A smoking ban?

[worn thumbs]

There is a fairly established story that during the era of the Macmillan government,when the health problems caused by smoking were evident,that the notion of banning the habit were discussed.A horrified adviser is said to have told them that it would be a disaster because the increased cost to the nation form paying pensions to all the extra "survivors".

I do wonder about the tax revenue these days because the few smokers I used to know had a tendency to switch from buying cigarettes to buying papers and hooking up with a crony who knew a man that had access to imported loose tobacco.Judging from the queues I stand in at supermarkets,waiting to buy a lottery ticket,the buying of papers is endemic and tobacco selling much less common.Draw your own conclusions.

I suspect there may be more than a grain of truth in the notion that it would go underground and maybe take the form of the "opium dens" that featured in early twentieth century novels.Perhaps standing on the doorstep whistling "Smoke gets in your eyes" would be the secret way to gain admission.

 

[Phil Pascoe]

A chap who did some work for me is a former (quite high up the ladder) customs officer. He told me that much of the illicit tobacco comes in from China to Coventry (why???) and for about every 100 cases one will be full of Golden Virginia wrappers.

A local shop keeper some twenty years ago told me he was peed off with selling papers - not only did people not buy tobacco, but he had to give change from a pound nearly every time which took all his small change.

 

[Cobbs]

Has there been any mention of hitting the grow-your-own crowd? At the moment, as I understand it, you can grow as much as you like for your own consumption (which may or may not be a bit of word play...)

 

[Teepeg]

I have quit now for 18 years, had this come about when i was a smoker i know for sure i would have done anything illegal to get a smoke ..

 

[niall Y]

I grow my own, not for smoking, but for the flowers. In the same vein I also grow opium poppies - I can't stop them - they just keep self seeding.

 

[Cobbs]

I grow my own, not for smoking, but for the flowers. In the same vein I also grow opium poppies - I can't stop them - they just keep self seeding.

It does seem odd that we're allowed to grow both of these sources of very addictive drugs, yet if you or I were to grow a little weed, we'd be be in trouble. No accounting for the laws in this country, especially when you consider it used to be compulsory to grow hemp!

 

[Terry - Somerset]

Cost to the NHS (from the NHS site) £2.6b. Income from tax £10.4b.

The figures can be massaged to produced pretty much whatever answer is wanted - another plausible quote:

The cost of smoking to the UK Government is approximately £12.6 billion a year, made up of £1.4 billion spent on social care for smoking related care needs, £2.5 billion spent on NHS services and £8.6 billion of lost productivity in businesses*.

The tax take is an equally questionable statistic. If one assumes ex-smokers would spend their money on something else tax may anyway be paid - VAT, fuel duty on bigger cars, etc. If they did not get ill they may also earn more and pay income tax.

Smoking damages health. It damages economic output through ill health of the workforce. The duty of government is the welfare of those governed .

As smoking is seriously addictive, totally banning sales or imports is unlikely to be capable of enforcement and could/would incite disruptive unrest. It needs a more intelligent solution.

 

[Phil Pascoe]

Certainly - but you should then count pensions and possibly housing costs saved from people dying many years earlier.

 

[Jameshow]

Cost to the NHS (from the NHS site) £2.6b. Income from tax £10.4b.
That's without the savings on pensions from people dying younger.

Maybe I'll be prescribing fags on the NHS!!

 

[Sachakins]

Just to highlight total tax on a £12 pack of fags, the price is broken down into
ACTUAL Retail price + excise duty (16.5% of retail) + levy fee £5.89 + VAT 20%
This results in
ACTUAL Retail price £3.52+ VAT of £0.704
excise duty @ 16.5% £0.59+ VAT of £0.118
levy fee £5.89+ VAT of£1.178
VAT 20% £2.00
Total £12.00

So for a retail cost of £3.52, the tax man is raising £8.48, which equates to a tax rate on £3.52 of 240.91%
Plus you can see that of the £2.00 VAT, only 70.4p is on the product, the rest 129.6p is a totally VAT on the excise duty and levy, so your paying vat on tax too.

So next time you think your 25% income tax rate is high, remember that the smoker is actually paying a tax rate of 241%, as well as income tax.

 

[Scruples]

The figures can be massaged to produced pretty much whatever answer is wanted - another plausible quote:

The cost of smoking to the UK Government is approximately £12.6 billion a year, made up of £1.4 billion spent on social care for smoking related care needs, £2.5 billion spent on NHS services and £8.6 billion of lost productivity in businesses*.

The tax take is an equally questionable statistic. If one assumes ex-smokers would spend their money on something else tax may anyway be paid - VAT, fuel duty on bigger cars, etc. If they did not get ill they may also earn more and pay income tax.

Smoking damages health. It damages economic output through ill health of the workforce. The duty of government is the welfare of those governed .

As smoking is seriously addictive, totally banning sales or imports is unlikely to be capable of enforcement and could/would incite disruptive unrest. It needs a more intelligent solution.

And it reduces the pension demand...

 

[mc281]

Not sure how the NHS savings figured are calculated but older folk cost the NHS more per head than do the young.
The cheapest option for the NHS as well as Govt pension costs is for us all to pop off the day before we reach pensionable age.

In fact the age at which we all cost the state the most is completely irrelevant. The overall cost per lifetime is the only useful relevance. It's a bit like saving up to buy something and then spending it all at last on the thing you've been putting money away for, for so long.
When you get old experience tells me you'll understand this.
Inflation is the biggest obstacle and the one that messes up the balance.

 

[mc281]

Just to highlight total tax on a £12 pack of fags, the price is broken down into
ACTUAL Retail price + excise duty (16.5% of retail) + levy fee £5.89 + VAT 20%
This results in
ACTUAL Retail price £3.52+ VAT of £0.704
excise duty @ 16.5% £0.59+ VAT of £0.118
levy fee £5.89+ VAT of£1.178
VAT 20% £2.00
Total £12.00

So for a retail cost of £3.52, the tax man is raising £8.48, which equates to a tax rate on £3.52 of 240.91%
Plus you can see that of the £2.00 VAT, only 70.4p is on the product, the rest 129.6p is a totally VAT on the excise duty and levy, so your paying vat on tax too.

So next time you think your 25% income tax rate is high, remember that the smoker is actually paying a tax rate of 241%, as well as income tax.

But likely for a shorter time after costing more than non smokers to the rest of us overall.

 

[XTiffy]

As a non-smoker (for the past 50 years), that doesn't have an issue with smoking. I don't condone it, in fact I think it idiotic but policing a ban would be impossible,think clear up rate for burglary, though I am quite sure the police would love those powers.
In my early days in the navy we were issued with packs of 200 duty free fags (Blue-liners) for 8 Shillings (40 Pence)!
I would be interested to know what is the comparable cost of alcohol and drug abuse. There is no doubt that both of these have a major cost to the country and the NHS (no doubt someone on here can dig out an estimate). Will alcohol be the next ban?
As to all of these costing exercises, I always remember from my early computer days the saying "Rubbish in=Rubbish out". True then and even more so now.

 

[artie]

If we want to cast stones as to who is causing the biggest expense to the NHS, it isn't cigarettes, alcohol or even class A drugs.

It's sugar. Almost everyone is addicted and very few realise it.

 

[Phil Pascoe]

My friend, a GP, told me about fifteen years ago that the medical profession in general were slow off the mark - they were worried about people's fat consumption when they should have been worrying about the sugar. There is sugar in many foods - about 20g in a can of tomato soup.

 

[XTiffy]

The sugar(and salt) is in processed food and has decreased as people become more aware of the ingrediants. Avoiding processed food is the key. The use of sugar or substitutes is far worse in North America, with obvious results. I would say that government initiatives are more likely to have beneficial result for food ingredients, than alcohol and drug use.

 

[Sachakins]

Why the constant bashing ofsmokers, drinkers, car drivers for the health on costs the may cause.

None of these are illegal, all are a major amount of, tax + excise duty + Vat income streams to the government.

So no one is breaking the law in using them, so when try to penalise them for life choices.

No one worries about medical and support care cost given to those indulging in illegal substances, actually some groups are proactive in trying to legalise those substances.

Stop bashing people who are not acting illegally.

Get my tin hat on

 

[paulrbarnard]

Why the constant bashing ofsmokers, drinkers, car drivers for the health on costs the may cause.

None of these are illegal, all are a major amount of, tax + excise duty + Vat income streams to the government.

So no one is breaking the law in using them, so when try to penalise them for life choices.

No one worries about medical and support care cost given to those indulging in illegal substances, actually some groups are proactive in trying to legalise those substances.

Stop bashing people who are not acting illegally.

Get my tin hat on

Perhaps because all of them often result in some anti social consequences.

 

[Sachakins]

Perhaps because all of them often result in some anti social consequences.

Don't get who you mean by all?