Keeping us safe

11 Dec 2013

Quote by MidsCouple24
Then perhaps increasing the amount of products that are bad for you where VAT is payable and decreasing the amount of products that are good for you where you currently pay VAT would be a start.
As for the tobacco tax revenue thing, I can only quote what I read on the internet about the tax and clearly that is wrong, but if you do the maths yourself it works roughly like this
average smoker 20 a day,
that is 5-6 thousand a year
tax on ciggies is over 70%
10 million smokers
That means that the revenue from smoking tax still outweighs the cost of treating smokers by the NHS by 10s of millions

What a load of nonsense. Lets take the £6000 per annum figure you mentioned. Tax that at 70% and you get a revenue of £4200. Multiply that by the estimated 10 million smokers and you get a revenue of £42,000,000,000 or £42 billion.
But that is not a true reflection at any stage of the calculation.
If the average cost of 20 cigarettes is £7 and a person smokes 20 a day that is £7 x 7 = £49 per week. Multiply that by 52 for the weeks in the year and you reach a figure of £2548.
If tax revenue is 70% this example would generate a tax revenue of per annum.
Multiply that by the estimated 10 million smokers and you reach a figure of billion which is around 40% of the total your figures suggest.
If your going to start bandying figures about then at least make sure they make sense!
Of course these figures are reduced further if you account for the fact that the average smoker smokes 12 cigarettes per day. In this case the final figure would be £10,701,600,000, a quarter of your figures.
Yes it's true that this figure of £10 billion is higher than the direct cost of smoking on the NHS today, but that balance is slowly tipping the other way. These figures are based on a much reduced number of smokers than historical averages. For example in 1974 45% of adults smoked, whereas today that figure is 20%. Now that means that all those ex smokers are not contributing to the tobacco taxation, but they will possibly be having treatment for smoking related illness.

11 Dec 2013

lol, sounds just like a good idea :giggle:

11 Dec 2013

Quote by Trevaunance
Then perhaps increasing the amount of products that are bad for you where VAT is payable and decreasing the amount of products that are good for you where you currently pay VAT would be a start.
As for the tobacco tax revenue thing, I can only quote what I read on the internet about the tax and clearly that is wrong, but if you do the maths yourself it works roughly like this
average smoker 20 a day,
that is 5-6 thousand a year
tax on ciggies is over 70%
10 million smokers
That means that the revenue from smoking tax still outweighs the cost of treating smokers by the NHS by 10s of millions

What a load of nonsense. Lets take the £6000 per annum figure you mentioned. Tax that at 70% and you get a revenue of £4200. Multiply that by the estimated 10 million smokers and you get a revenue of £42,000,000,000 or £42 billion.
But that is not a true reflection at any stage of the calculation.
If the average cost of 20 cigarettes is £7 and a person smokes 20 a day that is £7 x 7 = £49 per week. Multiply that by 52 for the weeks in the year and you reach a figure of £2548.
If tax revenue is 70% this example would generate a tax revenue of per annum.
Multiply that by the estimated 10 million smokers and you reach a figure of billion which is around 40% of the total your figures suggest.
If your going to start bandying figures about then at least make sure they make sense!
Of course these figures are reduced further if you account for the fact that the average smoker smokes 12 cigarettes per day. In this case the final figure would be £10,701,600,000, a quarter of your figures.
Yes it's true that this figure of £10 billion is higher than the direct cost of smoking on the NHS today, but that balance is slowly tipping the other way. These figures are based on a much reduced number of smokers than historical averages. For example in 1974 45% of adults smoked, whereas today that figure is 20%. Now that means that all those ex smokers are not contributing to the tobacco taxation, but they will possibly be having treatment for smoking related illness.
We are a couple who both smoke, that is 20 a day EACH, I thought on this site being a couple would be recognised.
Personally I have never met a smoker that smokes only 12 a day especally taking that as an average since that means that a great many would only be smoking 6 a day by those figures, anyone smoking only 6 cigarettes a day would probably pack it in altogether, at one point Sasha was smoking 60 a day and quite a few people do that, but it is like cock size, for the most part deduct 2" from every statement, many smokers do not like to admit to Doctors or even friends just how many they do smoke.
I never intended this thread to be about smoking it is about obesity so why don't we concentrate on that.

11 Dec 2013

Quote by MidsCouple24
Then perhaps increasing the amount of products that are bad for you where VAT is payable and decreasing the amount of products that are good for you where you currently pay VAT would be a start.
As for the tobacco tax revenue thing, I can only quote what I read on the internet about the tax and clearly that is wrong, but if you do the maths yourself it works roughly like this
average smoker 20 a day,
that is 5-6 thousand a year
tax on ciggies is over 70%
10 million smokers
That means that the revenue from smoking tax still outweighs the cost of treating smokers by the NHS by 10s of millions

What a load of nonsense. Lets take the £6000 per annum figure you mentioned. Tax that at 70% and you get a revenue of £4200. Multiply that by the estimated 10 million smokers and you get a revenue of £42,000,000,000 or £42 billion.
But that is not a true reflection at any stage of the calculation.
If the average cost of 20 cigarettes is £7 and a person smokes 20 a day that is £7 x 7 = £49 per week. Multiply that by 52 for the weeks in the year and you reach a figure of £2548.
If tax revenue is 70% this example would generate a tax revenue of per annum.
Multiply that by the estimated 10 million smokers and you reach a figure of billion which is around 40% of the total your figures suggest.
If your going to start bandying figures about then at least make sure they make sense!
Of course these figures are reduced further if you account for the fact that the average smoker smokes 12 cigarettes per day. In this case the final figure would be £10,701,600,000, a quarter of your figures.
Yes it's true that this figure of £10 billion is higher than the direct cost of smoking on the NHS today, but that balance is slowly tipping the other way. These figures are based on a much reduced number of smokers than historical averages. For example in 1974 45% of adults smoked, whereas today that figure is 20%. Now that means that all those ex smokers are not contributing to the tobacco taxation, but they will possibly be having treatment for smoking related illness.

Quote by MidsCouple24
We are a couple who both smoke, that is 20 a day EACH, I thought on this site being a couple would be recognised.

Of course it is recognised that you are a couple, I challenge you to prove that any one has said, assumed or done otherwise.
You haven't said you were speaking about yourself and I haven't said I was speaking about you either. Your exact phrase was 'average smoker 20 a day' and so I based my initial figures on your assumption of the average smoker, nothing else, so please don't try to make me look like fool.
Where have you said that you were talking about your household smoking habits?.
More to the point, if you and Sasha smoke 20 a day you are now able to see a much truer reflection than the rather ambiguous figures you gave.

Quote by MidsCouple24
Personally I have never met a smoker that smokes only 12 a day especally taking that as an average since that means that a great many would only be smoking 6 a day by those figures, anyone smoking only 6 cigarettes a day would probably pack it in altogether, at one point Sasha was smoking 60 a day and quite a few people do that, but it is like cock size, for the most part deduct 2" from every statement, many smokers do not like to admit to Doctors or even friends just how many they do smoke.

You claim that the average smoker has 20 cigarettes a day. Prove it. In the mean time I will base my figure on 12 a day.

Quote by MidsCouple24
I never intended this thread to be about smoking it is about obesity so why don't we concentrate on that.

On the contrary, 8 of your first nine sentences in the original post are about smoking, therefore you clearly had a point to raise. Otherwise why mention it at all.

12 Dec 2013

Smoking, eating too much, drinking too much, all these things have an elevated chance of killing you.
the state restricting freedom of choice for the individual is insanity and will only lead to unrest.
moderation in all of the above however really isn't too much of an issue, the difference between someone who has the occasional big mac and someone who eats themselves into obesity is generally education/willpower.
it is well known that the occurrence of obesity/liver malfunction due to drinking/smoking related cancers etc are far higher in the lower social groups of society. (not that i wish to make this a class issue but the truth is difficult to ignore)
the questions we should be asking ourselves is not how should we restrict the consumption of things that are bad for us, but how we should educate people to moderate their intake.
if people are too stupid to realise that a bucket of KFC a day is going to put you in an early grave, well at least Darwin had a theory that over time should stop that mindset from becoming the norm.

13 Dec 2013

... and don't forget that the Government have no incentive to stop you eating yourself into an early grave..
keeps the State pension costs down boink

13 Dec 2013

Quote by Trevaunance
Then perhaps increasing the amount of products that are bad for you where VAT is payable and decreasing the amount of products that are good for you where you currently pay VAT would be a start.
As for the tobacco tax revenue thing, I can only quote what I read on the internet about the tax and clearly that is wrong, but if you do the maths yourself it works roughly like this
average smoker 20 a day,
that is 5-6 thousand a year
tax on ciggies is over 70%
10 million smokers
That means that the revenue from smoking tax still outweighs the cost of treating smokers by the NHS by 10s of millions

What a load of nonsense. Lets take the £6000 per annum figure you mentioned. Tax that at 70% and you get a revenue of £4200. Multiply that by the estimated 10 million smokers and you get a revenue of £42,000,000,000 or £42 billion.
No you get a revenue of 21 billion because the £6000 figure that Sasha and I pay together as we both smoke Embassy No1 at an average cost of per packet and at 20 a day each that is £17 per day £85 per week, $4420 per annum, but at weekends we smoke 30-40 as we smoke more when drinking/socialising so the real cost is around £119 per week.
But that is not a true reflection at any stage of the calculation.
If the average cost of 20 cigarettes is £7 and a person smokes 20 a day that is £7 x 7 = £49 per week. Multiply that by 52 for the weeks in the year and you reach a figure of £2548.
£7 is the cheapest cigarettes ( ) at our local corner shop not the average
If tax revenue is 70% this example would generate a tax revenue of per annum.
Multiply that by the estimated 10 million smokers and you reach a figure of billion which is around 40% of the total your figures suggest.
If your going to start bandying figures about then at least make sure they make sense!
Of course these figures are reduced further if you account for the fact that the average smoker smokes 12 cigarettes per day. In this case the final figure would be £10,701,600,000, a quarter of your figures.
Yes it's true that this figure of £10 billion is higher than the direct cost of smoking on the NHS today, but that balance is slowly tipping the other way. These figures are based on a much reduced number of smokers than historical averages. For example in 1974 45% of adults smoked, whereas today that figure is 20%. Now that means that all those ex smokers are not contributing to the tobacco taxation, but they will possibly be having treatment for smoking related illness.

Quote by MidsCouple24
We are a couple who both smoke, that is 20 a day EACH, I thought on this site being a couple would be recognised.

Of course it is recognised that you are a couple, I challenge you to prove that any one has said, assumed or done otherwise.
You haven't said you were speaking about yourself and I haven't said I was speaking about you either. Your exact phrase was 'average smoker 20 a day' and so I based my initial figures on your assumption of the average smoker, nothing else, so please don't try to make me look like fool.
Where have you said that you were talking about your household smoking habits?.
More to the point, if you and Sasha smoke 20 a day you are now able to see a much truer reflection than the rather ambiguous figures you gave.

Quote by MidsCouple24
Personally I have never met a smoker that smokes only 12 a day especally taking that as an average since that means that a great many would only be smoking 6 a day by those figures, anyone smoking only 6 cigarettes a day would probably pack it in altogether, at one point Sasha was smoking 60 a day and quite a few people do that, but it is like cock size, for the most part deduct 2" from every statement, many smokers do not like to admit to Doctors or even friends just how many they do smoke.

You claim that the average smoker has 20 cigarettes a day. Prove it. In the mean time I will base my figure on 12 a day.

Quote by MidsCouple24
I never intended this thread to be about smoking it is about obesity so why don't we concentrate on that.

On the contrary, 8 of your first nine sentences in the original post are about smoking, therefore you clearly had a point to raise. Otherwise why mention it at all.
Did you read the first 9 sentances, they were supporting the measures imposed on smokers and asking why similar measures could not be imposed on obese people they were not supporting smoking or arguing that smoking is a better option than eating or cheaper medically speaking than treating obese people, it is others that brought those factors into the discussion and simply showed precedence for Government intervention.

13 Dec 2013

Quote by MidsCouple24
No you get a revenue of 21 billion because the £6000 figure that Sasha and I pay together as we both smoke Embassy No1 at an average cost of per packet and at 20 a day each that is £17 per day £85 per week (1), $4420 per annum, but at weekends we smoke 30-40 as we smoke more when drinking/socialising so the real cost is around £119 per week.

(1) There are seven days in a week. £17 x 7 = £119 per week, not £85. Do you need a new abacus for Christmas lol

My figures are correct as they are based exactly on what you wrote:

Quote by MidsCouple24
As for the tobacco tax revenue thing, I can only quote what I read on the internet about the tax and clearly that is wrong, but if you do the maths yourself it works roughly like this
average smoker 20 a day,
that is 5-6 thousand a year
tax on ciggies is over 70%
10 million smokers

I did the maths and your figures were wrong. You can't start bleating that I didn't use the average of your own smoking habits, because you are not the average smoker.
But just to humour you I will assume that you are the average smoker and base new figures on that:
Monday - Friday = 20 a day. Sat Sun = 40 a day totaling nine packets at = per week.
x 52 (weeks of the year) = £3978
70% 0f £3978 is tax revenue for the average smoker
x 10 Million smokers = million based on your figures again.
Still nowhere near your quoted 105.7 billion.
Lets not forget that the average smoker has 12 a day, so these figures are always going to be 40% too high anyway.

Quote by MidsCouple24
£7 is the cheapest cigarettes ( ) at our local corner shop not the average

I'm not going to calculate the price at every corner shop in the country am I? I'll base my figures on facts. At 31 March this year the average price of a packet of 20 cigarettes was I dropped the 13 pence just to make the maths easier to understand.

Quote by MidsCouple24
Did you read the first 9 sentances (1), they were supporting the measures imposed on smokers (2) and asking why similar measures could not be imposed on obese people(3) they were not supporting smoking or arguing that smoking is a better option than eating or cheaper medically speaking than treating obese people (4), it is others that brought those factors into the discussion and simply showed precedence for Government intervention.(5)

(1) Yes.
(2) Only line eight supports the measures imposed on smokers.
(3) That is line 10, not one of the first nine lines.
(4) You have produced figures to say that obesity is costing the NHS more than smoking related diseases.

Quote by MidsCouple24
Treating smokers for problems caused by smoking costs them £2.7 Billion per year
Treating obese people for problems caused by obesity costs them £5 Billion per year
Tax revenue from smoking is £105.7 Billion per year for the Government

And several people have pointed out that your figures are completely unreliable.
(5) You have said that you read the labels on food which were introduced by government intervention. So surely you must recognise that the information is out there for those that want/bother/can read it?

14 Dec 2013

i think they couldnt give a toss about us.
all this nanny state is so we cannot take legal actions.
same as all the health and safety rules in the workplace companies make.
sod all about looking after you, its so you cannot claim compensations when they fuck up.
they dont care, never will. just a number.

14 Dec 2013

Quote by tyracer
i think they couldnt give a toss about us.
all this nanny state is so we cannot take legal actions.
same as all the health and safety rules in the workplace companies make.
sod all about looking after you, its so you cannot claim compensations when they fuck up.
they dont care, never will. just a number.

To be fair, health and safety rules allow us to get compensation when they fuck up. Provided you have stuck to the rules.