Smokers could be required to quit in exchange for NHS rights

[Peter Parka]

Well as an example, the total tax in Britain recieved in 2004-5 was 14% made up of alcohol and tobacco tax.

ESRC Society Today - Taxation

That was £100 billion with other things included too, though the largest parts of that is made up of petrol, tobacco and alcohol.


HM Customs and Excise has responsibility for collecting roughly £100 billion per year in revenue in VAT, excise duties on alcohol, tobacco, petrol, gambling and environment taxes, climate change levy, aggregates levy and landfill tax. It also has a front-line role in preventing illegal imports of drugs, alcohol and tobacco smuggling and tax fraud. It raises nearly half of central government's revenue.

In 2006 the annual NHS budget cost £65.4 billion

NHS finance 2002-03: the issue explained | Money | Society Guardian

 

[debbie t]

pete is not being difficult or argumantative here,he is stating the facts in this country.

if we all get healthy and give up the fags and the booze the government have admitted that it would be an economic nightmare.

it is true that supporting the US in iraq is crippling us

and since we can get fab booze and tobacco from europe with no tax paid the government are putting lots of resources into stopping us from doing that and them losing tax revenue.which if you consider its 22miles to france proves much

 

[SRC]

I think not helping the war in Iraq would be a mistake .. every penny spent is worth it. If someone did not step up and do something about those idiots over there .. you'd keep having more bombs go off in subways and more buildings ending up on the ground around your ankles.

And I still say that if people stopped most of the drinking and smoking (smoking mostly, it causes more health problems) you wouldn't need so much tax money to cover it.

Double edged sword I imagine. Citizens (of both countries) have made their beds (ie sickness from smoking) and now must lie in them (expenses).

So, I say you have no cause bitch about the money you have to spend if you're putting your stones in the fire, so to speak.

 

[Peter Parka]

I think not helping the war in Iraq would be a mistake .. every penny spent is worth it. If someone did not step up and do something about those idiots over there .. you'd keep having more bombs go off in subways and more buildings ending up on the ground around your ankles.

And I still say that if people stopped most of the drinking and smoking (smoking mostly, it causes more health problems) you wouldn't need so much tax money to cover it.

Double edged sword I imagine. Citizens (of both countries) have made their beds (ie sickness from smoking) and now must lie in them (expenses).

So, I say you have no cause bitch about the money you have to spend if you're putting your stones in the fire, so to speak.

Have you seen the stats I posted? If everyone here stopped smoking and drinking we would be worse off, fact!

 

[SRC]

yes .. because so many people are already sick from using them in the first place, and having to seek medical care for it. (hence the "double edged sword" comment)

 

[Peter Parka]

yes .. because so many people are already sick from using them in the first place, and having to seek medical care for it. (hence the "double edged sword" comment)

If everyone on the NHS was only getting treatment for alcohol and tobacco related illnesses which they clearly are not, their tax on those products would pay for it which those stats prove.

 

[SRC]

No offense, but sometimes you are like talking to a wall. I don't know how to explain what I'm saying in any simpler terms than this:

Smokers cause millions of dollars in healthcare cost .. smoking generates millions of dollars for taxes .. smokers quit smoking .. no money for taxes .. country goes under .. because smokers that DID SMOKE are still sick yet no tax money is being generated because people are no longer smoking.

Get the double edged sword? Damned if you do, or damned if you don't?

Get it?

 

[Peter Parka]

No offense, but sometimes you are like talking to a wall. I don't know how to explain what I'm saying in any simpler terms than this:

Smokers cause millions of dollars in healthcare cost .. smoking generates millions of dollars for taxes .. smokers quit smoking .. no money for taxes .. country goes under .. because smokers that DID SMOKE are still sick yet no tax money is being generated because people are no longer smoking.

Get the double edged sword? Damned if you do, or damned if you don't?

Get it?

Ah, I see your point now, sorry if I was slow on it. That makes sense. In response I would say the answer to that is two choices.
1 - Gradually encorage less people to drink or smoke .
2 - Let things carry on the same

Personally 1 sounds the better option to me which is what seems to be happening. However you will never stop a lot of people drinking and smoking and an outright ban will only bring financial disaster. The dangers of alcohol and tobacco are common knowledge yet people are always going to choose to use them.
Thanks for persisting in getting that through my slow mind in this regard though.

 

[SRC]

it's cool .. I was just getting frustrated because I couldn't explain what I was trying to say properly.

There really is no way to fix the problem imo, other than just not giving smokers healthcare coverage. Because there is no way to regulate how many packs of cigarettes people use.

 

[Peter Parka]

There really is no way to fix the problem imo, other than just not giving smokers healthcare coverage. Because there is no way to regulate how many packs of cigarettes people use.

And back to point A, that is not economically plausible and not fair on the smokers who pay their bills through taxes. Doing that would result in the government being voted out ASAP and possible riots here.

 

[SRC]

Actually .. by continuing to pay the taxes .. they would just be paying for the damage already caused by the smoking lol.

 

[Peter Parka]

Actually .. by continuing to pay the taxes .. they would just be paying for the damage already caused by the smoking lol.

......and other things important to this country on top. I'm just talking about alcohol and tobacco tax they pay here too. They pay just as much in other taxes on top as anyone else does.

 

[SRC]

But if they take away the tax on them .. the smokers still depending on the healthcare won't be able to get it, because of decreased taxes.

The smoking lot has really gotten themselves into a pickle now. This is why I don't smoke lol.

 

[Peter Parka]

Wrong! The government has got themself into a pickle because of the huge amount of voters who are overweight, smokers or drinkers. This is one of many reasons why they can expect the boot in the next election!

 

[SRC]

The next person is just gonan suggest the same thing .. because people complain about it .. this side wants it and complains .. the other side doesn't want it and complains.

It's technically a no-win situation for either side. No one is gonna be happy regardless. There will always be a complainer and a downside to every outcome.

This is also why I don't vote either. It's futile.

 

[Peter Parka]

The next person is just gonan suggest the same thing .. because people complain about it .. this side wants it and complains .. the other side doesn't want it and complains.

It's technically a no-win situation for either side. No one is gonna be happy regardless. There will always be a complainer and a downside to every outcome.

This is also why I don't vote either. It's futile.

So true! Blairs government promised so much when they got in but delivered so few of their promises and ended up being more Conservative than the Conservatives under even Thatcher were! I personally have no faith in any of the parties but believe in changes of government to keep them all on their toes so no one gets too complacent. Long governments are why both Thatcher and Blair ended up so unpopular.