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

[Butts]

Have you ever witnessed a smoking related death?

My mum enjoyed smoking too. The ten years she took to die from chronic lung disease were a right barrel of laughs.

Yes, my Mother also died of Lung Cancer 10 years after giving up , she was 67.

My Dad also smoked and he lived to 80 odd.

Pay your money take your chance...

 

[Techniquest]

I puffed away on average 15 a day for anything up to 15 years, and I'm frankly appalled at the 'pay your money, take your chances' attitude.

I'm actually very disgraced by such an outlook. So much so I'd go around the shops and destroy every single pouch of tobacco, every single packet of cigarettes and manically laugh as the UK's supply literally went up in flames!

 

[Butts]

I puffed away on average 15 a day for anything up to 15 years, and I'm frankly appalled at the 'pay your money, take your chances' attitude.

I'm actually very disgraced by such an outlook. So much so I'd go around the shops and destroy every single pouch of tobacco, every single packet of cigarettes and manically laugh as the UK's supply literally went up in flames!

Calm down TQ - you need a cigarette

 

[py_megapixel]

I'm actually very disgraced by such an outlook. So much so I'd go around the shops and destroy every single pouch of tobacco, every single packet of cigarettes and manically laugh as the UK's supply literally went up in flames!

And, in so doing, probably give everyone living anywhere near a shop..... a lung disease from all the smoke!


But no, in all seriousness, I don't think anyone should feel they have a right to smoke cheaply or easily. It's a huge burden on society as a whole.

 

[Techniquest]

And, in so doing, probably give everyone living anywhere near a shop..... a lung disease from all the smoke!

But no, in all seriousness, I don't think anyone should feel they have a right to smoke cheaply or easily. It's a huge burden on society as a whole.

Agreed there. What's interesting is that it was a pouch of tobacco from Budapest, the quality of which was downright disgraceful, that made a switch in the brain flick on and question what on Earth was going on.

That fire destroying the UK's supply of nicotine products, I'd make sure it was done as far from people as possible, but yes your point is a good one. Ripping them all out of a shop and setting fire to the pile in front of people would make for good publicity for the anti-smoking brigade, but giving people dangerous diseases would be preferred to be avoided! So I'm not sure how dealing with that would be done, I'd best get back to the drawing board...

I guess for now the best we can do is completely ban all imports of cigarettes and tobacco. Australia go quite close to such a thing, let's follow their lead and go one better. Take them out of the UK, by all means, but anyone bringing them into the UK should have them removed and chucked away.

A less extreme approach may be limiting the import to strictly 100 or less, or 25g or less of tobacco

 

[Butts]

Agreed there. What's interesting is that it was a pouch of tobacco from Budapest, the quality of which was downright disgraceful, that made a switch in the brain flick on and question what on Earth was going on.

That fire destroying the UK's supply of nicotine products, I'd make sure it was done as far from people as possible, but yes your point is a good one. Ripping them all out of a shop and setting fire to the pile in front of people would make for good publicity for the anti-smoking brigade, but giving people dangerous diseases would be preferred to be avoided! So I'm not sure how dealing with that would be done, I'd best get back to the drawing board...

I guess for now the best we can do is completely ban all imports of cigarettes and tobacco. Australia go quite close to such a thing, let's follow their lead and go one better. Take them out of the UK, by all means, but anyone bringing them into the UK should have them removed and chucked away.

A less extreme approach may be limiting the import to strictly 100 or less, or 25g or less of tobacco

Hell hath no fury like that of an ex-smoker !!

 

[Techniquest]

Hell hath no fury like that of an ex-smoker !!

Then you wouldn't like my alcohol control laws either

 

[Butts]

Then you wouldn't like my alcohol control laws either

Flipping next it will be sex - are you joining a Monastic Order ?

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Then you wouldn't like my alcohol control laws either

Alcohol should definitely be more heavily taxed.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Flipping next it will be sex - are you joining a Monastic Order ?

Reminds me of the Carry On series. Carry on Henry iirc - loosely based on Henry VIII. They introduced SET -Sex Enjoyment Tax. Really funny film - Sid James played Henry VIII

 

[antharro]

I have an unpopular opinion on this. If you're someone who has smoked since the 50ies/60ies/70ies when it was commonplace, maybe into the 80ies, (i.e. a regular smoker, at least a pack a week) and if you have an illness related to smoking then you can get treated on the NHS. If you're someone who was born in the 80ies and was smoking in the 90ies/00s/10s, then you pay for your treatment - it was well known by that time that smoking caused cancer and other illnesses, yet you chose to smoke anyway. That was your choice and society should not have to bail you out for that, especially when there are people out there who desperately need healthcare for urgent and life threatening illnesses that are of no fault of theirs. I don't necessarily think you should have to pay the full cost as long as you've been a UK taxpayer for a significant part of your life, but you should have to pay a minimum of 50%.

It's a hard way of looking at it but I think of it just in the same way I think of drunks out in towns on a weekend - they go out, get drunk, hurt themselves and the NHS has to pick up the pieces. They should also have to pay for their treatment. Boy racers, idiots on bikes doing 100+ on motorways, same thing.

**puts flameproof suit on**

Ok, I'm done.

 

[Techniquest]

Alcohol should definitely be more heavily taxed.

Fully agreed. When I went tee-total overnight back in January, I found an immediate difference in my bank account. After a month, the money got used to help clear the credit card and after 4 months (with the assistance of many hours of overtime, granted) I had enough money to not only buy myself a mountain bike but also finish clearing the credit card forever. I also got to work on building my savings up, and 7 months in I'm doing really well on that front.

So I am hugely in favour of bankrupting breweries Let's make Great Britain great again, let's show the world we're a country able to improve itself. The drain on the NHS and police force alone caused by drunken behaviour has gone on far too long.

I have an unpopular opinion on this. If you're someone who has smoked since the 50ies/60ies/70ies when it was commonplace, maybe into the 80ies, (i.e. a regular smoker, at least a pack a week) and if you have an illness related to smoking then you can get treated on the NHS. If you're someone who was born in the 80ies and was smoking in the 90ies/00s/10s, then you pay for your treatment - it was well known by that time that smoking caused cancer and other illnesses, yet you chose to smoke anyway. That was your choice and society should not have to bail you out for that, especially when there are people out there who desperately need healthcare for urgent and life threatening illnesses that are of no fault of theirs. I don't necessarily think you should have to pay the full cost as long as you've been a UK taxpayer for a significant part of your life, but you should have to pay a minimum of 50%.

It's a hard way of looking at it but I think of it just in the same way I think of drunks out in towns on a weekend - they go out, get drunk, hurt themselves and the NHS has to pick up the pieces. They should also have to pay for their treatment. Boy racers, idiots on bikes doing 100+ on motorways, same thing.

**puts flameproof suit on**

Ok, I'm done.

*joins hands in unison, also in a flameproof suit*

I can't disagree with anything you've said there. I knew full well in 2004 what would happen to me if I took up the habit, and that the lungs will never fully recover. It's just how it is, and my poor life choice will inevitably result in a poor state of health.

There may be very little, if anything, I can do to deal with that, but what I can do in the meantime is improve my fitness. For the amount of work I put the body through, the heart and lungs cope really well. They sure behave a lot better than they did before I quit, for obvious reasons, and it saddens me to see so many of my colleagues puffing away like chimneys. Some of which have things like COPD or asthma. They continue to smoke though, and I just don't get that. If you've got a nasty disease, caused by smoking, then surely continuing to do so is just crazy.

It really isn't pleasant being in a confined space next to a smoker when they start coughing and spluttering, and it goes into their hands which don't get washed for hours :roll:

So yeah, if it wasn't clear, I'd make smoking the most expensive habit for all but the most wealthy. Same for alcohol. No ifs, no buts, no coconuts. Want a fag? Then be prepared to spend £20 on a packet. Buying tobacco pouches to save money? Then be prepared to spend £1 per gram minimum. Fancy a drink? Then there's a £1 per 100ml of tax added on top of however much the drink already costs.

That might sound insane, but if it stops the disgraceful behaviour, and makes people start being healthier, then fantastic!

 

[najaB]

So yeah, if it wasn't clear, I'd make smoking the most expensive habit for all but the most wealthy. Same for alcohol. No ifs, no buts, no coconuts. Want a fag? Then be prepared to spend £20 on a packet. Buying tobacco pouches to save money? Then be prepared to spend £1 per gram minimum. Fancy a drink? Then there's a £1 per 100ml of tax added on top of however much the drink already costs.

That might sound insane, but if it stops the disgraceful behaviour, and makes people start being healthier, then fantastic!

In principle I agree that taxation should be used to encourage people to make better choices, but there's a point where the public will stop seeing it as beneficial and start seeing it as punitive.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Yes, my Mother also died of Lung Cancer 10y years after giving up , she was 67.

My Dad also smoked and he lived to 80 odd.

Pay your money take your chance...

Without wanting to be insensitive, based on all the health knowledge, and assuming there weren't some very odd circumstances around your parents, it's extremely likely that your Mother's lung cancer was caused by smoking, and it was definitely NOT caused by her having given up smoking. If she hadn't started smoking, it's very likely she would have lived longer, and likewise, if she hadn't given up, it's very likely she would have died even sooner.

Likewise, you can be very certain that if your Dad had not smoked, he would have been a lot healthier.

 

[Harpers Tate]

And, in so doing, probably give everyone living anywhere near a shop..... a lung disease from all the smoke

Always makes me chuckle internally, when someone says this (ackowledging in this case the smiley that was included) - "running the gauntlet of smokers by the pub door" etc., giving us health damage etc etc. - or simply looking "daggers" at someone who dares to smoke anywhere near them.

Notably when those saying it probably drove a fossil-fuelled car to get there; or if not to the pub, then to (unnecessarily) take little Timmy to school - or whatever. There is another thing that is a damaging burden on society and should be taxed accordingly. I wonder how "we" would all feel if the junk spewed out by fossil fuelled vehicles was coloured some obnoxious shade, so we could actually see it, and given an unpleasant stink to boot.

 

[py_megapixel]

Always makes me chuckle internally, when someone says this (ackowledging in this case the smiley that was included) - "running the gauntlet of smokers by the pub door" etc., giving us health damage etc etc. - or simply looking "daggers" at someone who dares to smoke anywhere near them.

Notably when those saying it probably drove a fossil-fuelled car to get there; or if not to the pub, then to (unnecessarily) take little Timmy to school - or whatever. There is another thing that is a damaging burden on society and should be taxed accordingly. I wonder how "we" would all feel if the junk spewed out by fossil fuelled vehicles was coloured some obnoxious shade, so we could actually see it, and given an unpleasant stink to boot.

I don't own a car personally, and though I do travel by car with family members every so often that's usually only for journeys I am unable to do on a bike, a bus or a train.

At least car exhaust gases don't smell absolutely vile. (Or maybe we're just all used to them by now, but you take my point).

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Fully agreed. When I went tee-total overnight back in January, I found an immediate difference in my bank account. After a month, the money got used to help clear the credit card and after 4 months (with the assistance of many hours of overtime, granted) I had enough money to not only buy myself a mountain bike but also finish clearing the credit card forever. I also got to work on building my savings up, and 7 months in I'm doing really well on that front.

So I am hugely in favour of bankrupting breweries Let's make Great Britain great again, let's show the world we're a country able to improve itself. The drain on the NHS and police force alone caused by drunken behaviour has gone on far too long.

Well I would not be as draconian as that but I have vastly reduced my alcohol intake and I feel so much better for it and have lost weight and it has stayed off. I was having two huge pours per night so at least two doubles. I am down to about 6 drinks per week and usually at weekend only.

 

[Tetchytyke]

That might sound insane, but if it stops the disgraceful behaviour, and makes people start being healthier, then fantastic!

It doesn't work, though, it just encourages bootlegging.

Cannabis has an outright ban, never mind high tax, and you wouldn't know it walking round the streets of any major city. And I could tell you which newsagents in North Tyneside will sell you cheap tabs brought in on the sly from Spain or Luxembourg- if they know you.

If you make tax punitive, people will avoid or evade it. The higher the tax, the higher the benefits of avoiding or evading it, the more likely organised crime will become involved.

There's also the issue that punitive taxation only really affects poor people. The rich don't have to change their behaviour because they can afford not to. People who spend £200 on a bottle of vodka in an exclusive nightclub won't care about a bit of tax.

 

[najaB]

If you make tax punitive, people will avoid or evade it. The higher the tax, the higher the benefits of avoiding or evading it, the more likely organised crime will become involved.

Indeed. For those of a criminal bent, higher taxes represent increased reward with limited risk.

 

[Butts]

It doesn't work, though, it just encourages bootlegging.

Cannabis has an outright ban, never mind high tax, and you wouldn't know it walking round the streets of any major city. And I could tell you which newsagents in North Tyneside will sell you cheap tabs brought in on the sly from Spain or Luxembourg- if they know you.

If you make tax punitive, people will avoid or evade it. The higher the tax, the higher the benefits of avoiding or evading it, the more likely organised crime will become involved.

There's also the issue that punitive taxation only really affects poor people. The rich don't have to change their behaviour because they can afford not to. People who spend £200 on a bottle of vodka in an exclusive nightclub won't care about a bit of tax.

No need for organised crime to be involved when you can legally import cigarettes into the UK yourself from the EU. As long as you buy them yourself, transport them yourself and they are for you there is no Legal Limit on the number that can be legally brought back.

I have just returned from Italy with a sizeable quantity of Benson and Hedges Gold.

For non-smokers these are a premium brand sold in the UK for £13 per packet.

In Italy they are 6 Euros per packet with the tax paid.

If you bring back 150 packets as I have just done (15 sleeves) that is a saving of over £1000.

My trip cost about £300 with a nice mini holiday thrown in.

Some inferior Brands are available at under 5 Euros a packet if you are not fussy.

 

[Butts]

Without wanting to be insensitive, based on all the health knowledge, and assuming there weren't some very odd circumstances around your parents, it's extremely likely that your Mother's lung cancer was caused by smoking, and it was definitely NOT caused by her having given up smoking. If she hadn't started smoking, it's very likely she would have lived longer, and likewise, if she hadn't given up, it's very likely she would have died even sooner.

Likewise, you can be very certain that if your Dad had not smoked, he would have been a lot healthier.

Who said my Dad was unhealthy when he pegged it ?

Lived on his own right till the end with no home help or other assistance.

 

[Butts]

I have an unpopular opinion on this. If you're someone who has smoked since the 50ies/60ies/70ies when it was commonplace, maybe into the 80ies, (i.e. a regular smoker, at least a pack a week) and if you have an illness related to smoking then you can get treated on the NHS. If you're someone who was born in the 80ies and was smoking in the 90ies/00s/10s, then you pay for your treatment - it was well known by that time that smoking caused cancer and other illnesses, yet you chose to smoke anyway. That was your choice and society should not have to bail you out for that, especially when there are people out there who desperately need healthcare for urgent and life threatening illnesses that are of no fault of theirs. I don't necessarily think you should have to pay the full cost as long as you've been a UK taxpayer for a significant part of your life, but you should have to pay a minimum of 50%.

It's a hard way of looking at it but I think of it just in the same way I think of drunks out in towns on a weekend - they go out, get drunk, hurt themselves and the NHS has to pick up the pieces. They should also have to pay for their treatment. Boy racers, idiots on bikes doing 100+ on motorways, same thing.

**puts flameproof suit on**

Ok, I'm done.

What about the tax most people have paid on their cigarettes for this period, this more than covers the cost to the NHS.

By the way a pack a week is not what I'd call a regular smoker, more likely to be a social smoker.

 

[AM9]

What about the tax most people have paid on their cigarettes for this period, this more than covers the cost to the NHS. ...

Cigarettes are taxed with VAT at 20%, - the standard rate for non-essential goods.* They are also punitively levied a duty (which in the case of cigarettes approximates as just under £4.00 per pack of 20), and an additional 16.5% of the RRP per packet.

* standard rate VAT doesn't quite fit that description (e.g. some sanitary products vs cakes) but generally it is not applied to the essentials for living.

 

[najaB]

What about the tax most people have paid on their cigarettes for this period, this more than covers the cost to the NHS.

But does it? It's very hard to quantify the cost of smoking to the NHS since smoking is only one of several factors, that contribute to morbidity.

 

[Butts]

But does it? It's very hard to quantify the cost of smoking to the NHS since smoking is only one of several factors, that contribute to morbidity.

Most of the Independent Studies I've read seem to indicate the "income outweighs the costs", the amount raised is certainly a large contributor to the Exchequer.

If you go down the road of self inflicted medical treatment costs to the NHS where do you stop ?

At least rates of smoking are plummeting unlike those of obesity and the consequential diabetes - et al.

 

[Butts]

Cigarettes are taxed with VAT at 20%, - the standard rate for non-essential goods.* They are also punitively levied a duty (which in the case of cigarettes approximates as just under £4.00 per pack of 20), and an additional 16.5% of the RRP per packet.

* standard rate VAT doesn't quite fit that description (e.g. some sanitary products vs cakes) but generally it is not applied to the essentials for living.

If Excise Duty isn't a form of Tax then what is it ? - I think you are being a little pedantic

 

[AM9]

If Excise Duty isn't a form of Tax then what is it ? - I think you are being a little pedantic

Yes I am. Despite many insisting in calling it tax, it is still administered differently to (indirect) tax, i.e Value Added Tax. Duty on tobacco products, like alcoholic drinks, is levied according to the quantity of the raw product, i.e. tobacco or alcohol content. If the goods are discounted, the duty passed on by the retailer stays the same and is not discounted.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

At least rates of smoking are plummeting unlike those of obesity and the consequential diabetes - et al.

Are the two- stopping smoking and increased eating and obesity - related by any chance ?

 

[AM9]

Are the two- stopping smoking and increased eating and obesity - related by any chance ?

That may be true, but the (ever) rising tobacco duty has had an influence on consumption as well, and the sugar content of soft drinks is the first nudge to a) lower the consumption of the worst sugar-laden drinks, followed by b) encouraged the drinks manufacturers to do what they claimed was impossible and reformulate the drinks with less sugar.
The next step will be to further reduce sugar, salt and fat in foods by similar punitive measures. It just shows that in so many people's minds, price is the only thing that matters and their craving for sugar can be controlled through their wallets.

 

[Karl]

I'm an ex-smoker. It's eight years since my last fag but I confess to enjoying passing a smoker when they're having a puff. It brings back the memories.