# The costs of smoking to the exchequer



## Early Riser (14 Aug 2017)

Brendan Burgess said:


> Hi Odyssey
> 
> We have €200 billion of national debt and €300 billion of unfunded pension liabilities. No one is paying their way. I  think we should begin to do so.
> 
> Brendan



Perhaps there is a way of addressing this issue and the related Nursing Home and Housing issues in a way that that is win-win for everyone. This from a recent British economics analysis:

_The free market Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA) calculated the cost of smoking at £4.6 billion, including treating diseases, tidying up dropped cigarette butts and putting out house fires.


But tobacco duties brought in £9.5 billion a year and the Government saves £9.8 billion in pension, healthcare and other benefit payments because of the premature deaths of smokers. 


The think tank accused politicians of "scapegoating" smokers, drinkers and the obese, claiming the £24.7 billion revenue from "sin taxes" far outweighed the costs they impose on the public finances.

"Taken together, Britain's public finances would be £22.8 billion worse off if there were no drinking, smoking or obesity," the IEA research paper said
_
(http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/08/06/smokers-good-economy-think-tank-finds/)

Extrapolating from this, we could improve the national finances by over €2 billion per year, reduce nursing home needs and free up loads more houses if our Government would just reverse tack on public health policy ! Maybe they could even reduce duties to encourage "appropriate" lifestyles and we could all die a few years younger and happier, free of national debt ?


----------



## Leo (14 Aug 2017)

Early Riser said:


> _The free market Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA) calculated the cost of smoking at £4.6 billion, including treating diseases, tidying up dropped cigarette butts and putting out house fires._



And of course there's no reason to doubt such figures published by a body funded by the major tobacco companies.


----------



## mathepac (14 Aug 2017)

Not to mention that the author of the "research paper" quoted in the article is the bould Christy Snowden who "critics allege proximity to industry interests, and have also documented repeated polemical attacks [by said Christy] on established scientists." Add that to the publication by the Telegraph and you have a right wing alliance of interests to rival anything Thatcher had. Did the partial IEA have a favoured politician? How about the bould Maggie, Mrs Handbags herself!


----------



## odyssey06 (14 Aug 2017)

Given the choice between dying at 80 after a life of good living, and spending 5 extra years confinement in Aras Attracta, well it's not much of a choice is it...

Thankfully, I don't have to make this choice, as I hear red wine is good for the heart, something about Resveratrol or Procyanidins, bottles high in tannin are especially recommended for this purpose. So sadly I can't do my bit for Ireland for shuffling off this mortal coil early.
Every extra year will give great pleasure knowing I'm doing the Minister for Finance out of a few bob. It'll make up for the outrageous taxes levied upon very ordinary claret.

Whatever about the exact figures, returning to the original question, if someone is going to claim smoking needs to be tackled because of its costs, then they really need to calculate the whole equation. Strangely, the such anti-smoking advocates never seem to do so.
I suspect a full reckoning of the balance sheet in money only would show that a state which provides supports such as healthcare and pensions and housing to its citizens, and raises substantial sums in taxes from smoking, will find that smoking is a net contributor to the Exchequer.
The same cannot be said of smoking's contribution to the wealth of human happiness.


----------



## losttheplot (15 Aug 2017)

Just introduce a mandatory death age, say 80. If you don't die by then you pay a fine for each additional year.


----------



## Leo (15 Aug 2017)

odyssey06 said:


> Strangely, the such anti-smoking advocates never seem to do so.



There are actually many such reports from all around the globe.


----------



## odyssey06 (15 Aug 2017)

losttheplot said:


> Just introduce a mandatory death age, say 80. If you don't die by then you pay a fine for each additional year.



Presumably the state would also provide for a free consultation from someone from the Dr Jack Kevorkian school of medication.


----------



## Early Riser (15 Aug 2017)

odyssey06 said:


> Presumably the state would also provide for a free consultation from someone from the Dr Jack Kevorkian school of medication.



This sounds a bit coercive. I am much more in favour of incentives. Perhaps the  State could pay part of the pension in the form of vouchers for free alcohol and cigarettes - and spamspamspam if it is to be legalized. At least any further increase in pension should be in this form. The cost would be more than recouped in the form of decreased future pension payments. And the relevant industries could be brought in as co-sponsors, further reducing taxpayer costs.

The pension "time bomb" - solved.

Cost of "Fair Deal"  -     solved

Housing shortages   - solved.

Free riders     - solved.

A happy exit  - solved.

Early access to inheritance - solved.

This is not just a modest proposal  - It is a moral imperative!
.


----------

