Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Steppenpig

Tax Fags Poll

Recommended Posts

i think it works now

Not going to answer the poll as I buy mine from abroad since the UK has priced itself out of this particular market.

you should probably vote for "smoker: bad" then

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Time to ban or tax all imports if you ask me, I also think fags arent taxed nearly heavily enough, but then having watched several family members die a slow painful death from smoking related disease I may be a little biased..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If tax is taken away from booze then I'm non:bad.

If not, then it's non:good!

In correlation to the product though the tax is huge (is there anything else even near as heavily taxed?) The push to ecigs though is an interesting phenomenum that allows us plebs to view first hand the governments angle on the smoking taxation debate in the interest of 'health'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The habit is proved to seriously damage your health.

I would support an outright ban but then I like my beer (in moderation) and if they get their way and ban tobacco they will come after alcohol next,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The habit is proved to seriously damage your health.

How is that ameliorated by taxing the maximum you think the market will bear?

And despite all the talk of how much it costs the NHS, when you look at dementia care and longevity of pensions for non-smokers, smokers are good value. Really, end of life costs are so reduced that cigs should probably be subsidised on a monetary cost to society analysis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How is that ameliorated by taxing the maximum you think the market will bear?

And despite all the talk of how much it costs the NHS, when you look at dementia care and longevity of pensions for non-smokers, smokers are good value. Really, end of life costs are so reduced that cigs should probably be subsidised on a monetary cost to society analysis.

Persons can choose to smoke or not, they should well understand the risks and be prepared to bear them.

Where is the choice in infirmity of dementia?

But you make an interesting point, maybe we have got this **** about face.....But then so many other things would have to be changed to bring about a change of understanding.Places no Government wants to go too. Digitas clinic in the burbs of our major cities?

Of course far far fewer people smoke now than has been the case in the past. When I grew up in the 60's pretty much 80% of adults did it. Subsidising it would never have worked due to the sheer numbers partaking.

Clearly Governments are nowadays getting a return on that behaviour with reduced pension payments and general NHS costs. As we go on into the future numbers dying an early death from smoking related stuff will level out and go back the other way.

Obviously at one time the tax take from tobacco was major earner for the Government. Smokers used to hang on the chancellors every word in a budget speech to see how he was going to clobber it that year.

Nowadays it barley gets a mention and has some sort of escalator gizmo built into anyway...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The habit is proved to seriously damage your health.

I would support an outright ban but then I like my beer (in moderation) and if they get their way and ban tobacco they will come after alcohol next,

Rather harder to justify going after alcohol (although they seem to be trying). There are a lot more drinkers than smokers (counting light ones) and it's far less likely to have the same effects on an otherwise responsible individual.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Persons can choose to smoke or not, they should well understand the risks and be prepared to bear them.

Where is the choice in infirmity of dementia?

But you make an interesting point, maybe we have got this **** about face.....But then so many other things would have to be changed to bring about a change of understanding.Places no Government wants to go too. Digitas clinic in the burbs of our major cities?

Of course far far fewer people smoke now than has been the case in the past. When I grew up in the 60's pretty much 80% of adults did it. Subsidising it would never have worked due to the sheer numbers partaking.

Clearly Governments are nowadays getting a return on that behaviour with reduced pension payments and general NHS costs. As we go on into the future numbers dying an early death from smoking related stuff will level out and go back the other way.

Obviously at one time the tax take from tobacco was major earner for the Government. Smokers used to hang on the chancellors every word in a budget speech to see how he was going to clobber it that year.

Nowadays it barley gets a mention and has some sort of escalator gizmo built into anyway...

The thrust of my argument in the other thread is that increasingly the very poor do not have a choice. We've removed that choice for them through punitive taxation while leaving the well off to carry on as they please.

If the argument for the health benefits is the reason for the tax, then ban it or ration it. (my actual preference is to leave people to do as they please, but to educate people - especially the young - very thoroughly on the risks involved).

In my view we'll see an outright ban at least attempted in the next 20 or 30 years once smoking rates are low enough that losing the smokers votes is offset by gaining the nanny knows best votes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I very much doubt they will go after alcohol next as there are too many vested interests. You only have to look at the very predictable outcome of extending licensing hours. Many town centres are basically no-go areas for ordinary non-pissed folk after about 10pm. Plus I suspect the cost to the tax payer of the additional policing/NHS/other alcohol related costs outweighs any additional revenue. Basically many of the costs to society have been socialised, while the profits remain private.

Plus with alcohol, it's easy enough to produce your own if the taxation system ever turned nasty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I very much doubt they will go after alcohol next as there are too many vested interests. You only have to look at the very predictable outcome of extending licensing hours. Many town centres are basically no-go areas for ordinary non-pissed folk after about 10pm. Plus I suspect the cost to the tax payer of the additional policing/NHS/other alcohol related costs outweighs any additional revenue. Basically many of the costs to society have been socialised, while the profits remain private.

Plus with alcohol, it's easy enough to produce your own if the taxation system ever turned nasty.

It's when you tax something for the first time it has the most impact. After that big raises. Any tax on booze is likely to come by stealth, a penny here, a penny there.

To be fair the whole e-cig thing should be regulated. People shouldn't be able to exhale any old crap into the atmosphere, and there is some need to make sure stuff with nasty additives isn't sold. Sooner or later there will be some big e-cig scandal where people smoke some nasty crap then the government will step in.

For me stuff that should be taxed includes fast food, snacks chocolate. Plastic packaging for foods as well. Its just unnecessary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They should just ban tobacco if its so harmful. FFS.

Or, conversely if it is that bad just let people kill themselves if they want to. Everyone dies eventually.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's an idea. Remove the duty from tobacco products over say the course of the next five years with a kicker that after 10 years have elapsed, treatment for smoking related diseases without our healthcare system will no longer be free.

In essence if they take the risk and make themselves ill it is after all a self inflicted injury.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rather harder to justify going after alcohol (although they seem to be trying). There are a lot more drinkers than smokers (counting light ones) and it's far less likely to have the same effects on an otherwise responsible individual.

no it isn't.

just trot out how much the NHS spends patching up drunken brawlers on friday and saturday nights,

how much it costs the police to stop drunken brawls

the number of domestic violence incidents where alcohol is a contributory factor(gone up since smoking ban because everyone stays at home and drinks and smokes in front of the kids)

the number of people who get pissed up and have the eureka moment of making a fry-up,only to torch the house in the process( incidentally,this number will have risen since the pub smoking ban)

the number of people who can't now smoke in pubs,somking at home with a beer or two,falling asleep and torching the house with a fag end(this will have gone up since the smoking ban)

socialist solution will say ban both everywhere.

realistic solution is create smoking areas with tile or brick flooring.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I very much doubt they will go after alcohol next as there are too many vested interests.

you are talking about people with a quasi-religeous nazi mentality here....vested interests don't come into it.They think they are right and everybody else is a heretic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

for something thats addictive I dont think you can say it is entirely self inflicted.

We know from the drugs war that banning doesnt work, but when a pack of cigs which can last a couple of days is cheaper than a bottle of wine I think the tax could be higher. I suspect the tax people aim the tax levels to maximise revenue - they dont really want everyone to quit and they get zero tax from it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Only one smoker on the boards?

Perhaps it's a bit passé these days.. Maybe the poll should be modified to be about the tax they are probably about to impose on ecigs.

After they've finished legislating all the small mom and pop companies out of the market that is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't see the point...I'm an occasional smoker...a pack will tend to last me at least a week, but I can count the number of packs ive bought in the UK on one hand.

Tend to buy in Germany when im there...so still expensive, but £4 a pack instead of £8. £4 more than covers the cost to the NHS, and would stop much of the importing.

Frankly its just become a political tradition...dont raise duty and you like seeing people die or some crap.

So I'd reduce duty to the average EU level and be done with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   30 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.