• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Has taxation for unhealthy items, such as cigarettes, gone too far in the UK?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Butts

Veteran Member
Joined
16 Jan 2011
Messages
11,323
Location
Stirlingshire
I am currently in shock having been relieved of £13 in Tesco for 20 Benson & Hedges Gold o_O


My latest "fag run" to Luxembourg last weekend was cancelled by The Foreign and Commonwealth Office's untimely intervention.

Had I been able to go I would have been sourcing stock at around £5 a packet for the same product in much nicer packaging.

The economics of travelling abroad to purchase cigarettes on the surface sounds insane, but if you are bringing 200 packets back with an £8 saving on each it soon put things into perspective.

Having not purchased any cigarettes in the UK for years I hadn't realised how far the price differential had expanded.


The excise duty on tobacco is surely a regressive tax as it disproportionately affects the poor who form the bulk of smokers these days. Can you imagine the outrage that would be generated amongst the chattering classes if Alcohol was taxed at the same level ?


As a footnote I have arranged a trip to Italy next week where I will have to pay the outrageous price of 6 Euros per packet to obtain my Benson & Hedges Gold. The trip has cost me just over £200 for a BA Holiday with an overnight stay in Venice. Such hardship to buy a a packet of fags .:E
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,531
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
My personal take is that the tax on "vices" should be set at a level that covers the cost to society of that vice. For cigarettes, that'll mainly be the costs of additional medical treatment for things like lung cancers (in countries without public healthcare, this would happen by way of higher health insurance premiums for smokers). For alcohol, it'll include health issues but also the additional policing costs it tends to require. Then let people make their choices accordingly.

Does anyone know how the income from these vices compares with the financial costs of them to society? I wouldn't know where to start in finding that out.
 

Butts

Veteran Member
Joined
16 Jan 2011
Messages
11,323
Location
Stirlingshire
My personal take is that the tax on "vices" should be set at a level that covers the cost to society of that vice. For cigarettes, that'll mainly be the costs of additional medical treatment for things like lung cancers (in countries without public healthcare, this would happen by way of higher health insurance premiums for smokers). For alcohol, it'll include health issues but also the additional policing costs it tends to require. Then let people make their choices accordingly.

Does anyone know how the income from these vices compares with the financial costs of them to society? I wouldn't know where to start in finding that out.

Most of the largely suppressed figures indicate that the Government makes a "profit" out of smoking - ie the revenue raised exceeds the cost to the Health Service of treating smoking related conditions. Don't forget they also save money on pensions and benefits to people who "peg it" prematurely.
 

JonathanH

Veteran Member
Joined
29 May 2011
Messages
18,530
The excise duty on tobacco is surely a regressive tax as it disproportionately affects the poor who form the bulk of smokers these days. Can you imagine the outrage that would be generated amongst the chattering classes if Alcohol was taxed at the same level ?
I think is has to be asked why the poor feel the need to continue to smoke.

I suspect a lot of more affluent smokers only smoke when they are at pubs / consuming alcohol and can take it / leave it the rest of the time.

Anything which discourages smoking is a good thing in many people's eyes. The purpose of tax on tobacco now isn't likely to be for revenue.
 

Techniquest

Veteran Member
Joined
19 Jun 2005
Messages
21,674
Location
Nowhere Heath
I'm with Bletchleyite and JonathonH here. If smokers want their fix, then they shall have to pay for it, simple as. I'm more than happy to increase tax on tobacco products and alcohol! Slightly hypocritical I know, having been a regular partaker of both in the past.

I'd love to be able to walk into work without the smokers filling the air for up to 20' around the entrance/exit. Terribly unpleasant experience putting up with that stink, and yes I know I'm being hypocritical, and I don't know how I put up with it for so long!

Point being, if I had my way I'd raise the price of a pack of 20 to £20 and a pouch of tobacco to £1 per gram. I'd also ban it from being sold in supermarkets, and only available in specialist shops. If it's shut, then deal with it!

And I'd best not go into my views of people and alcohol, I'll be here all day...
 

Bedpan

Established Member
Joined
4 Feb 2010
Messages
1,286
Location
Harpenden
Interesting. Having not smoked for 20 years (this month - I set myself a target of giving up by the turn of the century) I had been wondering how much a packet of cigarettes was nowadays. I remember back in the late 1960s a packet of cigarettes was about 4/6 so that means that they were about 57 times more expensive now than they were then. There again, a newspaper was 5d and a Daily Telegraph now costs £2,50, so that is about 120 times more expensive, although on the other hand a Daily Mirror at 85p (I think) is only about 40 times as much. Petrol was about 6/- a gallon in the late 60s and is now about £5.50 a gallon, or at least would be but for the virus, so surprisingly that is only about 16 or 17 times more expensive.

I wonder if there is anything else apart, from some newspapers but not others, that has increased by more than cigarettes.
 

Butts

Veteran Member
Joined
16 Jan 2011
Messages
11,323
Location
Stirlingshire
I think is has to be asked why the poor feel the need to continue to smoke.

I suspect a lot of more affluent smokers only smoke when they are at pubs / consuming alcohol and can take it / leave it the rest of the time.

Anything which discourages smoking is a good thing in many people's eyes. The purpose of tax on tobacco now isn't likely to be for revenue.

Are you having a giraffe ?

Perhaps officially not, but in excise duty and vat they trouser upwards of £10 Billion - I bet you thought it was a few hundred million !!!
 

Butts

Veteran Member
Joined
16 Jan 2011
Messages
11,323
Location
Stirlingshire
Interesting. Having not smoked for 20 years (this month - I set myself a target of giving up by the turn of the century) I had been wondering how much a packet of cigarettes was nowadays. I remember back in the late 1960s a packet of cigarettes was about 4/6 so that means that they were about 57 times more expensive now than they were then. There again, a newspaper was 5d and a Daily Telegraph now costs £2,50, so that is about 120 times more expensive, although on the other hand a Daily Mirror at 85p (I think) is only about 40 times as much. Petrol was about 6/- a gallon in the late 60s and is now about £5.50 a gallon, or at least would be but for the virus, so surprisingly that is only about 16 or 17 times more expensive.

I wonder if there is anything else apart, from some newspapers but not others, that has increased by more than cigarettes.

Did you go "cold turkey", what brand did you smoke and do you ever still feel like one ?

By the way you can still get brands in the UK that taste like " the sweepings off the floor" for about just north of £8 - B&H Gold are a premium Brand, a bit like comparing Bells and Glenfiddich.
 

Condor7

Member
Joined
13 Jul 2012
Messages
1,023
Location
Penrith
Most of the largely suppressed figures indicate that the Government makes a "profit" out of smoking - ie the revenue raised exceeds the cost to the Health Service of treating smoking related conditions. Don't forget they also save money on pensions and benefits to people who "peg it" prematurely.

in view of the above you have to ask the question, “why the hell would you want to smoke then?”
 

Merle Haggard

Established Member
Joined
20 Oct 2019
Messages
1,979
Location
Northampton
My personal take is that the tax on "vices" should be set at a level that covers the cost to society of that vice. For cigarettes, that'll mainly be the costs of additional medical treatment for things like lung cancers (in countries without public healthcare, this would happen by way of higher health insurance premiums for smokers). For alcohol, it'll include health issues but also the additional policing costs it tends to require. Then let people make their choices accordingly.

Does anyone know how the income from these vices compares with the financial costs of them to society? I wouldn't know where to start in finding that out.

That would be a complicated calculation.

If the 'vices' reduce life expectancy (as smoking seems to) there will be financial costs to society that are reduced; e.g. state pension, age-related illness treatment.

How would the loss of economic activity be treated?
 

Harpers Tate

Established Member
Joined
10 May 2013
Messages
1,679
For as long as we were (are?) within the EU's free movement of goods (etc) scheme then there is an interesting question (to which I have no clue about the answer) which is
To what extent does the high taxation in the UK cost more than a lower rate might raise - given that many will (as @Butts does) travel to the EU and import their tobacco and in so doing, save money AND get a "free" holiday in the process. I know, for example, that my MotherInLaw - a lifelong smoker - hasn't smoked a UK duty paid cigarette for at least 20 years. One trip p.a. to Spain and upwards of 3,000 cigarettes per trip (which is NOT illegal) takes care of all her "needs". She saves over £800 for 3000 smokes, minus the cost of the trip.
Of course, this may very well change at the end of the year, but for the last couple of decades, I just wonder what those taxes have "cost".
 

SteveM70

Established Member
Joined
11 Jul 2018
Messages
3,800
A quick look at gov.uk suggests society roughly breaks even, but the government makes a “profit”. It estimates the total cost of smoking at £11bn a year, but a hefty share is borne by employers through increased absence etc
 

AM9

Veteran Member
Joined
13 May 2014
Messages
14,191
Location
St Albans
For as long as we were (are?) within the EU's free movement of goods (etc) scheme then there is an interesting question (to which I have no clue about the answer) which is
To what extent does the high taxation in the UK cost more than a lower rate might raise - given that many will (as @Butts does) travel to the EU and import their tobacco and in so doing, save money AND get a "free" holiday in the process. I know, for example, that my MotherInLaw - a lifelong smoker - hasn't smoked a UK duty paid cigarette for at least 20 years. One trip p.a. to Spain and upwards of 3,000 cigarettes per trip (which is NOT illegal) takes care of all her "needs". She saves over £800 for 3000 smokes, minus the cost of the trip.
Of course, this may very well change at the end of the year, but for the last couple of decades, I just wonder what those taxes have "cost".
It's difficult to comment on this topic without recognising that next year will change many things. Ironically, 'the poor', as committed smokers like to claim to be, are a large part of the Johnson Government's reason for being, so there will be a real dilemma when 'taking back control', deciding whether health issues take a back seat to votes.
 

DynamicSpirit

Established Member
Joined
12 Apr 2012
Messages
8,024
Location
SE London
The excise duty on tobacco is surely a regressive tax as it disproportionately affects the poor who form the bulk of smokers these days. Can you imagine the outrage that would be generated amongst the chattering classes if Alcohol was taxed at the same level ?

If you see it purely as a tax whose purpose is to raise revenue, then primarily hitting less well off people would be a huge concern. But if you see the purpose of cigarette duties as being primarily to discourage people from smoking, in order to prevent the harm smoking causes both to themselves and to wider society, then it's not an issue at all. The people who pay cigarette duties are of course, precisely those people who choose to pay them by buying cigarettes. Remember, no-one, no matter how rich or poor, is forced to buy cigarettes and smoke them (unlike of course, victims of passive smoking who may well be being forced to breathe in other people's smoke). It's not like - say - income tax or national insurance, which you have to pay if you are earning a certain amount.

I take your point about it now being cheaper to buy cigarettes in bulk abroad, but not everyone is going to be willing to make the effort to do that, so the high level of duties must surely act as a deterrent to some people who would otherwise smoke. That to me seems to be worth any loss of income to the Government from people buying abroad.

While I respect your honesty and openness about your love of smoking, I have to say that I personally would be more inclined to simply ban the sale and import of cigarettes and tobacco products altogether - with the sole exception of possibly providing some exemptions for people who can show they have existing addictions. Normally I'm a strong believer of individual freedom, but in the case of tobacco, the huge harm it does, its addictive nature, and the lack of any benefits (other possibly than the happiness of some people who are already addicted) are simply too great.
 

AM9

Veteran Member
Joined
13 May 2014
Messages
14,191
Location
St Albans
A quick look at gov.uk suggests society roughly breaks even, but the government makes a “profit”. It estimates the total cost of smoking at £11bn a year, but a hefty share is borne by employers through increased absence etc
There is also the less mentioned impact of smoking on non-smokers' health. Not only where they are exposed to extreme levels of tobacco pollution, but also where it adds to the cumulative level of respiratory irritants, - often in areas where there wouldn't otherwise be an issue. That cost, - extremely difficult to isolate, would only become apparent when there was a step change in 'legal smoking'.
 

Harpers Tate

Established Member
Joined
10 May 2013
Messages
1,679
...I personally would be more inclined to simply ban the sale and import of cigarettes and tobacco products altogether - with the sole exception of possibly providing some exemptions for people who can show they have existing addictions.
One approach might be to amend the age restriction for sale (presently 18 years old, I believe) to a fixed Date of Birth, such that (in theory - yes I know) nobody "new" could take it up.
 

Bedpan

Established Member
Joined
4 Feb 2010
Messages
1,286
Location
Harpenden
Did you go "cold turkey", what brand did you smoke and do you ever still feel like one ?

By the way you can still get brands in the UK that taste like " the sweepings off the floor" for about just north of £8 - B&H Gold are a premium Brand, a bit like comparing Bells and Glenfiddich.

I smoked all sorts of brands in my smoking life, must have had about a quarter of a million cigarettes over the years, (20 a day for about 34 years) but ended up with Marlborough and then Marlborough Lights. When I gave up I used Nicorette Inhalators (no such thing as Vaping 20 years ago). I had about two a day, sometimes three, which were in my mouth (without the applicator - SEE WARNING BELOW) pretty well all day long, I would pick up the inhalator as an alternative to lighting a new cigarette. This meant that I successfully gave up cigarettes but remained addicted to nicotine but at least I didn't have all the other harmful by products of smoking, and much cheaper. It was another ten yeas or so before I gave up the inhalators and that was as difficult as stopping smoking! I had tongue spray and chewing gum for that. I suppose that the answer to your question about still feeling like a cigarette is, yes in the early years but I would just suck the inhalator, and no after I had given them up although in the first two or three weeks i was tempted to open an inhilator.

WARNING - I met a health worker whilst out and about one day and she was aghast that I was using inhalators without the applicator, she said that it was very dangerous as the applicator mixed the vapour from the inhalator with the right quantity of air, and I might as well be injecting nicotine into my arm. I suppose it was that which made my mind up to stop using them.
 

61653 HTAFC

Veteran Member
Joined
18 Dec 2012
Messages
17,623
Location
Another planet...
I think is has to be asked why the poor feel the need to continue to smoke.

I suspect a lot of more affluent smokers only smoke when they are at pubs / consuming alcohol and can take it / leave it the rest of the time.

Anything which discourages smoking is a good thing in many people's eyes. The purpose of tax on tobacco now isn't likely to be for revenue.
I think you'll find that "The Poor" aren't in fact a homogeneous collective. :rolleyes:

The affluent smokers are just more civilised I suppose, unlike the great unwashed who will smoke themselves into oblivion given half a chance.

It's already been long established that smoking is addictive, and nicotine cravings don't affect people differently based on their personal wealth or which school they went to. Yes, in an ideal world we'd all be able to make the correct decisions based on our circumstances 100% of the time, but life is messy and people have a habit of making bad decisions. If someone ends up with a nicotine addiction because they picked up the habit in their youth, they already have the burden of the health implications and the financial implications. Parochial sneering isn't likely to help them kick the habit- better (and more affordable) access to the less harmful alternatives will.

Over the last decade and a half, the restrictions on buying tobacco products have been increased and increased with more and more vigour, with the State now being at a practical limit of restrictions short of an outright ban. By the way something I don't support for the simple reason that prohibition of a substance has very little impact on the availability or desirability of said substance, only on the quality and who gets the profit.
 

mikeg

Established Member
Joined
20 Apr 2010
Messages
1,743
Location
Selby
Arguably it has gone too far when the duty is in significant excess of the external cost of smoking. If anyone has figures on what the external cost of a pack of 20 is, I'll be able to tell you if it's gone too far, is about right or has not gone far enough.
 

SteveM70

Established Member
Joined
11 Jul 2018
Messages
3,800
Arguably it has gone too far when the duty is in significant excess of the external cost of smoking. If anyone has figures on what the external cost of a pack of 20 is, I'll be able to tell you if it's gone too far, is about right or has not gone far enough.

Can you clarify what you mean by “external cost”?
 

mikeg

Established Member
Joined
20 Apr 2010
Messages
1,743
Location
Selby
Yes, it's a commonly used economic term, so in this case it would be everything from cost to the health system, through lost productivity due to illness, right down to excess litter and smelly air outside pub entrances. Everything we buy has an external costs and sometimes external benefits. In the case of something that has high external costs one solution is to tax it heavily. Think of smokin, alcohol and cars. In the case of something with high external benefits we might want to subsidise it (education for example not only does the consumer learn something, the consumer then can apply that knowledge for the benefit of society)
 

Starmill

Veteran Member
Fares Advisor
Joined
18 May 2012
Messages
23,224
Location
Bolton
£0.65 / cigarette? That doesn't sound at all expensive to me. I'm sure they could do to be 20 - 30% more expensive than that and people would still buy them, suggesting the tax could increase a little more.

Equally I ordered wine in bulk recently, just for delivery, not trying to import it myself, and I couldn't believe the tax was only £2.23 / bottle. Seemed remarkably low.

We're going to need this money big time, these duties could do to increase.
 

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
29,070
I genuinely don’t understand why anyone smokes. Costs a load of money*, and significantly increases the risk of shortening your life.

Also, I have been racking my brains to think ... I’m not sure I actually know anyone who does smoke. (Checks Facebook...)

Correction, of the 400 odd people I know on Facebook, three smoke. None under the age of 40.


* even if you buy them elsewhere in Europe, it will still be costing upwards of £1000 a year.
 

rg177

Established Member
Associate Staff
International Transport
Joined
22 Dec 2013
Messages
3,692
Location
Newcastle-upon-Tyne
Probably what's put me off smoking, aside from the obvious health risks, is the cost.

That said, it is also becoming an incentive for people I know to stop. My girlfriend's mum stopped smoking during lockdown (and switched to vaping) and says that the saving in itself is substantial.

Among my peers, a fair few do actually smoke but equally most are trying to quit. Most of us usually enjoy a couple when drinking, but day to day wouldn't go near them.

It is however still a lot cheaper abroad. I'm sure the Tesco opposite Petržalka station in Bratislava was flogging packs for about €4 a time when I went in to buy some for an ex who didn't fancy trying to speak Slovak with the woman at the till!
 
Last edited:

Butts

Veteran Member
Joined
16 Jan 2011
Messages
11,323
Location
Stirlingshire
I genuinely don’t understand why anyone smokes. Costs a load of money*, and significantly increases the risk of shortening your life.

Also, I have been racking my brains to think ... I’m not sure I actually know anyone who does smoke. (Checks Facebook...)

Correction, of the 400 odd people I know on Facebook, three smoke. None under the age of 40.


* even if you buy them elsewhere in Europe, it will still be costing upwards of £1000 a year.

Had it occurred to you that some people might actually enjoy smoking ?
 

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
29,070
Had it occurred to you that some people might actually enjoy smoking ?

Yes, of course. But I still don’t get why anyone would. But then some people enjoy train spotting and I don’t get tht either.
 

GRALISTAIR

Established Member
Joined
11 Apr 2012
Messages
7,806
Location
Dalton GA USA & Preston Lancs
I am going to say something controversial. Tax on cigarettes needs to be high. Cost to society is huge. Tax on alcohol should be high - cost to society is huge. Tax on petrol and diesel should be much higher than it currently is - cost to society is high.
 

GRALISTAIR

Established Member
Joined
11 Apr 2012
Messages
7,806
Location
Dalton GA USA & Preston Lancs
Had it occurred to you that some people might actually enjoy smoking ?
Yes, of course. But I still don’t get why anyone would. But then some people enjoy train spotting and I don’t get that either.
I stopped smoking 37 years ago. Yes I used to mainly enjoy it - but sometimes it was horrible and that was pure addiction. Some people might enjoy illegal activities - but that does not make it right. I prefer not to specify examples but I will give one. People might enjoy the thrill of sex with a "sex worker" but that does not make it right.

I am really glad I gave up smoking. It really is money up in smoke. So I actually do get why people enjoy smoking - I once did.
I understand train spotting !!
 

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
29,070
I am going to say something controversial. Tax on cigarettes needs to be high. Cost to society is huge. Tax on alcohol should be high - cost to society is huge. Tax on petrol and diesel should be much higher than it currently is - cost to society is high.

The biggest threat to public health is the obesity crisis; logically therefore tax on high calorie / unhealthy food needs to be high.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top