What do you guys think about this new tax which will increase the price of cigarettes by 10% (I think it was)?
I read an article on it and how the government expected large numbers to quit as a result. How realistic do you think that actually is? Personally, if they're addicted I think most will keep going and it will just be a money earner for the government but saying people will quit makes it sound good. Though some of the money will go towards the health bill of the smokers which, one would imagine, would be significantly higher.
I read an article on it and how the government expected large numbers to quit as a result. How realistic do you think that actually is? Personally, if they're addicted I think most will keep going and it will just be a money earner for the government but saying people will quit makes it sound good. Though some of the money will go towards the health bill of the smokers which, one would imagine, would be significantly higher.
Permalink
Permalink
Let me sum this thread up for you now:
"I think it's great because I don't smoke (anymore)!"
"This is nanny-statism at its worst".
IBTL.
"I think it's great because I don't smoke (anymore)!"
"This is nanny-statism at its worst".
IBTL.
Permalink
Permalink
I have no issue with the increase. I haven't read a whole lot about it, but saw in the Dom Post that the smoking related health cost is $1.9billion whereas the tax currently earned from ciggies is $1.3billion. Not sure how they get to those figures, but if they're accurate it makes a pretty good case for increasing the tax to cover the cost.
My concern with the change is the way it was implemented. The extreme urgency which the legislation was passed under can't be justified in my view. Powers to pass legislation so quickly, circumventing the usual checks and balances, should only be exercised in cases of extreme emergency. I don't see how this issue comes close to one requiring such urgent action. Undemocratic IMHO.
Permalink
Permalink
I can't find the Dom Post right now, but it does have some stats on the tax increase. Something like it will increase revenue from cigarettes to $1.3billion, but the Govt or NZ as a whole spends $1.9billion on treating tobacco related disease.
Permalink
Permalink
Somebody once said to me "Great drug, (nicotine) terrible delivery system".ForteanTimes2010-04-29 17:53:57
Permalink
Permalink
I threw a book at the TV when Rodney came on. Big Up's to the Act MP who didn't toe the party line.
Permalink
Permalink
I'm amazed at the the timing, both NZ and Oz bumping up the price significantly within a day of each other.
I think it's a great idea. If your on income support, justifying the expense gets harder and harder as the price of fags goes up
I think it's a great idea. If your on income support, justifying the expense gets harder and harder as the price of fags goes up
When Hibs, went up, to win the Scottish Cup - I wisnae there - furfuxake!
Permalink
Permalink
I'm actually tad disappointed they didn't double it, with a plan to phase it out as Tiriana wanted.
Permalink
Permalink
I'm amazed at the the timing, both NZ and Oz bumping up the price significantly within a day of each other.
I think it's a great idea. If your on income support, justifying the expense gets harder and harder as the price of fags goes up
I think it's a great idea. If your on income support, justifying the expense gets harder and harder as the price of fags goes up
Actually Aus have gone further. Companies are now only to spell out their name in one type of font. So all companies will have the same font. And you can't have any logo or anything else.
Permalink
Permalink
Hmmm I wonder what typeface they choose. Helvetica seems obvious, but hopefully they choose the Microsoft knockoff Arial.
Permalink
Permalink
Should choose dingbats.
2ndBest2010-04-29 19:58:52
Permalink
Permalink
Lifting the price wont stop people smoking but what it may do is increase the chances of some "taking" the smokes without paying for them. I don't smoke myself, but hey if the next person wants to, good luck to them so long as they dont blow it in my face.
Proud to have attended the first 175 Consecutive "Home" Wellington Phoenix "A League" Games !!
The Ruf, The Ruf, The Ruf is on Fire!!
The Ruf, The Ruf, The Ruf is on Fire!!
Permalink
Permalink
Lifting the price wont stop people smoking but what it may do is increase the chances of some "taking" the smokes without paying for them.�I don't smoke myself, but hey if the next person wants to, good luck to them so long as they dont�blow it in my face.
I agree, poor dairy owners will be baring the brunt of it.
Oceanic62010-04-29 20:22:18
Permalink
Permalink
Meh. I don't really have all that much sympathy if someone is selling poison for human consumption and it gets stolen.
Mr_Incredible2010-04-29 20:33:27
Permalink
Permalink
Say what you like about "it won't do anything" and "will leave poorer families poorer" at the end of the day its a drug that escapes the most basic "product principles"
Permalink
Permalink
A few people at my work are already seriously considering quitting.
I like it. Make them more expensive.
I like it. Make them more expensive.
Permalink
Permalink
Lifting the price wont stop people smoking but what it may do is increase the chances of some "taking" the smokes without paying for them. I don't smoke myself, but hey if the next person wants to, good luck to them so long as they dont blow it in my face.
Plenty of evidence to suggest otherwise.
Permalink
Permalink
I threw a book at the TV when Rodney came on. Big Up's to the Act MP who didn't toe the party line.
Rodney only voted for the terrible bill because he had to as a cabinet minister. All four remaining ACT MPs were the only MPs to vote against it, afaik.
BTW, for those people quoting the figures this morning re: health costs, they are incorrect. Smokers pay significantly more than the external costs they impose on the country. See for example.
Permalink
Permalink
I threw a book at the TV when Rodney came on. Big Up's to the Act MP who didn't toe the party line.
Rodney only voted for the terrible bill because he had to as a cabinet minister. All four remaining ACT MPs were the only MPs to vote against it, afaik.
BTW, for those people quoting the figures this morning re: health costs, they are incorrect. Smokers pay significantly more than the external costs they impose on the country. See for example.
Kinda not the point...
Permalink
Permalink
The point of the tax isnt just to cover the health costs incurred by smokers though, it's there to act as a disincentive to smoking to get people to stop, or not take it up in the first place.
When Hibs, went up, to win the Scottish Cup - I wisnae there - furfuxake!
Permalink
Permalink
I threw a book at the TV when Rodney came on. Big Up's to the Act MP who didn't toe the party line.
Rodney only voted for the terrible bill because he had to as a cabinet minister. All four remaining ACT MPs were the only MPs to vote against it, afaik. BTW, for those people quoting the figures this morning re: health costs, they are incorrect. Smokers pay significantly more than the external costs they impose on the country. See for example.
The premise behind that guys argument is that smokers die earlier so we actually save money on pensions and elderly health care.
�
Kinda not the point...
What is the point then? If someone chooses to smoke then it is just that, their choice. Who is anyone else to say what they should or shouldn't do? Price the product properly so external costs are met, as they more than are now, and let people make their own decisions.
Permalink
Permalink
I think it's great.
Australia did the same because we did, and as mentioned they've put the tax higher and no picture etc.. on the front.
Australia did the same because we did, and as mentioned they've put the tax higher and no picture etc.. on the front.
Permalink
Permalink
I think it is great because i don't smoke.
"Phoenix till they lose"
Posting 97% bollox, 8% lies and 3.658% genuine opinion.
Genuine opinion: FTFFA
Permalink
Permalink
I think it's great that Hitler killed the Jews, because I'm not a Jew.
Permalink
Permalink
I don't think thats a fair comparison. Smoking is not an ethnic group. It is habit that wastes tax payer money.
Permalink
Permalink
This is nanny-statism at it's worst.
"Phoenix till they lose"
Posting 97% bollox, 8% lies and 3.658% genuine opinion.
Genuine opinion: FTFFA
Permalink
Permalink
I don't think thats a fair comparison. Smoking is not an ethnic group. It is habit that wastes tax payer money.
Wrong again poindexter.
Permalink
Permalink
This is nanny-statism at it's worst.
FFS.
You can go and smoke as much as you can afford.
Permalink
Permalink
Let me sum this thread up for you now:
"I think it's great because I don't smoke (anymore)!"
"This is nanny-statism at its worst".
IBTL.
"I think it's great because I don't smoke (anymore)!"
"This is nanny-statism at its worst".
IBTL.
"Phoenix till they lose"
Posting 97% bollox, 8% lies and 3.658% genuine opinion.
Genuine opinion: FTFFA
Permalink
Permalink
I don't think thats a fair comparison. Smoking is not an ethnic group. It is habit that wastes tax payer money.
So, it could be argued, is drinking alcohol!
Apparently I'm apathetic, but I couldn't care less.
"Being a Partick Thistle fan sets you apart. It means youre a free thinker. It also means your team has no money." Tim Luckhurst, The Independent, 4th December 2003
Permalink
Permalink
I don't think thats a fair comparison. Smoking is not an ethnic group. It is habit that wastes tax payer money.�
Read the thread. It doesn't waste taxpayers' money, it generates them money.
Permalink
Permalink
I have no issue with the increase. I haven't read a whole lot about it, but saw in the Dom Post that the smoking related health cost is $1.9billion whereas the tax currently earned from ciggies is $1.3billion. Not sure how they get to those figures, but if they're accurate it makes a pretty good case for increasing the tax to cover the cost.
My concern with the change is the way it was implemented. The extreme urgency which the legislation was passed under can't be justified in my view. Powers to pass legislation so quickly, circumventing the usual checks and balances, should only be exercised in cases of extreme emergency. I don't see how this issue comes close to one requiring such urgent action. Undemocratic IMHO.
sure it earns money but if these figures are right still not enough to bring benifit to the tax payer?
Permalink
Permalink
My original point was i don't think you can compare mass genocide to an increase in tax on smoking.
shambles_Baby2010-04-30 13:59:40
On the whole I have little against smoking or smokers.
Permalink
Permalink
This is nanny-statism at it's worst.
No.
Permalink
Permalink
I think it is great because i don't smoke.
+1
Permalink
Permalink
seems too small an increase, shoulda doubled the price
Permalink
Permalink