Smokers could be forced to pay £10 for a permit to buy tobacco if a government health advisory body gets its way. No one would be able to buy cigarettes without the permit, under the idea proposed by Health England. Its chairman, Professor Julian Le Grand, told BBC Radio 5 Live the scheme would make a big difference to the number of people giving up smoking. But smokers’ rights group Forest described the idea as “outrageous”, given how much tax smokers already pay.
Professor Le Grand, a former adviser to ex-PM Tony Blair, said cash raised by the proposed scheme would go to the NHS. He said it was the inconvenience of getting a permit – as much as the cost – that would deter people from persisting with the smoking habit. “You’ve got to get a form, a complex form – the government’s good at complex forms; you have got to get a photograph. “It’s a little bit of a problem to actually do it, so you have got to make a conscious decision every year to opt in to being a smoker.” Forest spokesman Simon Clark said that when the cost of administration, extra bureaucracy and enforcement are taken into account, “the mind boggles”. He added that the people most affected by the proposals would be “the elderly and people on low incomes”.
Mr Clark added: “The senior government advisor putting this idea forward is not only adding to the red tape and bureaucracy we already have in this country. “He is openly bragging that he wants to make the form as complex as possible to fill in.”
Oh yeah, this is going to work. What smoker is going to spend more money for the right to smoke? Brilliant idea.
Insanity?
Smokers cost the British taxpayers MUCH MORE than ten pounds a year in extra health costs.
However, I think a tobacco tax is a much simpler and better idea.
#1. It is a tobacco tax, with paperwork.
You ask: “What smoker is going to spend more money for the right to smoke?
1. Any smoker addicted enough that the trade is worth it.
2..There is no right to smoke–where do you get such an idea? It can be taxed and regulated out of existence just like any other drug/substance.
3. I would gladly pay $18 for the right to shoot heroin or take LSD or to read porn.
4. The registration should be higher in order to still only partially pay for the drag on health services these polluters cause.
5. The registration is good to have an accurate list of who smokes tobacco in order to endlessly send them anti-smoking literature. Perhaps a “Gold Status Registration” could be initiated to avoid the bulk mail?
Excellent idea. We should start that along with other licensing ideas here in the GOUSA.
The smokers already pay much more money in tax than it takes to care for them later on. Throwing another tenner on the pile doesn’t help.
# 2 McCullough said, #1. It is a tobacco tax, with paperwork.
Seems more like a fee more than a tax.
But I agree with you, in principle.
I remember how much Reagan crowed that he cut taxes. But “fees” went up all over the place! The conservatives who worship Reagan seem to have conveniently forgotten that.
This is a great idea. In fact.. it should be more like $100 per year. Help people stop smoking. Keep teens from buying. Make $ to pay the health care costs. WIN WIN WIN.
As a smoker in the uk I think enough is enough,this is just another money making ploy from the labour government here.We are already taxed to the hilt on fuel and tobacco .Check to see how much a pack of ciggys cost in the states and then compare it to the $10 a pack we pay here….thats a pack of 20 not 200……and don’t get me started on the price of fuel……how does $10 a gallon grab you?
If nothing else this scheme would make it a lot harder for underaged people to purchase ‘smokes’. For this reason alone, its probably not a bad idea.
If you increase the taxes (and that is what this “permit” really is) on a product in demand, people will simply go the black market. The laws of supply and demand do not stop just because the government adds a tax. I’m sure the French and Dutch tobaccoists are jumping for joy. If such a measure goes through, they’ll stand to make even more from British patrons.
To be honest, the British should be fearful of the government enabling law enforcement to arrest people that are smoking without this special permit.
I’m no fan of smokers but requiring they fill out a permit that is intentionally designed to have them make mistakes on the application is simply ridiculous.
Mr Pudey, the very real problem is one of money. I’m afraid that the Ministry of Silly Walks is no longer getting the kind of support it needs. You see there’s Defence, Social Security, Health, Housing, Education, Silly Walks … they’re all supposed to get the same.
***
I’ll bet this is (if anything) just another stupid publicity stunt like that “second hand smoke” bull hsit going around today.
Guess no one learned from the old “Cannabis Tax Stamps” that were supposed to be circulated back in the U.S. in the 1940’s.
J/P=?
The law doesn’t go far enough.
It should be “You are required to pay everyone within 10 meters of you, upon request, for having to put up with your putrid addiction.”
Smokers have no right to impose their sickness upon those around them… I’m all for a $100 tax per pack if that’s what it takes. Let there be a black market if that’s what happens… I feel no pity for these smoker idiots.
Being the money-grubbing scum of the earth capitalist that I am, I propose to set up a group of people to obtain these permits, buy as many cigarettes as we can, and then resell them locally at a premium!
We’ll clean up!
Do whatever you want to stop smoking. On the other hand all adults should be required to drink.
LEARNING from the USA…
Tax on TAX…
Anyone read the lottery tickets, or Coupons..
Did you read the part how much the SELLER gets??
After you add the amount the seller gets(why else would he sell/use them) and the admin fees of MOST coupons and taxes…LESS then 20-30% end up paying for the tax, IF ANY OF IT gets back.
A licence to buy dangerous drugs may not be that a bad idea – then they have no excuse for not licensing less dangerous ones like cannabis 🙂
I hate smoking. It drives me nuts. However, I think we’re reaching the upper limit of regulations against it. We can tax the hell out of it, require a minimum age to buy it, outlaw the advertising of it, and ban it from all public places. The next logical step is prohibition, and we all know that doesn’t work. I think we’re going to start seeing a Tobacco Laffer Curve, where higher levels of restriction increase smoking rates.
what smoker is going to pay more for the right to smoke?
um, every single one of them? Maybe my sarcasm meter is broken today.
They won’t pay gladly, but they will pay.
I thoughy Germany lost the war ?
I though Germany lost the war ?
Why not just require smokers to pay the entire cost of their health care requirements that are a result of their own personal tobacco consumption?
I’d have a restriction noted on any health insurance card saying “Smoker”. If the cardholder has any health problems due to smoking, the cardholder would be fully liable for all related healthcare costs. Car accident? Sure, you’re fully covered for your broken leg and concussion. Lung cancer? Sorry, you will need to pay for your care.
If a smoker bitches about it, all the health care provider has to do is remind the smoker of all the rich, full, satisfying tobacco flavor the user enjoyed had over the years.
This smokers tax is a wonderful idea. The guy who thought it up has to be some kind of a genius.
The smokers tax will surely prevent people from smoking, just like the laws that prevent underage kids from drinking, and the laws that prevent people from using illegal drugs and speed limits that prevent people from speeding.
Why not just require homos to pay the entire cost of their health care requirements that are a result of their own personal homo consumption?
I’d have a restriction noted on any health insurance card saying “Homo”. If the cardholder has any health problems due to homosexuality, the cardholder would be fully liable for all related healthcare costs. Car accident? Sure, you’re fully covered for your broken leg and concussion. HIV and AIDS? Sorry, you will need to pay for your care.
If a homo bitches about it, all the health care provider has to do is remind the homo of all the rich, full, satisfying homo action the user had enjoyed over the years.
Does nobody wonder who they’ll turn on after they’re finished with the smokers?
Licences that dictate your personal quota on alcohol? unhealthy food? reporting to your local town hall for mandatory daily supervised exercise?
There are plenty of other drains on the health system, so laugh it up while you can non-smokers, they’ll be coming for you next.
OK there seems to be a lot of anti smokers on here. but think of it this way.
What if you had to pay a tax to
– Drink
– Eat salt
– buy petrol (Globally it does more damage)
– Buy Cola (Yes that does damage as well)
– Buy products made in 3rd world countries (very bad)
– Eat meat (Well the veggies would say its a good idea)
– Use a cell phone (causes cancer as well)
– buy batteries (Yep the chemicals from them do a lot of damage)
– Use an aerosol can (very very bad)
– own a TV (Yep we in the UK have to do that as well)
– own a dog (yep technically thats here as well)
– operate a 2 way radio, think CB or walkie talky u can tune ( we have that one as well)
– have children (some countries have it)
– Own anything made of MDF (do you have any idea how bad that stuff is. take a saw to it and its worse than tabaco.
This stinks. yes I smoke but you know what ITS MY CHOICE. Ill give up when i want NOT when im told.
If this comes in yes ill buy a licence. but I will be buying illegal smuggled fags most of the time so they will lose out over all.
i spend about 2500GBP on cigarettes a year. about 60% of that is tax. now if i stop who do you think wins. me (buying them cheap) or the government losing out on over 1000GBP a year.
OK look at it another way, we have all had a cigar on a special occasion. a new born child or new years eve. well now u cant without big brothers permission.
Now you cant offer a pretty girl in a bar a cigarette because if she hasn’t got a license you will have to pay a fine.
Now you cant sit back after a hard day and relax with a fag because you forgot to renew.
rant over
John
Very funny, #24.
It’s called taking personal responsibility for one’s own actions when they’re known to cause harm to yourself.
Just more repression People have a right to be Fat Smoke talk Rubbish etc. The heath care in the UK is paid for by smokers $0.50 per Cigarette now.
It might be a very good idea to stop new smokers from starting.
Smoking is bad but your right to choose is much more important Its your freedom at stake as other people have said what will be bad next ?
Its not anyones right to tell you what you can and can’t do as long as its not hurting other people, when a smoker dies the government will help its self to 40%
inheritance tax, if you own a home thats a lot of money. 40% starts after a certain amount but the level is quiet low now and is affecting more and more people.
Gosh, if we want to debate the best ways to give our employees, the government, even more of our hard-earned money, and relinquish to them, even more of our personal liberties, I want in this discussion.
What are you people thinking? When is it ever a good idea to give additional powers and moneys to our government? Put down Marx, and start reading Jefferson.
If we give the government another reason to tax us, or levee a fee against us, they will have to create a new ministry to serve this new function. We, the taxpayers, get to build them a new administrating building and branch offices, then fill them with new office equipment, print new letterheads, and purchase the appropriate visual aids to let HR train each of our new employees, how to mind their manners around each other.
We will need new employees, lots of them. We’ll need to hire people to collect all that new loot, and more people to count it all. Then we’ll need to hire more people, to watch over the collectors and counters, just to make sure they aren’t misappropriating any of that new free fortune. Then we’ll need to hire more people to figure future revenue projections, and perform socio-economic impact studies, all in triplicate.
We haven’t even gotten to the point of deciding on the most equitable way to distribute the new financial windfall, since we know the government always distributes funds in the most equitable fashion. That means hiring more people to do more studies, and even more people, to finally pass the money out.
Did I mention that all of these people we hire will be government workers. Sure, you’re probably thinking that government workers tend to be overly productive go-getters, so it takes less of them, then it would if we hired average workers, but also remember our employees each get better than average benefit and retirement packages. Oh yea, they have a powerful union too. Bottom line, unless we decide to hire all illegal aliens, these workers aren’t going to come cheap.
I almost forgot, we’ll need to spend more money, to enforce the new laws. That means hiring new operators to stand by toll free hotlines so we can discreetly turn in our suspicious neighbors and coworkers, for illicit puffing. We’ll need more cops to issue citations, more judges and more jail beds to house the heinous criminals that don’t fully comply with the new laws.
Sure, I try to be funny, but you have to know that the truth will be worse and more expensive. And for what?
About 20% of people smoke. Even with the population of the US, if we started charging each smoker an additional $20 a year, we are talking about raising one billion dollars a year, minus expenses. That might sound like a lot of cash to you and me, but have you noticed the way that governments spend money? I’m being serious folks. It won’t matter to them if it costs them $25 to issue a $20 license. It’s called deficit spending, and they seem to like that. They have zero motivation to operate cost efficiently. We the taxpayers get to pay for all of the costs.
Does anyone here really think that even 10% of the money raised would ever actually make it to the heralded end, and help offset the medical costs of currently ill smokers? Am I just being jaded?
While it might be fun to further punish all the disgusting, and morally reprehensible smokers of the world, it might also be dangerous to give even more power to our employees, allowing them to punish us for making potentially unhealthy personal choices. Just remember that 60% of you are fat, and that’s not too healthy either. 😉
#29 JimS
Elocute. “In a nut shell..” Couldn’t agree more.
#29, JimS,
OK, so what’s your point?