Britains Fattest Woman Dies

Author
Discussion

NWTony

2,856 posts

230 months

Wednesday 28th July 2010
quotequote all
munroman said:
hairykrishna said:
cazzer said:
hairykrishna said:
Plotloss said:
Smokers and drinkers pay more in tax than they consume in healthcare arising from smoking and drinking related illnesses.
Can you support that statement with figures?
NHS costs - £100 billion
Smoking makes the government £10 billion
Smoking costs – £2 billion

Figures from the article or links from the article on this page....
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/cigarette_ta...
An interesting link, thank you. It doesn't actually say 'smoking costs 2 billion' anywhere though; what the NHS email says is it costs '1.7 billion in treatment bills alone'.

I had no idea the revenue generated was 10 million though, that's huge, so it seems likely that smokers do pay for themselves.
I think that when other costs like lost productivity, greater illness and time lost, extra cleaning and fire damage, there will be a lot more on the 'Cost of Smoking' downside.
Yes but if you take into account the fact smokers die younger, the savings in pension alone should more than compensate for any or more of the above.

Marty Funkhouser

Original Poster:

5,427 posts

183 months

Wednesday 8th September 2010
quotequote all

vit4

3,507 posts

172 months

Wednesday 8th September 2010
quotequote all
It worries me the amount of people who are going with the 'higher tax on junk food' etc. Why should the majority who are sensible get punished? Perhaps more than that the Orwellian in me sees it as a method of state control, taxing certain things higher than others. There are instances where it is undoubtedly useful (eg lower tax on UK made goods), but when it comes to my food choices I don't appreciate it nor the thought of it being more punitive.

Nuclearsquash

1,329 posts

264 months

Wednesday 8th September 2010
quotequote all
I had an idea that was fairly straight forward, re-introduce food rationing, slightly draconian i'll grant you, but it would mean no one could buy more than they needed to live a healthy life.

andy400

10,538 posts

233 months

Wednesday 8th September 2010
quotequote all
Nuclearsquash said:
I had an idea that was fairly straight forward, re-introduce food rationing, slightly draconian i'll grant you, but it would mean no one could buy more than they needed to live a healthy life.
Dinner parties would be a bd to organise.

Nuclearsquash

1,329 posts

264 months

Wednesday 8th September 2010
quotequote all
You would just have to save up some ration coupons for a couple of weeks. I didn't say it was a perfect idea, it's want want want with you lot wink

Buzz word

2,028 posts

211 months

Wednesday 8th September 2010
quotequote all
How about a 500% tax on trousers over a 36" waist? And instead of surgery a free pair of trainers and a nominated family member gets given a cattle prod.

spikeyhead

17,483 posts

199 months

Wednesday 8th September 2010
quotequote all
Have a set of scales at the supermarket checkout, the heavier you are, the less you're allowed to buy.

ALternatively, do away with the NHS and we'd all start looking after ourselves better.

HundredthIdiot

4,414 posts

286 months

Wednesday 8th September 2010
quotequote all
spikeyhead said:
Alternatively, do away with the NHS and we'd all start looking after ourselves better.
...because there are no fat people in the US?

Hammerhead

2,701 posts

256 months

Wednesday 8th September 2010
quotequote all
spikeyhead said:
Have a set of scales at the supermarket checkout, the heavier you are, the less you're allowed to buy.


"So you're saying I can't have my steak, pencil neck?"

Braver man than me...