The idea that we should cut the number of smokers on the basis of economics is I’m afraid a seriously flawed one. Let’s take a look at the numbers.
In 2007 - 2008 (the last year full figures were available for) the Revenue’s excise take on tobacco products was £8.1 billion with a VAT take of £1.8 billion leading to a total of £10bn a year in revenue. (Estimates for 08-09 put the figure even higher at around £10.7bn.)
So in an admittedly simplistic argument if we halve the number of smokers then we halve that revenue (although in reality most of it will come from the hardened smokers who won’t quit but lets go with it anyway) so the government would only receive £5bn in a year rather than £10bn.
On the other side treating smoking related diseases costs the NHS £2.7bn a year, so if we halve the number of smokers we can expect a saving of approximately half or £1.35bn.
Subtracting the saving from the lost revenue we see that by cutting the number of smokers in half the government is down by £3.65bn a year or the equivalent of around seventy six thousand police officers a year (at £48,000 a year based on Home Office numbers).
Now I don't disagree that cutting smoking numbers is a good idea, a very good idea in fact, but the effect of this will mean that as well as trying to cut public spending because of the deficit over the next 10 years we’ll also be needing to save £3.65bn a year, or just disband the police force.
Just increase the tax on tobacco to make up for the lost income.
ReplyDeleteI have to ask but just how do they plan to cut the number of smokers in half in just ten years?
By:
ReplyDelete- Banning smoking outside public entrances to buildings on top of the ban we have already inside public buildings
-Promoting smoke free homes and cars
- trying to make it harder for under age people to get cigarettes
- Cracking down on smuggled cigarettes that are cheaper (so raising the price)
- Plain packaging for cigarette cartons (why that will help I don't know)
- Offering people free tailored quite cmoking packages on the NHS
All in all, they don't really know
"- Banning smoking outside public entrances to buildings on top of the ban we have already inside public buildings"
ReplyDeleteDid you know that in Florida that a man was killed because he left a shelter to smoke during a hurricane? He was hit by a tree. So while I think it is a good idea I don't think it will make that big of a difference.
"-Promoting smoke free homes and cars"
See above.
"- trying to make it harder for under age people to get cigarettes"
Always a good idea but shouldn't that just be enforcing current laws?
"- Cracking down on smuggled cigarettes that are cheaper (so raising the price)"
Good plan and should increase revenue. Again just enforcing current laws really.
"- Plain packaging for cigarette cartons (why that will help I don't know)"
Humm... I can see banning all forms of advertising including store displays to make it less attractive to younger people.
"- Offering people free tailored quite cmoking packages on the NHS"
This may help but but the thing is that people must want to stop smoking to stop smoking.
Over all I would guess that if they are lucky they might get a 5% to 10% decrease in smokers in ten years. Not a terrible return for the effort but I would say that 50% is a fantasy. But that is just my opinion. In the words of the Great Douglas Adams I would say this plan is at best, "Mostly harmless".