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?
20 cigs by 50 cents ;
- Thread starter Brendan Burgess
- Start date
- Status
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.
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!!
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
So where is it that the government are claiming increased costs alone will achieve that?
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?
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!
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!
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.
So from this I can deduce that you somewhat concur with my sentiments expressed 12 days ago. Post #22
See here.
Last edited:
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
Registered User
- Messages
- 5,766
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
- Status