Extra tax on tobacco what next?

[OLDFORDNUT]

Originally Posted by zdcol71

Tobacco smoking is the leading cause of preventable death and illness in Queensland, increasing the risk of lung cancer, cardiovascular disease and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease amongst others.
The total smoking-related financial burden on the Queensland community is estimated at $2.2 billion annually, which includes health care costs, loss of productivity through sickness and absenteeism, and the impact of premature death.
Each year in Queensland, an estimated 3,400 die from illnesses caused by their smoking; one in two people who start smoking as teenagers will eventually die from tobacco related diseases.
Smoking costs the health system dearly, with 168,115 hospital bed days at a cost of $137.8 million directly attributable to smoking-related conditions each year.
(media release from Qld health from April last year)

Your quoting from a report that is utter garbage and government propaganda

[OLDFORDNUT]

Originally Posted by snappy

So in other words the other 1/3 of the population can go ******** them selves .

Not all people find the smell offensive so dont pretend you speak for all non smokers. I might find your face offensive but the reality is i wont say a thing because i mind my own business . Unlike a lot of people who think its there god given right to make choices for other people .

I wish i never started smoking i knew they were addictive and they were bad for you but when your a 13yo kid your above it all . I tried many times to quit and have been uncessful and am currently trying again . But at this point my daily fuel bill has risen by 12%.
The simple fact is this price rise is extortion .

Very well put,
I for one am a heavy smoker and if someone near me does not smoke i ask them if they mind first before ligting up in their presence.if they do mind i wait or move away from them.
As for health costs,
its all propaganda ,smoking pays for more than all the medical costs of health system. 2 years ago we had ads saying 147 chemicals in a smoke, today we have ads saying 4000 chemicals in smokes. for god sake people do you believe everything your told by our Government.

[vztrt]

Some more on the Henry Tax review.

http://www.theage.com.au/business/fe...0430-tzia.html

How the Henry review will affect you
PETER MARTIN
May 1, 2010

DRINKERS of fine wine will be spared the pain inflicted on cigarette smokers in the Henry review. In fact, they're likely to find Australia's most expensive drop more than $100 a bottle cheaper. But drinkers of cask wine are in for a shock.

A move towards a single flat volumetric tax on alcohol is set to cut the price of a $620 bottle of Grange by $133 but add $20 to a four-litre cask.

The dramatic changes are some of one of many driven by the Henry review's pursuit of simplicity and fairness.

Its recommendations would also increase the salary bills of charities, which would no longer be able to offer workers untaxed fringe benefits; subject many more businesses to payroll tax; cut tax on savings accounts; boost superannuation tax for high-income earners and cut family payments for older children in order to increase them for preschoolers.

The review finds that while beer is sensibly taxed per unit of alcohol, wine is taxed by price, with rebates for small producers. This means expensive bottles are very heavily taxed, some bottles attract no alcohol tax and cask wine is taxed at just 5¢ per standard drink.

The proposed flat tax set at the packaged full-strength beer rate of 39¢ per standard drink would push up the price of a four-litre cask from $15 to $35, according to the Australian Hotels Association, while taking $6 off a $54 cabernet sauvignon.

A 285-millilitre draft beer would climb 28¢, while $9 would be sliced off the price of a $43 bottle of Johnnie Walker Red Label whisky. Alcopops, recently subject to a tax increase, would be cheaper.

The change is likely to be phased in over a number of years because of the disruption it would cause.

Bank accounts will benefit more quickly from another attempt at simplicity. The review has found that the real effective tax rate on interest earned in bank accounts approaches 50 per cent for a middle earner on the 31.5 per cent rate. By contrast, the real effective tax on earnings from shares is around 10 per cent, and minus 30 per cent if they are bought with borrowed money. The effective real tax rate on superannuation approaches minus 40 per cent.

In order to even things up and advantage saving, the review will cut the rate of tax on bank interest while sharply increasing tax on superannuation for high-income earners.

The review flatly rejects pleas from the superannuation industry to lift compulsory contributions but endorses a separate small compulsory levy to fund a national disability insurance scheme.

It recommends measures to encourage so-called ''longevity insurance'' under which super payouts are turned into guaranteed lifetime fortnightly payments.

Insurance itself should in the committee's view become free of all taxes other than the GST.

Stamp duty will remain on real estate transactions. In return, the family home will remain exempt from capital gains tax. But capital gains arrangements for rental properties face a shake-up.

The number of different welfare benefits would shrink and family benefits would be reconfigured to pay the most in the preschool years when high childcare costs mean expenses are their highest.

Businesses will face an extension of payroll tax rather than its abolition as many had hoped. But businesses may be relieved of the need to calculate and pay fringe benefits tax.

The review has considered making it payable in the hands of employees rather than their employers and recommends for the first time imposing FBT on the employees of charities.

If the government adopts the recommendation to extend the tax to the charities it is likely to phase in the change.

Despite early enthusiasm for a hefty cut in the 30 per cent rate of company tax, the review now believes that only a small cut is needed in the changed circumstances that have followed the global financial crisis. Mining companies would be hit with an extra resources rent tax when their profit climbs into so-called super-profit territory. They face a supertax of 40 per cent in addition to company tax.

[FRDGAL]

Originally Posted by MAD

This is a blatant tax grab, wrapped up in "look at me I'm saving lives", that is estimated to net the gov $5b. That's not pocket money. As has been said, if they were serious, they would either make it illegal or slap a massive tax hike on them in one go, rather than trickle feed it so that people just get used to it.

Not a chance in hell of them becoming illegal or being hiked by huge amounts because then the government loses money. Make them illegal and they've lost revenue from smokers. Hike them too high in one hit, too many quit and there goes their estimated billions in revenue from that. Hypocrits! I'm a smoker and I say ban them.

You are 100% right on them trickle feeding. People will get use to it and adjust their budgets accordingly, simple. It's why prices are what they are. I remember when a pack of Wini Blue was around $3.50 a pack, trickle feeding has bought it to the price it is today and it's accepted as the norm, know what I mean..

[GasoLane]

Originally Posted by FRDGAL

You are 100% right on them trickle feeding. People will get use to it and adjust their budgets accordingly, simple. It's why prices are what they are. I remember when a pack of Wini Blue was around $3.50 a pack, trickle feeding has bought it to the price it is today and it's accepted as the norm, know what I mean..

Yep, I think I used to say that I was giving up if they reached $5.00

[FRDGAL]

Originally Posted by GasOLane

Yep, I think I used to say that I was giving up if they reached $5.00

Lol I hear ya. I use to say the same thing but *shrugs*

[ECOJET]

Originally Posted by FRDGAL

Not a chance in hell of them becoming illegal or being hiked by huge amounts because then the government loses money. Make them illegal and they've lost revenue from smokers. Hike them too high in one hit, too many quit and there goes their estimated billions in revenue from that. Hypocrits! I'm a smoker and I say ban them.

You are 100% right on them trickle feeding. People will get use to it and adjust their budgets accordingly, simple. It's why prices are what they are. I remember when a pack of Wini Blue was around $3.50 a pack, trickle feeding has bought it to the price it is today and it's accepted as the norm, know what I mean..

so man up, give them up, and save thousands a year.. simple.
I have no sympathy to smokers, and find it odd that i am currently learning ethics at uni yet we live in a society where companies are legally allowed to manufacture and sell (and sometimes ADVERTISE) a product like tobacco.
Its good its become very socially unacceptable and i think in a few decades it will be fairly shunned by everyone..

[FRDGAL]

Originally Posted by ECOJET

so man up, give them up, and save thousands a year.. simple.

If you'd read an earlier post of mine, you'll know I am using patches again. And I'd never give up to save money. I don't need money. I'd give up for my health first before any other reason

[GasoLane]

Originally Posted by ECOJET

i am currently learning ethics at uni yet we live in a society where companies are legally allowed to manufacture and sell (and sometimes ADVERTISE) a product like tobacco.
Its good its become very socially unacceptable and i think in a few decades it will be fairly shunned by everyone..

Yes, ethics can be a problem. Like when a Brewing company sponsors a motor race.

Originally Posted by ECOJET

so man up, give them up, and save thousands a year.. simple.

Umm, your telling a Lady to "Man up"?.... Best you go buy a flame suit, quick

[ECOJET]

Originally Posted by GasOLane

Yes, ethics can be a problem. Like when a Brewing company sponsors a motor race.

good point, though alcohol is no angel it is (on its own) nowhere near as dangerous as smoking tobacco

Originally Posted by GasOLane

Umm, your telling a Lady to "Man up"?.... Best you go buy a flame suit, quick

oops

[GasoLane]

Originally Posted by ECOJET

good point, though alcohol is no angel it is (on its own) nowhere near as dangerous as smoking tobacco

Nah..... I'm not going to get into a lesser of 2 evils debate.

But I have always thought that given that drinking and driving don't mix, Brewing companies can sponsor Motoring events without anyone raising an eyebrow, or even a letter to a newspaper.

[SpoolMan]

Main argument I see there are safe levels of drinking, in some cases they believe the odd drink of wine or whatever can be beneficial.... but there is no safe levels of smoking.

I am not against smokers I live with one and did smoke myself many years ago, we have to pay what we have to pay or quit, and I do know its not easy to quit but gee you feel good when you do.

[zdcol71]

Originally Posted by OLDFORDNUT

Your quoting from a report that is utter garbage and government propaganda

'Course it is, and I bet you have a grandmother who smokes 50 a day and is still kicking at 99 years of age,...good god, why is everything that some people don't agree with or believe, always garbage, or government propoganda??.

[GasoLane]

Originally Posted by zdcol71

'Course it is, and I bet you have a grandmother who smokes 50 a day and is still kicking at 99 years of age,...good god, why is everything that some people don't agree with or believe, always garbage, or government propoganda??.

Not a Grannie but I have a Mother who's 87, smoked untill she was about 50 and has lived with smokers ever since.

Still manages to walk the (brain dead) dog every day even though she has been hospitalised twice in the last 3 years. Neither of which was smoke related.

I'm not saying that smoking will NOT have undesirable health effects...look at Christopher Skase.....oh wait a minute, that was Karma.





Ah bugger this, I'm going outside for a smoke!

[svo supporter]

Originally Posted by ECOJET

good point, though alcohol is no angel it is (on its own) nowhere near as dangerous as smoking tobacco



oops

What about liver and kidney problems, related with drinking?

Driving. Don't have to worry about having too many smokes before jumping behind the wheel. Can the same be said for drink?

[zdcol71]

Originally Posted by GasOLane

Not a Grannie but I have a Mother who's 87, smoked untill she was about 50 and has lived with smokers ever since.

Still manages to walk the (brain dead) dog every day even though she has been hospitalised twice in the last 3 years. Neither of which was smoke related.

I'm not saying that smoking will NOT have undesirable health effects...look at Christopher Skase.....oh wait a minute, that was Karma.





Ah bugger this, I'm going outside for a smoke!

We have mothers of comparable age..good that yours stopped at 50, unfortunately,mine hasn't yet.
I hope your mum continues to walk the dog for a long time to come..(and I hope you can kick the habit)

[GasoLane]

Originally Posted by svo supporter

Driving. Don't have to worry about having too many smokes before jumping behind the wheel.

Smoking whilst driving can sometimes be a health hazard.

Such as when the hot smoking part falls on your lap.... It makes for an interesting experience when you have a smoke in one hand (minus the hot bit) and a B-Double steering wheel in the other !

[OLDFORDNUT]

Originally Posted by zdcol71

'Course it is, and I bet you have a grandmother who smokes 50 a day and is still kicking at 99 years of age,...good god, why is everything that some people don't agree with or believe, always garbage, or government propoganda??.

I have watched all the ads on smoking,and all the reports and debates in Parliment for years on smoking and the costs it is supposed to put on our medical system , I have listened to various Liberal and Labour pollies quote totally different facts,(lol)and after many years its not hard to work out the whole lot are a pack of Liars tat just make up a figure to suit themselves when in front of a camera.
perfect example is for the last 7 years we have had 147 chemicals in a cigarette now the new ads say over 4000 chemicals in every smoke.
funny i can only account for around ten chemicals in a tailor made, and about 4 in roll your own tabacco.
whats the truth in all this? i dont know im not a scientist but im damb sure its not 147 and anyone who believes there is over 4000 is a retard.
NO PROPAGANDA you have to be kidding

[zdcol71]

Originally Posted by OLDFORDNUT

I have watched all the ads on smoking,and all the reports and debates in Parliment for years on smoking and the costs it is supposed to put on our medical system , I have listened to various Liberal and Labour pollies quote totally different facts,(lol)and after many years its not hard to work out the whole lot are a pack of Liars tat just make up a figure to suit themselves when in front of a camera.
perfect example is for the last 7 years we have had 147 chemicals in a cigarette now the new ads say over 4000 chemicals in every smoke.
funny i can only account for around ten chemicals in a tailor made, and about 4 in roll your own tabacco.
whats the truth in all this? i dont know im not a scientist but im damb sure its not 147 and anyone who believes there is over 4000 is a retard.
NO PROPAGANDA you have to be kidding

Chemical Health Effect Analysed in this study
1,3 – butadiene cancer, reproductive/developmental Yes
Acetaldehyde cancer, respiratory irritation Yes
Acrolein respiratory irritation Yes
Acrylonitrile cancer, respiratory irritation Yes
Arsenic cancer, cardiovascular,
reproductive/developmental
Yes
Benzene cancer, reproductive/developmental Yes
Cadmium cancer Yes
Carbon monoxide cardiovascular Yes
Chlorinated Dioxins and Furans cancer, cardiovascular,
reproductive/developmental
No*
Chromium (VI) cancer, respiratory irritation Yes
m + p + o Cresol cardiovascular No
Formaldehyde cancer, respiratory irritation Yes
Hydrogen cyanide cardiovascular Yes
N-nitrosonornicotine (NNN) cancer Yes
N-nitrosodimethylamine
(NDMA) cancer Yes
N-nitrosopyrrolidine (NP)
Ammonia Nicotine
• Acetone • Crotonaldehyde
• Propionaldehyde • Methyl ethyl ketone
• Butylaldehyde • Isoprene
• Toluene • Nitrosoanatabine (NAT)
• Nitrosoanabasine (NAB) • Nickel
• Selenium • Lead
Funny, this seems to be a few more than ten, and I got bored lookin at all the other chemicals/compounds apparently supposed to be in cigarettes
There are maybe ten constituent ingredients in tobacco products, but put a match to them and suck them in to your lungs and I guarantee there are more than ten ,twenty or any other amount of chemicals generated by the catalyst of heat.
BTW does it really matter if it's 4, 40 or 4000 chemicals that are killing you, or is it just convinient to say "the government is bulshi&&ing us?

[Auslandau]

Originally Posted by ECOJET

so man up, give them up, and save thousands a year.. simple.
I have no sympathy to smokers, and find it odd that i am currently learning ethics at uni yet we live in a society where companies are legally allowed to manufacture and sell (and sometimes ADVERTISE) a product like tobacco.
Its good its become very socially unacceptable and i think in a few decades it will be fairly shunned by everyone..

You are the reason I do not want to stop smoking ...... but then again .... if some of you think that me as a smoker is/will be a burden to you all later in life ..... I might just give up so I can live another 15 years longer with my g'ment pension and my free trips to the doctors for all my other ailments. Might as well get the 30 years of smoking tax to good use (me) rather than let the non smokers ethics committee grab their share when I die a bit earlier.



| [/url] |

[Iggypoppin']

Eh!!! I'm giving up because I earn 500 effin bucks a week and spend 40 something on cigs. I could use that money on grog. I'm sick of people saying they have no sympathy for smokers. Smokers don't want your sympathy anyway! We made a choice to inhale burnt tobacco smoke, so we live by that. The government doesn't give a hoot as long as they can get their mitts on some money through us, and the non smokers don't have to stress because it doesn't affect them in any way. I've been telling people I'm due to quit next week, and they all glow and say, oh that's fantastic, you're going to be so much healthier, rah rah rah. Maybe I will be, but I couldn't give a stuff if my health gets better or not. It's all about the cash really.

[OLDFORDNUT]

SORRY FOR THE RANT
Im just so sick of the vitriol handed down by some who never help,
They just like being obnoxiouspricks instead of helping

[zdcol71]

Originally Posted by OLDFORDNUT

quote removed

WHOA TIGER!!! Quick, light up!!!

[OLDFORDNUT]

Originally Posted by zdcol71

WHOA TIGER!!! Quick, light up!!!

I did lol.
I Hope you take this on board Col and Help, not judge smokers

[zdcol71]

Originally Posted by OLDFORDNUT

I did lol.
I Hope you take this on board Col and Help, not judge smokers

I am on public record, on this forum, offering support to anyone who is trying to give up smoking. Sometimes a little tough love is required, if that makes me a ****ant propoganda dealing troll, then it appears that I have been "judged"

[Trevor 57]

People can say this new tax is ineffective, but the ALL Governments have been taxing the bejesus out of cigratettes for years.

My father-in-law was given cigarettes to "help relax" during the 2nd World War - fact. Fact also is that just after the War 80% of males smoked, now 17% do - education, pricing/taxing have all contributed to the decline.

I agree that just banning them will develop a whole sub-culture of illegal activities, the best way to get rid of them is to make as unattractive as possible, if higher prices and plain packaging help the decline, then so be it.


BTW, in 1993 I watched my mother die over 5 weeks from smoking related cancer, she was 67, she was born in 1926 and grew up during the 'war years'. If you think smoking is OK, then stand there and watch one of your closest loved ones die because of the 80 per day habit of smoking Viscount cirgarettes.

She was the 2nd eldest of 10 children, there are 2 still alive, my mother lived to 67, none of the others lived that long, 5 died from smoking related cancer, including her favourite brother 7 months before she died, 2 died from smoking related heart disease, 1 died training in Singapore for the Vietnam war, of the 2 youngest siblings who are still alive, both have smoking related cancer and are having early treatment for it, neither have got to 67 yet.

So try to convince me that smoking and cigarette company's are good, and that the Government(s) are wrong.

[Romulus]

Originally Posted by zdcol71

I am on public record, on this forum, offering support to anyone who is trying to give up smoking. Sometimes a little tough love is required, if that makes me a ****ant propoganda dealing troll, then it appears that I have been "judged"

Thanks bud, but not all of us want to give up. I'm happy having my 2 or 3 smokes per day. I also have no problem contributing my bit thru the increase in excise.

The government is going to release the Henry review today. Let's hope the review does it's bit for obese people and people who drink by increasing excise on alcohol and introduces a fat tax.

[DJM83]

Originally Posted by Iggypoppin'

We made a choice to inhale burnt tobacco smoke, so we live by that.

Sorry Naish but i never chose to inhale the toxic smoke from another persons cigarette.

Originally Posted by Iggypoppin'

and the non smokers don't have to stress because it doesn't affect them in any way.

It does effect non smokers as i just posted above. Im not banging the govt's bell on this but i agree with it.

[Iggypoppin']

Originally Posted by DJM83

Sorry Naish but i never chose to inhale the toxic smoke from another persons cigarette.


It does effect non smokers as i just posted above. Im not banging the govt's bell on this but i agree with it.

Fair point on both counts. Sometimes better assessment of the topic is required on my behalf. Apologies.

[BA Baracus]

I went shopping this morning and decided to just swap to roll-your-owns. Smoking this week will cost me $30 instead of $110. With some of my increased personal budget surplus I bought a large pack of pork spare ribs.

Unfortunately this week I'll be contributing less then a third the tax on cigs I did last week, I'll probably smell more offensive to non-smokers and my risk of costing the health system is marginally increased because the ribs are delicious.