Tabacco tax forcing low income people to go without food

micosoft

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/oireachtas/tobacco-tax-forcing-low-income-people-to-go-without-food-1.1525108

At what point is the state responsible for poor individual choice? The same argument is being made for minimum alcohol pricing. I'm finding Kevin Humphreys remarkable and wondering:
a. Is the Tobacco lobby this powerful in Ireland.
b. Do we need to have a discussion on what is a minimum level of subsistence and a process to intervene where people make foolish decisions.
c. Or if somebody prioritises tobacco, alchohol, Sky over food that's their decision unless children are involved?

I'm concerned that a lot of the debate is coming down to extreme cases on both sides (welfare scrounger yada yada on the other side).

Days 298

Something like 30% of tobacco is bought on the black market. Probably going up daily. People still smoke, they are addicted. In the best world they wouldn't be addicted. But they are. Its sad that they need to pay what little they have to feed their addiction if thats what little they have. I don't see why not lower excise a small bit if it stopped smuggling a bit and give the exchequer some more or the exact same as what they currently have (bring people away from smuggled fags) and leave a little more in the smokers pockets. Bashing the smoker isn't really working IMO. I'm not a smoker.

The brain power and deductive reasoning of some of our TDs is amazing sometimes.

Ardent

I gave up the smokes 7 or 8 years ago. I take great exception to the term "poor individual choice". Let's call it what it really is: a strong physical addiction to an insidious drug.

ardmacha

I gave up the smokes 7 or 8 years ago. I take great exception to the term "poor individual choice". Let's call it what it really is: a strong physical addiction to an insidious drug.

I think the first half of your sentence contradicts the second half. Everyone knows loads of people who have stopped smoking, when you cannot afford it is a good time to do this. And it was a "poor individual choice" to start smoking in the first place.

lmimmfn

i smoke, but i cant even convieve of putting cigs before feeding a family, but of course there are loads who would, just like banning smoking in cars with kids( lets legislate for idiots and assholes??? ).

They should keep increasing the price, its barely affordable for me and a nice whack of an increase would be the best incentive, they wont do it though, too much sweet revenue. No doubt they'll end up increasing the price but giving money off vouchers to those on the dole.

No Pants

I don't know why anyone takes up smoking these days, there is no positive side to it.

JustAThought

No Pants wrote: »

I don't know why anyone takes up smoking these days, there is no positive side to it.

I watched someone constantly smoke over the weekend -a cancer survivor. Some people don't know when they have it good . Their treatment was " all" paid for by the state. Looks like some people will not learn , & others will always have to pay the price for it.

No Pants

JustAThought wrote: »

I watched someone constantly smoke over the weekend -a cancer survivor. Some people don't know when they have it good . Their treatment was " all" paid for by the state. Looks like some people will not learn , & others will always have to pay the price for it.

I can understand that; it's addiction mixed with habit. What I don't get is anyone taking up smoking in Ireland. For my entire lifetime (38 years), I've been hearing about how smoking is bad for health. With drinking at least you have the "In moderation" clause. No one has ever claimed that smoking in moderation is okay.

Victor

Tabacco tax forcing low income people to go without food

Tobacco addiction is forcing low income people to go without food.

realitykeeper

lmimmfn wrote: »

i smoke, but i cant even convieve of putting cigs before feeding a family, but of course there are loads who would, just like banning smoking in cars with kids( lets legislate for idiots and assholes??? ).

I agree with taxes on stupidity. Tobacco taxes are an example of this. The problem is what to do with smugglers. My suggestion would be for an island off the west coast be be used as a prison and it would have to leave the EU, UN etc. That way every scumbag in the country could be sent there, catapulted over razor wire and eventually they will turn a barren island fertile with their carcasses. That way, everyone is a winner.

OMD

Victor wrote: »

Tobacco addiction is forcing low income people to go without food.

Tobacco addiction may encourage some low income people to choose tobacco over food.
A very different way of looking at things.

People can choose to stop (like I and hundreds of thousands of people in this country did).
If they feel somehow they cannot give up they can choose to reduce. Someone smoking 20 a day can easily reduce to 10 or 15 a day if they choose thus saving 25-50% of the cost.

pebbles21

To combat the illegal tobacco trade here(and lets be honest its more like 40%)
They should reduce the price of a pack by nearly half (say €5)and keep it that way for say 5/6 months ,this will put the tobacco smugglers out of business
Then without warning put them straight back up again,but this time up to €12 a pack,with a statement saying we will put the price back down again when we see fit

hfallada

pebbles21 wrote: »

To combat the illegal tobacco trade here(and lets be honest its more like 40%)
They should reduce the price of a pack by nearly half (say €5)and keep it that way for say 5/6 months ,this will put the tobacco smugglers out of business
Then without warning put them straight back up again,but this time up to €12 a pack,with a statement saying we will put the price back down again when we see fit

A packet of 29 cigarettes Marlboro red are €3,80 in Germany and they have a problem with struggling too. People are always going to do something illegal if there is to be any profit made.

I don't think smuggling is above 20%. I don't know anyone who buys the cheap black market ones. Anyone who has says they are disgusting. Maybe if revenue stopped the selling of them openly on Moore st that would be a start. But very little is done to stop the sell of black market cigarettes

realitykeeper

Victor wrote: »

Tobacco addiction is forcing low income people to go without food.

Low income people take note: Self control is a great way of dealing addiction.

KwackerJack

Really??

If you choose a fag over food you need to be assessed by a physiologist!

If your children are suffering due to the fact you buy fags before food your kids should be taken off you!

Come on, even having this conversation is nuts!

the_syco

Victor wrote: »

Tobacco addiction is forcing low income people to go without food.

Best ban those egigs, then! :rolleyes:

KwackerJack wrote: »

If your children are suffering due to the fact you buy fags before food your kids should be taken off you!

I'd wonder if these are the same people who buy slabs of dutch with the mickey money, and then demand more money to help bring up their little bastards.

KwackerJack

the_syco wrote: »

Best ban those egigs, then! :rolleyes:
I'd wonder if these are the same people who buy slabs of dutch with the mickey money, and then demand more money to help bring up their little bastards.

Of course they are...first thing in the trolley are fags and slab of beer.

Great role models, and we wonder why so many kids grow up to be criminals or low life scum bags

Sleepy

Has any research been done regarding whether the duty on cigarettes has passed the point where it's getting diminishing returns? Given that the black market accounts for such a large amount of the tobacco smoked in this country, is there a case that reducing the duty would actually lead to an increased return to the exchequer?

creedp

Victor wrote: »

Tobacco addiction is forcing low income people to go without food.

Alcoholism is forcing low income people to go without food. Yet if the Govt announced an increase in the price of a pint/bottle of wine they'd be uproar .. why do I have to pay extra to drink my bottle of wine because some poor people can't control their intake!

Interesting point that pack of cigs cost only €3.80 in Germany .. maybe we should follow Germany's lead here on this one .. we seem to think everything they do is the bees kness these days

micosoft

Sleepy wrote: »

Has any research been done regarding whether the duty on cigarettes has passed the point where it's getting diminishing returns? Given that the black market accounts for such a large amount of the tobacco smoked in this country, is there a case that reducing the duty would actually lead to an increased return to the exchequer?

I think the level of tobacco smuggling clearly indicates that we are approaching the tipping point. Many Gardaí are of the view that Tobacco smuggling is maintaining some of our criminal gangs which is also low risk compared to smuggling Class A drugs. I think it's a useful discussion point as you are getting into the prohibition does not work argument. It's valid but this post is about the claim that people are going hungry due to the tax.

mathepac

mariaalice wrote: »

The brain power and deductive reasoning of some of our TDs is amazing sometimes.

Based on the article I think you might mean "the lack of". Still, we elect them, again, and again, and again ...

micosoft wrote: »

I think the level of tobacco smuggling clearly indicates that we are approaching the tipping point. ...

Can anyone say what "level" smuggling has reached? The statisticians here seem to think its some where between 20% and 40%. Are those figures by weight of tobacco products imported or by value or do the percentages represent losses to Revenue?

micosoft wrote: »

... Many Gardaí are of the view that Tobacco smuggling is maintaining some of our criminal gangs which is also low risk compared to smuggling Class A drugs. ...

I doubt very much if any Garda at any level maintains any such notion, even if some seem to think we have "slow lanes" and "fast lanes" on our motorways

micosoft wrote: »

... I think it's a useful discussion point as you are getting into the prohibition does not work argument. It's valid but this post is about the claim that people are going hungry due to the tax.

I'm sure people go hungry in this country every day, unfortunately. I can't remember ever seeing any evidence that tobacco products cause this, but if the notion leads to a general crack-down on the sale or consumption of tobacco products legal and illegal, then, repugnant as it is, it might have some value.

johnnyskeleton

No Pants wrote: »

I don't know why anyone takes up smoking these days, there is no positive side to it.

I've never been addicted to tobacco but I do enjoy the occasional cigar and it can be fairly pleasant

Days 298

Sleepy wrote: »

Has any research been done regarding whether the duty on cigarettes has passed the point where it's getting diminishing returns? Given that the black market accounts for such a large amount of the tobacco smoked in this country, is there a case that reducing the duty would actually lead to an increased return to the exchequer?

I remember watching a show on TV3 and they said illegal tobacco makes up 30% of the sales. Its a heated subject with very biased people on both sides. The best link I could find was the Limerick Leader
http://www.limerickleader.ie/news/local-news/one-third-of-cigarettes-found-in-limerick-bought-illegally-1-5394008

It says 27% are illegal cigarettes. I agree with the figure from standing at bus stops during the winter. 1 in 3 sounds about right for it. The only way I could tell was the language on the discarded boxes (litter :eek:). Not much to do when waiting for the bus . Anyone who smokes rather than eats is an idiot but the gov is definitely losing money. My nan was lifelong smoker who recently gave up smoking use to buy and would have friends buy her cigarettes while they were abroad for €3 or €4 a box. They should have never got rid of the 10 cigarette boxes either, now people have no choice but to buy 20 when they go into the store.

If they were that concerned about people health, why not ban them altogether? We banned mushrooms because one idiot jumped off a roof. We ban weed for absolutely no reason whatsoever.

It's all down to the tax take and they'll keep putting it up and up.

To hell with what people can afford. They know they're hopeless addicts and if they were €50 a pack, people would still buy them.

The government have no respect for their alleged bosses. Us, joe public.

Geuze

creedp wrote: »

Interesting point that pack of cigs cost only €3.80 in Germany .. maybe we should follow Germany's lead here on this one .. we seem to think everything they do is the bees kness these days

3.80 sounds too low to me, I have been there a good few times, but don't smoke.

http://www.the-tma.org.uk/tma-publications-research/facts-figures/eu-cigarette-prices/

More like 5-6 euro according to this.

Days 298

[Deleted User] wrote: »

If they were that concerned about people health, why not ban them altogether? We banned mushrooms because one idiot jumped off a roof. We ban weed for absolutely no reason whatsoever.

It's all down to the tax take and they'll keep putting it up and up.

To hell with what people can afford. They know they're hopeless addicts and if they were €50 a pack, people would still buy them.

The government have no respect for their alleged bosses. Us, joe public.

No Europe give the government recommendations now, TDs just come back to us every few years when their membership to the gravy train expires and they want it renewed. Look how many people were in favour of legalising abortion for rape, incest and fatal foetal abnormality yet they ignored us. The only time politicians listen is when they want something. Then they make promises they have no intention of keeping. And as Gilmore said "you tend to do that during elections"

micosoft

Days 298 wrote: »

No Europe give the government recommendations now, TDs just come back to us every few years when their membership to the gravy train expires and they want it renewed. "

And whose fault is it if we vote the same TD's back into power?

goose2005

the_syco wrote: »

Best ban those egigs, then! :rolleyes:
I'd wonder if these are the same people who buy slabs of dutch with the mickey money, and then demand more money to help bring up their little bastards.

I find that people who believe these caricatures of lower-class women have little or no contact with them

mathepac

goose2005 wrote: »

I find that people who believe these caricatures of lower-class women have little or no contact with them

I find that posters who believe in "lower-class women" have little or no contact with reality.

Get Real

hfallada wrote: »

A packet of 29 cigarettes Marlboro red are €3,80 in Germany

Just out of sheer curiosity, I've been reading this thread as I'm quite interested in human behavior, taxation, the increase in smuggling, and possible adverse affects of an increase in tax.

But just I scanned across the 29 cigarettes for 3.80 in Germany. What part? And Marlboro at that? A pack of 21 or 23(can't remember) Pall Mall in Germany is 5euro. But I'm open to correction

Just thought it strange. 3.80 for 29 Marlboro cigarettes. Thats 13 cent per cigarette, which would be the equivalent of 2.60 for twenty. You'd be hard pressed to find it that cheap in Slovakia, Croatia, Hungary etc nevermind Germany.

nesf

Deleted User wrote: »

If they were that concerned about people health, why not ban them altogether? We banned mushrooms because one idiot jumped off a roof. We ban weed for absolutely no reason whatsoever.

Because our experience of violent criminal gangs using the sale of these banned substances as a major source of income tells us this would be a rather dumb idea perhaps? One of the core arguments put forward by opponents of drugs for legalising them is to stop this.

srsly78

Get Real wrote: »

Just out of sheer curiosity, I've been reading this thread as I'm quite interested in human behavior, taxation, the increase in smuggling, and possible adverse affects of an increase in tax.

But just I scanned across the 29 cigarettes for 3.80 in Germany. What part? And Marlboro at that? A pack of 21 or 23(can't remember) Pall Mall in Germany is 5euro. But I'm open to correction

Just thought it strange. 3.80 for 29 Marlboro cigarettes. Thats 13 cent per cigarette, which would be the equivalent of 2.60 for twenty. You'd be hard pressed to find it that cheap in Slovakia, Croatia, Hungary etc nevermind Germany.

Prices differ across Germany, maybe taxes are different in each state. I would guess smokes are cheaper in the east but more expensive in the west.

Get Real

srsly78 wrote: »

Prices differ across Germany, maybe taxes are different in each state. I would guess smokes are cheaper in the east but more expensive in the west.

I appreciate that explanation, but they were 5euro in the East. I'm just confused I mean, I know Germany has different states, with different laws, but I was just wondering where the source was for the statement that 29 cigarettes cost 3.80. I've been to Berlin in the East, Dresden in the South East and Cologne too.

Cheapest brand is about a 5er for between 19-21, depending on brand. As I said, 3.80 for 29 is the equivalent of 2.60 for a 20 pack. Thats a claim that Germany is cheaper, or as cheap as Poland, Croatia, Slovakia, Czech Republic etc.

Germany is one of the richest and most developed economies in the EU, so I don't think the cigarettes are as cheap as was posted. Which would make the argument that smuggling still happens there at such cheap prices invalid. I was just wondering on what evidence/ source the claim was made. Because they're not 3.80 for 29, they're about 5 for 19, which would equate to about 6.50 for 29, not 3.80. But I could be wrong and just wanted to know for sure, because i'd be amazed :pac: I'm interested in Germany's strong tobacco lobby and that these lobbies are alive and well today:rolleyes:

nesf

nesf wrote: »

Because our experience of violent criminal gangs using the sale of these banned substances as a major source of income tells us this would be a rather dumb idea perhaps? One of the core arguments put forward by opponents of drugs for legalising them is to stop this.

I agree with you.

My point is, saying that they increase the tax because they're concerned about peoples health is utter tosh. We all know it.

There has to be a tipping point where it will be so expensive to legally smoke cigarettes that people will just buy black market cigarettes, further lining criminals pockets.

If this comes, the government may as well ban them. They're not going to see people buy legal smokes. But if they're illegal, it would be fairly obvious who is smoking them.

Obviously, I don't agree with this method! I just hate the fact that they're dressing up increases as concern for peoples health/welfare.

ardmacha

My point is, saying that they increase the tax because they're concerned about peoples health is utter tosh. We all know it.

Of course it benefits people's health. Expensive cigarettes discourage people from starting to smoke.

There has to be a tipping point where it will be so expensive to legally smoke cigarettes that people will just buy black market cigarettes, further lining criminals pockets.

No doubt smokers are not far removed from the criminal classes.

creedp

Deleted User wrote: »

Obviously, I don't agree with this method! I just hate the fact that they're dressing up increases as concern for peoples health/welfare.

While it doesn't make it any better .. it is quite common for Govts to dress up taxes/charges in a positive light, e.g. CO2 emission based taxes on cars and motor fuel to save the world from global warming, water charges to improve water supply infrastructure, LPT to increase funding for local services and broaden the tax base, public hospital/prescription charges to reduce wasteful use of health services, etc, etc. While these claims may have validity if introduced in a planned and evidence-based manner, unfortunately they are actually introduced in a haphazard/chaotic manner at budget time simply to plug an immediate budgetary hole. Very little. if any ex-ante/ex-post analysis is ever conducted to see if they actually achieve their stated objective. However, that's a very much secondary concern.

Going Forward

micosoft wrote: »

And whose fault is it if we vote the same TD's back into power?

I have to say I'm fed up reading this stupid line on Boards- there's a paper thin difference in policies of the mainstream political parties in Ireland.

Let's all vote Sinn Fein the next 30 years and see how things work out........?

micosoft

Going Forward wrote: »

I have to say I'm fed up reading this stupid line on Boards- there's a paper thin difference in policies of the mainstream political parties in Ireland.

Let's all vote Sinn Fein the next 30 years and see how things work out........?

Whether you are fed-up with it or not is irrelevant. Being fed-up does not change the fact that people vote for this paper thin line. Every election.

If you don't like it go setup a radical left or right wing party. I suspect you won't because a. you are not fed-up enough to do anything about it or b. you know full well that nobody would vote for you.

Ireland is a politically centrist country whether you like it or not.

micosoft

Deleted User wrote: »

I agree with you.

Obviously, I don't agree with this method! I just hate the fact that they're dressing up increases as concern for peoples health/welfare.

Would you rather they taxed things like medicine and children's shoes? What's your alternative to putting punitive taxes on things that are patently bad for you and have a social cost? Seems a really reasonable approach for a Government to take TBH.

Only stupid people choose smoking over food. We ought to embrace Darwinism instead of trying to protect people from themselves all the time. Some personal responsibility. Natural selection is a good thing

long range shooter

Ardent wrote: »

I gave up the smokes 7 or 8 years ago. I take great exception to the term "poor individual choice". Let's call it what it really is: a strong physical addiction to an insidious drug.

Well said:Dsmokers should be sent to rehab the same way as drug addicts and alcoholics

Systemic Risk

I think they should increase the price further and increase the effort combating smuggling. This would definitely reduce the numbers smoking further. The cost of them is really one of the main reasons I am still off them. I obviously wanted the health benefits of quitting but every time I think of smoking I remind myself that my twenty a day habit was costing me over 60 euro a week. Since I quit two and a half years ago I moved into a nicer house (higher rent) and bought and manage to run a car no problem.

Push the price beyond what people can afford to pay and the majority will quit, there will still be die-hards who will get their cigarettes somehow but with policies to combat smuggling then this could work. Would have to be done at a time when the countries finances were in better shape though.

I understand that some people don't want to quit but it is my opinion that due to the high rate of illnesses and death caused by smoking, it is overall a good idea to try to reduce the numbers smoking to as low as possible.

H3llR4iser

hfallada wrote: »

...But very little is done to stop the sell of black market cigarettes...

Italy had a huge smuggling market for cigarettes in the '70s, '80s' and early '90s. They would operate in broad daylight - you'd drive around and see somebody standing at the roadside with a sign "3 Marlboro 10.000" (means 3 Marlboro packs, 10.000 Lire...roughly 5 Euro, ot 7 considering inflation).

This state of things was mostly tolerated because it helped in avoiding bigger social problem to arise (long story short, it gave petty criminals a relatively harmless way to earn some money, rather than say go rob a bank gun in hand).

This until, in the early '90s, the big criminal organizations stroke deals with eastern European crime lords and things began to heat up. Tobacco smugglers would dock their powerboats on the Italian east coast, unload the cargo, load it onto armoured vehicles and then proceed to distribute the contraband by speeding around the country - on a tight schedule and with no regard about who got in their way. One particular episode where a column of armoured SUVs rammed three police cruisers off the road, then proceeded to plow through traffic killing a family of four in their car, changed the situation entirely.

The State decided to come down on smugglers like the proverbial ton of bricks. Hundred of arrests were made, military cruisers stationed on the smugglers routes, and the whole issue was GONE in six months, and has never really been back since.

This is simply to show that the problem can be solved if there is a will...heck, if an historically crime tolerant country like Italy can do it, it can be done anywhere.

Going Forward

micosoft wrote: »

Whether you are fed-up with it or not is irrelevant. Being fed-up does not change the fact that people vote for this paper thin line. Every election.

If you don't like it go setup a radical left or right wing party. I suspect you won't because a. you are not fed-up enough to do anything about it or b. you know full well that nobody would vote for you.

Ireland is a politically centrist country whether you like it or not.

What I refer to is how anyone thinks it's either useful or original anymore.
It contributes nothing to a discussion.

And it's dropped into almost every political thread as some kind of glib obvious statement by those who wish to appear clever.

Boskowski

ardmacha wrote: »

No doubt smokers are not far removed from the criminal classes.

I must say that's the best one I heard so far. Well done sir.

I'm sure the same can be said for people who drink more than a single sherry in one sitting. Or for people who aren't back home before dark.

D1stant

Going Forward wrote: »

What I refer to is how anyone thinks it's either useful or original anymore.
It contributes nothing to a discussion.

And it's dropped into almost every political thread as some kind of glib obvious statement by those who wish to appear clever.

Well said, but then we re-elect those wishing to appear clever. Its mad :mad:

the groutch

just wait for the budget, they'll decrease the tax to try win votes in the local elections

Taxburden carrier

long range shooter wrote: »

Well said:Dsmokers should be sent to rehab the same way as drug addicts and alcoholics

At whose expense.....lifestyle choice, deal with the consequences . Not up to the rest of us to sort it

skafish

Taxburden carrier wrote: »

At whose expense.....lifestyle choice, deal with the consequences . Not up to the rest of us to sort it

Inclined to agree with you, but, by that logic, all drug addicts should be left to their own devices, with the consequent costs to the rest of us.
And what about obesity related diabetes, or car drivers who are responsible for accidents? do we just leave them on the side of the road?

In addition, most smokers will claim (I guess) that the amount they pay in taxes etc more than out weighs the cost of treatment?