If the smoking ban reduces cigarette consumption, how will the government make up the lost the tax revenue?

Answer 1

Higher taxes on fuel, homes and i guess vat will go up. Oh dont forget the so called green taxes

Answer 2

The SCHIP program that Bush vetoed put a tax on cigarettes to raise the money that they plan to use for this "hugely expensive" expansion of this program. However less than 20% of the population smokes and a good majority of those who do are usually financially strapped. So it does both at the same time. As taxes increase, more and more people will do without, but those still smoking pay higher taxes and thus the government gets the same or more revenue from those people. But if this tax is supposed to help the poor with better healthcare, why are we taxing the poor people who smoke who support this program?

Answer 3

The smoking ban won't reduce cigarette consumption and the government knows this very well. People who would normally go to the pub to drink and smoke will take their booze outside in the Summer and buy tinnies from the offie in Winter. What will happen is a disastrous fall in the number of patrons in pubs and cafes in working class areas, and many will be forced to shut down. We saw this when they banned smoking in cinemas; now only the very large multiplexes that can attract a large crowd can survive.
Some years ago Littlewood's Cafe in Chesterfield introduced what was then a novel ban on smoking and takings dropped so dramatically they had to rescind it. Any pub in certain areas of Barnsley (where I now live) banning smoking is a pub that's asking for bankruptcy.
Nor will a ban discourage smoking. 1930s prohibition in the USA shows what a blanket ban can do, and the young will see smoking as a rebellious alternative lifestyle. You'll still find places that are willing to let you smoke in quiet back rooms if they know you, you'll still find people who might have packed up smoking if it wasn't for the fact that the government is trying to stop them from doing it by force.
If this government truly believed that smoking was so harmful it would pursue a crusade similar to that against mad cow disease a few years ago. It doesn't because it knows that the dangers are over-estimated, but it's got to be seen to be doing something so it introduces a fatuous ban.
It's estimated by the way that for every pound spent on treating smoking related diseases (even if you include those with a doubtful link) 32 is paid back in taxes. Carry on gasping, the NHS needs you!

Answer 4

It's called a Budget ...... and it changes every year. For the chancellor to keep his house in order, he has to find new and innovative ways each year to maintain government revenue. The problem here is that even at central and local government levels, income rarely balances, massive shortfalls occur and demands on reserves simply inflate every year due to poor management, inflation and simple greed. So to answer your question, collecting and identifying government revenue is a constant ever shifting situation so the lost revenue will, by default, simply shift elsewhere. But to be honest, cigarette smokers will not be entirely dented by legislation where they can smoke, they will simply smoke elsewhere. Remember it is an addiction and the government have probably earnt very nicely out of it. I am afraid that we live in a very cold and calculating world and that will never change unless the Samaritans start proposing political candidates! I must say however that your question was excellent and was bound to produce a great and varying response.

Answer 5

By increasing the Poll... sorry, Council tax. Again. Oh, sorry, they're doing that anyway, aren't they?
The harsh reality is this Government doesn't need to make up any 'lost' revenue. The coffers are already overflowing. The Chancellor seems to be under the delusion that your pay packet belongs to him, and that your net earnings are mere pocket money.
Their barefaced cheek never ceases to amaze me. They are now full of self-righteous crap about protecting the environment, and their answer to the problem is even more tax. Drivers, airlines, smokers, even people who mistakenly put an empty beer tin in their dustbin as opposed to the tiny recycling box which is not much bigger than a lunchbox. (OK, that's Barnet council but they'll all be following suit, mark my words). And they dress this particular tax up as a fine.
Fact: More pollution comes out of Blair's mouth than from the exhaust of a 4x4.

Answer 6

I don't think it will reduce consumption. I don't know anyone that quit because of the cost. It's an addiction, and a strong one at that. Most people quit because they want to, not because they are forced to.

If you ban consumption of a substance when there is a strong demand you are just going to push it underground and put money into the hands of organised crime.

If they hike rates on cigarettes It's going to fuel the smuggling of black market tobacco which is often counterfeit and very poor quality.

Now we are going to see loads of unlicensed, unsafe underground drinking/smoking dens springing up. It is happening.

And no doubt the government will screw the middle class taxpayer even more to plug the gap. Why don't they place a tax on oxygen next, that's got to be a winner.

Answer 7

There will be a hardcore of smokers who will not give up/be able to give up. The government knows this, therefore, having demonised smokers it will be able to raise taxes even more, knowing that the hard core will continue. This government, in any event, is very adept at finding new things to tax, particularly 'green' related issues.

I do not accept for one minute, the argument put forward by some of you respondants, that the loss of tax revenue will be more than offset by the savings achieved by the NHS through not having to treat smoking related illness. The vast majority of smokers don't display debilitating symptoms at all, but where they do, it is generally later in life. That has certainly been my anecdotal experience as well. People who don't become ill because of smoking related problems, will eventually succumb to other maladies requiring nursing and/or treatment. People have to die of something. Significant cost is incurred in nursing old people, particularly women, by the NHS and/or private organisations. If we argue that smokers die younger, then they make far less demand on nursing facilities and pension schemes of all kinds, and also, government benefits that are available to the old. The financial equation, therefore, stretches beyond the alleged benefits through not having to treat smoking related symptoms. I would suggest also, that they will have over-egged the alleged savings to the NHS, because they assume every malady that a smoker experiences is down to his smoking habit. This certainly won't be the case, but it suits the anti-smoking zealots to claim that it does.

Answer 8

Without having to do anything. A smoking ban will improve the health of the nation, reducing dramatically the incidents of some diseases and removing the large contribution that smoking makes to other illnesses like heart disease, strokes etc, the major killers and cause of much chronic illness.

It is estimated that the total cost to the NHS of having to deal with smoking related diseases far outweights the tax revenue received by the exchequer from the sale of cigarettes.

If we as a nation stop smoking the country gets richer.

LT

Answer 9

I think you'll find that the biggest drain on the NHS is obesity!! Not smokers!!! Do you hear of a smoker needing a knee replacement, stomach stapling, jaw wiring or endless appointments with a dietitian??????
I really do feel passionate about this subject. I think its about time the government gave us the facts if they really must!! At the end of the day I'm sick of being told what to do, what not to say and generally being treated like a 5yr old!!!! Isn't Britain a free country anymore!!! Oh it might be if your of ethnic descent!! I think blanket banning smokin is gonna hit the government harder than they realise and i know after a couple of yrs they'll lift it!!! Cos non smokers will be well p****d off when they have to foot the bill on a lack of revenue!!!

Answer 10

If the ban reduces cigarette consumption, it is likely less people need medical treatment and hospitalisation, or to see a doctor, because of smoking related illnesses. Which saves government - who in many countries finance medical aids systems.

Additionally, less smokers has a positive impact on the economy: less sickness means a more productive work force.

So I guess government does not need to think of how to compensate the reduction of cigarette sales.

Answer 11

This little left wing regime that runs this once GREAT NATION will find another stealth tax. Did you know that some cabinet ministers were members of the UK Communist Party before it became "NEW LABOUR". Some will not even disclose whether they are still members or not. More people are employed by the state now than what Russia had when the Iron Curtain was there. This regime wants to know every aspect and movement of your daily routine. Who knows we maybe better off in Russia.