Funding your habit

Funding your habit Funding your habit

TOMORROW is No Smoking Day and a main theme this year is the sheer cost of lighting up.

A common or garden pack-a-day habit apparently comes out at about £210 a month, but if my memories of many years as a smoker are anything to go by, that figure will turn out to be an underestimate.

It doesn’t factor in the extra smoking that tends to happen during a night out, for example. Nor does it take account of people who try to give up by buying those brands with so little tar, nicotine, cyanide, formaldehyde and other goodies that you might as well be smoking thin air and end up getting through twice as many.

Smokers must also take into account the friends who claim “not to smoke, really” but who actually mean: “I don’t pay for them, really, so I’ll just scrounge all of yours instead.”

Then there’s the extra smoking outside the workplace since the ban came into force. This is sometimes done to stockpile enough nicotine in the bloodstream to put off the next trip to a freezing cold shelter for as long as possible.

On other occasions, smoking up a storm outside the workplace is simply a really satisfying way to annoy smug ex-smokers and non-smokers who wave their hands and cough ostentatiously as they walk by. You know the ones I mean; they often have lunchboxes containing something trendy and tofu-ey invented by an eco-hippy with a trust fund, and probably manufactured on the cheap by little kids at the point of a cattle prod in a factory somewhere far away.

Obviously, I hope No Smoking Day succeeds because tobacco, as some wise person once pointed out, is the only consumer item that’ll kill you if you use it according to the manufacturer’s instructions. Still, I can’t help wondering what the politicians will do to make up the lost tax revenue.

After all, when it comes to tax revenue, politicians are as addicted as an 80-a-day person scratting about in their ashtray for a smokable dog-end at three in the morning because the corner shop doesn’t open ‘til six.

If you don’t believe me, just look at road tax. When it shot up, we were told it would encourage us to buy fuel-efficient cars. Now, with many of us having switched to cars that’ll do 50 or more miles per gallon and road tax revenue dropping, we’re going to be charged fees to drive on a motorway network we’ve already bought and paid for many times over.

Oh well, I suppose subsidised vintage claret, first class train travel and everything else our masters claim on expenses doesn’t come cheap.

With fag and baccy revenues dropping, the politicians will probably find a way to come after people who are trying to give up.

Perhaps they’ll levy a charge of a fiver on anybody caught with a blue mouth from sucking a biro, and a tenner on anybody getting through more than eight bags of boiled sweets in a day or being impossible to live with for about a month.

Sweetening their porridge

BEFORE sentencing Chris Huhne and his ex-wife Vicky Pryce, the judge warned this pair of sleazy, dishonest little articles that they should have no illusions as to what would happen.

I’m sure they were completely devoid of any such illusions.

As fully paid-up members of the political and social elite, they no doubt expected a few months in a cushy open nick before being freed to resume their comfortable lifestyles.

And that’s precisely what they got.

  • THE consultation into the future of street markets is ongoing, and the opinions of the public are sought. My own view? I think a really good idea for a street market would be to ensure it doesn’t end up being cancelled because various different officials don’t know what each other are doing.

Comments(13)

Ian13 says...
7:15am Tue 12 Mar 13

Reduce the smuggling - reduce tobacco taxes!

SockPuppet says...
7:25am Tue 12 Mar 13

Reduce taxes or ban smoking, is it not
disgusting that the government cashes in on addiction?
Get the money that the treasury would miss from properly enforcing corporate taxing.

davel4848 says...
7:41am Tue 12 Mar 13

Ian13 wrote:
Reduce the smuggling - reduce tobacco taxes!
How do you reduce tobacco taxes, if you reduce the smuggling ?

Localboy86 says...
7:41am Tue 12 Mar 13

Well done Barrie, one of the best pieces I have seen in the adver. Can we have a weekly Barrie column?

Ian13 says...
8:08am Tue 12 Mar 13

davel4848 wrote:
Ian13 wrote: Reduce the smuggling - reduce tobacco taxes!
How do you reduce tobacco taxes, if you reduce the smuggling ?
You reduce the smuggling by reducing the taxes. You therefore remove the incentive to smuggle or counterfeit.
This applies to any product.

house on the hill says...
8:16am Tue 12 Mar 13

""SockPuppet says...
7:25am Tue 12 Mar 13

Reduce taxes or ban smoking, is it not
disgusting that the government cashes in on addiction?"""

Whats disgusting is the stupidity of those who choose to smoke and then blame everyone else for the cost or the effects or the addiction. No one forces you to smoke, you make that positve choice yourselves and like everything else in life if you cant afford it for whatever reason you dont have it. Also if you buy "smuggled" tobacco you are well aware of the risks of what might have been put in it so the choice is yours. Maybe if they scrapped the tax and made people who become ill from smoking pay for their own treatmant that would be a fairer way.

Tim Newroman says...
10:06am Tue 12 Mar 13

SockPuppet wrote:
Reduce taxes or ban smoking, is it not
disgusting that the government cashes in on addiction?
Get the money that the treasury would miss from properly enforcing corporate taxing.
Yeah, great idea, force corporates to pay more tax.

You do realise all that would actually mean is prices rise, across the board, and everyone who ever buys anything ends up paying their taxes for them.

I'm sure everyone will be delighted with that outcome.

RichardR1 says...
11:47am Tue 12 Mar 13

We should all be supporting Professor Brittons call to encourage eCigs, no duty, and no harmful toxins.

In his expert opinion it would save 5 million lives.

But of course the Drug companies don't like that idea.

house on the hill says...
1:19pm Tue 12 Mar 13

"""RichardR1 says...
11:47am Tue 12 Mar 13

We should all be supporting Professor Brittons call to encourage eCigs, no duty, and no harmful toxins.

In his expert opinion it would save 5 million lives.

But of course the Drug companies don't like that idea.”"""

Nor do the Govt in reality as they would have to pay all those additional pensions to all those living longer as well as not collecting the massive amounts in tax!!!!

SockPuppet says...
2:50pm Tue 12 Mar 13

Tim Newroman wrote:
SockPuppet wrote:
Reduce taxes or ban smoking, is it not
disgusting that the government cashes in on addiction?
Get the money that the treasury would miss from properly enforcing corporate taxing.
Yeah, great idea, force corporates to pay more tax.

You do realise all that would actually mean is prices rise, across the board, and everyone who ever buys anything ends up paying their taxes for them.

I'm sure everyone will be delighted with that outcome.
...not necessarily more tax just the tax they already owe.
Some do, some don't and those that do still compete without hiking up prices.

RichardR1 says...
10:04am Wed 13 Mar 13

Yes House the irony of stopping people smoking they live longer. More elderly we can't afford, and less tax.

Stephanie Tye says...
10:04am Wed 13 Mar 13

Hi Localboy86,

We do indeed have a weekly Barrie column - and this was this week's offering.

It runs in the Adver every Tuesday and there is a dedicated section on the website under Barrie Hudson (you can find it in the sections under News).

All the best,

Stephanie
Web Editor

Tim Newroman says...
8:24am Thu 14 Mar 13

SockPuppet wrote:
Tim Newroman wrote:
SockPuppet wrote:
Reduce taxes or ban smoking, is it not
disgusting that the government cashes in on addiction?
Get the money that the treasury would miss from properly enforcing corporate taxing.
Yeah, great idea, force corporates to pay more tax.

You do realise all that would actually mean is prices rise, across the board, and everyone who ever buys anything ends up paying their taxes for them.

I'm sure everyone will be delighted with that outcome.
...not necessarily more tax just the tax they already owe.
Some do, some don't and those that do still compete without hiking up prices.
And what do you think would happen if they were landed with a massive invoice for tax 'already owing'?

Not that they do owe any tax, not one of them has operated outside the law and have submitted perfectly legitimate accounts.

All that's really happened is certain people have come over all giddy at the thought of stealing countless millions from companies that employ thousands and already generate massive tax revenues for the government to almost be able to pay for our unaffordable welfare state.

Wherever the money comes from, we end up paying. The only way to change that is for the government to stop throwing away billions.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree