# 20 cigs by 50 cents ;



## Brendan Burgess

Cigarettes to €13.50 a pack


----------



## WolfeTone

A disproportionate tax on the poor. Is any of this tax take to be used for assisting addicts get off their habit? 
I wonder what the carbon emissions are from the tobacco industry?


----------



## Jazz01

WolfeTone said:


> A disproportionate tax on the poor.


How so? If you can not afford it, then there are options to kick the habit...


----------



## Steven Barrett

WolfeTone said:


> A disproportionate tax on the poor. Is any of this tax take to be used for assisting addicts get off their habit?



Just go to https://www2.hse.ie/quit-smoking/ and you can get free help to quit smoking. 

Any increase in anything can be deemed a disproportionate tax on the poor as they have lower disposable income. 





WolfeTone said:


> I wonder what the carbon emissions are from the tobacco industry?



Smoking is the leading cause of preventable deaths in Ireland and most countries around the world. Almost 6,000 people die each year in Ireland due to smoking related illnesses. 

Making them so expensive so people cut down/ quit is a good thing. It will also discourage younger people from starting in the first place as they won't want to spend what little income they have on such a filthy habit.


----------



## 24601

The reduction in smoking has been a remarkable public health victory. A combination of the workplace smoking ban, tax policy and other strategies has resulted in a huge reduction over the past 10 years. Prevalence is down from around a third of people to 18%. It may very well be a tax on the poor but the costs to society are immeasurable.


----------



## noproblem

No sympathy at all for people smoking. Just a pack a day now and it's costing €5000.00 per year. Wouldn't be a bit surprised at all to see SVP having a packet of fags in the hand out parcels this Xmas. Bloody mad


----------



## Gorteen

I can't afford to smoke... thank God!


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

noproblem said:


> No sympathy at all for people smoking. Just a pack a day now and it's costing €5000.00 per year. Wouldn't be a bit surprised at all to see SVP having a packet of fags in the hand out parcels this Xmas. Bloody mad


You would save almost €3,000 if you bought your cigs in Spain.  That would easily pay for a round trip and a pleasant weekend stay to boot, with lots to spare; not great for the planet I admit.  But as _Theobold_ points out that is not really an option for the less well off.


----------



## Leper

Let's stop fooling ourselves. Most people who smoke in Ireland nowadays have purchased their cigarettes abroad and/or have people bringing the ciggies back to Ireland from foreign holidays. 

Next time you're in the smoking area of any pub count the ratio of John Player Blue boxes from Spain -V- John Player Blue boxes from Ireland. Ireland has a score of nil for a start while the Spanish government obtains some tax from Irish purchasers. If we want to gain tax from ciggies in Ireland we've got to charge Spanish prices.


----------



## noproblem

Leper said:


> Let's stop fooling ourselves. Most people who smoke in Ireland nowadays have purchased their cigarettes abroad and/or have people bringing the ciggies back to Ireland from foreign holidays.
> 
> Next time you're in the smoking area of any pub count the ratio of John Player Blue boxes from Spain -V- John Player Blue boxes from Ireland. Ireland has a score of nil for a start while the Spanish government obtains some tax from Irish purchasers. If we want to gain tax from ciggies in Ireland we've got to charge Spanish prices.


The cigs for the most part bought in Spain and other countries are the rat poison variety (illegal), the same as in Ireland. Let people who smoke do so by all means but for goodness sake I do hope they cop on to the awful waste of money and the cost of their health, never mind what they're doing to their children and everyone around them.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

noproblem said:


> The cigs for the most part bought in Spain and other countries are the rat poison variety (illegal),


Fake news.  Same ciggies less than half the price.


----------



## noproblem

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Fake news.  Same ciggies less than half the price.


Indeed. I brought back some for people from Fuerteventura . €37.00 for 200, so €3.70 a pkt. I bought them in a reputable Supermarket but was told by the friends I gave them to that they were fakes. Who am I to argue? In any case, it's an expense anyone can save on by just stopping smoking. Govt don't mind less smoking, they're saving on medical care and all the other costs involved by people killing themselves slowly.


----------



## WolfeTone

Ouch! Opened a hornets nest without even trying. 
I don't have the figures to hand but will try resource them if need be. 

- A disproportionately higher level of low-income earners with low educational qualifications are smokers. Estimate, 39% 
- high income earners with higher educational qualifications are anywhere between 9-15%. 

That is what I meant by disproportionate increase on the poor. The government will be well aware of this. 

- As a former smoker, and a former user of the smokers helpline, I can categorically state that the helpline is helpless. To consider the helpless helpline as a tonic to nicotine addiction is not to have any consideration at all for this health issue.

- Increasing the price will induce more smuggling. With Brexit on the horizon, the smugglers are gearing up for a bonanza.

Nicotine is highly addictive. Typically most smokers get addicted in their impressionable teens. It is a predatory industry on young people. 
Workplace bans have done a great deal to stigmatize smoking. But more needs to be done to eliminate it altogether.
€0.50 increase is a revenue raising exercise on what is a healthcare issue.


----------



## DublinD

Patches, gum etc..can be prescribed on the medical card...so if really “poor” then quit free of charge.


----------



## WolfeTone

DublinD said:


> Patches, gum etc..can be prescribed on the medical card...so if really “poor” then quit free of charge.



No doubt a significant assist in reducing numbers of smokers. But smoking addiction goes beyond nicotine. There are significantly profound psychological issues, such as prevailing poverty, lack of career educational opportunities, 'sister' addictions like alcohol. 

The €0.50c increase is not an exercise in reducing smokers, it is an exercise in raising revenue. Targeting those who are at the centre of a public health care issue through their addiction. 
It is not just targeting poor people, just disproportionately so. 
A similar €0.50c tax could have applied to restaurant bills over €100, or hotel accommodation over €150 or tv subscriptions over €50 a month, or online purchases over €150, or jewellery purchases over €300, or club memberships over €500, or anything else you care to think of. 
Instead, a lack of imagination and a reliance on 'old reliables' is used to raise revenue _disproportionately _against those typically on lower incomes and with an addiction.


----------



## SparkRite

noproblem said:


> Govt don't mind less smoking, they're saving on medical care and all the other costs involved by people killing themselves slowly.



And losing more in paying extended state pensions.


----------



## odyssey06

That this is the budget thread which seems to be getting the most activity says a lot about this budget...


----------



## Bronco Lane

noproblem said:


> Just a pack a day now and it's costing €5000.00 per year.


Two packs a day will cost €10k per year.  The so called "poor" who can still manage to afford these amounts of money are diverting monies away from their families also to feed their habit. Nobody gets their annual holiday to Benidorm as a result...


----------



## Steven Barrett

WolfeTone said:


> The €0.50c increase is not an exercise in reducing smokers, it is an exercise in raising revenue. Targeting those who are at the centre of a public health care issue through their addiction.
> It is not just targeting poor people, just disproportionately so.
> A similar €0.50c tax could have applied to restaurant bills over €100, or hotel accommodation over €150 or tv subscriptions over €50 a month, or online purchases over €150, or jewellery purchases over €300, or club memberships over €500, or anything else you care to think of.
> Instead, a lack of imagination and a reliance on 'old reliables' is used to raise revenue _disproportionately _against those typically on lower incomes and with an addiction.



That is absolute nonsense. The reason for high taxation is to turn people off smoking. The cost to the HSE in treating people with smoke related illness is far greater than the income generated from cigarettes. Suggesting putting a 50c tax on purchases that already attract VAT at 23% is ridiculous.


----------



## Steven Barrett

noproblem said:


> Indeed. I brought back some for people from Fuerteventura . €37.00 for 200, so €3.70 a pkt. I bought them in a reputable Supermarket but was told by the friends I gave them to that they were fakes. Who am I to argue? In any case, it's an expense anyone can save on by just stopping smoking. Govt don't mind less smoking, they're saving on medical care and all the other costs involved by people killing themselves slowly.



I tell my kids, don't believe everything you're told. I think I have to say it to you too   .

Fuerteventura is a tax free island. Ireland is a high taxation island. Given the huge amount of taxation we have on cigarettes, there is going to be a massive difference in prices without them selling fake cigarettes made in China.


----------



## NoRegretsCoyote

WolfeTone said:


> The €0.50c increase is not an exercise in reducing smokers, it is an exercise in raising revenue. Targeting those who are at the centre of a public health care issue through their addiction.



Do people on long-term methadone programmes have to pay for their treatment? I suspect not.


----------



## SparkRite

SBarrett said:


> That is absolute nonsense. The reason for high taxation is to turn people off smoking.


This is absolute nonsense. The reason for high taxation is to be _perceived _to be trying to turn people off smoking
while increasing the state coffers.


----------



## Steven Barrett

SparkRite said:


> This is absolute nonsense. The reason for high taxation is to be _perceived _to be trying to turn people off smoking
> while increasing the state coffers.



Do you think the government want people smoking so they can collect loads of money?


----------



## SparkRite

SBarrett said:


> Do you think the government want people smoking so they can collect loads of money?


What I think is neither 'here nor there'.

However I suspect that some people may be able to form their own opinion on governments who continue increasing taxes on tobacco products rather than banning them. The same could be said about alcohol. Both drugs, as you know, are extremely highly taxed. 
Is there a corresponding reduction in drinking due to increase in cost, I don't think so. In fact the pubs, every weekend are full of mainly 20 -30 year olds as they tend to have the highest 'disposable' income nowadays. Any reduction ( if it exists ) in young smokers is IMHO is due to a better understanding/education of the perils of smoking plus the banning of it in public buildings/transport etc..

As the late great Sir Humphrey Appleby said as far back as 1986 "A commercial drug kills half a dozen people and we get it withdrawn from sale." 
Could it possibly be because the hypothetical drug doesn't generate as much revenue as tobacco products ?
Anyway have a read of what Sir Humphrey said in 1986 (allow for inflation with the figures) about the banning of tobacco products in the UK, besides its comic value, maybe it also holds some other underlying merit.

_Smoking-related diseases cost the NHS £165 million a year.
" Yes, but we've been into that.
It has been shown that if those extra 100,000 people had lived to a ripe old age, they would have cost us even more in pensions and social security than they did in medical treatment.
So financially speaking, it's unquestionably better that they continue to die at about the present rate.
"When cholera killed 30,000 people in 1833, we got the Public Health Act.
"When smog killed 2,500 people in 1952, we got the Clean Air Act.
" A commercial drug kills half a dozen people and we get it withdrawn from sale.
Cigarettes kill 100,000 people a year and what do we get? £4 billion a year.
25,000 jobs in the tobacco industry, a flourishing cigarette export business, helping our balance of trade, 250,000 jobs related to tobacco - newsagents, packaging, transport ..............

_
Just a thought.


----------



## NoRegretsCoyote

SparkRite said:


> This is absolute nonsense. The reason for high taxation is to be _perceived _to be *trying to turn people off smoking*
> while *increasing the state coffers*.




It can and will achieve *both *objectives

The issue is really down to balance and proportion.


----------



## SparkRite

NoRegretsCoyote said:


> It can and will achieve *both *objectives


Well we know it is definitely achieving one !


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

noproblem said:


> No sympathy at all for people smoking.


Rather typical of the righteousness dripping from this thread.  Smokers endanger their own health and maybe to a small degree those close to them.  But carbon guzzlers who drive cars and use airplane travel are endangering whole generations.  Smokers should take no lectures except of course from those who ride bicycles to work and go for a walk in the park for leisure rather than take cheap flights to the Canaries.


----------



## noproblem

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Rather typical of the righteousness dripping from this thread.  Smokers endanger their own health and maybe to a small degree those close to them.  But carbon guzzlers who drive cars and use airplane travel are endangering whole generations.  Smokers should take no lectures except of course from those who ride bicycles to work and go for a walk in the park for leisure rather than take cheap flights to the Canaries.


My good man, I smoked for years. I lost my father and three brothers to cancer. I had good reason to stop and did it without artificial help. Death has a way of prioritising things in my opinion.


----------



## Sophrosyne

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Rather typical of the righteousness dripping from this thread. Smokers endanger their own health and maybe to a small degree those close to them. But carbon guzzlers who drive cars and use airplane travel are endangering whole generations. Smokers should take no lectures except of course from those who ride bicycles to work and go for a walk in the park for leisure rather than take cheap flights to the Canaries.



There is something in what you say.

According to [broken link removed] report in The Lancet Planetary Health, four million children develop asthma every year as a result of air pollution from cars and trucks, equivalent to 11,000 new cases a day.


----------



## Sunny

Higher tax has little to no impact on smoking levels. What impacted on smoking levels was the smoking ban (still one of the greatest pieces of legislation), advertising changes and changing society views. Increasing tax is purely a revenue raising measure. And it's not even that because as mentioned above, people will get their cigarettes elsewhere. Its the same with alcohol. Increased tax will have very little impact. Gambling causes huge damage to society and yet every year it gets off scott free from Government because of lobbying from vested interests. So the Government claiming that budget measures are to do with public health is complete tosh.


----------



## Purple

SBarrett said:


> Smoking is the leading cause of preventable deaths in Ireland and most countries around the world.


Actually being a fattie kills more people than smoking in the developed world. They call it "having a bad diet" but they mean being fat. If we are really interested in public health we'd be taxing high sugar and high salt foods.

Smokers don't take as long to die either so are less expensive to look after. 
I'm in favour of high taxes on tobacco and the whole"it's a regressive tax on poor people" is nonsense. If you can't afford to do something which is discretionary then don't do it. If you can afford to smoke and drink (and go to the bookies) then you are not poor. 

I'm also in favour of higher taxes on other things that are bad for you. That or people who engage in really unhealthy lifestyles should have to pay for their own healthcare.


----------



## Purple

Sophrosyne said:


> There is something in what you say.
> 
> According to [broken link removed] report in The Lancet Planetary Health, four million children develop asthma every year as a result of air pollution from cars and trucks, equivalent to 11,000 new cases a day.


Air pollution is also linked to autism, dementia, mental illness, cancer and many other illnesses.


----------



## NoRegretsCoyote

Sunny said:


> Higher tax *has little to no impact* on smoking levels. ...... Increasing tax is purely a revenue raising measure. And it's not even that because as mentioned above, people will get their cigarettes elsewhere.



This is simply not true. From a big survey article of the science of smoking prevelance:



> A meta-analysis examined 523 estimates of price effects and confirmed the conventional wisdom that a 10% increase in cigarette prices leads to a 4% decline in smoking. Half of the 4% decline typically comes from declines in smoking prevalence and half from decreased consumption.



Assuming linearity, the 50% increase seen in cigarette prices in the last decade has seen smoking fall by 20%.

I wouldn't call that "little to no impact" by any means.


----------



## Leper

OK let's increase the price of 20 fags to €30.00 or even €50.00 or even €100.00. It doesn't matter. The vast majority of people who smoke are smoking cigarettes bought abroad and lining the coffers in tax of the country in which they were purchased. Ireland gets nothing other than cancer victims and the medical bills.

Reduce the price of cigarettes here and let's gather some tax rather than none. A little earned is always better than nothing.


----------



## Purple

Leper said:


> OK let's increase the price of 20 fags to €30.00 or even €50.00 or even €100.00. It doesn't matter. The vast majority of people who smoke are smoking cigarettes bought abroad and lining the coffers in tax of the country in which they were purchased. Ireland gets nothing other than cancer victims and the medical bills.
> 
> Reduce the price of cigarettes here and let's gather some tax rather than none. A little earned is always better than nothing.


We can't stop people from travelling and we can't tax products bought in the EU but we can seek to reduce the amount of tobacco bought in Ireland. 

I know you are part of the affluent Retiree Class but us poor working plebs don't take all those foreign holidays.


----------



## Leo

Leper said:


> The vast majority of people who smoke are smoking cigarettes bought abroad



Yet they still collect ~€1B in excise, that's a lot more than none!

The latest estimates indicate 9% of tobacco products consumed in Ireland were legally purchased abroad. Illegal products account for a further 13%, so the numbers suggest the vast majority of tobacco consumed here is purchased here.


----------



## SparkRite

Leper said:


> The vast majority of people who smoke are smoking cigarettes bought abroad ................



It's wild and unfounded comments like the above that really get my goat, you must have just picked that totally out of your head.


----------



## Sunny

NoRegretsCoyote said:


> This is simply not true. From a big survey article of the science of smoking prevelance:
> 
> 
> 
> Assuming linearity, the 50% increase seen in cigarette prices in the last decade has seen smoking fall by 20%.
> 
> I wouldn't call that "little to no impact" by any means.



What are the figures in Ireland for the past few years? Show me the impact that increasing the cost of fags from 12.70 to 13.30 or whatever has on smoking numbers. The higher the price of cigarettes, the less impact a price increase of that size has. Someone who is willing to spend 12.70 will still be willing to spend 13.20. Or they will use cheaper substitute products such as imported or fake cigarettes. It's simple economics. And it will be the same as alcohol. They can dress it up as public health issue but if it was a public health issue, they would either ban cigarettes or double the price. They won't do that though because they know they will lose revenue. So all they are trying to do is make more money. To think otherwise is just a fallacy.


----------



## NoRegretsCoyote

Sunny said:


> What are the figures in Ireland for the past few years?



I googled "Ireland smoking prevalance" and got here.

Cigarette smoking fallen from about 27% to 18% over the last 10 years.

There are lots of factors at play, but only a fool would say that increased excise rates have not had in impact.


----------



## Sunny

NoRegretsCoyote said:


> I googled "Ireland smoking prevalance" and got here.
> 
> Cigarette smoking fallen from about 27% to 18% over the last 10 years.
> 
> There are lots of factors at play, but only a fool would say that increased excise rates have not had in impact.



That research is done by the drug addiction centre who are calling  for at least €20 increase in price of cigarettes and it is based on price increases over a number of years. We are talking about 50c on a packet already costing 12.70. What is the elasticity of that increase? It is not 1.8 as in that piece of research. So if the increase has little or no impact on demand of cigarettes, why do it if it is not simply trying to get more revenue. The Government will argue, it is a gradual step but why? If it is a public health issue, what are we waiting for before adding €10-20 onto a box of 20??? It's because they are worried about the loss of revenue that a large increase would bring. They don't care about public health cost. The smoking ban was a public health policy. This increase was just a taxation policy.


----------



## Leo

Sunny said:


> It's because they are worried about the loss of revenue that a large increase would bring. They don't care about public health cost.



If it was purely a numbers game, surely they'd just make smoking illegal? The total costs due to healthcare, lost productivity, etc., far exceed the revenue collected. Our governments rarely make decisions based on what the numbers indicate would be the best course of action, why do you suspect they are doing so in this case?


----------



## Sunny

Leo said:


> If it was purely a numbers game, surely they'd just make smoking illegal? The total costs due to healthcare, lost productivity, etc., far exceed the revenue collected. Our governments rarely make decisions based on what the numbers indicate would be the best course of action, why do you suspect they are doing so in this case?



Because they cant see the cost. It is not part of the budget. It's not like you can say if the government ban smoking they can cut the health budget by x%. But they couldn't cut the health budget if they banned smoking and they would just lose the revenue. They should ban smoking. But they wont. And if they wont ban it, they should increase the price by 30 euro but they wont do that either.


----------



## Leo

Sunny said:


> Because they cant see the cost. It is not part of the budget.



Those numbers all inform the budget, they might not make headlines on budget day, but they very much are there in the detailed assessments. I think they're more afraid of losing smokers' votes, so like many other countries, they will just keep on gradually increasing them year on year.


----------



## Purple

Banning addictive substances just encourages criminality. 
Putting the price up by €30 would do more or less the same thing.


----------



## Sunny

Leo said:


> Those numbers all inform the budget, they might not make headlines on budget day, but they very much are there in the detailed assessments. I think they're more afraid of losing smokers' votes, so like many other countries, they will just keep on gradually increasing them year on year.



But they don't inform the budget. On budget day, Government announces ban on smoking. From midnight, the Government lose 1 billion a year. Now they need to save money on the expenditure side. Do they cut health by 1 billion despite waiting lists and hospital over-crowding? Do they cut social welfare by some as there will be less people on smoking related disability payments? Can you imagine the headlines? You are asking the Government to lose revenue on day 1 with no obvious savings on the expenditure side despite what various research papers claim will be long term savings. That's assuming that banning smoking actually does anything or does it just drive it underground like drugs?

Tackling smoking through taxation is not the answer. The smoking ban was successful because for the first time it allowed people to see what it was like to socialise or work in clean air, to come home without your clothes smelling of smoke. It made people think about smoking in way that raising a pack of 20 fags by 50c every year doesn't. It made people make their own decision not to smoke. Raising tax by small amounts is just like raising tax on the price of the pint. Does nothing apart from giving people something to moan about every year over a pint and a fag!!


----------



## Leo

Sunny said:


> But they don't inform the budget.



They do, they are included in the books of estimates that are prepared in advance of the budget. Much of this gets published, at least in summary form, so it's not accurate to say they don't see the numbers.



Sunny said:


> On budget day, Government announces ban on smoking. From midnight, the Government lose 1 billion a year. Now they need to save money on the expenditure side. Do they cut health by 1 billion despite waiting lists and hospital over-crowding? Do they cut social welfare by some as there will be less people on smoking related disability payments?



If they were to ban it, I'm sure they'd take the more sensible approach and increase the minimum smoking age by a year each year. 



Sunny said:


> Tackling smoking through taxation is not the answer. The smoking ban was successful because for the first time it allowed people to see what it was like to socialise or work in clean air, to come home without your clothes smelling of smoke.



The smoking ban was impactful, but there was no significant drop in the number of smokers overnight. The rate of drop in numbers after that wasn't too dissimilar to that of the recent 4-5 years. Cost is cited by some as reasons for quitting, the plain packaging and health warnings have also had an affect. I'm not sure anyone is suggesting price alone is the answer.

What is the argument for not continually increasing excise on tobacco? How would not increasing the price discourage people from taking up smoking?


----------



## Sunny

So show me where in the book estimates, they have costed what banning smoking will save. It is not there because they can't. They can estimate how much revenue they will lose but they have no estimate on how much it will save because the public health savings will not be recognised in the short term and secondly, they don't know how many people will continue to smoke illegally. Likewise, how will increasing the minimum age make any difference? I was smoking as a 12 year old for a period of three months. And that was 30 years ago. Nothing has changed since with regard to access to cigarettes or alcohol for underage people. Are we saying that we raise the minimum age to 70 or something?

I never said the smoking ban was an overnight success. But it was a public health policy that never tried to be a short term fix. The attitudes towards smoking among people my own age (40's now) changed dramatically in the years after that ban was introduced. Now most of my friends whose earning power has increased dramatically over the years to more than mitigate any increase in cigarettes have stopped smoking. 

There is nothing wrong with increasing the cost of cigarettes every year. I am all for it. But it is not a public health policy. It is not going to stop people smoking or even taking up smoking. Successive Governments have ignored all professional advice over the years to increase the cost dramatically. Why if they think increasing the price will stop smoking??? It is because they know it will cost them money. Same reason why they will mess around with the price with alcohol but wont make it prohibitive for people to drink. Same reason why they won't tackle gambling. 

If taxation is the tool to be used to tackle nicotine, alcohol, gambling and other social problems, then lets do it right. Let's stop pussy footing around and tax it properly. Make it a policy. But hitting 20 cigarettes every year by 50c is not dealing with any problem other than adding a few million to the State Coffers.


----------



## Leo

Sunny said:


> So show me where in the book estimates, they have costed what banning smoking will save.



It was never government policy to ban smoking outright, so obviously the costing of such a measure would never be included in the book of estimates. 

I don't think any nation has even banned smoking outright. Why do you seem to think that is the only alternative? Some would consider an outright bad cruel on the elderly in particular. 



Sunny said:


> It is not there because they can't.



Really?     An Assessment of the Economic Cost of Smoking in Ireland

There has been widespread media coverage over the last few years on the costs of smoking to the state. 



Sunny said:


> There is nothing wrong with increasing the cost of cigarettes every year. I am all for it. But it is not a public health policy. It is not going to stop people smoking or even taking up smoking.



So where is it that the government are claiming increased costs alone will achieve that?



Sunny said:


> But hitting 20 cigarettes every year by 50c is not dealing with any problem other than adding a few million to the State Coffers.



That's where your case falls down, if it was just about revenue generation, why make it so small as to be small change in the grand scheme?


----------



## Leper

1. Hi Purple - Apologies that you must keep working. But, when you retire you'll have all the freedom you wish and you can travel extensively abroad.
2. If what Leo said is correct we're collecting €1B in taxes from fags. This is only the tip of the iceberg in what we could be collecting.
3. My comments are getting on Sparkrite's goat - Too bad. I can only write what I know and see. 
4. Sunny talks some sense.

And as I'll be spending some months of the winter in Spain; I'm looking forward as to how the Spanish authorities spend their extra taxes on the backs of Irish smokers. That money could have been spent in Ireland. Sorry Sparkrite!


----------



## SparkRite

Sunny said:


> Raising tax by small amounts is just like raising tax on the price of the pint. Does nothing apart from giving people something to moan about every year over a pint and a fag!!



Priceless !!


----------



## SparkRite

Leper said:


> 3. My comments are getting on Sparkrite's goat - Too bad. I can only write what I know and see.



And therein lies the problem with me and my goat.
You are posting totally unfounded and uncorroborated statements and delivering them as facts, but in reality you are writing what you *think *you know and see.


Leper said:


> 4. Sunny talks some sense.



So from this I can deduce that you somewhat concur with my sentiments expressed 12 days ago. Post #22
See here.


----------



## Leper

SparkRite said:


> And therein lies the problem with me and my goat.
> You are posting totally unfounded and uncorroborated statements and delivering them as facts, but in reality you are writing what you *think *you know and see.


----------



## Leper

Thanks Sparkrite. The "Espana" I see on 100% of the empty cigarette boxes in the smoking areas of busy pubs must be a figment of my imagination. You may be missing my point i.e. this is easy tax paid to the Spanish government by Irish smokers. That tax could with some sensible pricing be paid in Ireland where it is needed more.


----------



## Leo

Leper said:


> Thanks Sparkrite. The "Espana" I see on 100% of the empty cigarette boxes in the smoking areas of busy pubs must be a figment of my imagination. You may be missing my point i.e. this is easy tax paid to the Spanish government by Irish smokers. That tax could with some sensible pricing be paid in Ireland where it is needed more.



Yet none of the smokers I know smoke Spanish cigarettes, weird that we're at opposite sides of the Venn diagram of cigarette sourcing!  If a more significant portion of the population were smoking imported cigarettes the Irish sales numbers would have dropped accordingly, this just hasn't happened. 

You point makes no sense. Dropping Irish excise levels to even come close to Spanish levels would result in a huge drop in revenue even if 100% of smokers purchased here rather than the 78% as it stands.  We'd all be better off if these people stopped smoking. The tiny amount of excise being paid by Irish smokers to Spanish authorities (only ~€10M if 20% of all imports come from Spain) is insignificant in budgetary terms.


----------



## NoRegretsCoyote

Years ago I met an Italian guy who came to Dublin to learn English.

The first job he found was collecting cigarette boxes. A man in an office would give him 20c per empty box he could bring and he toured pubs and nightclubs looking or them.

The man in the office wouldn't tell him what the purpose was. But the guy could only conclude that there was some kind of market study taking place to assess the prevalence of imported cigarettes.

It's crude, but I guess there is no better way of finding out.


----------



## Leper

Leo said:


> Yet none of the smokers I know smoke Spanish cigarettes, weird that we're at opposite sides of the Venn diagram of cigarette sourcing!  If a more significant portion of the population were smoking imported cigarettes the Irish sales numbers would have dropped accordingly, this just hasn't happened.
> 
> You point makes no sense. Dropping Irish excise levels to even come close to Spanish levels would result in a huge drop in revenue even if 100% of smokers purchased here rather than the 78% as it stands.  We'd all be better off if these people stopped smoking. The tiny amount of excise being paid by Irish smokers to Spanish authorities (only ~€10M if 20% of all imports come from Spain) is insignificant in budgetary terms.



My posts make complete sense. Who are the most sensible, those smokers in Cork who pay €5.00 for twenty John Play Blue from Spain or those (outside Cork) who pay €13.50 to buy them in Ireland? Once again, Paddy-the-Corkman comes out best along with the Spain Revenue people.


----------



## Leo

Leper said:


> Once again, Paddy-the-Corkman comes out best along with the Spain Revenue people.



So what, Spanish revenue gains ~€10M. Your argument essentially is to cut hundreds of millions in Irish revenue in the hopes that we might recoup maybe into the 10s of millions.


----------



## odyssey06

NoRegretsCoyote said:


> The first job he found was collecting cigarette boxes. A man in an office would give him 20c per empty box he could bring and he toured pubs and nightclubs looking or them. The man in the office wouldn't tell him what the purpose was. But the guy could only conclude that there was some kind of market study taking place to assess the prevalence of imported cigarettes.
> It's crude, but I guess there is no better way of finding out.



We can't even trust the figures on serious crimes in this country.
I have zero confidence in any stats attempting to measure something like this.


----------



## Leo

odyssey06 said:


> I have zero confidence in any stats attempting to measure something like this.



Leper claims 100% of all cigarettes smoked here are bought abroad, almost exclusively in Spain for some reason (even though cigarettes are cheaper in 14 other EU states). I think we can trust his astute assessment and assume the government are lying when they are declare €1B in excise revenue when in reality they are just fiddling the books and stealing all that money the falls down the back of the sofa instead.


----------



## Leper

Leo said:


> Leper claims 100% of all cigarettes smoked here are bought abroad, almost exclusively in Spain for some reason (even though cigarettes are cheaper in 14 other EU states). I think we can trust his astute assessment and assume the government are lying when they are declare €1B in excise revenue when in reality they are just fiddling the books and stealing all that money the falls down the back of the sofa instead.


Leo, I'm beginning to have some doubts about you. Where did I say that 100% of all cigarettes smoked here are bought abroad? I don't mind you quoting me, but please don't misquote me.

. . . . or was it that I was informing people of the cuteness of Cork people paying half what the rest of the country is paying for fags?
You need to talk with Mr SparkRite or even perhaps his goat!

I'll be in Spain shortly and I have to return here for a few days to attend a wedding. I'll bring you back a packet of fags


----------



## Leo

Leper said:


> Where did I say that 100% of all cigarettes smoked here are bought abroad? I don't mind you quoting me, but please don't misquote me.



You were saying 100% of the cigarette packets discarded in the smoking area of busy pubs had Espana printed on them. So it's either 100% of cigarettes smoked in these places are being bought in Spain, or those buying elsewhere are saving their empties for some reason.



Leper said:


> . . . . or was it that I was informing people of the cuteness of Cork people paying half what the rest of the country is paying for fags?



See, that's where I was getting worried. Having lived there for a time I have no doubts as to the cuteness levels present in Cork, but I was just worried they were loosing their edge by not sourcing their smokes in even cheaper countries. 



Leper said:


> I'll be in Spain shortly and I have to return here for a few days to attend a wedding. I'll bring you back a packet of fags



You're grand thanks, thankfully I never really liked then and they just weren't enough to make me look cool, so I never developed the habit. I just get as righteous as a reformed smoker from time to time


----------



## SparkRite

Leper said:


> Leo, I'm beginning to have some doubts about you. Where did I say that 100% of all cigarettes smoked here are bought abroad? I don't mind you quoting me, but please don't misquote me.


Ah now to be fair you didn't say 100% but you did say.......



Leper said:


> The vast majority of people who smoke are smoking cigarettes bought abroad......





Leper said:


> The "Espana"  I see on 100% of the empty cigarette boxes in the smoking areas of busy pubs must be a figment of my imagination.



Which holds very little basis ( other than in your head ) for forming any real figure of what percentage of cigarettes smoked in Ireland are actually bought here, whereas @Leo has supplied links to released actual data.
In regard to your exhaustive 'survey' of local pubs, may I suggest that you consider imbibing in more 'upmarket' establishments. 

And now me poor auld goat has developed a nasty foreign sounding cough.
I feel a trip to Spain is on the cards for some cheap goat antibiotics.


----------



## Leper

Annual Jazz Festival ending today in Cork - Probably the most successful festival of its type in Cork. We have loads of visitors from many parts of the country, but mainly from Dublin. Last night while acting Designated Driver I called to a busy "Jazzing" pub near closing time at the early hours. My group were assembling in the Smoking Area just outside the main bar. Sixteen people were smoking (14 with Espana written on the fag boxes and 2 with cancer warnings as-Gaeilge). The two were not from Cork and spoke with cultured Dublin accents; 2 lambs to the slaughter, I think. I reckon they learned a valuable lesson in their visit to Cork. €13.50 -V- €5.00 per 20pack -No Contest. And Spain wins again.


----------



## noproblem

I'd say the Irish warnings packets were smuggled in from Connemara. That needs reporting go tapaidh. Maith an fear.


----------



## WolfeTone

Leper said:


> Sixteen people were smoking (14 with Espana written on the fag boxes and 2 with cancer warnings as-Gaeilge). The two were not from Cork and spoke with cultured Dublin accents;



Thats so impressive, kind of. I cant recall the last time while standing in a smoking area that I consciously noticed what language the health warning on a packet of cigs was. 
But you managed to count not only how many people were smoking, but get sight of all their cigarette packets too. And then take note of the nationality from which they originated! 
All during the closing hours of a busy pub jazz session!!
You must have been the first sober person to noticeably stand out against a crowd of revellers?


----------



## Leper

I did point out that I was doing a Designated Driver run and I had no alcohol on board.  Also, I pointed out the meeting point was at the Smoking Area and at closing time. It was no big deal to count the amount of people smoking or where their packets of fags were bought. Once you've got the leprous eye you can't miss.

I recommend my  non believers on the forum take note whenever they are in any smoking area (it doesn't have to be a pub).


----------



## Purple

Leper said:


> I did point out that I was doing a Designated Driver run and I had no alcohol on board.  Also, I pointed out the meeting point was at the Smoking Area and at closing time. It was no big deal to count the amount of people smoking or where their packets of fags were bought. Once you've got the leprous eye you can't miss.
> 
> I recommend my  non believers on the forum take note whenever they are in any smoking area (it doesn't have to be a pub).


This may be a Cork phenomenon due to Cork "cuteness", meanness as it's called in Ireland (outside the people's Republic).
The fact that Cork people are also notoriously work-shy and live off the tit of the generous Dubs also affords them the opportunity to bugger off to Spain on a regular basis and in vast numbers to buy cheap smokes, something not available to those who have to shoulder the burden of paying for the whole foul jamboree.


----------



## Sunny

Yet another example of Dublin shouldering the tax burden for the rest of the country...…….


----------

