[Closed] Tobacco Tax to fund the NHS

jambalaya - Member

If nobody smoked the government would be out of pocket, they raise more revenue from than they spend on smokers.

So this says: https://fullfact.org/factchecks/does_smoking_cost_as_much_as_it_makes_for_the_treasury-29288

it has to be corporation tax as the answer to any shortfall to the budget surely, there is so much money at the top end of society....

And who pays the corporation tax?

It would be nice to think that this was a new idea!!!!!

According to ASH the cost to the NHS of treating diseases caused by smoking was £2.7B in 2010. They say £15-£18B is spent on tobacco. In 2010 tobacco duty raised £9B

https://www.uktradeinfo.com/Statistics/Pages/TaxAndDutybulletins.aspx

Smokers paying £2000 per year fag tax all their lives then dying in their 60s from heart disease or lung cancer is better for the countries finances than if they were healthy and drew pensions for years and ended up needing treated for age related disease instead of smoking disease.

Smoking was estimated to cost the NHS in the UK £5.2 billion in 2005/06

????The Net Ingredient Cost (NIC) of all pharmacotherapies to help people stop smoking in England was £58.1 million in 2012/13 compared with £15.6 million in 2000/01

?In 2011/12 there were 1. 6 million NHS hospital admissions amongst adults aged 35 and over for diseases that can be caused by smoking

According to ASH the cost to the NHS of treating diseases caused by smoking was £2.7B in 2010. They say £15-£18B is spent on tobacco. In 2010 tobacco duty raised £9B

Exactly give the that £9b to the NHS.

Cost to smoking to NHS is one thing - cost to the country through loss of economic activity of working age people is on top of that. Anyway, I like the idea that Govt prioritises something that has potentially negative impact on revenues - it illustrates that morality may still have a toehold in politics.

and ... the £9billion tax revenues from smoking already does go to NHS - in the sense that it adds to the pot of revenue and Govt borrowing for public spending. If it was hypothecated it would have zero impact on the total spend on the NHS. The decision on what is spent on public services is about what is needed v what can be afford v politics. The source of the revenue doesn't really matter.

The biggest engine for increasing tax revenues is economy wide growth - but growth that raises wages so income tax and so consumer spending/VAT and that is why the current govt is struggling with deficit reduction. So a bit here and there on fags or mansions is really about politics as much as anything - a stronger message is on tax evasion and avoidance imo

This is Labours answer to everything, windfall taxes. Rubbish idea all it does is encourage companies to move elsewhere and will make their behaviour even more short term dominated. It's petty politics of the worst kind, it would be far better to establish a stable environment so that companies want to be based here, then you pick up the tax revenue over years.

What happens when they run out of businesses to hit with these windfall taxes? These taxes are not a sustainable way of funding anything let alone the NHS.

the nhs would save money by not giving so much away to its staff..

Well that has to be one of the more stupid comments I've seen on here. Just as a counter-example to your unrepresentative anecdotal evidence, my Mrs has worked as a drug worker in the NHS for 13 years. She's had no pay increase for 6 years, and after her service was tendered out and transferred to a new health trust (the second time in 3 years), they've been restructured with all the staff being downgraded which will result in a 25% pay cut in two years time. In the meantime they're bringing in agency staff on half the salary with no experience who can't do the job, resulting in more work for the existing NHS staff. They are in effect redundant as their roles as they once were no longer exist, however they trust refuses to make them redundant as there's no money to payout redundancy settlements. So yes, they are far too generous 🙄

They are in effect redundant as their roles as they once were no longer exist, however they trust refuses to make them redundant as there's no money to payout redundancy settlements.

Take them to an industrial tribunal then.

nice pension so buys bungalow in best part of town

A bungalow? I'm disgusted by such fat cat excesses. Imagine the nerve of people working for 25 years and then thinking they're entitled to buy bungalows. The 1% make me want to puke.

😆

It's people who drink and smoke heavily and drive high mileages that keep my own income tax down as low as it is. if it wasn't for them, I wouldn't be able to afford this bungalow.

So why no windfall tax on Breweries and Junk food producers?

What about mountain bikers? Mrs FD sees deals with more mtb related injuries than smoking...

Totalshell - There are very strict rules in place regarding re employment of retired staff. This rules were set by government, and are widley available if you want to read up.

You could have chosen to work in the NHS/Police etc and then would have been able to serve your years service and then retire. However I am guessing you made an active decision not to work in the NHS/Police, jealous are you or some thing?

As to Drugs - Please report to NHS fraud. As an NHS accountant I really would like to know how that one is working...

This is Labours answer to everything, windfall taxes.

I refer to my earlier point that when in power, Labour seemed quick to ladle notional "sin" taxes upon fuel, alcohol and tobacco which meant that the less well off were penalised for their habits while the middle and upper earners noticed bugger all difference and still swanned around in their BMW X5s, smoking away like chimneys and guzzling gin by the beaker. Fair? Hardly.

Better to ration or ban tobacco products entirely IMHO.

Mrs FD sees deals with more mtb related injuries than smoking...

johndoh - Member
Mrs FD sees deals with more mtb related injuries than smoking...

But more oncologists deal with smokers than MTB related cancers I assume...

FunkyDunc is just referring to his missus fixing him up after an off. She's actualy an accountant.

playing the devils avocado and avoiding any "evil smoke" etc

why not just have a pay as you go hospital?

you injur yourself on your bike, it was your choice, pay up
you can't stop eating pies, your choice, pay up
you smoke and now have medical problems, again, pay up
you drive at 70mph in a metal box surrounded by other metal boxes daily, one day you'll pay up
you're extremely healthy and run/swim every day...oh you're joints now need replacing...pay up

everything we do in life has the potential to end up with a trip to the NHS and who's to say why social ills are acceptably taxed / charged when others aren't? and yes I am aware that smoking etc causes more direct harm but my point is why should an obese person be taxed more heavily for future healthcare due to current dietary choices when someone who indulges in 'extreme sports' is not. both are personal choices

(the above does not represent my personal views on smoking, the NHS or taxation, or the welsh)

You're looking at this all wrong. We need some blue (smoky?) sky thinking here

Why not make smoking compulsory for everyone over the age of 16. Like the good old days? 16th birthday... there you go son.... 20 Benson. Enjoy! Then we could wipe out the impending pensions crisis, and you wouldn't have to endure a long lingering death, beaten beaten up in a care home by a Somalian immigrant getting paid 25p and hour, while sat in a puddle of your own piss?

It'll also generate shedloads more in tax revenues (which you no longer have to spend on colostomy bags and weathers originals) , and you'd vitalise the local boozers, which would soon be echoing to the retro sound of rasping coughs and raucous racist abuse

Its a win/win 😀

[img] [/img]

Having read up a bit more its amazing how poorly thought out these Labour measure are, you'd think if the party leader was going to spout them they would have actually done some work ?

Tobacco tax. The majority of profits made on cigarette sales int he UK are made by non-UK companies paying their tax abroad. I don't see where £150m will come from.

Hedge Fund tax loopholes - they will not raise anything like the amount quoted. Hedge Funds are small agile businesses, they will re-organize / leave UK if necessary. When the tax wen to 50% one of the largest hedge funds put all its high paid people in Switzerland (paying Swiss tax) and left the less well paid employees (who use state education for their kids, etc) in the UK.

"Mansion" tax, they have given no thought as to how properties will be valued. The idiot shadow health secretary actually thought the land registry recorded house values and didn't realise it was sale prices, not until he had this explained to him by the Andrew O'Neill of the BBC.

Labour have had a very long time to sit there quietly formulating the best policies to win back power and what happens?...
same sh*t , different day.
there's nothing new or radical enough to make them stand out from the crowd IMO

Lets face it more taxes on specific companies / individuals isn't the answer, whereas re-funding the NHS via another model should be, e.g. insurance. Or maybe the NHS could become like gym membership where you pay say £200 per year per person and £800 per family up front that goes directly to your local NHS board.

NB: All tax/NI that goes to the treasury goes into the giant spend it on whatever pot. There is no ring fencing for NHS, roads, military or whatever.

The idiot shadow health secretary actually thought the land registry recorded house values and didn't realise it was sale prices, not until he had this explained to him by the Andrew O'Neill of the BBC.

I don't disagree with you, but what is the difference between house value and sale price?

binners - you are a little ray of sunshine. Open the pits too, that emphysema worked wonders. Hardly saw any old people when I was growing up.

The "no smoking in public spaces" has backfired too. Non-smokers can't get a clean air seat in the beer garden any more. My plan was to have a room in the back of every pub with air lock doors where they could relax in a comfortable smokey fug.

I don't disagree with you, but what is the difference between house value and sale price?

There could be a %age increase added to this value depending on house price value changes for the local area in the time past but that would be difficult/costly to implement.

Simplest thing to me seems to be to extend to the council tax bands so they go on increasing up to £10m or whatever. More sensible than just targeting £2m+ houses anyway.

Someone needs to teach Ed Milliban the concept of "cutting off your nose to spite your face".

So governments screw up, and then mess about with interest rates, create an artificial market in houses and then step in to tax the proceeds?

Politicians you have to love 'em

This is great politics but lousy economics. Leaving aside the current taxation of death sticks, the latest labour numbers on spending represent a tiny real increase. But mix it all up with a tax of tobacco companies and the rich and Wey hey, Bingo!

What about mountain bikers? Mrs FD sees deals with more mtb related injuries than smoking...

I deal with 100s of people every year with illnesses caused by smoking, I've had maybe 12 cycling related ones in 25 years.

I think , even on STW, we can all agree that smoking is more hazardous to health than cycling

The NHS will soak up any amount of money given to it, most will be spent 'wisely' but a seriously large amount will just be wasted.

Pretty much like any organisation.

I strongly believe that legalising and taxing some currently illegal drugs would raise revenue, reduce the amount of crime being caused to fund illegal habits, so reducing the pressure on the Police and hopefully giving more opportunities for controlling quality and safer usage of the drugs.

I'm not an expert on the subject so maybe wrong, but the whole war on drugs has wasted so much time and money and is never going to be won, being realistic.

Happy for my drug of choice - alcohol - to be taxed further when purchased outside pubs and restaurants.

I love the juxtoposition of this argument in the context of smoking taxes/costs on the NHS. Smoking's bad, should be banned everywhere, taxed to the nines, etc etc. But legalise a much stronger drug and tax it. Lets assume they did, and lets assume the tax was about 20x higher (the risk of cancer being considerably higher and theres the mental health issues, dealing with high people and impact on productivity). Who's going to go into their corner shop and buy a packet of spliffs when they could grow it at home in the airing cupboard for pennies? The status quo of see no evil speek no evil when it comes to small ammounts of weed is probably the best option between minimising it's usage and not criminalising people for minor offences.