The price of Cigarettes.

Red Alert

I hate it when the smokers expect the rest of us to condemn price rises for a product we don't buy and therefore don't care about.

rainbow kirby

Tax the **** out of them tbh, and put all the revenue into the health service. It's a disgusting habit, which acts as an enormous drain on the health service, and smokers should have to cover that.

Bite me, I'm a self-righteous non-smoker.

Boskowski

kraggy wrote: »

Why should the health service pay for the fact that you can't handle your drink or drank too much?

This has been rolled over a thousand times on every other forum in the world and I guess here too.

There's tons of stuff out there that are a burden for the health budget and one could make a case for they're 'self-inflicted'.

There's all the fat ***** with colesterol problems and heart diseases.
There's all the alcoholics that vandalize the streets, start fights and are so wound up on drink they can't even hold down a proper job to pay taxes and make a contribution to the health budget in the first place.
There's all those people breaking legs, arms, straining ankles you name it 'cos they love their overcompetitve soccer five a side while at the same time their not even fit enough to put the bin out.

All self-inflicted. All avoidable. And if you thought about it for a while you could come up with a lot more.

So where do you start and stop?

regards

C

kraggy

realcam wrote: »

This has been rolled over a thousand times on every other forum in the world and I guess here too.

There's tons of stuff out there that are a burden for the health budget and one could make a case for they're 'self-inflicted'.

There's all the fat ***** with colesterol problems and heart diseases.
There's all the alcoholics that vandalize the streets, start fights and are so wound up on drink they can't even hold down a proper job to pay taxes and make a contribution to the health budget in the first place.
There's all those people breaking legs, arms, straining ankles you name it 'cos they love their overcompetitve soccer five a side while at the same time their not even fit enough to put the bin out.

All self-inflicted. All avoidable. And if you thought about it for a while you could come up with a lot more.

So where do you start and stop?

regards

C

Ah yes, but getting drunk and breaking your arm that night is a much more short-term, immediate occurrence that could have been avoided if you had the cop on and conscience not to get into a position whereby the casualty depts. across the country are over-stretched and people with non-self-inflicted illness or injury are not seen as quickly because of a load of pissheads in the system.

inforfun

TheDude2008 wrote: »

so why the **** should the tax payer pay for smokers added cost to the health system.

You are not wrong there.

But then again, can i please get my tax back that is given to people as childsupport. I dont have kids myself, yet i have to pay.



If the government really was so interested to get people of smoking, they should ban the selling of cigarettes and make possesion of a pack of cigarettes a crime. of course that will create a blackmarket but there is one already.
Of course this banning will never happen. It is an easy way to get tax money in and not many people will complain of milking the smoker of his money this way.

Another price increase will only mean i get even more bothered by kids and others on the streets when they see you lighting one up "can i have a smoke?"

Yeah sure, i pay 40 cent a cigarette in order to hand them out to you.

inforfun

Red Alert wrote: »

I hate it when the smokers expect the rest of us to condemn price rises for a product we don't buy and therefore don't care about.

You dont have to condemn the price rises. it is just too bad that so many of the non-smoking brigade are asking for the rises and cheer for them.

Boskowski

inforfun wrote: »

If the government really was so interested to get people of smoking, they should ban the selling of cigarettes and make possesion of a pack of cigarettes a crime. of course that will create a blackmarket but there is one already.
Of course this banning will never happen. It is an easy way to get tax money in and not many people will complain of milking the smoker of his money this way.

I agree, it's a hypocrisy.

If smoking is this bad - and I agree it is (being a smoker and all) - and you were serious about it (being a governing body) then ban it. After all they do it with cannabis.

But of course that cannot be done. Revenue. Tobacco lobby.
So stop givin us all that **** about how bad it is - we bloody well know - and how it inflicts on the health budget while at the same time ur milking us for the revenue. If ur serious about it ban it. Period.

regards

C

Kinetic^

Dudess wrote: »

Winners don't do drugs.

Lance Armstrong!!!!!!

kraggy

Kinetic^ wrote: »

Lance Armstrong!!!!!!

Stephen Roche.

Dancor

kraggy wrote: »

Stephen Roche.

Them horses

pretty*monster

I have no time for this 'drain on the lealth service' crap. People who don't smoke will also get sick and die at some point.

s_carnage

Can you beleive it, there has just been a €2.00 hike on fags!!! €9.50 for a pack now.

kraggy

pretty*monster wrote: »

I have no time for this 'drain on the lealth service' crap. People who don't smoke will also get sick and die at some point.

Yes but only after having contributed more to the tax kitty and therefore the health budget due to their lasting more years. On average.

Boskowski

kraggy wrote: »

Yes but only after having contributed more to the tax kitty and therefore the health budget due to their lasting more years. On average.

...non-smokers enjoy a longer lasting old-age, a period in their life where they need more care over all sorts of little aches, illnesses u name it. At least smokers die younger and are therefore less of a burden to the health system.



Unless u can put facts (numbers) to your statements my one is as good as yours...

regards

C

kraggy

realcam wrote: »

...non-smokers enjoy a longer lasting old-age, a period in their life where they need more care over all sorts of little aches, illnesses u name it. At least smokers die younger and are therefore less of a burden to the health system.



Unless u can put facts (numbers) to your statements my one is as good as yours...

regards

C

"Smokers die younger".

It's on cigarette boxes in black and white.

It's not an opinion, it's fact. Otherwise they wouldn't be allowed to attach such warnings.

Dave!

50c increase on pack of 20

ejmaztec

Dave! wrote: »

50c increase on pack of 20

Thanks Mr Lenihan - I've just given up and you stick your fiddy cent up yer hole.

Varkov

F*ck em. They know full well that even after increasing the price of smokes, the vast majority of people won't quit. If they wanted people to quit, they'd ban the sale of them. But people would still be getting them form the black market and the fatcats wouldn't be getting their tax munnies, so why not keep them legal and just tax the f*ck out of them?

F***ING K***JOCKIES!

Boskowski

kraggy wrote: »

"Smokers die younger".

It's on cigarette boxes in black and white.

It's not an opinion, it's fact. Otherwise they wouldn't be allowed to attach such warnings.

...exactly. And that was my point.
Means they wouldn't strain the health budget as much since they have the decency to die young rather than claim for decades.

regards

C

pajodublin

realcam - all your posts have mirrored my exact thoughts on this subject
although i am now a former smoker

another bill hicks quote for ya
"Non-smokers, bunch of self righteous mothafckers, i'd give up smoking if I didn't think I'd become one of you"

daveharnett

If we are serious about charging based on health costs, fast food outlets are going to need some scales in front of the counter.
A whopper would cost 50c per 10kg (or per 8kg for the ladies).

(Patent pending. Hands off ryanair!)

kraggy

realcam wrote: »

...exactly. And that was my point.
Means they wouldn't strain the health budget as much since they have the decency to die young rather than claim for decades.

regards

C

Erm, my point was that smokers are around for a shorter time and so contribute less in taxes.

You should remember the original argument before making your point next time.

pajodublin

kraggy wrote: »

Erm, my point was that smokers are around for a shorter time and so contribute less in taxes.

You should remember the original argument before making your point next time.

Thats bull****, you show me the facts that say MOST smokers die before they are Fifty eight.... then they have given their 40years of work and services to taxes

toiletduck

daveharnett wrote: »

If we are serious about charging based on health costs, fast food outlets are going to need some scales in front of the counter.
A whopper would cost 50c per 10kg (or per 8kg for the ladies).

(Patent pending. Hands off ryanair!)

Drink would be the number one offender, adding in policing costs and the like.

Well, all I can say is

"THANK YOU EU EXPANSION FOR BRINGING IN LOVELY CHEAP CIGARETTES"


And if you think I should feel bad about not paying tax, I think I pay enough as it is.

\edit: How much of tthe now €8.05 is tax to the govt does anyone know?

LEIN

Feel a weekend to Spain coming on!

pajodublin

Papa Smut wrote: »

Well, all I can say is

"THANK YOU EU EXPANSION FOR BRINGING IN LOVELY CHEAP CIGARETTES"


And if you think I should feel bad about not paying tax, I think I pay enough as it is.

\edit: How much of tthe now €8.05 is tax to the govt does anyone know?

i think its 3.60
its 45%

Tillotson

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/4840638.stm

"According to the Office for National Statistics the UK Government collected £8.1bn in tobacco taxes in 2002 and spent £1.5bn on smoking-related illnesses."

Can't find the original article.

Imagine the situation is pretty similar here though

Smokers are such an easy target

themont85

Varkov wrote: »

F*ck em. They know full well that even after increasing the price of smokes, the vast majority of people won't quit. If they wanted people to quit, they'd ban the sale of them. But people would still be getting them form the black market and the fatcats wouldn't be getting their tax munnies, so why not keep them legal and just tax the f*ck out of them?

F***ING K***JOCKIES!

It may not force you to quit but maybe it might stop a few younger people starting, thats a positive in my book.

pajodublin

themont85 wrote: »

It may not force you to quit but maybe it might stop a few younger people starting, thats a positive in my book.

+1
agree 100%
thats what should matter the most
lets hope kids dont follow our bad examples
whether it be drinkin or smoking