[Misc] Economic Effect of No Smokers

[Super Steve Earle]

Massive savings for the NHS dealing with smoking related illnesses both for smokers and passive smokers. Increased productivity as no more 20m smoking/chitchat breaks. Huge reduction in smokers detritus which someone needs to clear up. Plus the added bonus of not having to sit next to stinky smokers with their stinky breath and stinky clothes (it's ok I sucked a mint) all of which instantly activate my sore throat mechanisms.

 

[Peacehaven Wild Kids]

£ 18 for a pack of 20 but people can get a triple macdonalds burger for £ 2.99

erm… said burger is well within an adult’s daily calorific intake, ok it’s hardly Egon Ronay but they’re not addictive and I’ve yet to meet any (non American) person that would consume 20 in a day

 

[Peacehaven Wild Kids]

Massive savings for the NHS dealing with smoking related illnesses both for smokers and passive smokers.

As far as I’m concerned, this.

Although I see smoking as “it’s a free country” thing, neither me my wife or son smoke and no one is allowed to do it in my home (although no one’s ever asked)
However I did watch both parents die horrible smoking related deaths at what would now be seen as “no age”

 

[Beanstalk]

Public health should win the day over any pro-smoking economic arguments. Ditto over any pro-car economic arguments. Both sets of lobbyists make a strong case. Doesn't make either case right tho

I agree, the principle is obviously worth pursuing but the details are worth questioning.

As a country we make more money in taxation on cigarettes than the NHS spends treating it (source - PoliticsJoe). Whilst the public health argument is ultimately correct, and a full smoking ban has been years in the making, there is a legitimate question for politicians as to how we make up the shortfall in tax income that a ban will enact.

FWIW, I'm not against the ban at all, and think the phase out is sensible, but I do think that the shortfall needs to be addressed as part of that plan otherwise we are all financially worse off.

 

[A1X]

£ 18 for a pack of 20 but people can get a triple macdonalds burger for £ 2.99

They don’t burn nearly as well, though

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

£ 18 for a pack of 20 but people can get a triple macdonalds burger for £ 2.99

But it's really hard to smoke the burger.

Edit I see @A1X has beaten me to it.

 

[Tom Hark Preston Park]

I agree, the principle is obviously worth pursuing but the details are worth questioning.

As a country we make more money in taxation on cigarettes than the NHS spends treating it (source - PoliticsJoe). Whilst the public health argument is ultimately correct, and a full smoking ban has been years in the making, there is a legitimate question for politicians as to how we make up the shortfall in tax income that a ban will enact.

FWIW, I'm not against the ban at all, and think the phase out is sensible, but I do think that the shortfall needs to be addressed as part of that plan otherwise we are all financially worse off.

Taken to its extreme you could make the case for legalising heroin and taxing it at a level that would benefit the public coffers. Would that ever make it right tho? Of course not

 

[Beanstalk]

Taken to its extreme you could make the case for legalising heroin and taxing it at a level that would benefit the public coffers. Would that ever make it right tho? Of course not

Completely, and as I said, I'm not advocating for letting money/income block public wellbeing and health at all. The collective benefit will always outweigh the cost.

At the same time, I would like to know how the government will make up £10.4 billion of tax receipts a year (approx 1% of all tax receipts). How do we not find ourselves considerably poorer as a nation whilst prioritising public health at the same time? Personally, I'd like to see some radical environmentally friendly policies but I can't see that happening without it becoming a whipping stick for whichever government is in power.

 

[Peacehaven Wild Kids]

As a country we make more money in taxation on cigarettes than the NHS spends treating it (source - PoliticsJoe).

I will continue with what I have believed for many years that this is untrue. Yes you’ve named one source, however a quick google will also provide other “sources” with figures leaning towards the NHS (and other services, The Fire Service for example) being out of pocket to the tune of about £6 Billion

 

[Beanstalk]

I will continue with what I have believed for many years that this is untrue. Yes you’ve named one source, however a quick google will also provide other “sources” with figures leaning towards the NHS (and other services, The Fire Service for example) being out of pocket to the tune of about £6 Billion

The Office for Budget Responsibility says that we raise £10.4 billion in tobacco duties...

So even by your calculations it is true.

NB. I'm not being sarcastic or glib at all in my response FWIW, I was genuinely surprised at how much money is brought in on tobacco duties.

 

[Tom Hark Preston Park]

Completely, and as I said, I'm not advocating for letting money/income block public wellbeing and health at all. The collective benefit will always outweigh the cost.

At the same time, I would like to know how the government will make up £10.4 billion of tax receipts a year (approx 1% of all tax receipts). How do we not find ourselves considerably poorer as a nation whilst prioritising public health at the same time? Personally, I'd like to see some radical environmentally friendly policies but I can't see that happening without it becoming a whipping stick for whichever government is in power.

Could start IMHO by heavily taxing air travel. In particular short haul. Seems to me idiotic on every level that you can fly by air for a couple of hours to a european destination for twenty or thirty quid. I mean we all love to do it, but at the same time isn't it a little bit insane?

 

[Beanstalk]

Could start IMHO by heavily taxing air travel. Seems to me idiotic on every level that you can fly by air for a couple of hours to a european destination for twenty or thirty quid. I mean we all love to do it, but at the same time isn't it a little bit insane?

Yeah, sort of what I was implying. At the same time, I think realistically the only additional taxation policies that will win votes in the current climate are ones that punch up instead of down. If we heavily tax all air travel, doesn't that just widen inequality? A family on the median wage in this country can barely afford a holiday at the moment anyway, why should they be excluded from travel when the rich can afford it (and still contribute to pollution etc.)?

I'd like to see something more radical. A high tax on second or third cars maybe, a 90% tax on frequent flyers (3+ flights a year, businesses seen as a single entity), or huge enforced fines for companies who pollute the most.

 

[Justice]

It’s like anything in life if a pint at the Amex went up to £10 people are still going to buy it.

 

[Official Old Man]

Back in the day when cigarette advertising was banned in F1 the only winners were the cigarette companies. Off the top of my head I think there were 5 or 6 companies ploughing £millions into F1 each year but Rothmans got no more out of it than B&H so a ban saved them money.
As for saving money personally, my life insurance is around £20 a month. My wife, a smoker, costs 3 times as much and she doesn't believe the reason why.

 

[MJsGhost]

The Office for Budget Responsibility says that we raise £10.4 billion in tobacco duties...

So even by your calculations it is true.

NB. I'm not being sarcastic or glib at all in my response FWIW, I was genuinely surprised at how much money is brought in on tobacco duties.

It's not a simple task to work out the ultimate net effect as there are a lot of indirect consequences and also assumptions at play (for arguments on both sides).
It's possible to argue that smoking-related early deaths save the NHS money in the long term as treatments for other, unrelated illnesses/conditions aren't required for the dead.
It's possible to argue that money not spent on cigarettes is spent on other goods or activities, which in turn generates tax for the treasury (minus a proportion still spent on black-market fags)
It's possible to argue that productivity in work increases due to no fag breaks, which stimulates the economy and increases tax take (how the f**k do you measure that?!)
It's possible to argue that smoking-related illnesses are replaced by obesity-related problems because ex-smokers eat a load of crap instead of smoking, putting more stress back on the NHS.
It's possible to argue that the cost of clearing up after smokers who strangely don't view their butts as litter should be added to the overall picture (but what about the loss of street sweeping jobs and its negative effect on the economy / tax take?)
It's also possible to argue that the cost to the NHS of treating smoking-related issues is just part of the cost. What about lost productivity due to absenteeism caused by smoking-related illnesses? What's the overall effect on GDP and tax take?

I am sure I am missing a lot and am also nowhere near bright enough to be able to work out what the true net position is.

Ees complicated, no?

The public health argument is less complicated.

 

[MJsGhost]

It’s like anything in life if a pint at the Amex went up to £10 people are still going to buy it.

Some people, for sure.

Some would definitely stop and others would cut down.

It's certainly not likely to make anyone buy more.

 

[Mellotron]

Presumably, the money that people currently spend on cigarettes will be spent on something, it's not like smokers will just chuck £10 notes into a canal instead.

I assumed they'll try to smoke them instead, the swines.

 

[Beanstalk]

Ees complicated, no?

The public health argument is less complicated.

Yes, that's absolutely fair. I guess the income from tobacco duty is easily quantifiable, and the NHS do state that the cost to them directly is around £2.6bn so they are able to quantify that as well. That was my only argument really - when we can put those numbers on the table, the direct income outweighs the cost . All your points are valid however, as you say it is really complicated (impossible I'd argue) to try and quantify the wider impact as part of an argument.

And as I've said, the income is not a reason to not follow the public health argument. That's the easy bit. Just that when we look at government income through current taxation, this policy will eventually leave a large hole in the budget that will need to be filled. I'm just interested in where that money would come from, and how the argument for public health in this realm doesn't adversely effect the public health elsewhere. I think that question is vital to making public health policy workable, and not feel like a sour medicine.

 

[Peacehaven Wild Kids]

It’s like anything in life if a pint at the Amex went up to £10 people are still going to buy it.

And this has been proven at West Ham and Arsenal!

 

[Westdene Seagull]

First they came for the smokers .... but I said nothing .....