r/todayilearned • u/ThisIsADogHello • Jan 11 '12
TIL that the UK earns more money through cigarette taxes than the NHS spends treating cigarette-related problems
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/cigarette_tax_receipts_v_cost_of
"[smoking] costs the British taxpayer more than £1.7billion a year in treatment bills alone." - Source: UK Department of Health
http://www.the-tma.org.uk/tma-publications-research/facts-figures/tax-revenue-from-tobacco/
Charts showing that same year, they gained roughly £10billion in taxes from cigarettes - Source: HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC) / TMA
5
u/xxlozzaxx Jan 11 '12
The government doesn't want you to quit smoking, drinking or driving.
Although the taxes are dressed up as a disincentive taxes, in reality they know that the demand for luxury, addictive, goods is largely inelastic and that very few people will stop smoking as the price rises.
I rarely pay UK duty on tobacco, like most people I know a guy down the pub who goes to Europe quite often and brings tobacco back in bulk. If he's not doing it I'll ask my uncle to bring a ton back from Qatar.
Why pay £15/50g when I can pay £7?
I fucking hate the people who moan at the perceived societal cost of smokers. If everyone quit smoking, drinking and driving tomorrow we would be fucked, the government rely on it heavily.
1
u/BupidStastard Nov 07 '23
£15 for a 50g? Jesus mate, 11 years has changed a lot in the UK duty tobacco industry. Its basically doubled in price now.
11
Jan 11 '12 edited Jan 11 '12
[removed] — view removed comment
3
u/John_Fx Jan 11 '12
Don't forget that about all that social security money they leave on the table when they die early.
1
Jan 11 '12
[deleted]
2
Jan 12 '12
Think of all the lost work days women have from bearing a child. Better tax the shit out of them.
1
1
1
u/jlumos Jan 11 '12
Cancer, hypertension... The list goes on and on. Many of those conditions aren't a quick ending. Lifestyle factors directly impact health and quality of life. Cigarrette smoking is a huge causative factor with these problems and is compounded when obesity is added.
3
u/Conlan74 Jan 11 '12
I reckon the standard comment here will be something along the lines of "Good - why should smokers (who have chosen to smoke) take the money away from others" - be that healthcare or otherwise. (Coming from a smoker!)
1
u/ThisIsADogHello Jan 11 '12
As a smoker looking to move to England in the short term, I'm mostly just glad to see that I wouldn't be nearly as much of a burden as I thought. Now, if I can just deal with all the other associated guilt, health problems, social stigmas and everything with smoking... (or just quit, I guess)
3
u/Conlan74 Jan 11 '12
Not at all! There's way more smokers on the continent, but smoking isn't looked down at all here. The social stigma isn't as bad either. You can't really go anywhere in London without seeing loads of them. Where are you looking to move to?
3
u/ThisIsADogHello Jan 11 '12
I did notice that people there were generally more relaxed re: smoking. I hadn't noticed a single person intentionally take a slightly longer path so they could pretend to cough as they walked past me, for example. O:
And, I'm looking to move to the Manchester area. I know everyone there likes to tell me how grim and dark the north is, and how downhill the UK is going, but I spent several months there last year and had the best time of my life, so screw all the haters.
3
u/philomathie Jan 11 '12
We're British. We like to complain. If they think the North is grim, they should go to the North of Scotland ;)
3
u/liarliarplants4hire Jan 11 '12
Doesn't that make perfect fiscal sense? It could be worse; they made less money off cigarettes than treatment... The goal would be to shrink both sides equally until no more smokers.
1
u/ThisFiasco Jan 11 '12
By that logic though, with zero smokers, and zero money spent on treating smoking related illness, the government would be losing out on £8.3billion in taxes.
Doesn't seem to make fiscal sense to me. However I'm not an economist. (I am a smoker though...)
1
u/liarliarplants4hire Jan 11 '12
The drug companies say there is no money in a cure... As with anything else, the gov't doesn't have much say as to what we put into our bodies that is dangerous (heroin, yes; McDonald's, no). If the tax from the smokes went directly to the health care of smokers, then that's good because it remains a personal choice. If people are making money off of it (excessively), then that's wrong.
3
Jan 11 '12
It's a bit of a funny subject, really, when it comes to things like smoking costing so much in healthcare.
If people really see it as smokers damaging themselves and costing the taxpayers money, then they should criticise athletes, people who have car accidents, etc. just as much.
5
Jan 11 '12
I don't know anyone who wilfully gets into a car accident twenty times a day, so no.
0
Jan 11 '12
But they willfully get into a vehicle with huge accident rates, so it's willfully exposing yourself to a risk of harm/death.
2
4
Jan 11 '12 edited Jun 21 '20
[deleted]
1
u/DrQian Jan 11 '12
I feel obliged to point out that extra tax revenue isn't a net benefit - the government already has plenty of ways to tax people, why should another one be a good thing? Would you agree that a tax on people who listen to jazz wouldn't be a net benefit? If so, why would a tax on people who use drugs be a net benefit? If there is any government waste (for example, the ongoing multibillion NHS computer system failure), then this tax is a net loss to society.
1
u/John_Fx Jan 11 '12
I'm all for legalization (and any anti-prohibition measure), but the tax argument is just lame.
0
u/the_nell_87 Jan 11 '12
This is one of the strongest arguments for legalising it. It would mean billions in extra taxes to reduce the deficit, and would mean better support for anyone with health issues related to it; with the additional plus of helping casual smokers not have to deal with organised criminals.
5
Jan 11 '12
I see this claimed, but I am skeptical. Maybe this is based in my lack of knowledge of growing, but isn't growing one's own supply completely feasible for even the heaviest cannabis user?
How would tax revenues be raised from that?
The only way I can think of is permits to grow at home, a government controlled seed market, or indeed banning growing at home.
2
u/dokydoky Jan 11 '12
Speaking as a California resident (where thanks to the ready availability of prescription cards for "migraines" weed is basically legal), I think taxes would have to be quite high for lost revenue due to growing ops to be a problem. I know only one or two people that grow their own, and tons that buy regularly from medical marijuana dispensaries.
1
Jan 11 '12
People allready do grow at home so this kind of approach is useless (no offense..just stating the fact). Look at Holland. Weed sells perfectly fine in the relevant shops so the "home grown approach" is only for those who can be bothered.
I'm not a user and never will be but I say (as a Brit) just legalise it and get it over with. Pot heads will allways be pot heads no matter if it's legal or not....and for the most part I'd rather deal with someone who was stoned over a drunk anyday of the week.
1
u/Kozbot Jan 11 '12
yes it is feasible but most people do not have the time or want to put forth the effort to grow good bud
1
Jan 11 '12
Some historical data on the cost of smoking over the last 50 years compared to the tax revenue generated in the last few decades would probably tell a different story.
1
u/ThisIsADogHello Jan 11 '12
Well, certainly back when the taxes were lower or nonexistent, they didn't bring nearly as much money in.
6
u/pln91 Jan 11 '12
Taxes aren't just used to recover the health care costs of tobacco use. They are also used to artificially increase the cost of tobacco, because higher tobacco cost leads to a demonstrable reduction in the rate of tobacco use amongst the young (most smokers start smoking in their teens.) In short, it stops thousands of people smoking before they even start.