Smoking: Tax +ve, -ve or neutral?

[zcacogp]

Chaps,

I don't smoke, but those who do are contributing fairly heftily to Greedy Gordo's coffers. The tax on tobacco is phenomenal (as it is with so many other things.)

However, smokers can probably reasonably expect to cost the NHS more. The good 'ol national 'elf spends alot of money treating smoking-related diseases each year.

Is this extra cost outweighed by the taxes raised, or not? (I suspect that it is, and that the government actually makes a substantial profit on smoking, but this is only a suspicion.)

Does anyone know the answer?

I guess, to be really through, you would have to factor in the lower life expectancy of a smoker, and therefore the fact that they are going to collect less state pension as well.


Oli.

P.S. This is not intended in any way to be a dig at smokers, more of an idle ponder.

[mawds]

Yes - the tax raised is higher than the costs incurred to the state by increased usage of health services, etc, as this is offset by the shorter life expectancy and therefore lesser usage of stste benefits/pensions (eg income support, attendance allowance, etc) in old age. I remember reading the figures some time ago (?BMJ), and the NHS would be in trouble if smoking was banned, as the loss of tax revenue would be so significant, whilst the costs of caring for older smokers would remain.

[v8thunder]

If you're going to unnecessarily make yourself ill, you should pay for your treatment. End of. I don't think, though, that smokers should be taxed any more than necessary to do this though - don't know how much it costs.

[JagLover]

There has to be some taxes that chav's pay

Scr*w the ba**ards that what I say

By the way did I mention that I don't smoke.

[b17nns]

mawds said:

The NHS would be in trouble if smoking was banned.

So would UK plc.

It ammused me a while back when the government banned creosote because it was potentially carciongenic.

However they are do seem quite happy to allow a product to be sold that is highly carciongenic as they make a few quid from it.

[off_again]

b17nns said:

However they are do seem quite happy to allow a product to be sold that is highly carciongenic as they make a few quid from it.

Ah, the wonderful world of the "caring and sharing" government who looks after our every hour. It protects us from terrorists, ensures that we dont electrocute ourselves at home and now ensures that we dont waste our precious time chasing after foxes on horses in winter.....

But it must be OK to smoke since the government hasnt banned that. It is safe right?

[Plotloss]

Smokers not only contribute far more than they consume in the way of NHS spending (the average smoke subsidises 3 other peoples entire NHS care cost) they also die sooner meaning they themselves are less of a burden.

So in summary without smokers everyone would pay about 10p more in the pound in taxation...

[leosayer]

v8thunder said:

If you're going to unnecessarily make yourself ill, you should pay for your treatment. End of.

Does this include fatty foods, alcohol, fast cars, fast women, mountain bikes, motorbikes, diy etc etc....

All of which could land you in hospital yet are 'unnecessary'. Well apart from the cars and women of course.

[mawds]

v8thunder said:

If you're going to unnecessarily make yourself ill, you should pay for your treatment. End of. I don't think, though, that smokers should be taxed any more than necessary to do this though - don't know how much it costs.

The NHS costs between £55 and £75 billion p.a. (and health spending is increasing)

[b17nns]

and how much tax does the government take from tobacco?

[TeamD]

I was under the impression that someone did a study a few years back (can't seem to find anything on the web) and concluded that the tax revenue from tobacco was greater than the entire cost of the national health service, hence I find it particularly annoying when some smug non-smoker starts mouthing off about how much smokers 'cost' the national health service, bearing in mind that Smokers pay Income tax and NI too!

[parrot of doom]

I'd say the social effects of smoking (families losing loved ones, skilled workers dying, etc) are far more important than the tax benefit to the nation.

[Plotloss]

TeamD said:

I was under the impression that someone did a study a few years back (can't seem to find anything on the web) and concluded that the tax revenue from tobacco was greater than the entire cost of the national health service, hence I find it particularly annoying when some smug non-smoker starts mouthing off about how much smokers 'cost' the national health service, bearing in mind that Smokers pay Income tax and NI too!

And guess who is going to be the first to complain if it gets banned and they come looking for the money in direct taxation.

[BliarOut]

b17nns said:

and how much tax does the government take from tobacco?

Bugger all from me for the last three years, I get all mine from Belgium these days. I don't mind paying my dues, but I'll be buggered if I am going to pay for the health care and pensions of the non smokers.

Non smokers should pay higher taxes as they live longer and cost the government more. Bloody selfish if you ask me

[rpguk]

parrot of doom said:

I'd say the social effects of smoking (families losing loved ones, skilled workers dying, etc) are far more important than the tax benefit to the nation.

Very true, but from a politicians point of view if they were to ban smoking there would be less money for public spending which would lead to less votes. The social effects don't seem to buy votes en masse.

>> Edited by rpguk on Monday 28th February 17:35

[bruciebabie]

JagLover said:

There has to be some taxes that chav's pay Scr*w the ba**ards that what I say By the way did I mention that I don't smoke.

Yep smoking is right there with Elisabeth Duke Jewellery, Burberry caps and tattoos as being the universal sign of the Chav. It's symptomatic of the lack of education and intelligence.

[lunarscope]

mawds said:

v8thunder said: If you're going to unnecessarily make yourself ill, you should pay for your treatment. End of. I don't think, though, that smokers should be taxed any more than necessary to do this though - don't know how much it costs. The NHS costs between £55 and £75 billion p.a. (and health spending is increasing)

So about £1000 per person per year.
I spend £1800 per year on fags.
According to ASH, in 2003 the average smoker paid £715 per year (£60 per month) in tobacco tax.
www.ash.org.uk/html/smuggling/html/tax2003.html#_Toc32044440

So my tobacco tax would easily pay for private medical insurance.

So to all you people who say that us smokers are costing the NHS billions of pounds - bocks

So from now on I'll have all my tobacco tax-free and pay for my own health insurance. I'll have immediate treatment, private room, fitter nurses and still have change left for some booze.
Oh, I'll also like the NHS portion of my other (non-tobacco related) taxes refunded.
Cheers,
A happy smoker.

[NHyde]

bruciebabe yet again it would appear that I must cross swords with you and in this case jaglover.

I smoke
I pay tax
I pay National Insurance
In addition I pay for private healthcare
Go to the gym four times a week

As an Airline Engineering Manager (Albeit on a sabbatical) I object to your sweeping generalisation that I am a "Chav"

.....or maybe I should make a few of my own

.....all PHer's with less than 12 months membership should be seen and not heard under pain of being physically ejected from a high flying aircraft

[wedge girl]

NHyde said:

.....all PHer's with less than 12 months membership should be seen and not heard under pain of being physically ejected from a high flying aircraft

I'll go and hide under a rock then

[bruciebabie]

NHyde said:

bruciebabe yet again it would appear that I must cross swords with you and in this case jaglover. I smoke I pay tax I pay National Insurance In addition I pay for private healthcare Go to the gym four times a week As an Airline Engineering Manager (Albeit on a sabbatical) I object to your sweeping generalisation that I am a "Chav" .....or maybe I should make a few of my own .....all PHer's with less than 12 months membership should be seen and not heard under pain of being physically ejected from a high flying aircraft

Smoking is one of the signs of the Chav because it is ubiquitous among their number, this does not preclude non Chavs from smoking however. Even if they innocently end up associated with Chavdom. Lets face it smoking is largely a low rent activity.