David Posted May 31, 2011 Author Share Posted May 31, 2011 (edited) Double Post. Edited May 31, 2011 by David Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Ronnie Posted May 31, 2011 Paid Members Share Posted May 31, 2011 If I recall correctly, more tax is raised through the sales of tobacco than the cost of treating smokers. However, the argument only works if the tax money raised from tobacco was spend solely on healthcare, but all tax revenue goes into one bit pot and id distributed accordingly. I'm happy to be proven wrong, or shown the correct stats etc but my understanding is that healthcare gets less than 10% of the full allocation of revenue. If that makes sense?? I don't get that line of thinking at all. Â If I pay you, the tax administrator, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keith Houchen Posted May 31, 2011 Share Posted May 31, 2011 If I recall correctly, more tax is raised through the sales of tobacco than the cost of treating smokers. However, the argument only works if the tax money raised from tobacco was spend solely on healthcare, but all tax revenue goes into one bit pot and id distributed accordingly. I'm happy to be proven wrong, or shown the correct stats etc but my understanding is that healthcare gets less than 10% of the full allocation of revenue. If that makes sense?? I don't get that line of thinking at all. Â If I pay you, the tax administrator, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members tiger_rick Posted May 31, 2011 Paid Members Share Posted May 31, 2011 (edited) Have you cast your vote? Â http://www.sexymp.co.uk Edited May 31, 2011 by tiger_rick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loki Posted May 31, 2011 Share Posted May 31, 2011 It's a bit of a false economy though, smokers pay far more into the system in the tax on their cigerattes than they cost through the various ailments it courses. Not too mention how much of a strain they take away from the pension and social care budget by being good enough to die before anyone else. If every smoker actually quite tomorrow it'd fuck stuff right up, so repeatedly hammering them with ridiculous tax hikes seems a little short sighted.  I've heard that before, but is it factually true? Sounds like it could easily be one of those urban myths that gets repeated so often it gets accepted as fact.  If someone could provide some stats or something, it'd help. If I recall correctly, more tax is raised through the sales of tobacco than the cost of treating smokers. However, the argument only works if the tax money raised from tobacco was spend solely on healthcare, but all tax revenue goes into one bit pot and id distributed accordingly. I'm happy to be proven wrong, or shown the correct stats etc but my understanding is that healthcare gets less than 10% of the full allocation of revenue. If that makes sense??  EDIT - So going by that, and the figures Ronnie posted, of the 10bn raised in excise, less than 1bn goes directly to the treatment. However it's not a clear cut thing as you can argue the same for fatty foods, alcohol etc.  Also, you're not taking into account at all the healthcare costs of non-smokers who've developed conditions as a result of passive smoking, particularly in the home (as opposed to smoking in public) including smoking during pregnancy. In the US, a study showed that expectant mothers who smoke cause the deaths of over 600 boy babies and 400 baby girls each year. Babies who survive but suffer from smoking related problems cost the country approximately $800 each to help, totaling nearly $4 million. The stat is a few years old, but still - http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr58/nvsr58_17.pdf  I suspect the total cost to the country of treating, cleaning up after, provisioning for etc smokers will comfortably exceed the revenue from tobacco taxes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glenryck Pilchards Posted May 31, 2011 Share Posted May 31, 2011 The simplest solution to the binge drinking problem is to stop supermarkets serving alcohol and only allow purchasing of alcohol in an off-licence, public house, bar or club. The pricing at supermarkets are at ridiculous levels, take for example my local Sainsbury Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Ronnie Posted May 31, 2011 Paid Members Share Posted May 31, 2011 (edited) Also, you're not taking into account at all the healthcare costs of non-smokers who've developed conditions as a result of passive smoking, particularly in the home (as opposed to smoking in public) including smoking during pregnancy. In the US, a study showed that expectant mothers who smoke cause the deaths of over 600 boy babies and 400 baby girls each year. Babies who survive but suffer from smoking related problems cost the country approximately $800 each to help, totaling nearly $4 million. I certainly wouldn't want to make ill newborns a point for debate and wholly condemn anybody selfish enough to smoke whilst pregnant, but wouldn't you count that as "treating smoking-related illnesses" anyway? And even if not, $4m is barely noticeable on top of Edited May 31, 2011 by Ronnie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loki Posted May 31, 2011 Share Posted May 31, 2011 I've yet to see any firm figures on it, Ronnie, so you may well be right. I would say that arguing that because smokers pay for the health issues cause to others by their smoking, makes it ok, is difficult argument to make! Â It strikes me as an incredibly difficult argument to make on a purely statistical level anyway. If smokers didn't die of smoking-related diseases, eventually they'd die of something else that might also cost the NHS, so is that taken into account? If someone dies young of smoking-related illness, is their future-earning potential taken into account? If smokers didn't spend all that money on cigarettes, would they spend it on other things that would generate tax revenue, such as alcohol or, I don't know, anything with VAT on it? Â And so on. It's impossible to put a figure on it to any degree of accuracy. The arguments for banning cigarettes is much better held on purely medical grounds. Either ban tobacco and alcohol, or legalise cannabis basically. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Ronnie Posted May 31, 2011 Paid Members Share Posted May 31, 2011 I would say that arguing that because smokers pay for the health issues cause to others by their smoking, makes it ok, is difficult argument to make! Yep, that wouldn't be the easiest case to make, though I don't doubt that some economists probably would have a go. (Not me, though: I got mega-heat for refusing to describe people as 'human capital' in my MSc dissertation.) Â It strikes me as an incredibly difficult argument to make on a purely statistical level anyway. If smokers didn't die of smoking-related diseases, eventually they'd die of something else that might also cost the NHS, so is that taken into account? That's an awkward one, isn't it? I mean, if it's non-smoking-related then it shouldn't really count as a black mark against them, any more so than it would for a non-smoker to die requiring treatment. Â If smokers didn't spend all that money on cigarettes, would they spend it on other things that would generate tax revenue, such as alcohol or, I don't know, anything with VAT on it? Yeah, that's a fair point. I suppose the only counter to that is that 80+% of every pound that they spend on anything else doesn't end up in Treasury coffers if they buy standard goods. Â The arguments for banning cigarettes is much better held on purely medical grounds. Either ban tobacco and alcohol, or legalise cannabis basically. I suppose the only difference there is that tobacco and alcohol have been around forever. Were they only discovered today, I think it a certainty that they'd be banned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobbins Posted June 1, 2011 Share Posted June 1, 2011 Am I thick or am I missing the point of this argument? Are people saying that government shouldn't introduce measures to discourage people from smoking purely because smokers create a net profit for the state balance sheets? Seems daft for two reasons. Public health isn't about the bottom line. And the only reason smokers create a net profit is because of measures introduced by the state to discourage people from smoking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loki Posted June 1, 2011 Share Posted June 1, 2011 That IS the argument Ronnie is putting forward, yes. There's a similar argument about alcohol too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kiffy Posted June 1, 2011 Share Posted June 1, 2011 Not entirely what I was saying, as a smoker I repeatedly hear the very misinformed comment that my actions are selfish as they cost the country money and it should be stopped. The response is, do your fucking research, I'm saving it money. Which doesn't mean I'm saying the government should be pro smoking, simply pointing out that the idea smokers cost the country money is bollocks, we actually do quite the opposite, and it's worth pointing out. Alchohol's a different issue as the issues surrounding it can and do have a negative impact on society, on top of premature deaths and cost to health service and such there's unseen knock on costs. It's very hard to put a financial figure on the damage done by a child seeing his alchoholic father beat shit out of his mother every day, but we can probably all agree the affect it has will probably not be a good one. I do believe (but could be wrong) that the higher level of domestic abuse in scotland is generally considered to go hand in hand with the higher levels of alchohol consumption there. But even so, it's not the governments job to decide how much we drink, smoke, or indeed snort inject eat or stick up our ass. It's a matter of personal choice, and it's high time legislation started to reflect that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members JNLister Posted June 1, 2011 Paid Members Share Posted June 1, 2011 Heh heh. "High time." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobbins Posted June 1, 2011 Share Posted June 1, 2011 Not entirely what I was saying, as a smoker I repeatedly hear the very misinformed comment that my actions are selfish as they cost the country money and it should be stopped. The response is, do your fucking research, I'm saving it money. Which doesn't mean I'm saying the government should be pro smoking, simply pointing out that the idea smokers cost the country money is bollocks, we actually do quite the opposite, and it's worth pointing out. Alchohol's a different issue as the issues surrounding it can and do have a negative impact on society, on top of premature deaths and cost to health service and such there's unseen knock on costs. It's very hard to put a financial figure on the damage done by a child seeing his alchoholic father beat shit out of his mother every day, but we can probably all agree the affect it has will probably not be a good one. I do believe (but could be wrong) that the higher level of domestic abuse in scotland is generally considered to go hand in hand with the higher levels of alchohol consumption there. But even so, it's not the governments job to decide how much we drink, smoke, or indeed snort inject eat or stick up our ass. It's a matter of personal choice, and it's high time legislation started to reflect that. I think the domestic abuse link you mentioned proves the point that it should be a more complex issue for governments than unregulated personal choice for all. It's still a personal choice to buy cigarettes when they're Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Carbomb Posted June 1, 2011 Paid Members Share Posted June 1, 2011 Not entirely what I was saying, as a smoker I repeatedly hear the very misinformed comment that my actions are selfish as they cost the country money and it should be stopped. The response is, do your fucking research, I'm saving it money. Which doesn't mean I'm saying the government should be pro smoking, simply pointing out that the idea smokers cost the country money is bollocks, we actually do quite the opposite, and it's worth pointing out. Alchohol's a different issue as the issues surrounding it can and do have a negative impact on society, on top of premature deaths and cost to health service and such there's unseen knock on costs. It's very hard to put a financial figure on the damage done by a child seeing his alchoholic father beat shit out of his mother every day, but we can probably all agree the affect it has will probably not be a good one. I do believe (but could be wrong) that the higher level of domestic abuse in scotland is generally considered to go hand in hand with the higher levels of alchohol consumption there. But even so, it's not the governments job to decide how much we drink, smoke, or indeed snort inject eat or stick up our ass. It's a matter of personal choice, and it's high time legislation started to reflect that. I think the domestic abuse link you mentioned proves the point that it should be a more complex issue for governments than unregulated personal choice for all. It's still a personal choice to buy cigarettes when they're Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts