transport said:
The Green Party would increase road fuel tax incrementally until the revenue of fuel tax covers a high proportion of road traffic's external costs, with adjustments for transport use and the nature of the fuel.
I'm sure they are as passionate about that as some are on taxing smoking. C S Lewis said:
Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victim may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated, but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.
don4l said:
Unlike other ex-smokers, I don't have a problem with the smell of cigarette smoke.
I don't mind the smell of cigarettes eitherStale smoke smell on a person I find abhorrent. I was served by a waiter last night who had obviously just been out for a smoke, that was plain wrong tbh
Derek Smith said:
I think that if you take into consideration the on-costs of all the illnesses that a smoker is heir to, that is not so.
What about if you also factor in reduced pension and housing costs?I'm a firm believer in free choice if its not affecting anyone else. If there is an overall positive tax take from people willingly killing themselves then by all means let them keep doing it.
TooMany2cvs said:
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...
Isn't the reckoning of the cost to the NHS actually the cost of 'smoking related diseases' which aren't diseases only caused by smoking?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...
pork911 said:
TooMany2cvs said:
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...
Isn't the reckoning of the cost to the NHS actually the cost of 'smoking related diseases' which aren't diseases only caused by smoking?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...
http://www.hscic.gov.uk/catalogue/PUB11454/smok-en...
It was an Oxford University figure, but dating back to 05/06 - so, yes, if anything massively conservative for today's figures.
That same figure is also quoted in
https://fullfact.org/factchecks/does_smoking_cost_...
but, unusually for fullfact, that cops out of going much further, apart from to say "It's hard" and "It'll be a chunk more than these figures". Well, thanks for that...
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff