Tobacco Tax to fund the NHS

On the surface a good idea, everyone hates tobacco companies and smoking, and loves the NHS. So why no windfall tax on Breweries and Junk food producers?

I think it’s alcohol that really deserves taxing more heavily.

The costs to society from alcohol related injury and illness is huge.

Don’t those things get taxed enough already ?

Odd, was under the impression that these things were already large sources of revenue for the exchequer.

#edit##. Bugger to slow again

@daz, well I think most people who smoke enjoy the product so I don’t think they hate the companies. Not sure how Labour intend to implement this as most tobacco companies are foreign owned so don’t pay much UK corporation tax.

I noticed Millband hit all the populist measures, mansion tax, 50% top rate tax band, a special tax on bankers bonuses etc etc

Hmm, personally I would have thought that reducing the number of people smoking would have been better for the NHS, and society in general… even if it meant a lower overall tax take!

Whatever happened to the sugar/fatty tax?

Personally, I’m in favour of the taxes being collected from the sale of tobacco products being ringfenced and diverted to the NHS, I can’t understand why this isn’t already the case?

On the subject of food and alcohol taxation, the idea of using tax as a leverage towards social change is something I find offensive because it further perpetuates inequalities within society. What we do is to simply make vice the preserve of the middle and upper earnings income bracket rather than tackling the root causes of alcohol abuse for example.

But it’s a Tuesday lunchtime on STW so I daresay that someone will be along in a minute to tell me I’m completely wrong.

@ninfan, the government gets more tax revenue from smoking than the healthcare costs. There is quite a “black” analysis I saw long ago which showed that people dying early from health issues generally saved the government more money in pension payments than paid out in NHS costs.

As an aside this is one reason the governments are struggling with electronic cigarettes as they don’t raise so much tax revenue, “merely” the 20% VAT.

Well I’d be the last person to defend tobacco companies, I’d be quite happy for them to be taxed out of business. It’s just seems to be a glaringly inconsistent and populist policy. After 4 years of policy reviews and ‘navel-gazing’ is that the best Ed Miliband and his oxford educated ‘gurus’ can come up with?

the majority of the cost of fags is already tax. Adding more tax will actually be counterproductive as it just encourages smuggling and counterfeits – both of which have the potential to expose consumers to even more dangerous cigarettes as per the fakes from China that routinely have very high levels of heavy metals in – the health costs of dealing with that via the NHS far outweigh any additional tax raised.

Hmm, personally I would have thought that reducing the number of people smoking would have been better for the NHS, and society in general…

This. Very much this. A revolting and invasive habit . No-one should never have to experience the revolting smell – at the very least smoking should be banned in all public places and preferably should only be allowed in open and private spaces (ie, at the bottom of a garden away from others that don’t want to breathe in your smoke inside a family home).

The costs to society from alcohol related injury and illness is huge.

From the referendum debate it was interesting to see the Scottish government has budgeted £56m for sport in 2015/16 and £53m for treating alcohol and tobacco addiction. In fact it was absolutely staggering to see that. I’d assume the figures are similar across the rest of the UK.

Hmm, personally I would have thought that reducing the number of people smoking would have been better for the NHS, and society in general.

I’d prefer both which is what they seem to be doing.

The costs to society from alcohol related injury and illness is huge.

It is but figures are not accurate, one drink a few hours previous goes down as having alcohol. It may and probably won’t have any effect on the injury but the stats show alcohol involved.

Smoking also harms more than the person who smokes far more direct than alcohol does.

£53m for treating alcohol and tobacco addiction.

Wow. And that is just to support the fight against addiction! How much more is spent on treating injuries and illnesses due to the habits?

Whatever happened to the sugar/fatty tax?

It wouldn’t even be hard to impliment, once you’ve defined fatty/sugary. There’s already varying VAT ammounts on most supermarket stuff, just make VAT on chocolate/sweets/pudding/crisps 50%. Problem is then you already get blatantly obvious loopholes for things like jaffa ‘cakes’ being cake not biscuit, and pringles being a flour based snack not a crisp. But I’m sure someone could write up a definition.

Problem then is it’s quite regressive. “Iceland beef burgers” would probably end up classed as processed fatty foods. Waitrose steak mince wouldn’t, except you just mash it up and make burgers from it anyhow. Ditto fish fingers Vs cod, a frozen pudding Vs flour/sugar/fat/fruit to make crumble, it doesn’t nececeraly make people healthy, it just taxes the thick and the poor.

It is but figures are not accurate, one drink a few hours previous goes down as having alcohol. It may and probably won’t have any effect on the injury but the stats show alcohol involved.

+1 I’ve been in A&E and classified as an aclohol related injury as I’d fallen head first off a 6ft wall and smashed my face on the way home from the pub. The actual accident was the result of walking allong a ‘path’ which ended abruptly in a split level car park wall in the dark, the fact it was on the way home from the pub was incidental.

i saw an interesting program on the sugar and fat tax. In summary it said that once the cost to the NHS/society overtakes the money they get from food companies getting their way, a tax is inevitable. I thought it was staggering that it hadn’t already done that, but it shows how powerful food companies are.

Smoking also harms more than the person who smokes far more direct than alcohol does.

@Drac not sure what you are saying here. I think alcohol has a far broader negative impact than smoking, be that anti-social behavior or domestic violence.

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

I’m in favour of the taxes being collected from the sale of tobacco products being ringfenced and diverted to the NHS, I can’t understand why this isn’t already the case?

Because it would be an entirely pointless exercise in accounting.

No-one should never have to experience the revolting smell

Quite right, but we shouldn’t kid ourselves that being healthy isn’t going to cost the country a whole heap of cash in the long run. The pensions cost will be huge. The most patriotic thing we can do is spend all our cash on heavily taxed luxuries and then die from an incurable and fast acting disease.

I think alcohol has a far broader negative impact than smoking, be that anti-social behavior or domestic violence.

Nope.
Excessive drinking may have a negative impact.
Any smoking that leads to a third-party breathing it in leads to a direct negative impact.

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

That’s not the full equation though, the country loses out as they take more sick days, then if they die in their 40’s/50’s they don’t work those last 15-25 years, which is a lot of lost GDP which wouldbe recouping the investment the country makes in child welfare and education.

I’m in favour of the taxes being collected from the sale of tobacco products being ringfenced and diverted to the NHS, I can’t understand why this isn’t already the case?

And ringfence the VAT on fottball kit, walking boots and mountain bikes to pay for A&E, etc, etc. What would you tax to pay for education?

This sort of hypotheciation of tax is just notional. All tax revenue goes into a big pot (and that includes NI) and then the Treasury divvy it up. It is ok to say that it will raise £x00nillions and that they NHS budget is being raised by £xoomillions – but it is smoke and mirrors to link them. Decisions on how much to fund the NHS are not (and should not) contingent on the source of the funding. Similarly the reasons for taxes ie (a) to raise the quantum of revenue needed for all public spend (give or take some borrowing) (b) shape society and drive behaviours eg progressive income tax, heavy tax on cigs, booze, polluting cars, fuel etc is another. The two are separate and shouldn’t be linked.

t is ok to say that it will raise £x00nillions and that they NHS budget is being raised by £xoomillions – but it is smoke and mirrors to link them. Decisions on how much to fund the NHS are not (and should not) contingent on the source of the funding.

This could easily be done though through National Insurance and probably something many would support if it guaranteed future NHS funding. Seems to me this is the big policy the labour party should be pushing but as usual they’ve bottled out in favour of some quick-fix populism which will generate some positive headlines but no lasting solution.

This could easily be done though through National Insurance

This clould easily look like it’s been done though National Insurance…

but it will still be a big pot of money the government get to spend.

dazh – if they say raise another £500m on the cig tax and it reduces number of smokers – then the tax take then goes down – does NHS funding go down as well?

Similarly – if unhealthy lifestyle taxes = NHS then by the same measure vehicle/fuel related tax = to be spent on motorists, which is a drum that the RAC beat constantly….

This is why I think its a bad idea to link spending to where the tax has come from.

But it is the right think for young Ed to say – we are raising tax by x,y and z and spending it on the NHS. Just not the ring-fencing bit

Just read some numbers (Guardian) the NHS spending pledge is way above what can be raised from tobacco companies

The Tobacco tax will raise £150m – the extra money for the NHS is £2.5 billion

The majority of the funds are scheduled to come £1.1bn from tax avoidance – ie closing “loopholes” (IMHO they will collect very little as people will just change the mode of operation) and £1.4bn from property taxes – so called mansion tax which in practice is just a tax on living in the South East

Marijuana Tax Revenue May Top $3 Billion A Year With Legalization

California could make over $500m, UK has nearly double the population and used to higher taxes/weed price so could make £1bn

+1 for legalize and tax dope

@Drac not sure what you are saying here. I think alcohol has a far broader negative impact than smoking, be that anti-social behavior or domestic violence.

I’ve sat next to many people drinking and never got drunk or suffered any potential long term problems form them drinking near me. However breathing the shit in that smokers puff out as the walk past me or stand at the school gates or from days gone by when they could stand next to you at work, pub or restaurant and fill my lungs full of carcinogens is a lot more harmful.

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

Isn’t that a common misconception that smokers and tobacco industry like to use.

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.

hardly going to pay its way.. allows only for a 2.5% increase in nhs funding this year.. what happens next? do they tax high heels..

I think there should be a tax on mountain bikes, especially DH to cover the costs of the fixing of collarbones 😉

hardly going to pay its way.. allows only for a 2.5% increase in nhs funding this year.. what happens next? do they tax high heels..

Seems it wouldn’t even do that:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-27894551

Edit:

Ed’s promise seems to be 8000 extra doctors, 20000 nurses

Apparently In 2013 the NHS employed 147,087 doctors & 371,777 qualified nursing staff – percentage wise that doesn’t really sound like its going to transform much does is?

I used to smoke for 25 years and think its a filthy habit but how much can you realistically charge for a pack of cigarettes.

They were talking about food banks on the radio and someone rang in and said he was sat in a car outside one waiting for his wife, and out of the 10 people he saw walking out of the food bank, 4 of them stopped to light a ciggie the moment they stepped out of the door.

So do I think people will just give up because they can’t afford to smoke.
Sadly not,

One of the best public health policies that could be implemented would be banning smoking altogether. Closely followed by minimum unit pricing for alcohol. I can’t think of a bigger pair of impacts on society. Smoking however is the one thing an individual can do that has a direct negative effect on others, you can’t choose not to breath and if that air is full of tobacco smoke (primary or secondary) then you kop it. Alcohol is indirect, just because tens of millions drink then it doesn’t immediately harm others health. Granted there is a massive issue with binge drinking, alcohol associated violence etc etc. And if we’re on air, then we can do so much more in cleaning up our air for everyone. The money it would save the NHS would more than make up for shortfalls. Anyway I’ll climb off my soapbox. And yes, I do work in public health.

One of the best public health policies that could be implemented would be banning smoking altogether.

The problem with banning it is demonstrably obvious. We banned a load of other drugs, and now no-one ever does weed or coke or heroin or worse. Oh, wait.

We have a nation of addicts. An outright smoking ban would just drive sales underground and demand would be massive; people would be flogging illegal imports and counterfeit cigarettes, the trade would be huge. And you think cigarettes are bad for you now.

The only way I can think of to get rid of cigarettes would be to raise the age limit year on year so that the existing smokers either quit or smoke themselves to death, and few new smokers take up the habit.

Getting rid of 10s would help too I reckon. Making the minimum sale unit five packs might go a long way towards preventing kids from starting.

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

one of my customers had worried about redundancy for years ( admin nhs trust office) finally she got the letter.. 25 years in 54 yrs old.. so she took the money and ran.. 4 weeks later she gets a phone call.. would you like a job like what you used to have but for a 1yr contract.. yes shes says and returns literally to her original desk.. now 6 month on shes been taken on permanent same seat same desk … she had a four week holiday paid with a 25 year redundancy package.. shes having her house completely stripped out replaceing the 3 year old kitchen and bathroom with the bit thats left over..

56 year old nursing sister takes early retirement.. nice pension so buys bungalow in best part of town, 9 months later shes working in the same hospital doing same job but different title and ‘different’ employer.

about time they changed the way companies paid tax, not sure on the solution, but need to stop the practice of putting sales through offshore companies, or selling the rights to the name from a tax haven company, but a tax on the sales in the UK.

Google making sales in the Uk then putting the sale through Ireland on the computer from the office in London is a joke.
Apple putting sales in the UK through a subsidiary again massive tax avoidance, that if tax is changed wholesale, then billions more would be recovered from multinationals.

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

🙄

about time they changed the way companies paid tax, not sure on the solution, but need to stop the practice of putting sales through offshore companies, or selling the rights to the name from a tax haven company, but a tax on the sales in the UK.

Any evidence totalshell to substantiate either anecdote which seems written only to slate the NHS?

Offers of re-employment, or payments for
consultancy work, are not expected to be made to
former Scheme members who have
taken early retirement from the NHS at
public expense, UNLESS the offer
clearly represents good value for
money in relation to alternatives. This
must be decided on a case by case basis by NHS
employers who are reminded that Chief Executives in
the NHS, as Accountable Officers, have a
responsibility to Parliament for the proper use of
public funds. If, exceptionally, further employment in
the NHS is offered, the timescale of the work and the
appropriate salary level must be properly specified
and consideration should always be given to flexible
employment contracts, eg. on a fixed term, part-time,
or consultancy basis.