should us smokers really be taxed so much
Discussion
Derek Smith said:
...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....
Sorry to disappoint you but you are mistaken. Treatments in cancer haven't come very far despite huge investment in research. If you get lung cancer from smoking you are very unlikely to live more than a year from diagnosis. Common cancers like lung, pancreatic, brain cancers are almost universally fatal. The only cure for solid cancers is surgical removal. Everything else is just buying time.
Yes, smoking will on average shorten your life. Should cigarettes be taxed so heavily? No, not IMO. People should be responsible for themselves. That means being free to harm yourself but also being willing to accept the consequences. People should pay for their own treatment.
some interesting comments so far. funny how some think we should double the tax on smokers,yet alcohol related problems have a far higher cost overall .
i look at it as smoking my pension
, i have no desire to end up in some old folks home unable to wipe my own arse while close family who would rather be somewhere else get bored on their monthly/yearly visit. not all smoking related illnesses are long drawn out costly to the nhs efforts.plenty heart attacks and strokes ,quick and cheap for the big ones.
i do agree with the smoking bans in places like restaurants and public buildings/transport ,it does not seem that long ago i could still smoke on an aircraft ,which looking back on it was extremely unfair on non smoking passengers.
in saying all that, it is a bad habit that thankfully appears to be dying out (no pun intended ) , as a parent i would have been very disappointed if my kids started smoking as i imagine any parent would be .
i look at it as smoking my pension
, i have no desire to end up in some old folks home unable to wipe my own arse while close family who would rather be somewhere else get bored on their monthly/yearly visit. not all smoking related illnesses are long drawn out costly to the nhs efforts.plenty heart attacks and strokes ,quick and cheap for the big ones. i do agree with the smoking bans in places like restaurants and public buildings/transport ,it does not seem that long ago i could still smoke on an aircraft ,which looking back on it was extremely unfair on non smoking passengers.
in saying all that, it is a bad habit that thankfully appears to be dying out (no pun intended
) , as a parent i would have been very disappointed if my kids started smoking as i imagine any parent would be .The govt taxes whatever it can get away with. Long since gone is the notion that where the tax is raised has any correlation to where it's spent - whether something as obvious as NI which was once a tax to fund specific benefits, or road tax which at least supposedly had a semi correlation to road/general transport spending
It goes into one overall pot and if tax revenue in one area drops, they raise other taxes or create new ones
Take road related taxes - we have long since had a tax that punishes less fuel efficient cars - it's the tax on fuel. Fewer mpg, the more you pay as you buy more fuel. More miles you do, more you pollute the atmosphere, more you pay in fuel tax. But that's not enough, now we have an annual road tax that reflects higher polluting, less efficient cars (the two tend by & large to go hand in hand). Company car tax was made more attractive for diesel cars, we all buy diesels, car manufacturers spend all their R&D on diesels, they get even better, we buy even more. Now it looks likely that diesels will start to be punished (tax wise). Congestion charge makes it free for EVs, but what happens when a huge proportion of Londoners have EVS ? They will have to raise another tax to make up for the drop in congestion charge revenue
This notion that tax is ever fair, well thought through or part of some really well thought out plan is utter B******. Do you know that if you buy a £750k Porsche 918, you get a £5,000 government subsidy under the same rules that apply to a £20k EV ? How is that justified ?
Cigarettes sales have proven fairly resilient to price rises (they have gone down in unit numbers, but overall tax revenue has not suffered hugely) and they are an easy one for a govt to 'get away with' on moral grounds plus the cost to the NHS of smokers
But if cigarette tax revenue was to drop significantly, they would just increase taxes elsewhere
Meanwhile if you really do want to look at the whole aspect of fairness, estimates of what it costs the country to treat smokers (£3-6 bil) seem like small fry compared to cigarette tax revenue of c. £10 bil, VAT on cigs of c £2 bil and then of course all the benefits of those that work in the industry, pay taxes, etc. And of course it helps justify employing loads of NHS workers - there would be fewer jobs on both sides and less revenue if smoking was effectively banned - that's why the govt won't even consider it (and the fact it would lose any govt huge numbers of votes from the smokers)
It goes into one overall pot and if tax revenue in one area drops, they raise other taxes or create new ones
Take road related taxes - we have long since had a tax that punishes less fuel efficient cars - it's the tax on fuel. Fewer mpg, the more you pay as you buy more fuel. More miles you do, more you pollute the atmosphere, more you pay in fuel tax. But that's not enough, now we have an annual road tax that reflects higher polluting, less efficient cars (the two tend by & large to go hand in hand). Company car tax was made more attractive for diesel cars, we all buy diesels, car manufacturers spend all their R&D on diesels, they get even better, we buy even more. Now it looks likely that diesels will start to be punished (tax wise). Congestion charge makes it free for EVs, but what happens when a huge proportion of Londoners have EVS ? They will have to raise another tax to make up for the drop in congestion charge revenue
This notion that tax is ever fair, well thought through or part of some really well thought out plan is utter B******. Do you know that if you buy a £750k Porsche 918, you get a £5,000 government subsidy under the same rules that apply to a £20k EV ? How is that justified ?
Cigarettes sales have proven fairly resilient to price rises (they have gone down in unit numbers, but overall tax revenue has not suffered hugely) and they are an easy one for a govt to 'get away with' on moral grounds plus the cost to the NHS of smokers
But if cigarette tax revenue was to drop significantly, they would just increase taxes elsewhere
Meanwhile if you really do want to look at the whole aspect of fairness, estimates of what it costs the country to treat smokers (£3-6 bil) seem like small fry compared to cigarette tax revenue of c. £10 bil, VAT on cigs of c £2 bil and then of course all the benefits of those that work in the industry, pay taxes, etc. And of course it helps justify employing loads of NHS workers - there would be fewer jobs on both sides and less revenue if smoking was effectively banned - that's why the govt won't even consider it (and the fact it would lose any govt huge numbers of votes from the smokers)
Look at the high level of taxation as a deliberate incentive to smoke less or not at all. Smoking is bad for you, even if it doesn't kill you it will likely lead to poorer health when older. Think of it not in terms of cost but engineering a benefit to the collective health with, for once, the governments doing something that has net benefits. Not just monetary.
The idea of the state levying tax to change behavior somewhat flies in the face of my libertarian views - one should be free to make choices. Of course, one should make good choices but freedom should be there to make bad ones.
The idea of the state levying tax to change behavior somewhat flies in the face of my libertarian views - one should be free to make choices. Of course, one should make good choices but freedom should be there to make bad ones.
Are there any stats to show that the number of people smoking is actually on the decrease - i.e. the younger generation is smoking less due to more awareness of the side effects it can have, no more advertising, e-fags increasing sales, that sort of thing.
So over time the number of people smoking will reduce anyway.
So over time the number of people smoking will reduce anyway.
supersingle said:
Sorry to disappoint you but you are mistaken. Treatments in cancer haven't come very far despite huge investment in research. If you get lung cancer from smoking you are very unlikely to live more than a year from diagnosis.
Common cancers like lung, pancreatic, brain cancers are almost universally fatal. The only cure for solid cancers is surgical removal. Everything else is just buying time.
Yes, smoking will on average shorten your life. Should cigarettes be taxed so heavily? No, not IMO. People should be responsible for themselves. That means being free to harm yourself but also being willing to accept the consequences. People should pay for their own treatment.
Are you sure? I once did a cycle ride for a cancer charity and their gumf was that they had extended the life expectancy of someone with cancer by a factor of over 2. This was a few years ago as well. Whilst this was not much for someone with a particularly aggressive cancer, it still seems that it was double. I accept that the fatality rate is still very high but then no one lives forever. Common cancers like lung, pancreatic, brain cancers are almost universally fatal. The only cure for solid cancers is surgical removal. Everything else is just buying time.
Yes, smoking will on average shorten your life. Should cigarettes be taxed so heavily? No, not IMO. People should be responsible for themselves. That means being free to harm yourself but also being willing to accept the consequences. People should pay for their own treatment.
As for surgery: doesn't the chemical concoction they are given afterwards help in some way? These are expensive, so even surgery costs.
I seem to remember the health secretary blaming extended life expectancy rates for the increase in costs for the NHS. He didn't put it quite like that, but it was what was meant.
fezst said:
As an ex smoker, yes it is a fair tax. It's a stupid habit.
I agree. I gave up on New Years Day but even when I was smoking, I still agreed with the high tax, banning from public places, pubs, cars, etc. Anything that can be done to encourage people to stop or not take it up in the first place has to be a good thing. I was on 10 a day and the money I'm saving is incredible. As soon as I start to think about having a cheeky tab, the cost of getting addicted again puts me right off. Nothing worse than an ex-smoker
My wife gave up when I moved in with her 11 years ago. We were out on out bikes along the seafront on Saturday and upwind of us was a smoker. We couldnt smell the sea air, just this blokes cigarette smoke. She remarked how it now disgusts her and would never smoke again.
If you are taxed for pollution, then yes then it is a fair tax as even if you are in a designated area, the fumes - unless extracted out - will end up outside for a non smoker to smell.
Cancer is another issue, Im sure there are many many people that die form it that have had no contact with cigarettes, unfortunate as it is.
My wife gave up when I moved in with her 11 years ago. We were out on out bikes along the seafront on Saturday and upwind of us was a smoker. We couldnt smell the sea air, just this blokes cigarette smoke. She remarked how it now disgusts her and would never smoke again.
If you are taxed for pollution, then yes then it is a fair tax as even if you are in a designated area, the fumes - unless extracted out - will end up outside for a non smoker to smell.
Cancer is another issue, Im sure there are many many people that die form it that have had no contact with cigarettes, unfortunate as it is.
Derek Smith said:
supersingle said:
Sorry to disappoint you but you are mistaken. Treatments in cancer haven't come very far despite huge investment in research. If you get lung cancer from smoking you are very unlikely to live more than a year from diagnosis.
Common cancers like lung, pancreatic, brain cancers are almost universally fatal. The only cure for solid cancers is surgical removal. Everything else is just buying time.
Yes, smoking will on average shorten your life. Should cigarettes be taxed so heavily? No, not IMO. People should be responsible for themselves. That means being free to harm yourself but also being willing to accept the consequences. People should pay for their own treatment.
Are you sure? I once did a cycle ride for a cancer charity and their gumf was that they had extended the life expectancy of someone with cancer by a factor of over 2. This was a few years ago as well. Whilst this was not much for someone with a particularly aggressive cancer, it still seems that it was double. I accept that the fatality rate is still very high but then no one lives forever. Common cancers like lung, pancreatic, brain cancers are almost universally fatal. The only cure for solid cancers is surgical removal. Everything else is just buying time.
Yes, smoking will on average shorten your life. Should cigarettes be taxed so heavily? No, not IMO. People should be responsible for themselves. That means being free to harm yourself but also being willing to accept the consequences. People should pay for their own treatment.
As for surgery: doesn't the chemical concoction they are given afterwards help in some way? These are expensive, so even surgery costs.
I seem to remember the health secretary blaming extended life expectancy rates for the increase in costs for the NHS. He didn't put it quite like that, but it was what was mea .
There's been progress in some cancers like breast, prostate and colon but much of the perceived success is through better detection. Lots of cancers are caught and treated that wouldn't kill the patient before something else does.
Derek Smith said:
supersingle said:
Sorry to disappoint you but you are mistaken. Treatments in cancer haven't come very far despite huge investment in research. If you get lung cancer from smoking you are very unlikely to live more than a year from diagnosis.
Common cancers like lung, pancreatic, brain cancers are almost universally fatal. The only cure for solid cancers is surgical removal. Everything else is just buying time.
Yes, smoking will on average shorten your life. Should cigarettes be taxed so heavily? No, not IMO. People should be responsible for themselves. That means being free to harm yourself but also being willing to accept the consequences. People should pay for their own treatment.
Are you sure? I once did a cycle ride for a cancer charity and their gumf was that they had extended the life expectancy of someone with cancer by a factor of over 2. This was a few years ago as well. Whilst this was not much for someone with a particularly aggressive cancer, it still seems that it was double. I accept that the fatality rate is still very high but then no one lives forever. Common cancers like lung, pancreatic, brain cancers are almost universally fatal. The only cure for solid cancers is surgical removal. Everything else is just buying time.
Yes, smoking will on average shorten your life. Should cigarettes be taxed so heavily? No, not IMO. People should be responsible for themselves. That means being free to harm yourself but also being willing to accept the consequences. People should pay for their own treatment.
As for surgery: doesn't the chemical concoction they are given afterwards help in some way? These are expensive, so even surgery costs.
Derek Smith said:
I seem to remember the health secretary blaming extended life expectancy rates for the increase in costs for the NHS. He didn't put it quite like that, but it was what was meant.
Not just cancer, though - everything. Trouble is that medical science is so good now that there's a heck of a lot of very expensive ways of keeping people alive for a long while.TooMany2cvs said:
Not just cancer, though - everything. Trouble is that medical science is so good now that there's a heck of a lot of very expensive ways of keeping people alive for a long while.
Off topic but therein lies the problem with the NHS. Everyone expects these to be provided for "free". (On the OP, I don't especially have an opinion either way. If pushed, I'd say the tax amount is fair enough. It's probably no less Draconian than the tax on anything else - fuel, booze, etc).
Murph7355 said:
Off topic but therein lies the problem with the NHS. Everyone expects these to be provided for "free".
Couldn't agree more.The NHS is about 20% of all Gov't expenditure, about 8% of GDP, roughly two grand per year per person. The only area of Gov't expenditure that's higher is welfare and social protection - primarily pensions (half of all welfare spend). Education is third, and about a third less than health, or about the same as pensions. Between those three headings, that's nearly 60% of Gov't expenditure.
The Gov't could _easily_ spend a lot more on health (or either of the other two, come to that), but that money has to come from somewhere. Nobody wants to pay more tax. Nobody wants to work for longer before they retire. Nobody wants to die earlier. The Gov't already spends about the total health budget each year more than it receives, and pays about a quarter of the health budget in interest on what they already owe.
Edited by TooMany2cvs on Monday 2nd February 11:21
The taxation on smoking boils down to a political need to demonstrably improve the health status of a nation.
Smoking remains the largest preventable cause of death but also the biggest contributor to poorer health for the poor. Hence the reason life expectancy fluctuates so significantly between postcodes. About 20-22% of people smoke now but the greatest shift away from smoking has happened in the middle classes.
Increasing life expectancy and narrowing of health inequalities are seen as a marker of a progressive successful society so politicians make it harder to smoke.
The old "smokers' taxes fund the NHS" argument is a red herring. Most Govts would be happy to address the financial gap caused by less revenue if they could demonstrate significant advancement in the nation's health, or more importantly, avoid being associated with it going backwards. Stopping people from smoking remains one of very few political shortcuts to better public health. Obesity/alcohol is harder because it will require culture change and a complex social approach.
Smoking remains the largest preventable cause of death but also the biggest contributor to poorer health for the poor. Hence the reason life expectancy fluctuates so significantly between postcodes. About 20-22% of people smoke now but the greatest shift away from smoking has happened in the middle classes.
Increasing life expectancy and narrowing of health inequalities are seen as a marker of a progressive successful society so politicians make it harder to smoke.
The old "smokers' taxes fund the NHS" argument is a red herring. Most Govts would be happy to address the financial gap caused by less revenue if they could demonstrate significant advancement in the nation's health, or more importantly, avoid being associated with it going backwards. Stopping people from smoking remains one of very few political shortcuts to better public health. Obesity/alcohol is harder because it will require culture change and a complex social approach.
captainzep said:
The taxation on smoking boils down to a political need to demonstrably improve the health status of a nation.
Smoking remains the largest preventable cause of deathbut also the biggest contributor to poorer health for the poor. Hence the reason life expectancy fluctuates so significantly between postcodes. About 20-22% of people smoke now but the greatest shift away from smoking has happened in the middle classes.
Increasing life expectancy and narrowing of health inequalities are seen as a marker of a progressive successful society so politicians make it harder to smoke.
The old "smokers' taxes fund the NHS" argument is a red herring. Most Govts would be happy to address the financial gap caused by less revenue if they could demonstrate significant advancement in the nation's health, or more importantly, avoid being associated with it going backwards. Stopping people from smoking remains one of very few political shortcuts to better public health. Obesity/alcohol is harder because it will require culture change and a complex social approach.
I'm pretty sure obesity has overtaken smoking in the death stakes these days. There's too many people making too much money off highly processed industrially produced food. Government only encourage that situation.Smoking remains the largest preventable cause of deathbut also the biggest contributor to poorer health for the poor. Hence the reason life expectancy fluctuates so significantly between postcodes. About 20-22% of people smoke now but the greatest shift away from smoking has happened in the middle classes.
Increasing life expectancy and narrowing of health inequalities are seen as a marker of a progressive successful society so politicians make it harder to smoke.
The old "smokers' taxes fund the NHS" argument is a red herring. Most Govts would be happy to address the financial gap caused by less revenue if they could demonstrate significant advancement in the nation's health, or more importantly, avoid being associated with it going backwards. Stopping people from smoking remains one of very few political shortcuts to better public health. Obesity/alcohol is harder because it will require culture change and a complex social approach.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff