How much does the NHS spend on treating smoking related disease? - And how does this compare to the amount of tax revenue generated by the sale of cigarettes?
Could it be that the over a lifetime, a smoker pays for his treatment, given the amount of tax he pays each time he buys cigarettes?
2006-09-28 01:31:59 · 22 answers · asked by Anonymous in Social Science ➔ Economics
Its all "swings and roundabouts" to be honest-
Like you rightly said, The government Tax cigarettes to the hilt and fund with that, but then smoking causes so many illnesses, illnesses that need lots of on going treatment it costs a fortune to the NHS also funded by the government, so I don't know if or where it would balance out, or if one suffers or in turn gains due to the other
2006-09-28 01:43:38 · answer #1 · answered by allix w 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
That's a pretty complicated issue really.
My feeling is that it does not cost the country much if anything. But I don't think the tax revenues are all that significant when compared to the level of expenditure on cessation programs, healthcare, and the like.
Perhaps if you look at the problem from a socio-economic standpoint, it may actually cost the country (government) money. With the rather safe assumption that smoking is much more prevalent in low-income or impoverished segments of the populous, the government would have to foot the bill for smokers on state assistance that develop health problems. How significant that particular cross section is, I cannot readily tell.... but the costs per individual would be rather high.
In terms of cigarette tax money paid over a smoker's lifetime paying for treatment, that would be another interesting study. If you think about how much it would cost for an eldery smoker to be on oxygen for the last 10-15 years of life, not including the medical costs due to rapidly deteriorating health, that cache of cig tax money would dwindle quickly.
Smoking affects health in so many ways, it is narrow to consider lung cancer as the only possibly outcome... think about heart disease, asthma, diabetes, ulcers and back pain. All of these proven side effects have a significant cost over a lifetime.
It is a wonder that I still smoke. Yuck.
2006-09-28 11:25:10 · answer #2 · answered by wvukid21 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
There was a study done on exactly that issue, and the results were so controversial that the study was pulled back from publication, removed off the net (even the summaries) and the authors rejected any requests for copies.
Basically the argument was that smokers cost society less than what they contribute. Not only do they pay taxes, but they tend to die younger and therefore require less care over their lifetime. Therefore, compared to the cost of a non-smoker, over time, the smoker costs the health service less. One lump sum in case of some killer disease, and that's it; compare this to multiple long term ailments over long periods of time...
The only issue I had with what I read about the survey is the effect of second hand smoke. Are the costs to the health service of people suffering due to second hand smoke also included in the cost benefit analysis.
Personally I don't think cigarettes are taxed enough to also include the costs of second hand smoke; not only must the debilitating diseases be factored in, but the increase in the ailments over time for non-smokers due to 'passive' smoking. This is quite hard to quantify.
2006-10-01 23:57:54 · answer #3 · answered by ekonomix 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No it doesnt cost the country a penny, they make money out of it. Its not that long ago that we were being told that smoking related disease costs the country 600 million quid a year, which is small potatoes compared to the 13 Billion that the Government takes every year in tax on tobbaco.
Smokers get a rough deal, they pay a fortune in tax and get treat like lepers - car drivers are the next in line for the same kind of treatment, the signs are already there.
2006-09-28 08:41:43 · answer #4 · answered by thecoldvoiceofreason 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No official source, but I'm 99% sure that smokers put more into the NHS than they cost it. I'm all up for having a smoke free environment, but I guarantee you once everyone stops smoking, the millions upon millions upon millions of tax that is generated by smokers is going to be passed onto everyone else some other way, rather than it being the "opt in" tax that it is today.
2006-09-28 08:37:55 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
It could be.
Years ago, Ross Perot had a great idea.
He wanted to take the taxes from alcohol and tobacco and put the money into a health fund. The tax money generated would be available to those who had illnesses related to smoking or drinking. If you got lung cancer, your tax dollars you spent on ciggarettes would be there to pay for your treatment. Same if you acquired a liver disease from alcohol.
It sounds like a great idea, and it addresses your question perfectly. This way, those who make bad choices by smoking, would actually be paying for their own medical care.
2006-09-28 08:39:32 · answer #6 · answered by Nep-Tunes 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No one ever talks about the benefits of smokers.
They tend to die early:
-so they do not suck money out of the Social Security sytem or Medicare until the age of 90.
-they do not live long enough to develop diseases of old age like Parkinson's, Alzheimer's etc.
-they don't end up in nursing homes with constant care for years, which cost a small fortune
Cancer treatment obviously cost money, but so does all the other diseases they will never get because they die too young.
2006-09-28 14:10:31 · answer #7 · answered by Zak 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Cost to who. The government comes out on top. They collect more in taxes than the tobacco companies collect in profits. Plus smokers die younger than non-smokers and wind up not consuming the health care benefits they pay for with taxes.
The whole idea was just a false rationalization for establishing a fascist system for the distribution of tobacco. That's the only they you can call a government controlled industry that maintains on a facade of private ownership.
2006-09-29 13:49:10 · answer #8 · answered by Roadkill 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I doubt it actually costs the government money, but the costs in other areas are high. It looks bad, smells bad, it's a pollutant, it's a proven health risk, it creates unsightly litter. It's a tremendous human cost too, I'm sure an awful lot of people have lost or almost lost someone due to illness in which smoking played (at the least) a significant factor...I know I have.
2006-09-28 10:04:17 · answer #9 · answered by lauriekins 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I agree with the theory Ross Perot had about using the taxes from cigs & alcohol to setup a health care fund.
Smokers generate a lot of cash, and pay several diff. taxes on each pack purchased. The gov't. does not want to lose this money....and do you want to start paying the taxes we smokers are currently taking care of??
2006-09-28 09:11:32 · answer #10 · answered by shortfrog 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋