Would you pay 20 quid for a packet of cigarettes?

eviltimeban · 27-06-2014 10:12AM #1

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/reilly-calls-for-packet-of-20-cigarettes-to-cost-20-1.1846596

I probably would, but I'd smoke far less.

Or buy them in bulk at the duty free.

Conmaicne Mara · 27-06-2014 10:13AM

No, I don't smoke

Sleepy · 27-06-2014 10:14AM

Nope, I'd just take a quarterly return trip to Eastern Europe on a cheap flight to stock up.

Irishcrx · 27-06-2014 10:15AM

Nah I'd just quit, tbh I wouldn't even pay €10 for a pack I smoke Amber leaf and it's €5.50 couldn't stomach 10 quid.

This whole no branding packaging thing is a farce as well, won't stop anybody smoking in the slightest just a marketing ploy to be 'seen to be seen' doing something about the 'the issue' if they wanted people to stop smoking stop beating around the bush and ban them outright I dare ya.

The ammount they'd loose in tax they'd have BOD on TV smoking his brains out telling you how great they are, they'd be throwing them off open top buses at children to get you back on them.

The government need smokers and their tax money. Anything else is a lie.

Captain Chaos · 27-06-2014 10:16AM

I reckon you'd have to put them to €50 for people to stop but the you'd have a huge black market and the government would be missing out on a ton of revenue and tax the crap out of something else like drink.

jimgoose · 27-06-2014 10:17AM

Not on your nelly. Be the perfect excuse to pop over to Budapest on the Air of Ryan every so often for a few boxes of tabackey and a spot of lunch amid the post-Soviet whimsy. I wonder would the good Minister be able to do similar regarding his hamburgers. :cool:

PizzamanIRL · 27-06-2014 10:17AM

No i'm not a gobsheet.

Myrddin · 27-06-2014 10:18AM

Another 'fix a problem tax'. Funny how all these 'solutions' involve generating revenue.

Fred Swanson · 27-06-2014 10:18AM

This post has been deleted.

KungPao · 27-06-2014 10:18AM

Well I spend 4.99 a week on e-juice, so probably won't be buying packs of cigs any time soon.

Don't how people hand over 10 bones for a measly 20 fags, never mind €20.

Fred Swanson · 27-06-2014 10:20AM

This post has been deleted.

Caliden · 27-06-2014 10:21AM

22% of the population smokes?

That's a **** load of people considering that figure includes children.

KungPao · 27-06-2014 10:22AM

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Please no. The witch hunt for e-cigs make me very angry as it is.

murphyebass · 27-06-2014 11:21AM

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Thats just a matter of time imo. They tax fuel, fags and booze so highly as people will continue to buy them.
E Fags are such an obvious choice to tax highly. Just not as highly as proper fags so people still have a reason to quit (other than the whole health side of things obviosuly).

On the flip side I wouldnt be surprise if the goverment decided to close a load of those new efag shops similarly to the way they closed the herb shops recently. I know they're not legal highs but the goverment do seem to be completely petrified of the percieved unknown health dangers with them.

From what bit of reading I've done there doesnt semwhat damage if any they actually do. So it'd be typical of our lot to put the cart before the horse.

Personally neither bother me as I dont smoke but it'll be a big news story either way.

galwayredgirl · 27-06-2014 11:23AM

eviltimeban wrote: »

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/reilly-calls-for-packet-of-20-cigarettes-to-cost-20-1.1846596

I probably would, but I'd smoke far less.

Or buy them in bulk at the duty free.

Reilly really is a one trick pony. He is obsessed with cigarettes while all around him the health service is in a shambles. If people want to smoke then that is their business. Nanny stateism gone mad! :mad:

DublinWriter · 27-06-2014 11:26AM

murphyebass wrote: »

On the flip side I wouldnt be surprise if the goverment decided to close a load of those new efag shops similarly to the way they closed the herb shops recently. I know they're not legal highs but the goverment do seem to be completely petrified of the percieved unknown health dangers loss of tax revenue with them.

FIFU.

Myrddin · 27-06-2014 11:27AM

murphyebass wrote: »

I know they're not legal highs but the goverment do seem to be completely petrified of the percieved unknown health dangers with them a lot of people switching over to ecigs & thus the lose in traditional cigarette tax/revenue.

Fixed that for you. If a government had sincere concerns about health effects, cigarettes would be illegal (well, the ads do tell us one in every two smokers will die of a smoking related disease...how dangerous do things have to be?). But in reality, the only real concerns are revenue related. Ecigs will 100% be made a lot more expensive, all in the name of protecting us (for the record, I'm a non smoker & don't use ecigs).

I Heart Internet · 27-06-2014 11:30AM

Myrddin wrote: »

Another 'fix a problem tax'. Funny how all these 'solutions' involve generating revenue.

These are fairly standard, internationally recognised, tools of public policy. If you raise taxes on "problems" (unhealthy habits, polluting activities) you can (in theory) reduce taxes on good things (starting businesses, creting jobs, etc). That's the theory.

Caliden · 27-06-2014 11:31AM

galwayredgirl wrote: »

Reilly really is a one trick pony. He is obsessed with cigarettes while all around him the health service is in a shambles. If people want to smoke then that is their business. Nanny stateism gone mad! :mad:

To be fair, smokers cost the state in terms of health care.

If 22% of the population smoke and 1 in 2 smokers die of a smoke related disease then would it be safe to say that 10% of the population eventually reach hospital purely because they smoke?

I've nothing against smokers but at the end of the day they cost the health service money so getting the cost back via taxation from the source makes sense to me.

murphyebass · 27-06-2014 11:32AM

Myrddin wrote: »

Fixed that for you. If a government had sincere concerns about health effects, cigarettes would be illegal (well, the ads do tell us one in every two smokers will die of a smoking related disease...how dangerous do things have to be?). But in reality, the only real concerns are revenue related. Ecigs will 100% be made a lot more expensive, all in the name of protecting us (for the record, I'm a non smoker & don't use ecigs).

Yeah your probably right but i doubt they'd come out and say it that way though.

Myrddin · 27-06-2014 11:33AM

I Heart Internet wrote: »

These are fairly standard, internationally recognised, tools of public policy. If you raise taxes on "problems" (unhealthy habits, polluting activities) you can (in theory) reduce taxes on good things (starting businesses, creting jobs, etc). That's the theory.

I'm sure the lads in the Dail are flat out looking at ways to reduce taxes on those good things.

petronius · 27-06-2014 11:34AM

20euro a pack of cigarettes doubling the price
you have to clamp down on the black market
but anything which reduces smoking is a positive for people and society
anything which helps people give up is a positive
reduce the cost of nicotine patches and gum

murphyebass · 27-06-2014 11:35AM

DublinWriter wrote: »

FIFU.

I'm obviosuly old / not down with the kids but what does FIFU mean?

I even googled it to no avail.

folan · 27-06-2014 11:40AM

i would, depending on the quality and quantity and LSD content

The Pheasant2 · 27-06-2014 11:40AM

So stupid...does that fat idiot not understand simple economics? People will just switch to black market cigs which are probably more unhealthy AND they'll need to spend more on policing the counterfeit cigarettes.

jimgoose · 27-06-2014 11:42AM

Caliden wrote: »

...at the end of the day they cost the health service money so getting the cost back via taxation from the source makes sense to me.

Does the Laffer Curve make sense to you? It would appear no-one in Gummint has heard of it! :pac:

Montroseee · 27-06-2014 11:43AM

The Pheasant2 wrote: »

So stupid...does that fat idiot not understand simple economics? People will just switch to black market cigs which are probably more unhealthy AND they'll need to spend more on policing the counterfeit cigarettes.

Anyone who switches to solely smoking black market cigarettes needs their head examined.

I Heart Internet · 27-06-2014 11:45AM

murphyebass wrote: »

I'm obviosuly old / not down with the kids but what does FIFU mean?

I even googled it to no avail.

Fixed It For You, I think.

OldNotWIse · 27-06-2014 11:45AM

No. Then again I wouldn't pay 9.60 for one either. Buy them outside Ireland. Simple.

Elmo · 27-06-2014 11:46AM

I think they should give cigarettes out for free, let the 22% that smoke die and save some health money. Also I'd suggest making all fatty foods free, should kill off a few more, and alcohol free, feck it may as well die happy Cocaine for All.

galwayredgirl · 27-06-2014 11:46AM

Caliden wrote: »

To be fair, smokers cost the state in terms of health care.

If 22% of the population smoke and 1 in 2 smokers die of a smoke related disease then would it be safe to say that 10% of the population eventually reach hospital purely because they smoke?

I've nothing against smokers but at the end of the day they cost the health service money so getting the cost back via taxation from the source makes sense to me.

Inefficient management in the HSE costs a lot more! Too many overpaid pen pushers.

Would you pay 20 quid for a packet of cigarettes?

Comments