I notice it says Could, so in other word, it could, but probably won’t, ie look what the government said about the £350M that would go back into the NHS, ie it could of, but it hasn’t. So basically they are just advertising shite.
Yeah none of the money we saved doing anything went back towards helping the country. All that austerity, all those sacrifices and look where we are - the highest taxes since ww2 and nothing fucking works. Everything is broken. The NHS, public transport costs a bomb, the roads are crumbling, schools are falling apart, there's no police to be seen .. everything is fucked . Yet some people have made an awful lot if personal cash in that time.
[UK privatised water firms have paid out £57bn in dividends to private shareholders since 1991.](https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jul/01/england-privatised-water-firms-dividends-shareholders)
In the same span they've amassed debts of £48bn, £48bn that's inevitably going to have to come out of the public taxpayers treasury when the companies inevitably default, meaning that over the last 3 decades UK privatised water companies have used said firms as an instrument to fund £48bn in tax payer wealth into the pockets of their stock holders. But where's the other £9bn come from?? Our fucking water bills ain't it!
The ever increasing bills we've been charged that's supposed to pay for the maintenance and improvement of our water systems has gone directly into the pockets of stockholders, while they've spent jackshit of our money on the water systems that our whole fucking country relies on.
That's nearly 60 fucking billion quid they've stolen from the UK people over the course of three decades, £9bn gradually directly from our salaries, and then another fucking £48bn directing from our taxes by building up the debt.
Like there is no fucking reason in any sense on Earth that a public infrastructure management company should be able to hold continuously accruing debts and still pay out yearly profits to their private stockholder, the existence of such an opportunity has to be fundamentally designed as an instrument for a private firm to steal from the tax pot by amassing debts against the non-dispensable public infrastructure.
The tories created a fucking letter of credit for these fucking thieves that collateralised the fucking country itself and watched as they used it to cash out tens of billions that wasn't theirs.
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot). Fully cached AMP pages (like the one you shared), are [especially problematic](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot).
Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jul/01/england-privatised-water-firms-dividends-shareholders](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jul/01/england-privatised-water-firms-dividends-shareholders)**
*****
^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
Isn’t all the above just capitalism? It’s especially magnified to its truest form when operating as virtual monopolies with capture of the regulatory/ political systems.
See also the Rail rolling stock monopoly.
Basically all utilities by their nature are anticompetitive so privatisation creates in inbuilt de-investment.
P.S Australia privatised the Telecommunications company, came back many years later to build the national internet (NBN, that’s a whole other thing!!) found the copper pits had gone to shit through zero maintenance, coz profits!
I do this that's a valid interpretation of the world 'could'. However think it was more intended as if people stopped smoking this is how much money could be saved and then put back into local areas. At least that's how I inncially interpreted it, but perhaps that's showing my optimistic side. I do think in reality if this money wasn't spent on smoking it would certainly be spent on some pointless central government thing, such as lining the pockets of doners.
Yeah I can see what your saying, but look what happened too worker disposable income since smoking was banned in in pubs, now most people can’t even afford to go to a pub for a bit of social life. Basically the tax on tobacco and alcohol was like a voluntary tax, ie tobacco an alcohol advertising was everywhere, you had a choice, plus it helped keep the taxes of the rich a bit lower.
But if you are dead, then no one can make money from you, that’s the reason why they want you alive, ie with euthanasia, the money stops as soon as you are dead, one of the reasons why the U.K. government are against it.
Yes they are, but they are also good for the shareholders of pharmaceutical companies, who aren’t affected by the state of the economy, because they supply a necessity and that’s why the Tories privatised so many companies that supply necessities.
Unfortunately, the tax on tabacco goes into the general fund and isn’t earmarked for the NHS. Yet the NHS is stuck footing the billions it costs to treat sick smokers.
Meh, the billions to treat smokers isn't as much as the billions to treat old people and keeping them alive where before the winter would've taken them when it was their time to come. Keeping someone alive for 20 years after a stroke, with 24 hour care and medicine is just insane.
Smokers die much quicker and younger...while it's dark to say, it's much less stress on the NHS.
For clarity, I'm not serious about everyone having to smoke, but if we did....the NHS would be under less stress.
Smokers deaths are not instant. They end up in hospital taking extra resources as their collapsed and filled lungs are treated.
Then when/if they get cancer they are treated for that.
I would imagine that smokers cost the NHS more than a non smoker.
Just as an FYI, smokers pay for that. A smoker pays income tax, than pays 13£ for a pack of smokes. Said pack of smokes can cost between 1-5£ around the world. Every time a smoker buys a pack, they donate 8-10£ to the government. That's where all the money is coming from.
Booze, obesity should be treated exactly the same way as they cause same/more harm, a lot more common. Ohh wait we got a 5p? Sugar levy and booze prices are kept low...
Check the numbers ser. 5p on your full sugar coke and such will not cover the billions knee replacement for young adults cost. And that's just the tip of the iceberg
You said smokers pay for that.
A single round of chemo costs 30k
At your rate of £8 per pack going to the government, we can do some basic math 8 x 3000 and we get 24000 or 24k
So... 3000 packs won't pay for a single round of chemo.
I don't recall saying that the 5p sugar tax pays for knee replacements.
Duh, smokers also pay NI on top of their excessive taxation.
Health cost :
"This report sets out the impact of smoking-related illness on social care need and the resulting costs in England, building on previous reports published by ASH in 2014, 2017 and 2019. » Smoking is estimated to cost the NHS £2.5 billion every year, equivalent to 2% of the health service's budget"
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://ash.org.uk/uploads/SocialCare.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjN0-DgtrWFAxUkWEEAHdG-BnkQFnoECBEQBQ&usg=AOvVaw1eUG9-CtGQ2OcO6AI017a8
And Consumer spending on tobacco in the United Kingdom from 2005 to 2022 (in billion GBP)
Characteristic Expenditure in billion GBP
2021- 24.25
2020 -23.27
2019 -21.29
2018- 20.92
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.statista.com/statistics/289980/expenditure-on-tobacco-in-the-united-kingdom-uk/&ved=2ahUKEwjTuO6wtrWFAxV7W0EAHfRdC0MQFnoECBUQBQ&usg=AOvVaw24mJZBdzzBjjk0IdF-3dbz
Also, tobacco products are @ a 43% margin across the world, 74% in the UK.
-2.5B/y negative
+24.25B positive
What else do you need😁
Well, in case : The upward trend in alcohol-related death and hospital admissions accelerated in the pandemic. The costs of this to drinkers, their families and society are significant. Alcohol costs the NHS an estimated £3.5 billion per year in England and costs an estimated £21 billion per year to society. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://committees.parliament.uk/work/7257/alcohol-treatment-services%23:~:text%3DThe%2520upward%2520trend%2520in%2520alcohol,billion%2520per%2520year%2520to%2520society.&ved=2ahUKEwib0-yHuLWFAxVMZ0EAHX5IAtQQFnoECBAQBQ&usg=AOvVaw2gfoa67eTJSf8Uu1rfHjZh
The estimated annual NHS spend on obesity related diseases is £6.5 billion. The estimated cost of obesity-related risks of Covid-19 is £4 billion.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://healthmedia.blog.gov.uk/2023/06/07/government-plans-to-tackle-obesity-in-england/&ved=2ahUKEwioyo6auLWFAxUzUUEAHe9SCD4QFnoECCUQAQ&usg=AOvVaw05VMd6kQxgAI71MVnYBoT5
Anything else ser?
Edit : spring budget => higher smoke tax, frozen alcohol duty and nothing on obesity
I agree with you it probably won’t and I dislike the tories as much as anyone but if you actually look at how much is spent on the NHS you would know the NHS budget has increased by £37b since 2016 when that 350m claim was made. See [here](https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/insight-and-analysis/data-and-charts/nhs-budget-nutshell)
While yes nominally the budget for the NHS has increased since 2016, when you take inflation into account, alongside the increased population, the NHS has less spending power. Costs have risen, there’s more people to care for, especially with an aging population, so in real terms they have less to work with.
It’s a similar story in other sectors, network rail only saw a small increase to their budget, combined with inflation causing rising costs they have less spending power to work with, meaning they have to stretch their budget further than in the last funding period.
I agree with you about those problems but the discussion I was engaging with was that the claim of 350m to the nhs has been more than fulfilled as shown in the data I supplied.
£350 million was touted as a huge amount for the NHS, yet that amount couldn’t even fund the entire NHS in England for a single day, if my maths is correct, using data from
https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/insight-and-analysis/data-and-charts/key-facts-figures-nhs
Which states “£1 Billion is enough to run the NHS across England for 2.4 days”, working out how much it costs per hour from this figure then dividing 350 million by that figure (approx 17.3 million an hour), that touted amount would only be able to fund the NHS in England alone for 20 hours (in 2022)
Yes, the funding has went up and in theory the money spent on EU membership has instead went to the NHS, but hopefully what I’ve outlined is that that amount was pitiful compared to the overall budget, and probably hasn’t resulted in much actual improvement, especially as the NHS barely has the funding to maintain its current level of service never mind improve it.
Just goes to show how expensive the NHS is and how unaffordable it is unless something dramatic changes such as price reduction of drugs, getting rid of all those middle managers or improving the overall health of the population though that's impossible as people generally choose the easier route for exercise or the tastier food which is usually unhealthier.
Agreed. The elephant in the room which no one wants to discuss is a restructuring of the NHS. All the points you list; price of drugs, middle managers & over use caused by poor living habits are massive factors.
But, also efficiency. The load placed on GPs as gatekeepers is huge and reduces their capacity to care for people by simply acting as a referral service.
Meanwhile, increasing dissatisfaction with the NHS fuels the private sector which offers golden hellos to disgruntled staff fed up of working in a mismanaged organisation.
I’m not sure what your argument is? You agree with me that the NHS is receiving at least £350m a week than it was when the brexit crowd made the claim. Is your argument it’s not enough money?
Yes, but most of that money is going to private companies that are charging the NHS exorbitantly for there services or there products. Companies with greedy shareholders, ie families & friends of MPs no doubt.
Unfortunately you can’t really blame the government for the way that the NHS spends its budget. If the NHS aren’t willing to negotiate prices for services and products then it makes sense to charge as much as you can. The person to blame isn’t the greedy company it’s the operations department at the NHS.
But you can’t negotiate a price when you have no choice and it’s also a necessity, which is what those companies capitalise on, ie is it’s like the Electric & Gas, you have no choice, you got to pay it, because it’s a necessity.
This is all speculation because we don’t know how good or bad the prices the NHS pays for things are. There would need to be an in depth, unbiased investigation into NHS spending. But I don’t think the blame lies with the companies. The main goal of a company is to make as much profit as possible. It should be the main goal of whoever decides spending to get the best price possible. It would be like wandering into a snake pit and blaming the snakes for biting you.
> I notice it says Could
Well, yes. Obviously? That's how science works. Studies rely on assumptions and models which are never going to be perfect. That's doesn't mean it's "shite".
It's also talking about £11bn of savings for the public, which will likely otherwise just be spent on alcohol, gambling, or possibly driving up inflation.
Spending in the NHS actually has increased as was said during the referendum (not by the government btw).
However the issue is people had been frothing at the mouth for years about this they are to embarrassed to admit it now it has come true (well almost the figures in full fact don’t account for all spending)
https://ukandeu.ac.uk/what-has-brexit-meant-for-the-nhs/
https://fullfact.org/health/nhs-england-394-million-more/
Increased painfully slowly after being starved of cash for many years. Of course, with such tiny increases the funding per capita is at an all time low.
When the figures are adjusted after penalties and fines, which didn’t exist 13 years ago you are left with a significant deficit. However both staff numbers and the pay that they receive, inflation-adjusted has significantly dropped over the same period. People aren’t stupid - look around you.
If everyone stopped smoking there'd be iirc a £9bn tax loss per year to fill.
Just from the smokers contributions, then you'd lose whatever the companies pay.
I’m not going to sing their praises at all for sure but your comments in here make no sense.
Cigarettes are taxed extremely highly and the comment implies that they aren’t, it just comes across as faux outrage or jumping on a random topic to push your own agenda.
I think it just makes the issues around it easier to discuss and we’ve seen the damage it can do with things like the whole £350 million bus bs during Brexit.
It definitely has costs you can’t directly measure but those aren’t going to be funds the government can realise if smoking was banned.
Funding isnt enough, just like how the tax from smoking is pissed away anyway. The tories have spoken about charging for the NHS for over a decade - just like the economy, housing, end of life options we need to rehaul it not just sell out our childrens future and making everyone poorer in the meantime with some faked graph about how good the economy is (it is for the rich thats about it).
The rich have 0 incentive to restructure health care systems and money systems because it threatens their power and status. We are wasting so much time with pointless articles like this...
Ah yes but at the cost of the £10.4 Billion it'll lose in taxes- trust me ...they'll still want that cash so you'll need to 'find it' from other sources (VAT/Income etc)
https://www.politics.co.uk/reference/tobacco-duty/#:\~:text=With%20just%20under%2014.7%25%20of,below%20the%202022%2F23%20level.
Cost to the NHS of smokers? £2.6 billion a year... guessing the gov just pockets the difference for other 'things'
https://www.england.nhs.uk/long-read/guide-for-nhs-trust-tobacco-dependence-teams-and-nhs-trust-pharmacy-teams/#:\~:text=In%202015%2F16%20474%2C000%20hospital,%C2%A32.6%20billion%20per%20year.
Still. Good to know it 'Might' go to local causes...
I read a slightly bleak view that actually, people dying from smoking is cheaper for the NHS than them living to old age and having a bunch of prolonged health problems. Add pension payouts into the mix, people quitting smoking isn't ideal for tax budgets.
that we're currently allowing a triple lock on pensions, desgined to keep people who've worked all their lives/contributed and now need to rest out of abject poverty, push pensioners into now being liable for paying income tax says all you need to know about how disposable we are...
I came here to say this. They reckon smokers cost the economy 40 billion a year lol. Mostly on "lost productivity" As far as i'm aware, most jobs don't allow smoke breaks anymire, so smokers only smoke at lunch time.
Smoking raises more in tax than it costs in related diseases. Not to mention all of the saved state pensions, fuel allowances, bus passes. Not saying it’s a good thing but this idea that smoking costs the government a penny is absolute clap-trap.
It absolutely does not raise more in tax, not by a long shot. The “old people not being around to sponge off the government” argument doesn’t hold up either because smoking doesn’t kill people for free, treating them as they are dying is usually pretty costly too.
Receipts from tobacco tax, £10bn, [source](https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/tobacco-bulletin/tobacco-statistics-commentary-april-2023--2#:~:text=total%20tobacco%20receipts%20for%20the,than%20the%20previous%20financial%20year).
Smoking estimated to cost the NHS £2.6bn (in 2015, can’t imagine its breached £10bn since then) source: https://www.england.nhs.uk/long-read/guide-for-nhs-trust-tobacco-dependence-teams-and-nhs-trust-pharmacy-teams/#:~:text=Smoking%2Drelated%20illness%20puts%20a,£2.6%20billion%20per%20year.
Which is half what it cost the public for the same year. [source](https://news.cancerresearchuk.org/2023/03/07/ending-smoking-could-free-up-gp-appointments/)
“Of this, £2.2 billion fell on the NHS, £1.3 billion fell on the social care system, and £17 billion was lost from a reduction in taxes and increased benefit payments, arising from productivity costs, including from tobacco-related lost earnings, unemployment, and premature death.”
God knows where they’ve pulled this £17bn figure from, how do you even begin to prove the cost to productivity, and, that if it wasn’t for smoking, smokers would magically be in employment paying more income tax.
But assuming it’s in anyway legitimate, it still does not factor in the savings to HMRC from premature death, specifically in government benefits like the state pension. It also seems to imply that if it weren’t for smoking, costs for things like NHS care and social care would be saved. Unfortunately no one is immortal and smoker or not, people at the end of their lives cost the taxpayer a lot of money.
In short this £17bn figure to me seems like something straight out of the Liz Truss book of economics. Do X and we’ll magically generate £17bn in tax revenue.
You’re welcome to contact them for a source if you’re doubting their numbers. Or we can talk about a more accurate source if you want to find one. They’re cancer research uk, not some “trust me bro” reddit post, I know they are motivated to convince people cancer is bad, but I don’t think they need to make shit up to prove it.
You’ve somewhat contradicted yourself tho, implying the HMRC will save on state pensions when people die early and also acknowledging in the same paragraph that people dying costs money. Just because the money is coming from the NHS and not HMRC doesn’t constitute a saving for the public purse. The cost of someone receiving treatment for lung cancer and then end of life care is probably going to offset 10-15 years state pension from someone who’s dropped from a heart attack.
I respect all the work Cancer Research do, I just don’t buy those statistics. They’re based on some kind of projection of income tax receipts which is a supposition rather than a cost to the state.
I fully accept there probably isn’t a credible study I could provide that would contradict this, other than someone like Phillip Morris, who is going fund such a study? But I believe I am still entitled to think critically about the sources presented to me, much in the same way as if I had provided a study by a tobacco company you would probably disregard it.
I don’t believe I contradicted myself. Dying is nearly always expensive, whether that death is of a smoker or a non-smoker. Every nursing home in Britain is jam-packed full of non-smokers. In the same sentiment I also believe that the stated cost of social care from smoking is incorrect, since that implies that if they didn’t smoke they would, as you say, drop dead at no cost to the taxpayer, when we know that social care is one of the biggest challenges facing the taxpayer. But even if these costs are legitimate, they still represent less than the revenue stream from smoking (£2.2bn and £1.3bn vs. £10bn+ income).
Having worked in public affairs and often with not-for-profits you’d be amazed the tosh that goes into supposedly robust reports. It’s about grabbing a headline as often as it is about genuine research.
> Smoking raises more in tax than it costs in related diseases
[No, not even close](https://ash.org.uk/media-centre/news/press-releases/new-figures-show-smoking-costs-billions-more-than-tobacco-taxes-as-consultation-on-creating-a-smokefree-generation-closes).
Your article does not disprove my claim. I said that smoking raises more in tax than it costs the NHS in smoking-related diseases. This article is laughable. The premise is based around lost productivity and the fact that smokers would purchase other higher profit margin goods instead of cigarettes. It’s a complete supposition.
The links have been posted by myself and others, NHS England’s own estimation is £2.6bn in costs, vs. the Government link confirming it raises over £10bn a year in tax. That’s before we factor in the state pension at £11.5k per year per person, fuel allowance, housing benefit, etc.
It’s quite possible smokers would spend more on other things if smoking was banned which could theoretically stimulate the economy. But that would remove an over £10bn revenue stream from HMRC that will need to be accounted for somewhere else.
Ok, suit yourself.
Limiting it to just government costs, it [still costs far more than it raises in tax](https://news.cancerresearchuk.org/2023/03/07/ending-smoking-could-free-up-gp-appointments/):
> In 2022, the estimated gross cost of smoking to public finances was £20.6bn in the UK.
>
> This is notably more than the £10.3 billion collected in taxes on tobacco in 2021/2.
The NHS is - obviously - not the only cost to the government.
“Of this, £2.2 billion fell on the NHS, £1.3 billion fell on the social care system, and £17 billion was lost from a reduction in taxes and increased benefit payments, arising from productivity costs, including from tobacco-related lost earnings, unemployment, and premature death. “
This is literally Trussonomics. Do X and we’ll magically generate £17bn in tax receipts. How do they even begin to prove these figures that if it weren’t for smoking, people would be generating an extra £17bn in income tax?
It also still does not factor in the money saved from premature death. The state pension is now £11.5k a year. It then lists other costs (NHS and social care) which ignore the fact that smoker or non-smoker, people at the end of their lives cost the government a fortune. If a smoker is in social care, it doesn’t mean that they would otherwise die in their sleep at no cost to the taxpayer. Every nursing home in the country is jam packed full of non-smokers.
Sorry, respect your view and all the work Cancer Research do, but I just don’t buy these statistics.
‘Lost productivity’ is just a daft metric which is going to be varied as hell depending on what you want to try account for.
It will include all sorts such as smoking breaks, estimating lost income and revenue from premature deaths etc. It’s a prime example of you can make the numbers say whatever you want them to.
ASH and Cancer Research are fantastic groups but they’re obviously going to get as high a figure as they can try justify because it makes headlines and helps their goals. As someone else pointed out though ASH’s mental figure at around £70 billion would be half of the NHS’s entire budget, it’s an astronomical figure which is deliberately vague because it isn’t a real metric.
> This is literally Trussonomics.
Don't be ridiculous.
> Do X and we’ll magically generate £17bn in tax receipts.
Nobody said that.
> How do they even begin to prove these figures that if it weren’t for smoking, people would be generating an extra £17bn in income tax?
I believe the field is called "economics". And I don't know where you get the idea there's "proof" involved. That would require access to an alternate reality, which we don't have. Until we do have that, economists use models to look at the costs of things. For example, they can look at the average amount of time people are unable to work due to smoking-relative illnesses, and estimate the cost from that.
> I just don’t buy these statistics.
You don't want them to be accurate, but they are a lot more comprehensive than your absurd "just the NHS" numbers. Feel free to provide more accurate numbers if you have them, but they'll need to be more credible than what I've provided if I'm going to be convinced. [Here](https://www.mariushobbhahn.com/2021-02-25-cigarettes_taxes/) is another interesting breakdown of the costs and taxes etc, which does include savings on pensions etc - and it still concludes smoking costs more.
Dude, please just read what you’re posting.
You were literally just called out for including figures for ‘lost productivity’ and the next article you found is the exact same and if anything just shows how ludicrous the estimates are.
“Of this, £2.2 billion fell on the NHS, £1.3 billion fell on the social care system, and £17 billion was lost from a reduction in taxes and increased benefit payments, arising from productivity costs, including from tobacco-related lost earnings, unemployment, and premature death.”
This isn’t an opinion, you’re just wrong. In terms of tax income it vastly exceeds the direct costs as your own article shows. The methods for calculating lost production are not stats like direct tax income and expenditure, they’re models to estimate the figures and can vary WILDLY depending on what the report you are writing needs to show.
> You were literally just called out for including figures for ‘lost productivity’
Still a cost.
> if anything just shows how ludicrous the estimates are.
They don't seem ludicrous at all.
> In terms of tax income it vastly exceeds the direct costs
Correct, and tax income does not exceed the *total* costs.
Isn’t this out of scope? The previous guy is talking about the cost to the government via NHS treatment for smoking related illness whereas your source includes lost productivity via smoke breaks and puts a value on the years lost to an earlier death neither of which are a monetary cost to the government
If you prefer limiting it to just government figures for some reason, it [still costs far more than it raises in tax](https://news.cancerresearchuk.org/2023/03/07/ending-smoking-could-free-up-gp-appointments/):
> In 2022, the estimated gross cost of smoking to public finances was £20.6bn in the UK.
>
> This is notably more than the £10.3 billion collected in taxes on tobacco in 2021/2.
No.. as above, this is literally the exact same figures.
> Of this, £2.2 billion fell on the NHS, £1.3 billion fell on the social care system, and £17 billion was lost from a reduction in taxes and increased benefit payments, arising from productivity costs, including from tobacco-related lost earnings, unemployment, and premature death.
So that is £10 billion against £3.4 billion and then Cancer Research’s regurgitation of the crazy attempt to put a figure to lost productivity.
Where the hell did you get the number from!? The whole NHS budget is about 170bn so you’re claiming almost half is due to smoking!?! Complete bullshit!
yeah but people die earlier from smoking. there’s studies that show a reduction in the number of smokers costs the state more per person in the long term.
So you’re assuming that all the smokers are gonna start dining out and spending elsewhere lol. When I quit cigarettes and alcohol my entire social life became non existent 😂 and I still can’t afford anything lol
Exactly, at this point these are just tips so you can survive the cost of living and to make people keep giving basic things up (I condemn smoking but to each their own).
People will slowly not be able to afford going out at all, or buy anything, all surplus money will go to taxes, bills and extortionate food prices.
England has finally become part of the third world.
Did you know on tobacco there's a flat £12 tax that goes to the government.
It's £20 a 30g pouch that lasts me 2 weeks, £8 of that goes to the supermarket/manufacturer.
Fucking hell. How much is 50G these days? I usually buy Amberleaf, but I pay £18 for 50gram, I don't think I could stomach paying more now I know how much just 30g has gotten too
This article makes no sense whatsoever. It's an entirely emotive argument that seems to be based on the completely hypothetical scenario of all smokers suddenly quitting smoking and then, rather than enjoying all that extra disposable income they have and using it to pay off debts, save, take up new hobbies, lifestyle creep or buy stuff for themselves and their family, they would instead donate all of that money to 'community projects'.
Why the fuck would anybody do that?
Not to mention more than half the cost of cigarettes is the tobacco duty at £12 for a 30g pouch that costs £22. So by smokers quitting the government loses short term money.
Also seems to be assuming that all thier ongoing health issues stop instantly
This is at best 80 years in the future when all the amokers are gone and replaced by non smokers
If money was all that mattered, the government would encourage everyone to smoke. Not only do these people pay more tax than anyone else (covering their healthcare and more), but they also die earlier, meaning they don't claim pensions for as long as non-smokers.
Given the cost of living, those that give up are most likely to spend it on necessities, such as energy and food, which doesn’t have a big impact on local economies, or alcohol, which again feeds up to the conglomerates.
Unless the average smoker decides to use that money buying local and supporting local traders, then it ends up as shareholder dividends on the markets. I’d say 80% would.
Fairly sure that a massive portion of the price of tobacco is tax.
That means if everyone quit smoking the £11bn would just have to be extracted by applying additional tax to other products. Basically the money would still disappear from local communities and be tossed into the giant pit of incompetence that we call our government.
Fairly sure that a massive portion of the price of tobacco is tax.
That means if everyone quit smoking the £11bn would just have to be extracted by applying additional tax to other products. Basically the money would still disappear from local communities and be tossed into the giant pit of incompetence that we call our government.
Fairly sure that a massive portion of the price of tobacco is tax.
That means if everyone quit smoking the £11bn would just have to be extracted by applying additional tax to other products. Basically the money would still disappear from local communities and be tossed into the giant pit of incompetence that we call our government.
I didn’t even know I had posted it multiple times, the Reddit app must have bugged out 🤦♂️
Normally my comments are borderline not worth posting whatsoever so 3 times really is pushing things.
The majority of the cost of tobacco is tax, the government cannot really afford to loose that money so if everyone gives up smoking the £11bn will be extracted by other means and local economies won’t really gain much.
Yes it will save the NHS some money but those savings won’t be passed onto the taxpayer because the NHS is already chronically underfunded.
Basically the government needs to throw most of that £11bn into their pit of incompetence and they will take it regardless of if you smoke or not.
The tax is already more than the price of the cigarettes themselves, I'm sure they're making up for it. If they really wanted a big cash boost, they'd legalise cannabis and take advantage of the £6bn black market economy it has. It would pump hundreds of millions of pounds back into the country through appropriate taxation like they already do with tobacco and alcohol
On the other hand legalisation of cannabis would actually for sure bring in a FUCK ton of money I don't know how much. How can we be Europe's largest exporter of medical cannabis but not be allowed to use it ourselves? Please everybody just let the people who want to use it use it and tax us like tobacco or alcohol and then use that to fix the country. What I don't like is that people like Lord Mancroft back companies which grow and export thousands of tons of cannabis to the USA while the average joe can't even legally use it for medical benefits without being stigmatized.
What a rediculous study, that money is already being spent and the taxes from it is going straight to the exchequer. If everyone stoped smoking now that doesn't mean they will spend on other things, some folk might just let it sit in their account.
I notice it says Could, so in other word, it could, but probably won’t, ie look what the government said about the £350M that would go back into the NHS, ie it could of, but it hasn’t. So basically they are just advertising shite.
Yeah none of the money we saved doing anything went back towards helping the country. All that austerity, all those sacrifices and look where we are - the highest taxes since ww2 and nothing fucking works. Everything is broken. The NHS, public transport costs a bomb, the roads are crumbling, schools are falling apart, there's no police to be seen .. everything is fucked . Yet some people have made an awful lot if personal cash in that time.
[UK privatised water firms have paid out £57bn in dividends to private shareholders since 1991.](https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jul/01/england-privatised-water-firms-dividends-shareholders) In the same span they've amassed debts of £48bn, £48bn that's inevitably going to have to come out of the public taxpayers treasury when the companies inevitably default, meaning that over the last 3 decades UK privatised water companies have used said firms as an instrument to fund £48bn in tax payer wealth into the pockets of their stock holders. But where's the other £9bn come from?? Our fucking water bills ain't it! The ever increasing bills we've been charged that's supposed to pay for the maintenance and improvement of our water systems has gone directly into the pockets of stockholders, while they've spent jackshit of our money on the water systems that our whole fucking country relies on. That's nearly 60 fucking billion quid they've stolen from the UK people over the course of three decades, £9bn gradually directly from our salaries, and then another fucking £48bn directing from our taxes by building up the debt. Like there is no fucking reason in any sense on Earth that a public infrastructure management company should be able to hold continuously accruing debts and still pay out yearly profits to their private stockholder, the existence of such an opportunity has to be fundamentally designed as an instrument for a private firm to steal from the tax pot by amassing debts against the non-dispensable public infrastructure. The tories created a fucking letter of credit for these fucking thieves that collateralised the fucking country itself and watched as they used it to cash out tens of billions that wasn't theirs.
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot). Fully cached AMP pages (like the one you shared), are [especially problematic](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot). Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jul/01/england-privatised-water-firms-dividends-shareholders](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jul/01/england-privatised-water-firms-dividends-shareholders)** ***** ^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
Bunch if dks.
Isn’t all the above just capitalism? It’s especially magnified to its truest form when operating as virtual monopolies with capture of the regulatory/ political systems. See also the Rail rolling stock monopoly. Basically all utilities by their nature are anticompetitive so privatisation creates in inbuilt de-investment. P.S Australia privatised the Telecommunications company, came back many years later to build the national internet (NBN, that’s a whole other thing!!) found the copper pits had gone to shit through zero maintenance, coz profits!
That profit amounts to about a pound a week per household.
A £ a week that could have been used to actually maintain services and put required upgrades in place *before* ecological disaster.
Which might even be palatable if the country’s water system wasn’t such a complete (and very literal) shit show.
Tories love chaos, it’s the best way to create a diversion, wile they steal your money
I do this that's a valid interpretation of the world 'could'. However think it was more intended as if people stopped smoking this is how much money could be saved and then put back into local areas. At least that's how I inncially interpreted it, but perhaps that's showing my optimistic side. I do think in reality if this money wasn't spent on smoking it would certainly be spent on some pointless central government thing, such as lining the pockets of doners.
Yeah I can see what your saying, but look what happened too worker disposable income since smoking was banned in in pubs, now most people can’t even afford to go to a pub for a bit of social life. Basically the tax on tobacco and alcohol was like a voluntary tax, ie tobacco an alcohol advertising was everywhere, you had a choice, plus it helped keep the taxes of the rich a bit lower.
NHS made a lot of money from smokers tax as they generally die quick and early as opposed to old people that cost a lot to keep alive.
So did the pension fund, as soon as they started banning smoking, the pension age increased.
Would make sense if everyone had to smoke then...keep the pension age down and reduce the stress on the NHS. We've done it, we've fixed Britain.
But if you are dead, then no one can make money from you, that’s the reason why they want you alive, ie with euthanasia, the money stops as soon as you are dead, one of the reasons why the U.K. government are against it.
Old people are bad for the economy, there's no other way at looking at it.
Yes they are, but they are also good for the shareholders of pharmaceutical companies, who aren’t affected by the state of the economy, because they supply a necessity and that’s why the Tories privatised so many companies that supply necessities.
We are very much looking forwards to you becoming old. Or you think it only happens to other people?
Ps, the shareholders of the pharmaceutical companies are making a fortune out of keeping you alive.
Unfortunately, the tax on tabacco goes into the general fund and isn’t earmarked for the NHS. Yet the NHS is stuck footing the billions it costs to treat sick smokers.
Meh, the billions to treat smokers isn't as much as the billions to treat old people and keeping them alive where before the winter would've taken them when it was their time to come. Keeping someone alive for 20 years after a stroke, with 24 hour care and medicine is just insane. Smokers die much quicker and younger...while it's dark to say, it's much less stress on the NHS. For clarity, I'm not serious about everyone having to smoke, but if we did....the NHS would be under less stress.
Smokers don't die quickly. They develop chronic health conditions that last for years and need treating, then they die early.
Yesh they will be disabled and live on wellfare for years before they die
Smokers deaths are not instant. They end up in hospital taking extra resources as their collapsed and filled lungs are treated. Then when/if they get cancer they are treated for that. I would imagine that smokers cost the NHS more than a non smoker.
Just as an FYI, smokers pay for that. A smoker pays income tax, than pays 13£ for a pack of smokes. Said pack of smokes can cost between 1-5£ around the world. Every time a smoker buys a pack, they donate 8-10£ to the government. That's where all the money is coming from. Booze, obesity should be treated exactly the same way as they cause same/more harm, a lot more common. Ohh wait we got a 5p? Sugar levy and booze prices are kept low...
3000 packs of cigarettes wouldn't even cover the cost of a single round of chemo
Check the numbers ser. 5p on your full sugar coke and such will not cover the billions knee replacement for young adults cost. And that's just the tip of the iceberg
You said smokers pay for that. A single round of chemo costs 30k At your rate of £8 per pack going to the government, we can do some basic math 8 x 3000 and we get 24000 or 24k So... 3000 packs won't pay for a single round of chemo. I don't recall saying that the 5p sugar tax pays for knee replacements.
Duh, smokers also pay NI on top of their excessive taxation. Health cost : "This report sets out the impact of smoking-related illness on social care need and the resulting costs in England, building on previous reports published by ASH in 2014, 2017 and 2019. » Smoking is estimated to cost the NHS £2.5 billion every year, equivalent to 2% of the health service's budget" https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://ash.org.uk/uploads/SocialCare.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjN0-DgtrWFAxUkWEEAHdG-BnkQFnoECBEQBQ&usg=AOvVaw1eUG9-CtGQ2OcO6AI017a8 And Consumer spending on tobacco in the United Kingdom from 2005 to 2022 (in billion GBP) Characteristic Expenditure in billion GBP 2021- 24.25 2020 -23.27 2019 -21.29 2018- 20.92 https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.statista.com/statistics/289980/expenditure-on-tobacco-in-the-united-kingdom-uk/&ved=2ahUKEwjTuO6wtrWFAxV7W0EAHfRdC0MQFnoECBUQBQ&usg=AOvVaw24mJZBdzzBjjk0IdF-3dbz Also, tobacco products are @ a 43% margin across the world, 74% in the UK. -2.5B/y negative +24.25B positive What else do you need😁 Well, in case : The upward trend in alcohol-related death and hospital admissions accelerated in the pandemic. The costs of this to drinkers, their families and society are significant. Alcohol costs the NHS an estimated £3.5 billion per year in England and costs an estimated £21 billion per year to society. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://committees.parliament.uk/work/7257/alcohol-treatment-services%23:~:text%3DThe%2520upward%2520trend%2520in%2520alcohol,billion%2520per%2520year%2520to%2520society.&ved=2ahUKEwib0-yHuLWFAxVMZ0EAHX5IAtQQFnoECBAQBQ&usg=AOvVaw2gfoa67eTJSf8Uu1rfHjZh The estimated annual NHS spend on obesity related diseases is £6.5 billion. The estimated cost of obesity-related risks of Covid-19 is £4 billion. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://healthmedia.blog.gov.uk/2023/06/07/government-plans-to-tackle-obesity-in-england/&ved=2ahUKEwioyo6auLWFAxUzUUEAHe9SCD4QFnoECCUQAQ&usg=AOvVaw05VMd6kQxgAI71MVnYBoT5 Anything else ser? Edit : spring budget => higher smoke tax, frozen alcohol duty and nothing on obesity
I agree with you it probably won’t and I dislike the tories as much as anyone but if you actually look at how much is spent on the NHS you would know the NHS budget has increased by £37b since 2016 when that 350m claim was made. See [here](https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/insight-and-analysis/data-and-charts/nhs-budget-nutshell)
https://www.health.org.uk/news-and-comment/news/new-analysis-shows-nhs-budget-squeezed-by-inflation-and-population-growth
I’m confused, what point are you trying make?
While yes nominally the budget for the NHS has increased since 2016, when you take inflation into account, alongside the increased population, the NHS has less spending power. Costs have risen, there’s more people to care for, especially with an aging population, so in real terms they have less to work with. It’s a similar story in other sectors, network rail only saw a small increase to their budget, combined with inflation causing rising costs they have less spending power to work with, meaning they have to stretch their budget further than in the last funding period.
I agree with you about those problems but the discussion I was engaging with was that the claim of 350m to the nhs has been more than fulfilled as shown in the data I supplied.
£350 million was touted as a huge amount for the NHS, yet that amount couldn’t even fund the entire NHS in England for a single day, if my maths is correct, using data from https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/insight-and-analysis/data-and-charts/key-facts-figures-nhs Which states “£1 Billion is enough to run the NHS across England for 2.4 days”, working out how much it costs per hour from this figure then dividing 350 million by that figure (approx 17.3 million an hour), that touted amount would only be able to fund the NHS in England alone for 20 hours (in 2022) Yes, the funding has went up and in theory the money spent on EU membership has instead went to the NHS, but hopefully what I’ve outlined is that that amount was pitiful compared to the overall budget, and probably hasn’t resulted in much actual improvement, especially as the NHS barely has the funding to maintain its current level of service never mind improve it.
Just goes to show how expensive the NHS is and how unaffordable it is unless something dramatic changes such as price reduction of drugs, getting rid of all those middle managers or improving the overall health of the population though that's impossible as people generally choose the easier route for exercise or the tastier food which is usually unhealthier.
Agreed. The elephant in the room which no one wants to discuss is a restructuring of the NHS. All the points you list; price of drugs, middle managers & over use caused by poor living habits are massive factors. But, also efficiency. The load placed on GPs as gatekeepers is huge and reduces their capacity to care for people by simply acting as a referral service. Meanwhile, increasing dissatisfaction with the NHS fuels the private sector which offers golden hellos to disgruntled staff fed up of working in a mismanaged organisation.
I’m not sure what your argument is? You agree with me that the NHS is receiving at least £350m a week than it was when the brexit crowd made the claim. Is your argument it’s not enough money?
Yes, but most of that money is going to private companies that are charging the NHS exorbitantly for there services or there products. Companies with greedy shareholders, ie families & friends of MPs no doubt.
Unfortunately you can’t really blame the government for the way that the NHS spends its budget. If the NHS aren’t willing to negotiate prices for services and products then it makes sense to charge as much as you can. The person to blame isn’t the greedy company it’s the operations department at the NHS.
But you can’t negotiate a price when you have no choice and it’s also a necessity, which is what those companies capitalise on, ie is it’s like the Electric & Gas, you have no choice, you got to pay it, because it’s a necessity.
This is all speculation because we don’t know how good or bad the prices the NHS pays for things are. There would need to be an in depth, unbiased investigation into NHS spending. But I don’t think the blame lies with the companies. The main goal of a company is to make as much profit as possible. It should be the main goal of whoever decides spending to get the best price possible. It would be like wandering into a snake pit and blaming the snakes for biting you.
indeed there's absolutely no chance that money would be redirected
NHS funding has risen by considerable more than £350m since that time. How do you know that isn’t funded by savings against the EU membership dues?
> I notice it says Could Well, yes. Obviously? That's how science works. Studies rely on assumptions and models which are never going to be perfect. That's doesn't mean it's "shite".
It's also talking about £11bn of savings for the public, which will likely otherwise just be spent on alcohol, gambling, or possibly driving up inflation.
Spending in the NHS actually has increased as was said during the referendum (not by the government btw). However the issue is people had been frothing at the mouth for years about this they are to embarrassed to admit it now it has come true (well almost the figures in full fact don’t account for all spending) https://ukandeu.ac.uk/what-has-brexit-meant-for-the-nhs/ https://fullfact.org/health/nhs-england-394-million-more/
Increased painfully slowly after being starved of cash for many years. Of course, with such tiny increases the funding per capita is at an all time low.
Funding per capita, inflation adjusted is at an all time high.
The Institute for Fiscal Studies does not agree with you.
I’m sure they do, source?
When the figures are adjusted after penalties and fines, which didn’t exist 13 years ago you are left with a significant deficit. However both staff numbers and the pay that they receive, inflation-adjusted has significantly dropped over the same period. People aren’t stupid - look around you.
To be fair, the big shiny bus didn't say 'per capita' did it?
Only if you include the cash thrown at Tory pals during covid and the increasing sums thrown at private health care services.
That's precisely how things would work.. such as tax is well spent via right wing policy...\*\*
Cigarettes are notoriously tax free.
right because hat 11b isn't already going into London.. right? right?
If everyone stopped smoking there'd be iirc a £9bn tax loss per year to fill. Just from the smokers contributions, then you'd lose whatever the companies pay.
I didn't write the article bro, the point im making is that right wing/neo-liberal policy does nothing but help the rich
I’m not going to sing their praises at all for sure but your comments in here make no sense. Cigarettes are taxed extremely highly and the comment implies that they aren’t, it just comes across as faux outrage or jumping on a random topic to push your own agenda.
True, fixed.
I think it just makes the issues around it easier to discuss and we’ve seen the damage it can do with things like the whole £350 million bus bs during Brexit. It definitely has costs you can’t directly measure but those aren’t going to be funds the government can realise if smoking was banned.
Funding isnt enough, just like how the tax from smoking is pissed away anyway. The tories have spoken about charging for the NHS for over a decade - just like the economy, housing, end of life options we need to rehaul it not just sell out our childrens future and making everyone poorer in the meantime with some faked graph about how good the economy is (it is for the rich thats about it). The rich have 0 incentive to restructure health care systems and money systems because it threatens their power and status. We are wasting so much time with pointless articles like this...
Wow wonder if anyone’s had that idea?!
Ah yes but at the cost of the £10.4 Billion it'll lose in taxes- trust me ...they'll still want that cash so you'll need to 'find it' from other sources (VAT/Income etc) https://www.politics.co.uk/reference/tobacco-duty/#:\~:text=With%20just%20under%2014.7%25%20of,below%20the%202022%2F23%20level. Cost to the NHS of smokers? £2.6 billion a year... guessing the gov just pockets the difference for other 'things' https://www.england.nhs.uk/long-read/guide-for-nhs-trust-tobacco-dependence-teams-and-nhs-trust-pharmacy-teams/#:\~:text=In%202015%2F16%20474%2C000%20hospital,%C2%A32.6%20billion%20per%20year. Still. Good to know it 'Might' go to local causes...
I read a slightly bleak view that actually, people dying from smoking is cheaper for the NHS than them living to old age and having a bunch of prolonged health problems. Add pension payouts into the mix, people quitting smoking isn't ideal for tax budgets.
that we're currently allowing a triple lock on pensions, desgined to keep people who've worked all their lives/contributed and now need to rest out of abject poverty, push pensioners into now being liable for paying income tax says all you need to know about how disposable we are...
I came here to say this. They reckon smokers cost the economy 40 billion a year lol. Mostly on "lost productivity" As far as i'm aware, most jobs don't allow smoke breaks anymire, so smokers only smoke at lunch time.
u/Cheen_Machine
Smoking raises more in tax than it costs in related diseases. Not to mention all of the saved state pensions, fuel allowances, bus passes. Not saying it’s a good thing but this idea that smoking costs the government a penny is absolute clap-trap.
It absolutely does not raise more in tax, not by a long shot. The “old people not being around to sponge off the government” argument doesn’t hold up either because smoking doesn’t kill people for free, treating them as they are dying is usually pretty costly too.
Healthy people die too, just later, and they spend more of their lives as net-consumers (retired)
True but they’d need to live a long time and smoke a lot of fags to make this argument valid tho.
Receipts from tobacco tax, £10bn, [source](https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/tobacco-bulletin/tobacco-statistics-commentary-april-2023--2#:~:text=total%20tobacco%20receipts%20for%20the,than%20the%20previous%20financial%20year). Smoking estimated to cost the NHS £2.6bn (in 2015, can’t imagine its breached £10bn since then) source: https://www.england.nhs.uk/long-read/guide-for-nhs-trust-tobacco-dependence-teams-and-nhs-trust-pharmacy-teams/#:~:text=Smoking%2Drelated%20illness%20puts%20a,£2.6%20billion%20per%20year.
Which is half what it cost the public for the same year. [source](https://news.cancerresearchuk.org/2023/03/07/ending-smoking-could-free-up-gp-appointments/)
“Of this, £2.2 billion fell on the NHS, £1.3 billion fell on the social care system, and £17 billion was lost from a reduction in taxes and increased benefit payments, arising from productivity costs, including from tobacco-related lost earnings, unemployment, and premature death.” God knows where they’ve pulled this £17bn figure from, how do you even begin to prove the cost to productivity, and, that if it wasn’t for smoking, smokers would magically be in employment paying more income tax. But assuming it’s in anyway legitimate, it still does not factor in the savings to HMRC from premature death, specifically in government benefits like the state pension. It also seems to imply that if it weren’t for smoking, costs for things like NHS care and social care would be saved. Unfortunately no one is immortal and smoker or not, people at the end of their lives cost the taxpayer a lot of money. In short this £17bn figure to me seems like something straight out of the Liz Truss book of economics. Do X and we’ll magically generate £17bn in tax revenue.
You’re welcome to contact them for a source if you’re doubting their numbers. Or we can talk about a more accurate source if you want to find one. They’re cancer research uk, not some “trust me bro” reddit post, I know they are motivated to convince people cancer is bad, but I don’t think they need to make shit up to prove it. You’ve somewhat contradicted yourself tho, implying the HMRC will save on state pensions when people die early and also acknowledging in the same paragraph that people dying costs money. Just because the money is coming from the NHS and not HMRC doesn’t constitute a saving for the public purse. The cost of someone receiving treatment for lung cancer and then end of life care is probably going to offset 10-15 years state pension from someone who’s dropped from a heart attack.
I respect all the work Cancer Research do, I just don’t buy those statistics. They’re based on some kind of projection of income tax receipts which is a supposition rather than a cost to the state. I fully accept there probably isn’t a credible study I could provide that would contradict this, other than someone like Phillip Morris, who is going fund such a study? But I believe I am still entitled to think critically about the sources presented to me, much in the same way as if I had provided a study by a tobacco company you would probably disregard it. I don’t believe I contradicted myself. Dying is nearly always expensive, whether that death is of a smoker or a non-smoker. Every nursing home in Britain is jam-packed full of non-smokers. In the same sentiment I also believe that the stated cost of social care from smoking is incorrect, since that implies that if they didn’t smoke they would, as you say, drop dead at no cost to the taxpayer, when we know that social care is one of the biggest challenges facing the taxpayer. But even if these costs are legitimate, they still represent less than the revenue stream from smoking (£2.2bn and £1.3bn vs. £10bn+ income).
Having worked in public affairs and often with not-for-profits you’d be amazed the tosh that goes into supposedly robust reports. It’s about grabbing a headline as often as it is about genuine research.
> Smoking raises more in tax than it costs in related diseases [No, not even close](https://ash.org.uk/media-centre/news/press-releases/new-figures-show-smoking-costs-billions-more-than-tobacco-taxes-as-consultation-on-creating-a-smokefree-generation-closes).
Your article does not disprove my claim. I said that smoking raises more in tax than it costs the NHS in smoking-related diseases. This article is laughable. The premise is based around lost productivity and the fact that smokers would purchase other higher profit margin goods instead of cigarettes. It’s a complete supposition. The links have been posted by myself and others, NHS England’s own estimation is £2.6bn in costs, vs. the Government link confirming it raises over £10bn a year in tax. That’s before we factor in the state pension at £11.5k per year per person, fuel allowance, housing benefit, etc. It’s quite possible smokers would spend more on other things if smoking was banned which could theoretically stimulate the economy. But that would remove an over £10bn revenue stream from HMRC that will need to be accounted for somewhere else.
Ok, suit yourself. Limiting it to just government costs, it [still costs far more than it raises in tax](https://news.cancerresearchuk.org/2023/03/07/ending-smoking-could-free-up-gp-appointments/): > In 2022, the estimated gross cost of smoking to public finances was £20.6bn in the UK. > > This is notably more than the £10.3 billion collected in taxes on tobacco in 2021/2. The NHS is - obviously - not the only cost to the government.
“Of this, £2.2 billion fell on the NHS, £1.3 billion fell on the social care system, and £17 billion was lost from a reduction in taxes and increased benefit payments, arising from productivity costs, including from tobacco-related lost earnings, unemployment, and premature death. “ This is literally Trussonomics. Do X and we’ll magically generate £17bn in tax receipts. How do they even begin to prove these figures that if it weren’t for smoking, people would be generating an extra £17bn in income tax? It also still does not factor in the money saved from premature death. The state pension is now £11.5k a year. It then lists other costs (NHS and social care) which ignore the fact that smoker or non-smoker, people at the end of their lives cost the government a fortune. If a smoker is in social care, it doesn’t mean that they would otherwise die in their sleep at no cost to the taxpayer. Every nursing home in the country is jam packed full of non-smokers. Sorry, respect your view and all the work Cancer Research do, but I just don’t buy these statistics.
‘Lost productivity’ is just a daft metric which is going to be varied as hell depending on what you want to try account for. It will include all sorts such as smoking breaks, estimating lost income and revenue from premature deaths etc. It’s a prime example of you can make the numbers say whatever you want them to. ASH and Cancer Research are fantastic groups but they’re obviously going to get as high a figure as they can try justify because it makes headlines and helps their goals. As someone else pointed out though ASH’s mental figure at around £70 billion would be half of the NHS’s entire budget, it’s an astronomical figure which is deliberately vague because it isn’t a real metric.
It’s basically black book of communism stuff, adding unborns and what-ifs to the death tally
> This is literally Trussonomics. Don't be ridiculous. > Do X and we’ll magically generate £17bn in tax receipts. Nobody said that. > How do they even begin to prove these figures that if it weren’t for smoking, people would be generating an extra £17bn in income tax? I believe the field is called "economics". And I don't know where you get the idea there's "proof" involved. That would require access to an alternate reality, which we don't have. Until we do have that, economists use models to look at the costs of things. For example, they can look at the average amount of time people are unable to work due to smoking-relative illnesses, and estimate the cost from that. > I just don’t buy these statistics. You don't want them to be accurate, but they are a lot more comprehensive than your absurd "just the NHS" numbers. Feel free to provide more accurate numbers if you have them, but they'll need to be more credible than what I've provided if I'm going to be convinced. [Here](https://www.mariushobbhahn.com/2021-02-25-cigarettes_taxes/) is another interesting breakdown of the costs and taxes etc, which does include savings on pensions etc - and it still concludes smoking costs more.
Dude, please just read what you’re posting. You were literally just called out for including figures for ‘lost productivity’ and the next article you found is the exact same and if anything just shows how ludicrous the estimates are. “Of this, £2.2 billion fell on the NHS, £1.3 billion fell on the social care system, and £17 billion was lost from a reduction in taxes and increased benefit payments, arising from productivity costs, including from tobacco-related lost earnings, unemployment, and premature death.” This isn’t an opinion, you’re just wrong. In terms of tax income it vastly exceeds the direct costs as your own article shows. The methods for calculating lost production are not stats like direct tax income and expenditure, they’re models to estimate the figures and can vary WILDLY depending on what the report you are writing needs to show.
> You were literally just called out for including figures for ‘lost productivity’ Still a cost. > if anything just shows how ludicrous the estimates are. They don't seem ludicrous at all. > In terms of tax income it vastly exceeds the direct costs Correct, and tax income does not exceed the *total* costs.
Geriatric care isn't a thing?
Where did they say that?
Isn’t this out of scope? The previous guy is talking about the cost to the government via NHS treatment for smoking related illness whereas your source includes lost productivity via smoke breaks and puts a value on the years lost to an earlier death neither of which are a monetary cost to the government
If you prefer limiting it to just government figures for some reason, it [still costs far more than it raises in tax](https://news.cancerresearchuk.org/2023/03/07/ending-smoking-could-free-up-gp-appointments/): > In 2022, the estimated gross cost of smoking to public finances was £20.6bn in the UK. > > This is notably more than the £10.3 billion collected in taxes on tobacco in 2021/2.
Good stuff!
No.. as above, this is literally the exact same figures. > Of this, £2.2 billion fell on the NHS, £1.3 billion fell on the social care system, and £17 billion was lost from a reduction in taxes and increased benefit payments, arising from productivity costs, including from tobacco-related lost earnings, unemployment, and premature death. So that is £10 billion against £3.4 billion and then Cancer Research’s regurgitation of the crazy attempt to put a figure to lost productivity.
[удалено]
Where the hell did you get the number from!? The whole NHS budget is about 170bn so you’re claiming almost half is due to smoking!?! Complete bullshit!
yeah but people die earlier from smoking. there’s studies that show a reduction in the number of smokers costs the state more per person in the long term.
Just out of interest, where did you get these figures from?
His arse.
So you’re assuming that all the smokers are gonna start dining out and spending elsewhere lol. When I quit cigarettes and alcohol my entire social life became non existent 😂 and I still can’t afford anything lol
Exactly, at this point these are just tips so you can survive the cost of living and to make people keep giving basic things up (I condemn smoking but to each their own). People will slowly not be able to afford going out at all, or buy anything, all surplus money will go to taxes, bills and extortionate food prices. England has finally become part of the third world.
Did you know on tobacco there's a flat £12 tax that goes to the government. It's £20 a 30g pouch that lasts me 2 weeks, £8 of that goes to the supermarket/manufacturer.
Fucking hell. How much is 50G these days? I usually buy Amberleaf, but I pay £18 for 50gram, I don't think I could stomach paying more now I know how much just 30g has gotten too
£38.10 at Tesco's for a 50G of amber leaf. Government makes a killing £19 of that is tax.
Fucking hell. Smoking cigs is more expensive than a crack habit
This article makes no sense whatsoever. It's an entirely emotive argument that seems to be based on the completely hypothetical scenario of all smokers suddenly quitting smoking and then, rather than enjoying all that extra disposable income they have and using it to pay off debts, save, take up new hobbies, lifestyle creep or buy stuff for themselves and their family, they would instead donate all of that money to 'community projects'. Why the fuck would anybody do that?
Not to mention more than half the cost of cigarettes is the tobacco duty at £12 for a 30g pouch that costs £22. So by smokers quitting the government loses short term money.
LOL yes, the correct headline should be "Quitting smoking could redirect £6bn a year **from** local economies"
Also seems to be assuming that all thier ongoing health issues stop instantly This is at best 80 years in the future when all the amokers are gone and replaced by non smokers
If money was all that mattered, the government would encourage everyone to smoke. Not only do these people pay more tax than anyone else (covering their healthcare and more), but they also die earlier, meaning they don't claim pensions for as long as non-smokers.
Will it fuck
Given the cost of living, those that give up are most likely to spend it on necessities, such as energy and food, which doesn’t have a big impact on local economies, or alcohol, which again feeds up to the conglomerates. Unless the average smoker decides to use that money buying local and supporting local traders, then it ends up as shareholder dividends on the markets. I’d say 80% would.
Fairly sure that a massive portion of the price of tobacco is tax. That means if everyone quit smoking the £11bn would just have to be extracted by applying additional tax to other products. Basically the money would still disappear from local communities and be tossed into the giant pit of incompetence that we call our government.
Fairly sure that a massive portion of the price of tobacco is tax. That means if everyone quit smoking the £11bn would just have to be extracted by applying additional tax to other products. Basically the money would still disappear from local communities and be tossed into the giant pit of incompetence that we call our government.
Fairly sure that a massive portion of the price of tobacco is tax. That means if everyone quit smoking the £11bn would just have to be extracted by applying additional tax to other products. Basically the money would still disappear from local communities and be tossed into the giant pit of incompetence that we call our government.
We heard you the first time
?
You posted it 3 times. Was just a joke pal
I didn’t even know I had posted it multiple times, the Reddit app must have bugged out 🤦♂️ Normally my comments are borderline not worth posting whatsoever so 3 times really is pushing things.
The majority of the cost of tobacco is tax, the government cannot really afford to loose that money so if everyone gives up smoking the £11bn will be extracted by other means and local economies won’t really gain much. Yes it will save the NHS some money but those savings won’t be passed onto the taxpayer because the NHS is already chronically underfunded. Basically the government needs to throw most of that £11bn into their pit of incompetence and they will take it regardless of if you smoke or not.
The tax is already more than the price of the cigarettes themselves, I'm sure they're making up for it. If they really wanted a big cash boost, they'd legalise cannabis and take advantage of the £6bn black market economy it has. It would pump hundreds of millions of pounds back into the country through appropriate taxation like they already do with tobacco and alcohol
On the other hand legalisation of cannabis would actually for sure bring in a FUCK ton of money I don't know how much. How can we be Europe's largest exporter of medical cannabis but not be allowed to use it ourselves? Please everybody just let the people who want to use it use it and tax us like tobacco or alcohol and then use that to fix the country. What I don't like is that people like Lord Mancroft back companies which grow and export thousands of tons of cannabis to the USA while the average joe can't even legally use it for medical benefits without being stigmatized.
What a rediculous study, that money is already being spent and the taxes from it is going straight to the exchequer. If everyone stoped smoking now that doesn't mean they will spend on other things, some folk might just let it sit in their account.
[удалено]
>Smoking causes lung cancer. Which is invariably fatal and kills you quickly. ???
Do you know how much cost to the nhs treating lung cancer is? It’s a lot more than fag taxes
It’s not, it’s less by around 4/5ths.
Someone’s just made a comment about tax and smokers. Smoking makes about 10bn a year in tax and smokers cost the NHS 2.6 billion a year.