Cost to UK if people really did stop smoking

Have copied this across from the Firemen without sirens thread to avoid dragging it off topic.

spunkymonkey said:
sr.medic said:
As for the smoking ban...good idea..Smokers cost the NHS over £5 billion a year on treatment for diseases caused by smoking. £5 fooking Billion.... almost a quarter of what the MOD get for the defence budget.
Sorry, sr, but whatever other arguments are used, the financial one simply doesn't add up.

An HM Treasury study into smuggling, here, estimated that in 1999 - the latest figures I can find - smuggled tobacco accounted for about 17% of consumption.

By losing the tax on that, they estimated a loss of £2.5 billion per year for the government. That means that 8 years ago (in which time tobacco tax has risen way above inflation) the remaining 83% that they did collect came to roughly £12.2 billion. That in intself pays for your 5 billion nearly 2 1/2 times over.

Plus the taxes they raise from Imperial Tobacco (profit of £668 million in 6 months to May '07). Plus the income tax paid by the employees of said company. Plus the saving in geriatric care and a lot of NHS treatments made by the fact that a high percentage of smokers never make it to an age when they suffer from typical old age ilnesses. Plus local shops that only survive on sales when people pop in for a packet of fags - there's a lot of them in rural areas!

If we all stop smoking, your income tax has to cover all that and more. So by all means argue the anti-smoking case, but please don't try and use "cost to the NHS" as a reason ;)

Back on topic - firemen without sirens? Fooking nuts!!! :D

sr.medic said:
Spunky monkey.....I meant that the treatment themselves cost 5 Billion pound a year..the cost of medication, X-rays, cancer treatment, operations, transplants all that costs approx 5 Billion puond a year....

Working within th emedical world for the past 13 years, I know what costs and what doesnt within the NHS..
Understood that, sr.medic. My point was that the taxation on smokers (for smoking) raises over twice the cost of the treatment they receive for the Treasury.

If the Treasury doesn't pass that money to the NHS then that's their choice, but to say that "smokers cost the NHS" is wrong. What happens is, the Government doesn't pass on the money they raise from smoking to the department tht deals with it. A bit like the oil companies saying that they "make a loss at the pumps" because they charge themselves inflated prices at the wells. It's phantom accounting to support an unsupportable position.

Look at it another way - smokers contribute about £12 billion to the Treasury each year. They cost the Treasury (via the NHS) £5 billion. Would you be quite so anti if the Treasury gave the full £12 million raised directly to the NHS - giving a net profit of £7 billion? My guess is that, in that case, your attitude would be "if you're stupid enough to kill yourself and give all this money to the NHS by doing it, then crack on"
The government can rattlke its sabers as much as it wants, but I have to admit, I'm concerned about what is going to suffer if they make any more attempts to make smoking unsustainable. That's a lot of money to go missing from the treasury.
I wonder where they get that £5 Billion figure from? I thought 85% of us just died within 12 months of diagnosis, of lung cancer that is. No doubt anyone who went in for treatment for anything and checked the smoking box got included. I wonder how much amateur footballers cost the NHS-daft example but I don't see a tax on dangerous sports or sitting on your fat arrse eating burgers. I've smoked like a chimney for 33 years and never went to a doctor with anything related to smoking. If it's costing the country so much then ban it.
I'm a smoker.

I pay a fortune in taxes (far more than my treatment will ever cost) and I will have the good manners to die 10 yrs younger than a non smker thereby saving the nation a fortune in pensions.

Smoking is nasty, smelly and offends a lot of people (though not mine cos I am aware of the fact). Slam it on many grounds but not cost/benefit analysis.

New Posts

Latest Threads