If smoking cost the NHS £1.9bn and cigarette sales generate £9bn then
 

how is the extra revinue goning to be generated to cover the £7bn shortfall to the treasury?

Health issues aside

Being smokes contribute £7bn

Fuel duty
NI

any thoughts???

Don't forget the cost of people taking time off work due to smoking related illnesses, who are claiming benefits instead of paying taxes.

Personally I'd happily pay an extra few quid on income tax, in return for the ability to go out at night and not come back stinking like an ash tray.

I'd be interested to see the stats that show workers who smoke are off sick significantly more than those that don't. At a place I used to work, the only 2 people who didn't have a sick day in the 5 years I was there were both smokers. OK small sample size, but I'd still be interested to see if you can actually account for the full 7bn shortfall in terms of days lost due to smoking related illness. I suspect not, and I think your tax (income or otherwise) would need to increase by more than a couple of quid, personally I don't want to pay for the shorfall - the smokers can keep smoking as far as I am concerned.

Smoking is a disgusting habit anyway,forget the money issue.
Why its cool to pay to give yourself cancer,ruin your lungs and give yourself crap skin in old age is beyond me.

I don't think too many adults think it is cool, but then not too many people start smoking once they are an adult either.

Perhaps if i had typed a bit slower you would have been able to understand my original post ;)

I am interested in the money side.

I understand the health issues including passive smoking.

I am interested in where the extra ££££'s are coming from to cover ths shortfall of £9bn if all smokers packed it in.

But they won't, Paul, so why your concern?

I was listening to a debate on smoking on R5 live this morning and was interested. suprised by the amount - £9bn generated!

I recon that we will all have to stump up the cash in one form or another.

If all smokers were to stop overnight (i.e. it's banned) then yes, of course we would, the exchequer isn't going to take a year on year hit of that size with continued smoking related ilness coming through for a decade or more after. The bigger question is the "How", i.e. income tax or a cancer hospital bed tax for example!

I actually thought the margin was alot lower. I thought it was like £7bn in and £5bn out in NHS costs. Bit shocking if its as much as £7bn.

Can only assume everything else will go up in order to compensate.

Legalise canabis - I watched a program ages ago which ran a marketing exercise on chocolate containing cannabis. Once they added the estimated government taxes I think you got 5 small chocs for £75 :eek: !

I fully understand our original post,but i'm in a knee jerk reaction mood today.:p.....

Bulk buy on cannabis befor they legalise it then. Can just see the scoobynet thread - what sells well on ebay A: cannabis.

This government can't afford the shortfall that would occur if people stopped smoking as they already spend a lot more than we give them anyway.

If smokers only generate 1bn of required care, who generates the rest? Non smokers? Old, very young, not medically necessary treatment seekers? The smokers aren't such a big dent. And just because they smoke doesn't mean the treatment they required was because of smoking *shrug*. Just easy to blame those of a minority again?

Does the £1.9bn per year saving assume no smoking related effects on the NHS? The point being that if Joe Bloggs with Lung cancer gave up smoking today, he would still cost the NHS money as he still has the disease that requires treatment. The point being, even if everyone stopped smoking today, it would still be costing the NHS money for years to come. Ultimately it comes down to money or the nations health. Governments will take the money every day of the week.

you put your finger on it paul and the £figures explain why tabs are the only inherently dangerous product that are allowed to be sold. political doublethink. you could say the same of booze.

Nice contradiction, HG :thumb:

Surely the answer is:
this year the age limit is 16, next 17 and so on

That way no new entrants into the habit and the current ones pay until they all die

Of course strict enforcement of the age limt will be required - smokers are a dying breed!

Kids who start smoking now and before didn't necessarily wait til they were 16. You are right though, it is a dying breed. It's certainly not a cool thing anymore like it used to be.

I agree with the alcahol quote though, this should also be tackled as they too cause a large dent in the nhs purse :) What next then? Probibition? :D

We had a speaker on this subject when I was going through my cardiac rehabilitation program.

It's very hard for the NHS to put a hard figure on how much smoking costs as there are some conditions like heart disease which may have been caused by smoking and may in some people be genetic.

The NHS figure also doesn't cover the cost of looking after the patient long term. A heart disease patient may have to give up work in their 40's and live off the state for the rest of their lives. This type of cost is not included in the NHS figure but costs the tax payer £Billions.

Most smoking related conditions cause a burden to the NHS but cause a far higher burden on local authorities and the welfare system.

Most people who are experts in this field and are not tied to either side of the argument believe the cost is very even.

IMO the answer is simple, as smoking declines the Government should increase the tax on tabaco even further to offset the loss in tax revenue. This way even more people would be saved from the effects of smoking.

Cheers
Lee

I think the unemployed lazy buggers cost the UK more than smokers along with the phoney disabled claiming disability etc etc :)

In our workplace, the biggest sick offenders don't smoke at all.

The government doesn't want you to stop smoking, that's why. They want you to carry on smoking so they can tax you for it and make a huge profit that they can squander on rubbish. The beauty is that afterwards they can turn round and blame smokers for the underfunded state of the NHS!

Same with "congestion charge".... they don't want people to stop driving they want you to drive AND pay.

I quite agree ajm :) After all, unprotected sex and it's consequences (ie disease/pregnancy etc) costs the nhs quite a significant sum to treat but I doub't they will ban sex :D

I know, that was a silly thought :D

I doubt that, even with a ban on smoking in pubs etc, masses of people will simultaneously give up smoking. Smoking is gradually declining, so the revenue from smokers will gradually decline as well. I imagine the decline will be easy to recoup, especially as car ownership is increasing. ;)

Although the cost to the NHS will decline, it will take many years before the reduction is apparent, as has already been mentioned.

It would be interesting to know, at the point in the future when smoking has become rare, how many people still get what are traditionally thought of as smoking related illnesses.

Last figures I saw showed that young girl smokers under 16 is at its highest level by %age of population ever.
Must be what they do to relax after sex:D

Indeed.

The main reason the number of smokers is dropping overall is, despite the fact that the number of female smokers is increasing, more male smokers are giving up than females are taking it up. IIRC it is because young girls have the mistaken belief that smoking keeps you slim.

So, could the media, with it's obsession with skinny female models, be held partially responsible for smoking related deaths?

There is also evidence that men are becoming more obsessed with their weight - the cases of eating related disorders in men is increasing. Hopefully young boys will not succumb to the smoking keeps you slim myth, or the number of smokers may well start increasing again.

Yet there are Speed Cameras everywhere, claiming to "Save Lives".

Ban smoking, save 10,000's but where can we plug the £7 billion gap....

It's not £7billion.

We are only looking at the cost to the NHS not the cost of smoking to the tax payer.

Most smoking related conditions are long term conditions not sudden death. Someone who suffers Heart Disease in their 40's may well end up on incapacity benefit, disability living allowance as well as rebated council tax and perhaps a rent paid property. They may well need this support for the next 20-30years.
This cost to the tax payer is not included in the NHS figure.

Experts believe the true cost of smoking related illness to the tax payer is pretty even with the tax revenue generated from tabaco sales.

Cheers
Lee