Smoking ban?

[shaunbhoy]

True ASB, but you also have to factor in the undoubted savings for the NHS due to the large numbers that will use this watershed to finally kick the habit.
Plus any of that money saved that ends up in the stock market will presumably have benefits for pension funds too. There is much more to the equation than is being portrayed.

[ASB]

True ASB, but you also have to factor in the undoubted savings for the NHS due to the large numbers that will use this watershed to finally kick the habit.
Plus any of that money saved that ends up in the stock market will presumably have benefits for pension funds too. There is much more to the equation than is being portrayed.

Currently 12 bln revenue. 1.5 bln spent by NHS. Presumably as people quit (if they do) then revenue drops quicker that the NHS spending. Also some people will spend the cash, some will save. But those savings are only deferrred consumption (yuk) in one way or another.

I think it is safe to assume that overall the treasury raise money - and know they do from tobacco taxation. If thet were actively "losing" money then they would raise the sin taxes to compensate, this is done regularly on health grounds. Of course the tresury also note the points of resitance - where consumption drops and the net inflow reduces, they model these very carefuly and set taxation levels in this area carefully.

You are quite right in saying the equation is much more than excess of revenue over NHS spend. There are positive and negative factors (in strictly financial terms).

As has been pointed out smokers tend to die younger. This is a good think for the teasury - 10 years pension is 50k saved.

Against that is the cost of treatment, but that is only really expensive for those who need long term NHS care - those who end up on incapacity or similar. Not only does this become expensive, but doubly so because they cease to be economically active. The treasury then lose on the remainder of the taxation over their lifetime earnings. If they could simply do the decent thing and dies shortly after retirement it would be much more cost effectiive.

What I think you can be totally sure of is that overall sin taxes produce a positive effect for the exchequer. Otherwsie they would simply be set at a higher level.

[shaunbhoy]

If they could simply do the decent thing and dies shortly after retirement it would be much more cost effectiive.

You haven't looked at the fine details, have you ASB?

[Dundeegeorge]

Ah of course I'd forgotten them

True ASB, but you also have to factor in the undoubted savings for the NHS due to the large numbers that will use this watershed to finally kick the habit.
Plus any of that money saved that ends up in the stock market will presumably have benefits for pension funds too. There is much more to the equation than is being portrayed.

Because of course when all smoking stops then people will be healthier and won't use up the NHS' resources.
Could I interest you in buying a bridge?

[ASB]

You haven't looked at the fine details, have you ASB?

That'll be those that die 10 year younger than average.

100,000 smoking related death a year. Saving 50k of pension for each is an additional 5bln per year saving for the exchequer (although it would be a 9 year lead before it got up to that amount). There would be a permanent pool of 1mln extra pensioners. I'm surprised they aren't making chain smoking compulsory.

[eternalnomad]

That'll be those that die 10 year younger than average.

100,000 smoking related death a year. Saving 50k of pension for each is an additional 5bln per year saving for the exchequer (although it would be a 9 year lead before it got up to that amount). There would be a permanent pool of 1mln extra pensioners. I'm surprised they aren't making chain smoking compulsory.

Dont worry ASB, these bar stewards will fnd many other ways to ensure those 1mln people dont make it to pension age

[shaunbhoy]

Because of course when all smoking stops then people will be healthier and won't use up the NHS' resources.

Are you suggesting that a concerted and widespread reduction in smoking will not improve the general health of a great many of the populace DG, with obvious beneficial ramifications for the NHS? Might I introduce your @rse to your elbow?

[sasguru]

The ideal citizen:
- Heavy smoker - more tax revenue, dies young
- Heavy drinker - more tax revenue, dies young
- Drives a large car - more tax revenue
- Higher rate tax payer - more tax revenue
- Has private health insurance/other insurances - more tax revenue (unused NI)
- Home owner with property worth more than £250K - more tax revenue, stamp duty

[eternalnomad]

Pays for kids private educashun becuase the local school is sh1te

[Dundeegeorge]

I'm suggesting (as I have done before)

Are you suggesting that a concerted and widespread reduction in smoking will not improve the general health of a great many of the populace DG, with obvious beneficial ramifications for the NHS? Might I introduce your @rse to your elbow?

that if you miraculously stopped everyone in the country smoking right now, you'll then have to start explaining why the number of deaths from cancer and previously-caused-by-smoking diseases doesn't suddenly collapse.
Hmnn, hey maybe polluting our environment with exhaust fumes, burning dead animals, appallingly scant regard for the crap put into food and our general care and respect for the environment (or lack of it), wasn't such a good idea after all.
What I'm alluding to herein is that perhaps smoking is just the easy scapegoat for the medical profession and government. And no, I'm not defending smoking, I have no doubt it could kill you (in conjunction with a number of other factors) and damages your health, but I don't believe that the deaths attributed to smoking are correctly assessed.
And frankly even if they were, it's still the choice of the individual to smoke or not.