Reply to: So - Good Budget or Bad Budget?

[Zoiderman]

Tax smokers as much as you can, smelly selfish cocks

[original PM]

a very good point also -- however smokers are an easy target

it is highly unlikely that the pointless fu<kers in govn are interested in doing anything but lining their own pockets at the tax payers expense.

[amcdonald]

well a bit of googling states that obesity is costing the NHD between 4 and 22 Billion per year depending on what report you read - expected to reach £50 bn by 2050

smoking related deaseases cost the NHS approx 5 BN per year - however any disease of the heart or repiratory system seems to be classed as 'smoking' related - I am not sure how many 'non smokers' die of 'smoking' related deseases.

Tobacco tax generates £11Bn per year - which gives a 6BN profit for smokers (based purely on tobacco sales remember smokers will also pay NI etc which also contribute to the NHS)


Interestingly enough

8 out of 10 non smokers live past 70
5 out of 10 long term smokers live past 70

And how much is our government costing us through waste, corruption and the promotion of outsourcing ?

Perhaps the government and civil service should bear an incompetence tax

[original PM]

A very good point and difficult to ascertain as a definition of obese seems a little tough to pin down.

Although I did stumble across

"Around 86% of lung cancer deaths in the UK are caused by tobacco smoking and, in addition, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) states that tobacco smoking can also cause cancers of the following sites: upper aero-digestive tract (oral cavity, nasal cavity, nasal sinuses, pharynx, larynx and oesophagus), pancreas, stomach, liver, bladder, kidney, cervix, bowel, ovary (mucinous) and myeloid leukaemia. 7"

Now I can understand about upper aero digestive tract. but liver, bladder, kidney etc. not convinced they are smoking related but I suppose the problem is many smokers are also drinkers so....

anyway who wants to live forever!

[d000hg]

OK, but saying obesity "costs more" needs to be qualified by cost per person when deciding how much tax should be due on food/booze compared to fags.

And of course remember booze is a contributing factor to obesity (I'd imagine a big factor), and that is already taxed a lot.

[original PM]

Firstly, please provide a citation.

Secondly... I thought luxury foods were taxed more.

well a bit of googling states that obesity is costing the NHD between 4 and 22 Billion per year depending on what report you read - expected to reach £50 bn by 2050

smoking related deaseases cost the NHS approx 5 BN per year - however any disease of the heart or repiratory system seems to be classed as 'smoking' related - I am not sure how many 'non smokers' die of 'smoking' related deseases.

Tobacco tax generates £11Bn per year - which gives a 6BN profit for smokers (based purely on tobacco sales remember smokers will also pay NI etc which also contribute to the NHS)


Interestingly enough

8 out of 10 non smokers live past 70
5 out of 10 long term smokers live past 70

[d000hg]

Since when was a pasty junk food?

[amcdonald]

Firstly, please provide a citation.

Secondly... I thought luxury foods were taxed more.

Since when was a pasty a luxury item, not even to a knuckle dragging chav surely ?

[d000hg]

seeing as obesity is a much bigger burden on the NHS than smoking when are we going to see lardy fu<kers being taxed more?

Firstly, please provide a citation.

Secondly... I thought luxury foods were taxed more.

[Peoplesoft bloke]

Labour would keep borrowing or more like printing money to make up for lack of demand for low yield gilts.

It would have worked too but the price of loaf of bread would have been £1000+.

So under Labour, we'd have had even more QE you reckon?

[original PM]

Ok, just to get it into your nicotine addled brain. Your addiction can be cured. No-one is forcing you to continue your pitiful existence dependent on chemicals to distort your reality!

Oh and you smell.

seeing as obesity is a much bigger burden on the NHS than smoking when are we going to see lardy fu<kers being taxed more?

[d000hg]

In some cases they still do pay direct. However it was changed (partly at least) to help tenants learn about paying themselves, so they understand it's real money not a free house. As a landlord I would rather just get the money, but I can understand their logic.

[Friday Blue]

They already made cuts to housing benefits in the last year or so.

i still thikn they can go abit further. and also i think they need to bring back the old system where rent is paid directly to landlord instead of via dhss. it may cost the conucil abit more, but no where near as much as problematic down stream.

[d000hg]

I still think they could have done more with VAT cut and in return compensate by cutting housing benefit, especially for people who are "forced" to live in the most expensive part of london.

They already made cuts to housing benefits in the last year or so.

[Sysman]

There is a reason why everything is now announced in one year to follow the following year. It never used to that way but since computers have arrived it takes a year for the changes to be programmed.

I was doing payroll back in the 80s and early 90s. I think we had until something like June/July to implement Budget changes.

I suppose someone must have lobbied for more time since then.