MakemineVanilla Posted August 29 Share Posted August 29 7 minutes ago, Chindie said: I never understood a word he said, I was too busy thinking about tits! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bannedfromHandV Posted August 29 Share Posted August 29 Granted, I’m biased as a smoker but jeez, I’d have thought there are bigger issues to get on top of right now than upping the ante in the war on smokers. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Genie Posted August 29 Share Posted August 29 5 minutes ago, bannedfromHandV said: Granted, I’m biased as a smoker but jeez, I’d have thought there are bigger issues to get on top of right now than upping the ante in the war on smokers. I’m a non-smoker and I tend to agree. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rugeley Villa Posted August 29 Share Posted August 29 Stop the smoke Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TreeVillan Posted August 29 Share Posted August 29 1 hour ago, Rds1983 said: What happens if me or you don't pay our taxes? HMRC send debt collectors along and seize assets. Who cares if they aren't British, if they have investments in this country, tax it. You were referring to people who have over 100 billion to pay more tax. Just wondering how many British ones you think there are? I'll help.. it's 0. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post limpid Posted August 29 Administrator Popular Post Share Posted August 29 Start taxing religious organisations. Allow them to offset the few percent they spend on charitable works. If the multi-billion Roman Catholic church doesn't like it, stop them trading in the UK. Should free up some space for housing too. 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sidcow Posted August 29 VT Supporter Share Posted August 29 45 minutes ago, bannedfromHandV said: Granted, I’m biased as a smoker but jeez, I’d have thought there are bigger issues to get on top of right now than upping the ante in the war on smokers. 39 minutes ago, Genie said: I’m a non-smoker and I tend to agree. They'll have thousands of things on the go. Doing one doesn't detract from another, the machinery of Government is enormous. The war on the smoker also ultimately delivers other aims in that it will reduce pressure on the NHS and frees up doctors and nurses to deal with other issues. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sidcow Posted August 29 VT Supporter Share Posted August 29 Are Vapes taxed higher than any other product? I'd tax the shit out of them and energy drinks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
limpid Posted August 29 Administrator Share Posted August 29 Just now, sidcow said: Are Vapes taxed higher than any other product? I'd tax the shit out of them and energy drinks. Flavoured vapes are pretty much unregulated. No proper testing has been done on the effects of inhaling burnt food flavourings. The government might be seen to be lending them an unwarranted level of safety. NB. The unflavoured ones to assist with weaning of nicotine should probably not be taxed or even be free as the long term reduction in NHS costs is worth it. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Genie Posted August 29 Share Posted August 29 7 minutes ago, sidcow said: They'll have thousands of things on the go. Doing one doesn't detract from another, the machinery of Government is enormous. The war on the smoker also ultimately delivers other aims in that it will reduce pressure on the NHS and frees up doctors and nurses to deal with other issues. I’d be happier for smokers to be taxed out of existence Everyone is happy then (most people). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ml1dch Posted August 29 Share Posted August 29 33 minutes ago, sidcow said: The war on the smoker also ultimately delivers other aims in that it will reduce pressure on the NHS and frees up doctors and nurses to deal with other issues. If that's the reason (alongside the larger, public health one) for doing it then there is no logical reason for alcohol not to be next in line, right? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sidcow Posted August 29 VT Supporter Share Posted August 29 1 minute ago, ml1dch said: If that's the reason (alongside the larger, public health one) for doing it then there is no logical reason for alcohol not to be next in line, right? No, other than alcohol only harms the person drinking the stuff directly, not people in the surrounding location. But yes, it's a valid argument. Like after banning fox hunting, banning fishing should be next. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ml1dch Posted August 29 Share Posted August 29 1 hour ago, sidcow said: No, other than alcohol only harms the person drinking the stuff directly, not people in the surrounding location. But yes, it's a valid argument. Like after banning fox hunting, banning fishing should be next. Hmm. If we're talking about the wider field of public health and security, I'd bet far more people are harmed by the passive effects of alcohol than the passive effects of smoking. When you consider domestic violence, drink-driving, sexual assaults, criminal damage, anti-social behaviour, child neglect...the list goes on and on. In fact, if the reasons for this crusade against smoking are genuine, the alcohol ban should clearly take precedent given how much more dangerous it is for society. (NB I don't have a personal dog in this fight, I've never smoked and love drinking. I'm just not a fan of illiberal, nannying pricks) 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted August 29 Moderator Share Posted August 29 1 minute ago, ml1dch said: I'm just not a fan of illiberal, nannying pricks Yep, this to the power of this. Left wing socially authoritarian, always were and always will be. Not happy until they've curtailed at least one liberty a day. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sidcow Posted August 29 VT Supporter Share Posted August 29 2 minutes ago, bickster said: Yep, this to the power of this. Left wing socially authoritarian, always were and always will be. Not happy until they've curtailed at least one liberty a day. But this Labour are right wing aren't they? Same as Tories I keep being told. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MakemineVanilla Posted August 29 Share Posted August 29 (edited) I understand that the legislation was created by the Tories and that Labour have decided to see it through - this kind of substantiates the claim that we are ruled by a mono-party. I would like to see the claim that smoking creates a net loss to the NHS examined, and whether the costs for end of life care are the same whether a person lives to be 60 or 80. Surely the government would much prefer to reduce the length of time they are required to pay out old-age pensions? Edited August 29 by MakemineVanilla 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
limpid Posted August 29 Administrator Share Posted August 29 9 minutes ago, bickster said: Yep, this to the power of this. Left wing socially authoritarian, always were and always will be. Not happy until they've curtailed at least one liberty a day. I'm strongly libertarian and left of centre. That's why it's usually graphed on a separate axis. I get annoyed when someone smokes around me though - especially when I'm eating. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
limpid Posted August 29 Administrator Share Posted August 29 Just now, MakemineVanilla said: I understand that the legislation was created by the Tories and that Labour have decided to see it through - this kind of substantiates the claim that we are ruled by a mono-party. Or based on the same advice from the same advisors. 1 minute ago, MakemineVanilla said: I would like to see the claim that smoking creates a net loss to the NHS examined, and whether the costs for end of life care are the same whether a person lives to be 60 or 80. Data is always good. I'd be amazed if you couldn't find studies of this on Google Scholar. 3 minutes ago, MakemineVanilla said: Surely the government would much prefer to reduce the length of time they are required to old-age pensions? Probably, but then they'd be more supportive of end of life rights. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted August 29 Moderator Share Posted August 29 23 minutes ago, sidcow said: But this Labour are right wing aren't they? Same as Tories I keep being told. Nothing to do with left / right. That’s an economic scale Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delboy54 Posted August 29 Share Posted August 29 I see how this might encourage smokers to reduce or give up, this could then reduce smoking related illness that the NHS has to treat and the costs related to that, but if more people give up smoking then less tax coming in for the government. Will one outweigh the other? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts