This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.
Coronavirus and the impact of Lockdown policy
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In
  SW19 CPFC  Addiscombe West 17 Jan 23 2.06pm |
  |
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Teddy Eagle
Really? All those extra children don't put additional strain on the NHS? It's also a fact that smokers' net contribution to the tax system is greater than what they cost. This is based on old data, and incorrect. A 2009 study indicated that this might be the case... it's now 2023 and the latest research indicates that the economic cost is about 17bn, vs tax receipts of 10bn. What you're also not taking into account is where that 10bn would go if smoking was banned. Into a whole range of other goods and services. This would also mean more people that have been unlucky with ailments rather than deliberately and willingly creating them being cared for by the NHS.
Did you know? 98.0000001% of people are morons. |
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
  |
Teddy Eagle  17 Jan 23 2.20pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by SW19 CPFC
This is based on old data, and incorrect. A 2009 study indicated that this might be the case... it's now 2023 and the latest research indicates that the economic cost is about 17bn, vs tax receipts of 10bn. What you're also not taking into account is where that 10bn would go if smoking was banned. Into a whole range of other goods and services. This would also mean more people that have been unlucky with ailments rather than deliberately and willingly creating them being cared for by the NHS. According to the NHS smoking costs them £2.6 bn.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stirlingsays 17 Jan 23 2.27pm |
 |
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
Of course not but by the time they age they should have contributed at the same level as those born here, without costing society the need to educate them. The suggestion that immigration puts an additional financial strain on us is false. That analysis on the costs of immigration has already been done. Only Europeans meet the requirement that they in fact contribute more. The factual reality is that other immigrant groups cost the state more than they contribute: some more than others and some significantly so. Edited by Stirlingsays (17 Jan 2023 3.03pm)
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| SW19 CPFC Addiscombe West 17 Jan 23 2.37pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Teddy Eagle
According to the NHS smoking costs them £2.6 bn. What you said wasn't NHS specific... 'It's also a fact that smokers' net contribution to the tax system is greater than what they cost.' Hence the stats – Total economic cost £17bn vs. tax receipts of £10bn. If it was meant to be NHS specific, then that accounts for £3.6bn of the £17bn. When looked at in totality banning smoking would be a massive benefit to both the NHS, society and the economy as a whole. Debating tax receipts vs cost to the NHS is pretty meaningless as you're ignoring all the other negative components related to smoking in an attempt to trivialise the issue.
Did you know? 98.0000001% of people are morons. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Teddy Eagle 17 Jan 23 2.51pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by SW19 CPFC
What you said wasn't NHS specific... 'It's also a fact that smokers' net contribution to the tax system is greater than what they cost.' Hence the stats – Total economic cost £17bn vs. tax receipts of £10bn. If it was meant to be NHS specific, then that accounts for £3.6bn of the £17bn. When looked at in totality banning smoking would be a massive benefit to both the NHS, society and the economy as a whole. Debating tax receipts vs cost to the NHS is pretty meaningless as you're ignoring all the other negative components related to smoking in an attempt to trivialise the issue.
As the discussion had previously been about the NHS I thought it was implied. Obviously not. I'm not trivialising anything. You don't like people smoking. I smoke. It's not illegal although it probably will be.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stirlingsays 17 Jan 23 2.56pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by SW19 CPFC
What you said wasn't NHS specific... 'It's also a fact that smokers' net contribution to the tax system is greater than what they cost.' Hence the stats – Total economic cost £17bn vs. tax receipts of £10bn. If it was meant to be NHS specific, then that accounts for £3.6bn of the £17bn. When looked at in totality banning smoking would be a massive benefit to both the NHS, society and the economy as a whole. Debating tax receipts vs cost to the NHS is pretty meaningless as you're ignoring all the other negative components related to smoking in an attempt to trivialise the issue.
I'm no smoker, never even had one....too much sugar was my vice. Forgive my laziness in not reading back but I'm not sure what point is being made here exactly. The point about the cost of 'vices' be applied to many other legal areas of society from alcohol to fast foods. I'm sure you believe this anyway but for my own hubris I'll go on this little rant. The idea that society or a health service should be run upon utilitarianism lines does kind of chime with me and I'm sure with many somewhat. However, when we think a little more deeply about it that sound becomes a little discordant with even basic ideas of personal freedoms. Also there is the realization that what is and isn't utilitarianism quickly becomes fused with just basic excuses for authoritarianism. Something that's really more ideological than utilitarian. I think we have it right when we discourage certain well established poor health choices but only in that advisory role. When we punish people we move away from the western model to something else. Edited by Stirlingsays (17 Jan 2023 3.02pm)
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
ASCPFC  Pro-Cathedral/caravan park 17 Jan 23 3.09pm |
|
|---|---|
|
NHS should be contribution based. I.e you've paid national insurance for five years - you get five years NHS cover. Anybody new to the UK should be required to have private health insurance of a certain standard. As to the smoker debate, it could be far more nuanced. The NHS could perhaps treat those who have a decent chance of survival, once, then if they still smoke, not again. The other part of this: I don't really like the treatment of really, really old people for terminal cancers. My Mum was treated poorly and then very well, but she was always going to die at 83 from stomach cancer. The treatment prolonged a poor standard of living. She certainly wanted to die months/ maybe a year or two before she did.
Red and Blue Army! |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stirlingsays 17 Jan 23 3.17pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by ASCPFC
NHS should be contribution based. I.e you've paid national insurance for five years - you get five years NHS cover. Anybody new to the UK should be required to have private health insurance of a certain standard. As to the smoker debate, it could be far more nuanced. The NHS could perhaps treat those who have a decent chance of survival, once, then if they still smoke, not again. The other part of this: I don't really like the treatment of really, really old people for terminal cancers. My Mum was treated poorly and then very well, but she was always going to die at 83 from stomach cancer. The treatment prolonged a poor standard of living. She certainly wanted to die months/ maybe a year or two before she did. I don't think contribution based really works out, especially with an aging population. Also there are so many exceptions to it, what about mothers and women in general? Their contribution levels are often much lower for obvious child rearing reasons. Then some people are just a lot naturally more sickly than others due to poor genes. Then there's the low IQ, there are just as many people born 85 IQ or less as there are with 130 IQ or more. Are we just throwing these people on the slag heap? I say no, not if they are our people....our people, our problem. I'm with you on health tourism though.....What has been allowed to happen in this country has been ridiculous. Edited by Stirlingsays (17 Jan 2023 4.19pm)
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| SW19 CPFC Addiscombe West 17 Jan 23 5.17pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Stirlingsays
I'm no smoker, never even had one....too much sugar was my vice. Forgive my laziness in not reading back but I'm not sure what point is being made here exactly. The point about the cost of 'vices' be applied to many other legal areas of society from alcohol to fast foods. I'm sure you believe this anyway but for my own hubris I'll go on this little rant. The idea that society or a health service should be run upon utilitarianism lines does kind of chime with me and I'm sure with many somewhat. However, when we think a little more deeply about it that sound becomes a little discordant with even basic ideas of personal freedoms. Also there is the realization that what is and isn't utilitarianism quickly becomes fused with just basic excuses for authoritarianism. Something that's really more ideological than utilitarian. I think we have it right when we discourage certain well established poor health choices but only in that advisory role. When we punish people we move away from the western model to something else. Edited by Stirlingsays (17 Jan 2023 3.02pm) I was clarifying the actual total (estimated) financial impact of smoking vs. the tax takings with up to date analysis and data. Why? Put simply, the 'tax takings are more than the cost therefore smoking is a positive' argument doesn't hold water – get rid of it and there's an enormous benefit. Fact. Ultimately your issue here appears to be the word 'banning' – well let's just replace that with 'prohibitively taxed'. Still on sale, not banned, but mega expensive and would result in the same outcome as banning, give or take. That's technically advisory. Same reply? There is often so much sensitivity on here to anything other than complete free choice everywhere, at all times, that sometimes it does make me chuckle... 'banning' was used as a mechanism to illustrate the point... implementing a smoking ban would not mean the sky would fall in – it's a massive leap from that to an authoritarian state. Junk food etc. is not directly comparable – if you had to compile a list of these sorts of vices smoking would be no1. Food is also required to exist... smoking is not, and was effectively commercialised and packaged up as an aspirational/healthy activity in order to make vast sums of money. The market was created for that artificially. If smoking didn't exist, you wouldn't crave it. If food didn't, you would. Banning something that is effectively a corporate construct in the first place doesn't seem particularly revolutionary to me. In fact, the free choice argument here is laughable... the exact opposite of that is why people smoke in the first place. Corporates, behavioural change via branding, advertising and promotion = market creation and normalisation. This opens another can of worms re. what actually is free will and when are you being coerced or shepherded... but to me to say that smoking is a matter of choice isn't correct. Edited by SW19 CPFC (17 Jan 2023 5.34pm)
Did you know? 98.0000001% of people are morons. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| SW19 CPFC Addiscombe West 17 Jan 23 5.29pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Teddy Eagle
As the discussion had previously been about the NHS I thought it was implied. Obviously not. I'm not trivialising anything. You don't like people smoking. I smoke. It's not illegal although it probably will be. It wasn't. What was implied in that sentence was the attempt to make smoking appear to be a net positive, which is complete rubbish. As mentioned above, smoking was turned from something you chose to do into something you were made to think you should do (aspirational, healthy etc.) the moment corporates got involved. However the evidence is clear and the logic is undeniable. If your position is 'well I enjoy it even though I am fully aware of the likely consequences and I'm happy to spend thousands doing so', puffing away on £10 notes, then that's your choice. Pretty bloody stupid, but your choice nonetheless. Smoking will die and vaping will take it's place. No long term studies on that out yet but I'd assume that it will be another health disaster – the same playbook is being applied to vaping that was applied to smoking. Aspirational, healthier for you, something that you should do. Mental
Did you know? 98.0000001% of people are morons. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Teddy Eagle 17 Jan 23 5.42pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by SW19 CPFC
It wasn't. What was implied in that sentence was the attempt to make smoking appear to be a net positive, which is complete rubbish. As mentioned above, smoking was turned from something you chose to do into something you were made to think you should do (aspirational, healthy etc.) the moment corporates got involved. However the evidence is clear and the logic is undeniable. If your position is 'well I enjoy it even though I am fully aware of the likely consequences and I'm happy to spend thousands doing so', puffing away on £10 notes, then that's your choice. Pretty bloody stupid, but your choice nonetheless. Smoking will die and vaping will take it's place. No long term studies on that out yet but I'd assume that it will be another health disaster – the same playbook is being applied to vaping that was applied to smoking. Aspirational, healthier for you, something that you should do. Mental Well, thanks.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stirlingsays 17 Jan 23 6.13pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by SW19 CPFC
I was clarifying the actual total (estimated) financial impact of smoking vs. the tax takings with up to date analysis and data. Thank you. Originally posted by SW19 CPFC
Why? Put simply, the 'tax takings are more than the cost therefore smoking is a positive' argument doesn't hold water – get rid of it and there's an enormous benefit. Fact. Ultimately your issue here appears to be the word 'banning' – well let's just replace that with 'prohibitively taxed'. Still on sale, not banned, but mega expensive and would result in the same outcome as banning, give or take. That's technically advisory. Same reply? Semantic word play doesn't cut it with me I'm afraid. I don't believe in treating adults like children. I do believe in giving them advice. I understand the argument that as smoking costs the health service more that it should be taxed in line with those costs. However, I don't agree that it should be taxed for social engineering purposes. In terms of social engineering I believe in healthy advice....not what in effect ends up in treating normal adults like children. Originally posted by SW19 CPFC
There is often so much sensitivity on here to anything other than complete free choice everywhere, at all times, that sometimes it does make me chuckle... 'banning' was used as a mechanism to illustrate the point... implementing a smoking ban would not mean the sky would fall in – it's a massive leap from that to an authoritarian state. I assumed this wasn't your position on individual freedom v authoritarianism. All I can say here is that we differ on the default of just how far the state should compel (however it does that) individuals to behave how it sees fit. It's a nuanced topic I agree, but on the above parameters we differ. Originally posted by SW19 CPFC
Junk food etc. is not directly comparable – if you had to compile a list of these sorts of vices smoking would be no1. Food is also required to exist... smoking is not, and was effectively commercialised and packaged up as an aspirational/healthy activity in order to make vast sums of money. The market was created for that artificially. If smoking didn't exist, you wouldn't crave it. If food didn't, you would. Banning something that is effectively a corporate construct in the first place doesn't seem particularly revolutionary to me. I disagree, yes, food is a requirement for us to exist. However, fast food and other fatty forms are not a requirement and so fit neatly within that original point. Also, smoking suitable plant leaves has existed, for example, in the UK since Raleigh brought it to England from Virginia in the sixteenth century, long before a commercial market for it was created. Originally posted by SW19 CPFC
In fact, the free choice argument here is laughable... the exact opposite of that is why people smoke in the first place. Corporates, behavioural change via branding, advertising and promotion = market creation and normalisation. This opens another can of worms re. what actually is free will and when are you being coerced or shepherded... but to me to say that smoking is a matter of choice isn't correct. Edited by SW19 CPFC (17 Jan 2023 5.34pm) We just have to differ I'm afraid. Yes, the free will question is always an interesting one.....While the above remains my default position I myself recognise that in certain areas the balance changes. I understand that some would also disagree with me on that. Edited by Stirlingsays (17 Jan 2023 6.15pm)
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / RegisterNew users
Registration is now on our new message board
Existing users
To login with your existing username you will need to convert your account over to the new message board.
Sponsors
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2024 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.