cosec59
Posts: 2618
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2005 2:59 am

Cheap Drink And Tobacco On Way To UK

Sun Nov 12, 2006 3:24 pm

It seem that here in the UK we will soon be able to enjoy alcohol and cigarettes at the same prices as our EU neighbours.
It's about time something was done to bring an end to the extortionate amount of tax that is collected by the government on the sale of alcohol and tobacco in this country.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...0?xml=/news/2006/11/12/nduty12.xml
Rules are for the obedience of fools but for the guidance of wise men
 
777236ER
Posts: 12213
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2001 7:10 am

RE: Cheap Drink And Tobacco On Way To UK

Sun Nov 12, 2006 9:19 pm

Another example of bizarre EU rule-making that totally ignores soverign rule and government. This will only lead to more deaths from alcohol and tobacco, and a reduce tax income to give health care free at point of use for those who choose to kill themselves in such a way.
Your bone's got a little machine
 
express1
Posts: 847
Joined: Tue Jun 27, 2006 2:08 am

RE: Cheap Drink And Tobacco On Way To UK

Sun Nov 12, 2006 11:39 pm

Quoting 777236ER (Reply 1):

i agree,
also the Government want to make their minds up on smoking,because last month Health departments were saying they are thinking of refusing people operations to save their life if they dont pack up smoking,and drinking. now we get the EU saying we can by drink and tobacco on line and not pay the UK duty. This will give Gordan Brown a problem if this goes ahead!!!!.

Well i say the government has no say in the matter of people's health when it comes to smoking and drinking,if they continue to produce it, and selling it on the high streets,then the public will continue to buy drink and tobacco.

This is one topic that the Government and Health Athorities will never completley win.

dave
David.S cavanagh since 1961,if you can do better,then show me.
 
N1120A
Posts: 26468
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: Cheap Drink And Tobacco On Way To UK

Sun Nov 12, 2006 11:48 pm

Well, looks like someone didn't read the entire article.

"Businesses across Europe are gearing up for the changes, but the British Retail Confederation warns that UK businesses will lose unless action is taken to harmonise duty rates across the Continent."

Something that isn't going to happen, since the nominal and real income in newer EU countries is vastly lower than that of the rest of the EU, particularly Britain.

UK tax rates are not only good for the health of the country both economically and physically, they actually protect local businesses who would otherwise have to compete with ultra-cheap imports from cigarette hooked Eastern Europe. Additionally, the rates of taxation are not out of line with the real income levels in the UK.
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
JGPH1A
Posts: 15080
Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2003 4:36 pm

RE: Cheap Drink And Tobacco On Way To UK

Sun Nov 12, 2006 11:49 pm

Quoting Cosec59 (Thread starter):
the same prices as our EU neighbours.

Which EU neighbours ? I live in France, and I got to Italy to buy alcohol, because it's half the price across the border than it is here. So which prices are the UK getting, French or Italian ?

Quoting 777236ER (Reply 1):
Another example of bizarre EU rule-making that totally ignores soverign rule and government.

It's a single market, them's the rules. Although I doubt it will make much difference to how many people drink themselves comatose every day in the UK - binge-drinking is a social problem, and has nothing to do with the price of alcohol. If booze in Italy is 30% of the price compared to the UK, in theory all Italians would by lying around vomitting in the gutter - but they're not, so bang goes your theory.
Young and beautiful and thin and gorgeous AND BANNED ! Cya at airspaceonline.com, losers
 
express1
Posts: 847
Joined: Tue Jun 27, 2006 2:08 am

RE: Cheap Drink And Tobacco On Way To UK

Mon Nov 13, 2006 12:02 am

so in reality,the Government dont give a shite about us,so we just carry on regardless!!!!

dave
David.S cavanagh since 1961,if you can do better,then show me.
 
express1
Posts: 847
Joined: Tue Jun 27, 2006 2:08 am

RE: Cheap Drink And Tobacco On Way To UK

Mon Nov 13, 2006 12:08 am

Quoting N1120A (Reply 3):

I dont have to read the artical,as what i said is plain to see and true

dave
David.S cavanagh since 1961,if you can do better,then show me.
 
L410Turbolet
Posts: 5438
Joined: Wed May 05, 2004 9:12 am

RE: Cheap Drink And Tobacco On Way To UK

Mon Nov 13, 2006 12:13 am

Quoting N1120A (Reply 3):
they actually protect local businesses who would otherwise have to compete with ultra-cheap imports from cigarette hooked Eastern Europe.

Eh? Overkill taxes ACTUALLY PROTECT local UK businesses because everyone who gets out of the UK comes back packed with cigarettes because they are way cheaper? Your argument has no logic.
 
ltbewr
Posts: 12424
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2004 1:24 pm

RE: Cheap Drink And Tobacco On Way To UK

Mon Nov 13, 2006 12:23 am

It's too bad the EU doesn't recognize the differences in taxing of tobacco and alcohol in each member country for their own reasons. It will badly affect the local corner smokes and alcohol merchants there. Will this affect other EU countries (especially Scandinavian countries) with extremely high tobacco and alcohol taxes?
In the USA, we have state by state laws as to alcohol and tobacco taxes, with considerable differences in taxes, even of adjacent states. It isn't uncommon for people to buy up to 10 cartons (a generally recognized 'personal use' limit) and resell them to friends, saving them considerable monies. In New Jersey, a 200 cigarette carton of Marlboro's is about $65.00 with all taxes. In Delaware, an adjacent state, they are about $35.00 as a very low taxes ($.05/pack, no sales tax).
Then there are American Indian reservations, many of which have on reservation and mail order tobacco sales, (most reservations cannot sell alcohol) which are not subject to a part of the Federal taxes and no state taxes (unless state-tribe agreements). What some states have done is to demand the mailing/shipping information of shipments to their states from these vendors to then send a bill to the recipient for unpaid state taxes. Some have gotten bills for $1000 +! Perhaps this is what the UK could do.
As to alcohol, we still have laws limiting alcohol sales by US mail/parcel delivery (UPS), They are not so much to protect taxes, but rather protect private and state agency distributors and retailers. There was a win for small wineries from a recent US Supreme Court Ruling to allow for winery mail order sales directly to customers, which would be the main interstate sale of alcohol in the USA. One law is that the products can only be delivered in person to an adult resident (21 or over, with proof required) by the shipping company (UPS, FedEx).
Some states can also enforce laws at their borders of people buying excess alcohol or tobacco in a lower price state into another.
As I suggested above, perhaps the UK ought to set a reasonable 'personal use' limit for mail order sales and beyond which a recipient has to pay taxes. With today's computer systems, it should be able to trace such sales. Of course, they could adjust downward their taxes to be more realistic and thus price differences that would not make it worth it to buy outside the country.
 
777236ER
Posts: 12213
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2001 7:10 am

RE: Cheap Drink And Tobacco On Way To UK

Mon Nov 13, 2006 12:57 am

Quoting JGPH1A (Reply 4):
It's a single market, them's the rules.

Them's the rules when it comes to normal products, not products that have heavy duty on them to raise money for the government to pay for the serious public health problems caused by the products.

Quoting JGPH1A (Reply 4):
Although I doubt it will make much difference to how many people drink themselves comatose every day in the UK - binge-drinking is a social problem, and has nothing to do with the price of alcohol. If booze in Italy is 30% of the price compared to the UK, in theory all Italians would by lying around vomitting in the gutter - but they're not, so bang goes your theory.

I never said high duty stops people smoking or drinking (though it is a factor, especially with regards to smoking; and the cheap price of alcohol does lead to more binge drinking).

However, this ruling will simply reduce tax revenue from smoking and drinking, meaning that those of us who look after our health have to pay even more to look after those who choose to kill themselves smoking, or drinking too much.
Your bone's got a little machine
 
JGPH1A
Posts: 15080
Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2003 4:36 pm

RE: Cheap Drink And Tobacco On Way To UK

Mon Nov 13, 2006 1:09 am

Quoting 777236ER (Reply 9):
Them's the rules when it comes to normal products, not products that have heavy duty on them to raise money for the government to pay for the serious public health problems caused by the products.

It's not like the government spends the money it makes on tobacco and alcohol just on the NHS - they waste it on all sorts of crap. There are two possible solutions here...

a) Ban smoking and severely restrict alchohol sales ie. government owned outlets only, like in North Carolina.

b) Refuse NHS treatment of conditions caused by smoking and drinking. It's easy enough to determine the cause of things like cirrhosis and emphyzema, if its smoking or drinking, off to BUPA, loser ! If conditions can be exacerbated by alcohol or cigarettes, the patient must sign an undertaking to stop using either, otherwise treatment will be withdrawn. Simple.
Young and beautiful and thin and gorgeous AND BANNED ! Cya at airspaceonline.com, losers
 
777236ER
Posts: 12213
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2001 7:10 am

RE: Cheap Drink And Tobacco On Way To UK

Mon Nov 13, 2006 1:31 am

Quoting JGPH1A (Reply 10):
It's not like the government spends the money it makes on tobacco and alcohol just on the NHS - they waste it on all sorts of crap.

That's not the point. This ruling is still going to reduce the tax revenue of the UK - a sovereign country.

Quoting JGPH1A (Reply 10):
a) Ban smoking and severely restrict alchohol sales ie. government owned outlets only, like in North Carolina.

b) Refuse NHS treatment of conditions caused by smoking and drinking. It's easy enough to determine the cause of things like cirrhosis and emphyzema, if its smoking or drinking, off to BUPA, loser ! If conditions can be exacerbated by alcohol or cigarettes, the patient must sign an undertaking to stop using either, otherwise treatment will be withdrawn. Simple.

So to get around the atypical bureaucratic nonsense coming from Brussles, the UK should either prevent its citizens from doing what they like and imposing legislation that the majority will oppose, or they should completely change the principles behind the NHS and start refusing treatment based on very common liftstyle choices?

No. The simple solution would be to reject this ruling and decree that all cigarettes and alcohol consumed in the UK must pay UK duty. That's simple.
Your bone's got a little machine
 
RichardPrice
Posts: 4474
Joined: Sat Apr 23, 2005 5:12 am

RE: Cheap Drink And Tobacco On Way To UK

Mon Nov 13, 2006 1:40 am

Dont worry, the government will legislate a way round this.

Good example is the recent BNP 'race hate' court case where the leader of the BNP and some other member were both accused of breaches of the racial hatred laws.

The government lost, the BNP won and their members walked free from court.

Within 20 minutes of the verdicts being read, the government had announced it was looking to tighten race hate law.

Dispicable.
 
777236ER
Posts: 12213
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2001 7:10 am

RE: Cheap Drink And Tobacco On Way To UK

Mon Nov 13, 2006 2:13 am

Quoting RichardPrice (Reply 12):

The government lost, the BNP won and their members walked free from court.

The government didn't lose, the CPS did.

Quoting RichardPrice (Reply 12):

Within 20 minutes of the verdicts being read, the government had announced it was looking to tighten race hate law.

Which is nonsense, and hopefully such 'ideas' won't get through Parliament. There should be no limits on freedom of speech. I'm glad the BNP activists walked free. Whilst they're disgusting and their words reprehensible, they have every right to say them.
Your bone's got a little machine
 
RichardPrice
Posts: 4474
Joined: Sat Apr 23, 2005 5:12 am

RE: Cheap Drink And Tobacco On Way To UK

Mon Nov 13, 2006 2:16 am

Quoting 777236ER (Reply 13):
The government didn't lose, the CPS did.

The government was backing the CPS case.

Quoting 777236ER (Reply 13):
Whilst they're disgusting and their words reprehensible, they have every right to say them.

And they were said in private behind closed doors to a willing audience.
 
kaddyuk
Posts: 3697
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2001 1:04 am

RE: Cheap Drink And Tobacco On Way To UK

Mon Nov 13, 2006 2:35 am

Quoting RichardPrice (Reply 14):
And they were said in private behind closed doors to a willing audience.

It was private words behind closed doors which led to the July 7th Atrocity... Dont even think that just because you cant see it or hear it, that you accept the awful RACIST views of the BNP...
Whoever said "laughter is the best medicine" never had Gonorrhea
 
RichardPrice
Posts: 4474
Joined: Sat Apr 23, 2005 5:12 am

RE: Cheap Drink And Tobacco On Way To UK

Mon Nov 13, 2006 2:41 am

Quoting Kaddyuk (Reply 15):

It was private words behind closed doors which led to the July 7th Atrocity... Dont even think that just because you cant see it or hear it, that you accept the awful RACIST views of the BNP...

I accept the fact that a political party should be able to speak to its potential voting base on matters which directly affect them, even if those views are considered by others to be racist or not.

Should it be considered racist to appeal to a white voting base by talking about how immigrant ethnic populations are altering their societies?

Theres a huge difference in the background of the July 7th bombings and the campaigns ran by the BNP, to compare them is sick.
 
BHXFAOTIPYYC
Posts: 1442
Joined: Sat Jun 25, 2005 5:47 am

RE: Cheap Drink And Tobacco On Way To UK

Mon Nov 13, 2006 3:53 am

One problem with tax harmonisation is that theoretically it should come with wage harmonisation.

You might be able to harmonise the percentages, but you can't harmonise the monetary amount, so products will always vary in price.

I think this is a bit of a storm in a teacup for the UK. Realistically if you look at the price of booze in the UK, it has actually come DOWN in real terms. Wine / beer weigh too much - even if beer is 1/3 of the price in Latvia than the UK, the shipping costs would kill any such savings. Cigarettes are another matter, as they aren't heavy. Friends of mine have been posting ciggies back to relatives in the UK for years, so this is not actually new either.
Breakfast in BHX, lunch in FAO, dinner in TIP, baggage in YYC.
 
JGPH1A
Posts: 15080
Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2003 4:36 pm

RE: Cheap Drink And Tobacco On Way To UK

Mon Nov 13, 2006 7:23 am

Quoting RichardPrice (Reply 16):
Should it be considered racist to appeal to a white voting base by talking about how immigrant ethnic populations are altering their societies?

Yes it should be considered racist, it is racist, of course it is. Should it be illegal is the question in point, and the answer, sadly is no, it shouldn't. We have freedom of speech, period.

Quoting RichardPrice (Reply 16):
Theres a huge difference in the background of the July 7th bombings and the campaigns ran by the BNP, to compare them is sick.

No there isn't, not really. Both preach hatred based on ethnicity or religion, the BNP just haven't got round to saying it with bombs yet. But they will, Oscar, they will.
Young and beautiful and thin and gorgeous AND BANNED ! Cya at airspaceonline.com, losers
 
Matt72033
Posts: 1589
Joined: Sat May 14, 2005 10:03 pm

RE: Cheap Drink And Tobacco On Way To UK

Mon Nov 13, 2006 8:40 am

Quoting Cosec59 (Thread starter):
It seem that here in the UK we will soon be able to enjoy alcohol and cigarettes at the same prices as our EU neighbours.

personally i hate smokers!

its a disgusting habit, and to be quite honest i'm completely fed up with the arrogance of smokers and smoking in public! especially pubs and resteraunts! i should be able to go to my pub and drink in clear un toxicated air

you may all wish to poison your own lungs but i do not wish to have mine poisoned in the process!
 
N1120A
Posts: 26468
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: Cheap Drink And Tobacco On Way To UK

Mon Nov 13, 2006 9:10 am

Quoting JGPH1A (Reply 4):
It's a single market, them's the rules.

It is a single market, but individual countries are still allowed to set their own levels of taxation. Further, tobacco companies themselves set different prices based on different markets in order to optimize their ability to sell their product in each market, since the cost of making cigarettes is so miniscule.

Quoting Express1 (Reply 6):
I dont have to read the artical,as what i said is plain to see and true

Oh really? You don't need to read the article? Ok, then I guess we can all go home an accept whatever anyone else says.

Quoting L410Turbolet (Reply 7):
Eh? Overkill taxes ACTUALLY PROTECT local UK businesses because everyone who gets out of the UK comes back packed with cigarettes because they are way cheaper? Your argument has no logic.

It wasn't my argument pal. I quoted that directly from the British Retail Association. As it is now, the vast majority of Britons don't rely on the continent for their smoking and drinking needs, so they buy in British shops where the goods are UK Duty Paid. If companies are allowed to import duty paid stuff from places like Latvia, then UK shop owners will lose business.

Quoting RichardPrice (Reply 12):
Dont worry, the government will legislate a way round this.

Well, in a country with no constitution, that is entirely possible.

Quoting JGPH1A (Reply 18):
We have freedom of speech, period.

Actually, no the UK doesn't. Since they have no constitution, Parliament is free at any time to restrict freedom of speech, which they have done many times.
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
halls120
Posts: 8724
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 3:24 am

RE: Cheap Drink And Tobacco On Way To UK

Mon Nov 13, 2006 11:34 am

Quoting N1120A (Reply 20):
Quoting RichardPrice (Reply 12):Dont worry, the government will legislate a way round this.
Well, in a country with no constitution, that is entirely possible.

Quoting JGPH1A (Reply 18):We have freedom of speech, period.
Actually, no the UK doesn't. Since they have no constitution, Parliament is free at any time to restrict freedom of speech, which they have done many times.

Sigh.

Quote:
It is often said that Britain has an unwritten Constitution. This is not quite true. Some of the British Constitution is written and some isn't. What is meant by 'unwritten' is that it is not written down in one volume as 'The British Constitution'. You could not go into a bookshop and order a copy of our Constitution in paperback!

Our Constitution is made up of four main parts called statute law, common law, conventions and works of authority. Of these, statute law is the most important and takes precedence over the others if there is a clash. Statute laws are the laws that have actually been passed by Parliament. The British Constitution can be considered to be 'living' as it is still developing.
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." Mark Twain, a Biography
 
N1120A
Posts: 26468
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: Cheap Drink And Tobacco On Way To UK

Mon Nov 13, 2006 11:59 am

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 21):
Our Constitution is made up of four main parts called statute law, common law, conventions and works of authority. Of these, statute law is the most important and takes precedence over the others if there is a clash. Statute laws are the laws that have actually been passed by Parliament. The British Constitution can be considered to be 'living' as it is still developing.

That isn't a true Constitution. Parliament can do what they want, when they want, and the only thing the people can do about it is take it or revolt. Complete suspension of Habeus Corpus. Done. Complete end to freedom of the press. Stop them now.
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
halls120
Posts: 8724
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 3:24 am

RE: Cheap Drink And Tobacco On Way To UK

Mon Nov 13, 2006 12:08 pm

Quoting N1120A (Reply 22):
Quoting Halls120 (Reply 21):Our Constitution is made up of four main parts called statute law, common law, conventions and works of authority. Of these, statute law is the most important and takes precedence over the others if there is a clash. Statute laws are the laws that have actually been passed by Parliament. The British Constitution can be considered to be 'living' as it is still developing.
That isn't a true Constitution. Parliament can do what they want, when they want, and the only thing the people can do about it is take it or revolt. Complete suspension of Habeus Corpus. Done. Complete end to freedom of the press. Stop them now.

There you have it, ladies and gentlemen. N1120A says the UK has no "true" Constitution.

The BBC (where I got the quote in post 21) and countless other websites says the UK does indeed have a true constitution.

Any of our British friends wish to opine?
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." Mark Twain, a Biography
 
N1120A
Posts: 26468
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: Cheap Drink And Tobacco On Way To UK

Mon Nov 13, 2006 12:13 pm

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 23):
There you have it, ladies and gentlemen. N1120A says the UK has no "true" Constitution.

The BBC (where I got the quote in post 21) and countless other websites says the UK does indeed have a true constitution.

Show me how any of that has a constitutional nature. Leading constitutional scholars like Mark Tushnet and Pnina Lahav specifically use Britain as a liberal western democracy that has no actual constitution. While they may have laws that are constitutional in nature, they don't have the permanence of a slow changing true constitution as in the US, Canada or Germany.
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
JGPH1A
Posts: 15080
Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2003 4:36 pm

RE: Cheap Drink And Tobacco On Way To UK

Mon Nov 13, 2006 5:37 pm

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 23):
There you have it, ladies and gentlemen. N1120A says the UK has no "true" Constitution

He's right - there is no single codified constitutional document for the U.K. - there are various pieces of legislation that govern some "constitutional" processes, such at the incorporation of Scotland into the U.K, and the new Scottish and Welsh Assemblies, but there isn't a "constitution" as such.

Banco will no doubt confirm (at great length !).
Young and beautiful and thin and gorgeous AND BANNED ! Cya at airspaceonline.com, losers
 
RichardPrice
Posts: 4474
Joined: Sat Apr 23, 2005 5:12 am

RE: Cheap Drink And Tobacco On Way To UK

Mon Nov 13, 2006 6:33 pm

No we dont have an embodied constitution, we have a set of laws dating back to the Magna Carta in the 13th century, compromises between king and parliament in 1688 and a set of uncodified conventions that courts do adhere to, the combination of which makes up a constitution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Constitution

Remember that British politics is very largely made up of traditions.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 20):
Actually, no the UK doesn't. Since they have no constitution, Parliament is free at any time to restrict freedom of speech, which they have done many times.

We do have freedom of speech, as guaranteed by a number of laws including the 1998 Human Rights Act.
 
Banco
Posts: 14343
Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2001 11:56 pm

RE: Cheap Drink And Tobacco On Way To UK

Mon Nov 13, 2006 6:45 pm

Quoting JGPH1A (Reply 25):
Banco will no doubt confirm (at great length !).

 snooty 


The link Mr Price gives is perfectly adequate.

On the subject at hand, those talking about tax harmonisation are missing the point. It has nothing whatever to do with centralised harmonisation (which would mean across the board increases, by the way), this is tax competition, something which the UK actually approves of. Should this be approved by the courts, the UK could equally benefit from sales of numerous other items that are taxed much lower in the UK than in other European countries. In essence, the same thing happened with internet betting recently, when the government abolished tax in order to prevent companies locating themselves in Gibraltar.

It's free trade taken to the next level, and all the healthier (economically) for that. The government then has a choice, whether to risk loss of revenue, or re-align tax rates.

Forget about concepts like a sovereign countrt having its tax rates set elsewhere, this is no different in principle to a business moving to Ireland circa 1992 because of the incentives, or film companies going to the Czech Republic because it's cheaper.
She's as nervous as a very small nun at a penguin shoot.
 
willo
Posts: 1331
Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2003 10:21 pm

RE: Cheap Drink And Tobacco On Way To UK

Mon Nov 13, 2006 6:49 pm

The number of people who will actually bother to order cigarettes and alcohol over the phone or internet will be a fraction of the number of smokers and drinkers. I personally can't see that this ruling will make a huge amount of difference to the way most people shop.
 
777236ER
Posts: 12213
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2001 7:10 am

RE: Cheap Drink And Tobacco On Way To UK

Mon Nov 13, 2006 8:43 pm

Quoting Banco (Reply 27):

It's free trade taken to the next level, and all the healthier (economically) for that. The government then has a choice, whether to risk loss of revenue, or re-align tax rates.

Yes, this is fine when it comes to normal products. Alcohol directly killed 8386 people in 2005 (161 times the number of people killed on July 7th 2005. Source: http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=1091 ). Smoking kills 89,000 a year (1680 times the number killed on July 7th 2005. Source: http://www.ic.nhs.uk/news/press/pr300806 )

So taxation of alcohol and tobacco has to be considered as part of a larger public health problem. There's no doubt that the high tax on cigarettes is a factor people consider when they stop smoking. There's also no doubt that cheap drinks are part of the reason why people go out and binge drink.

The tax revenue generated by duty on alcohol and tobacco goes a long way to paying for the increased cost to the NHS of smokers and drinkers. Remember that smokers are likely to get cancers - which are increasingly expensive to treat.

So whilst tax harmonisation (and even competitiveness) is great for most products, it shouldn't be considered for products like tobacco and alcohol. Differences in health care systems and attitudes towards alcohol across the EU requires different duty rates across the EU.

By the way, the UK should have a formal written constitution. It's a shame it took a Tory to suggest it.
Your bone's got a little machine
 
RichardPrice
Posts: 4474
Joined: Sat Apr 23, 2005 5:12 am

RE: Cheap Drink And Tobacco On Way To UK

Mon Nov 13, 2006 8:48 pm

Quoting 777236ER (Reply 29):

Remove the tax, add a law requiring smokers and alcoholics to have medical insurance to cover their increased likelyhood of medical problems.

Oh, sorry, that wont work because the Government wont then be able to cash in on it as easily. My bad.

The only reason the Government is up in arms about this is because it directly affects a Treasury income source, and dont kid yourself that even a significant fraction of that goes to the NHS.
 
Banco
Posts: 14343
Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2001 11:56 pm

RE: Cheap Drink And Tobacco On Way To UK

Mon Nov 13, 2006 8:53 pm

Quoting 777236ER (Reply 29):
Yes, this is fine when it comes to normal products

No, either you have the free market or you don't. These products are legal, and if one country chooses to offer a lower tax rate and people have access to it, then that's just the way it is.

Quoting 777236ER (Reply 29):
The tax revenue generated by duty on alcohol and tobacco goes a long way to paying for the increased cost to the NHS of smokers and drinkers

Wrong. The tax revenue from tobacco and alcohol in their own right, let alone combined, far outweigh any additional costs to the exchequer in health expenses. Plus smokers and drinkers tend to die younger, thus saving pension costs. There are many arguments against drinking and smoking, but the financial side isn't one of them.

Quoting 777236ER (Reply 29):
So whilst tax harmonisation (and even competitiveness) is great for most products,

I'll say it again: This is NOT tax harmonisation, it is tax competition. There is a difference. Tax harmonisation is where a central authority dictates tax levels, something that the UK government is totally opposed to. Tax competition, which again, the UK government is in favour of, is where countries are free to set their own rates with the consequences that consumers will purchase from the lowest rate.

If this goes through, you will see mainland European consumers purchasing clothes and beauty products from the UK, where they are cheaper, thus benefitting the UK Treasury.

If the UK wants higher tobacco and alcohol taxes, then they must convince the other nations to raise them.
She's as nervous as a very small nun at a penguin shoot.
 
L410Turbolet
Posts: 5438
Joined: Wed May 05, 2004 9:12 am

RE: Cheap Drink And Tobacco On Way To UK

Mon Nov 13, 2006 9:03 pm

Quoting 777236ER (Reply 29):
There's no doubt that the high tax on cigarettes is a factor people consider when they stop smoking.

The fact is that there actually IS DOUBT about what you claim. Since smoking is form of addiction price has very limited, if any, impact on whether one chooses to quit or not. You either have the will and determination to do so or you don't have it and in such case you switch to cheaper brands if prices go up.
 
halls120
Posts: 8724
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 3:24 am

RE: Cheap Drink And Tobacco On Way To UK

Mon Nov 13, 2006 9:53 pm

Quoting JGPH1A (Reply 25):
Quoting Halls120 (Reply 23):
There you have it, ladies and gentlemen. N1120A says the UK has no "true" Constitution

He's right - there is no single codified constitutional document for the U.K. - there are various pieces of legislation that govern some "constitutional" processes, such at the incorporation of Scotland into the U.K, and the new Scottish and Welsh Assemblies, but there isn't a "constitution" as such.

Banco will no doubt confirm (at great length !).

N1120A didn't say the UK didn't have a single document codified as a constitution. He said the UK doesn't have a "true" constitution. According to what I've read - including the BBC website, and other posts from UK Anetters, while the UK doesn't have a single Constitution, it indeed is governed by a system of Constitutional law. That isn't the position N1120A takes.
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." Mark Twain, a Biography
 
Banco
Posts: 14343
Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2001 11:56 pm

RE: Cheap Drink And Tobacco On Way To UK

Mon Nov 13, 2006 10:10 pm

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 33):
N1120A didn't say the UK didn't have a single document codified as a constitution. He said the UK doesn't have a "true" constitution. According to what I've read - including the BBC website, and other posts from UK Anetters, while the UK doesn't have a single Constitution, it indeed is governed by a system of Constitutional law. That isn't the position N1120A takes.

A constitution is merely the rules by which any organisation is governed, hence the rider written constitution. A country cannot fail to have a constitution unless it is an anarchic society, so the UK does have a constitution. It is partly written, partly case law, partly common law and partly convention. The usual description of the UK is that it doesn't have a codified constitution, as do the US, France and every other nation. If memory serves, the only other country without a codified constitution was New Zealand, and that has now changed.
She's as nervous as a very small nun at a penguin shoot.
 
halls120
Posts: 8724
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 3:24 am

RE: Cheap Drink And Tobacco On Way To UK

Mon Nov 13, 2006 10:13 pm

Quoting Banco (Reply 34):
A constitution is merely the rules by which any organisation is governed, hence the rider written constitution. A country cannot fail to have a constitution unless it is an anarchic society, so the UK does have a constitution. It is partly written, partly case law, partly common law and partly convention. The usual description of the UK is that it doesn't have a codified constitution, as do the US, France and every other nation. If memory serves, the only other country without a codified constitution was New Zealand, and that has now changed.

That is how I've always understood the UK system to operate.

So tell us, is N1120A's description - "Parliament can do what they want, when they want, and the only thing the people can do about it is take it or revolt. Complete suspension of Habeus Corpus. Done. Complete end to freedom of the press. Stop them now" - correct?
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." Mark Twain, a Biography
 
Banco
Posts: 14343
Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2001 11:56 pm

RE: Cheap Drink And Tobacco On Way To UK

Mon Nov 13, 2006 10:30 pm

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 35):
So tell us, is N1120A's description - "Parliament can do what they want, when they want, and the only thing the people can do about it is take it or revolt. Complete suspension of Habeus Corpus. Done. Complete end to freedom of the press. Stop them now" - correct?

Sort of. It's one of those things that's "in theory" that the UK system specialises in. The principle is that Parliament is sovereign, and therefore can do as it wishes. In practice there are numerous things that prevent this. First of all, you have the ultimate buttress: The Royal Assent. For any Bill to become law, the monarch must sign it. Thus, the theory goes, the monarch is the final bulwark against tyranny, but refusing to sign a draconian piece of legislation, thus preventing it passing. Such a refusal would cause a constitutional crisis, and in truth, no-one knows what would happen from that point.

Secondly, there is EU law, which takes primacy over national law. Again, this is theoretical, because EU law only takes precedence up to the point that Parliament decides it doesn't.

Thirdly, there is all the existing law, which would have to be repealed before new, harsher legislation could take its place, otherwise it would be thrown out by the courts. Equally, some elements, such as Magna Carta, aren't "law" at all, but are Royal Charters, and thus cannot be repealed by Parliament.

Fourthly, there is the fact that much of the infrastructure of the country, including armed forces, aren't responsible to the government, but to the Crown. The PM is not commander in chief, the Queen is.

The fundamental safeguard against tyranny in the UK is the simple fact of its complexity. Whilst in theory a government could pass a law telling the population to stand on its head, in practice it couldn't - there are just too many obstacles in its way. The Human Rights Act, as it was enshrined in UK law, tends to throw out any legislation that goes a bit too far. Sure, it can be repealed or amended, but that tends to evoke outrage.

People looking from the outside tend to shake their heads in wonder at the UK system, so many of the questions that ask "What if?" are met with the response "Er, don't know, we don't really want to test it".

It's a system that has grown, unbroken, over the last thousand years. It works, but no-one is entirely sure why that is. You couldn't transplant it into another country, it would be ripe for abuse, but the simple fact that there is a thousand years of legislation and convention behind it (and incidentally, convention in the UK system is often at least as strong as legislation) acts as its own safeguard.
She's as nervous as a very small nun at a penguin shoot.
 
halls120
Posts: 8724
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 3:24 am

RE: Cheap Drink And Tobacco On Way To UK

Mon Nov 13, 2006 10:38 pm

Quoting Banco (Reply 36):
The fundamental safeguard against tyranny in the UK is the simple fact of its complexity. Whilst in theory a government could pass a law telling the population to stand on its head, in practice it couldn't - there are just too many obstacles in its way. The Human Rights Act, as it was enshrined in UK law, tends to throw out any legislation that goes a bit too far. Sure, it can be repealed or amended, but that tends to evoke outrage.

Which is why I don't think Parliament is as free to do what they want as N1120A thinks it could be.

Hard to get around the Magna Carta and the fact that much of the infrastructure isn't beholden to Parliament.

Quoting Banco (Reply 36):
It's a system that has grown, unbroken, over the last thousand years. It works, but no-one is entirely sure why that is. You couldn't transplant it into another country, it would be ripe for abuse, but the simple fact that there is a thousand years of legislation and convention behind it (and incidentally, convention in the UK system is often at least as strong as legislation) acts as its own safeguard.

I think the English system is admirable, but agree that it would be hard to transplant elsewhere.
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." Mark Twain, a Biography
 
Banco
Posts: 14343
Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2001 11:56 pm

RE: Cheap Drink And Tobacco On Way To UK

Mon Nov 13, 2006 10:46 pm

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 37):
Which is why I don't think Parliament is as free to do what they want as N1120A thinks it could be.

Well, it's one of these things that is true for a given value of true. Yes, in principle they can, but in practice they can't. You can go through endless lists of things which under the UK system can or can't be done, but in practice it doesn't work like that. For example, English is not an official language in England, but Norman French is, and Welsh is in Wales. Technically, that might be true, but it's also irrelevant. Convention again - and by the way, the reason why convention is often stronger than legislation is because it can't be repealed for obvious reasons!

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 37):
but agree that it would be hard to transplant elsewhere.

You'd be insane to try. When the empire was being dissolved, the one thing the British did was to create Parliamentary facsimilies of the UK system to a greater or lesser degree, but always with a written constitution.

As we know, written constitutions are not a perfect guarantee against tyranny either - though it's probably fair to say that the US is the best example of a written constitution ever created.
She's as nervous as a very small nun at a penguin shoot.
 
53Sqdn
Posts: 323
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2006 9:23 pm

RE: Cheap Drink And Tobacco On Way To UK

Tue Nov 14, 2006 12:34 am

Hi all. I am not here to incite a riot but, when I was 16-20 (63/67) smoking was almost glorified in this country. It was part of the social scene. TV was full of 'exotic' adverts for the different brands of fags you could buy. Things like 'Your never alone with a Strand'. It was in your face 24/7. You could pop down the local shop and although closed you could still stick your 2 bob (10p) in the machine and get 10 Woodbine (with change inside the cellophane wrapper).

I realise times have changed and that smokers are now looked at like a kind of plague. But in my humble opinion, pubs should revert to exactly that. Pubs. If you want to eat, go to a cafe/restaurant. No child under the legal drinking age should be allowed in a local. If I want a pint and a fag where's the problem? Oh yeah! They now do food. Terrible move IMO. Now along with my fag and pint I can listen to the constant clatter of cutlery on plates. Also the 'nose in the air' attitude of the none-smokers. Food should be served in food establishments. Not the local boozer. If you think about it, it is the parents that take their children in such establishments, exposing them to the evils of 'the smoker'. You don't have to! I'd rather you leave me in peace to enjoy 'my' lifestyle.

Finally, there is the tiny matter of :- The Treasury earns £15 billion a year from excise duty on alcohol and cigarettes —

You non-smokers (that put us smokers down) want to make that up in 'other' taxes'? That's taxes from YOUR pocket. As regards the NHS reasoning, I am 59 next month. I have paid into the NI contribution all my life (started when I left school at 16). I have also 'contributed' to all the governments of my time more that enough (in baccy taxes) to cover any treatment I may require. If the government has squandered it on other things (which it has) is that my fault? If you had been a non-smoking 'Tommy' in the trenches of WWI, would you have moaned at the bloke next to you having a puff or two between battles?

Going to stop here before I get irate. Just take the time to realise that what you discern now as 'disgusting' was not so many years ago sociably accepted.
 
777236ER
Posts: 12213
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2001 7:10 am

RE: Cheap Drink And Tobacco On Way To UK

Tue Nov 14, 2006 8:49 pm

Quoting Banco (Reply 31):
No, either you have the free market or you don't. These products are legal, and if one country chooses to offer a lower tax rate and people have access to it, then that's just the way it is.



Quoting Banco (Reply 31):

I'll say it again: This is NOT tax harmonisation, it is tax competition. There is a difference. Tax harmonisation is where a central authority dictates tax levels, something that the UK government is totally opposed to. Tax competition, which again, the UK government is in favour of, is where countries are free to set their own rates with the consequences that consumers will purchase from the lowest rate.

Tax competitiveness has to go hand in hand with government spending reforms. With tax comepetition across the EU, countries with relatively high taxation non-income-baed taxation will see a fall in tax revenue. That's fine, but spending isn't harmonised or centralised, populations vary across the EU and attitudes to government services and taxation vary tremendously.

Bulgaria spends about 4.35% of its GDP on healthcare. British spending on the NHS is around 8%. At the ultimate conclusion of tax competitiveness, countries like Bulgaria will be able to increase health spending, and the UK must decrease it.

Quoting Banco (Reply 31):
Wrong. The tax revenue from tobacco and alcohol in their own right, let alone combined, far outweigh any additional costs to the exchequer in health expenses. Plus smokers and drinkers tend to die younger, thus saving pension costs

From the British Medical Journal:

"Reviews of the cost effectiveness of smoking cessation measures [which includes high duty] all suggest that, on economic grounds, further efforts to product health gains through smoking cessation are fully justified."

Chohen, D. and Garton, G. "The cost to society of smoking cessation" BMJ Thorax 1998; 53; pp.38-42.

Quoting L410Turbolet (Reply 32):
Since smoking is form of addiction price has very limited, if any, impact on whether one chooses to quit or not.

Even if it has limited impart, which you suggest, then it is a factor people consider when they stop. From my own personal anecdotal evidence, people who try to quit smoking consider the financial gains to themselves, almost as much as the health gains.

Quoting 53Sqdn (Reply 39):

I realise times have changed and that smokers are now looked at like a kind of plague. But in my humble opinion, pubs should revert to exactly that. Pubs. If you want to eat, go to a cafe/restaurant. No child under the legal drinking age should be allowed in a local. If I want a pint and a fag where's the problem? Oh yeah! They now do food. Terrible move IMO. Now along with my fag and pint I can listen to the constant clatter of cutlery on plates. Also the 'nose in the air' attitude of the none-smokers. Food should be served in food establishments. Not the local boozer. If you think about it, it is the parents that take their children in such establishments, exposing them to the evils of 'the smoker'. You don't have to! I'd rather you leave me in peace to enjoy 'my' lifestyle.

That won't happen. Not because of any 'nanny-state government legislation' but because it makes stupid business sense. Pubs like Wetherspoons (despite their disgusting food and crap beer) see profit growth annually, and their smoking ban hasn't affected that particularly adversely.

Times have changed. Smoking is no longer socially acceptable, for the majority. You can enjoy your lifestyle as much as you want, but expect high prices and dingy buildings, as landlords simply won't get the patronage they'd get by following the market trends - which unfortunately for you, is going towards a reduction in smoking in enclosed places.

Quoting 53Sqdn (Reply 39):
Just take the time to realise that what you discern now as 'disgusting' was not so many years ago sociably accepted.

30 people a day die in Britain from second hand smoke, according to the BMJ. It's not so much disgusting as it is manslaughter.
Your bone's got a little machine
 
Banco
Posts: 14343
Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2001 11:56 pm

RE: Cheap Drink And Tobacco On Way To UK

Tue Nov 14, 2006 9:07 pm

Quoting 777236ER (Reply 40):
Tax competitiveness has to go hand in hand with government spending reforms. With tax comepetition across the EU, countries with relatively high taxation non-income-baed taxation will see a fall in tax revenue.

No, that doesn't follow at all. It depends entirely on the product, for example fuel taxation can be levied at any level the nation in question chooses, because people can't buy from abroad.

Quoting 777236ER (Reply 40):
That's fine, but spending isn't harmonised or centralised, populations vary across the EU and attitudes to government services and taxation vary tremendously.

Which is as it should be. Nothing to stop that at all.

Quoting 777236ER (Reply 40):
Bulgaria spends about 4.35% of its GDP on healthcare. British spending on the NHS is around 8%. At the ultimate conclusion of tax competitiveness, countries like Bulgaria will be able to increase health spending, and the UK must decrease it.

How on earth do you come to that conclusion? Government spending can be directed at anything the government in question wishes. Overall taxation can vary at any level the government wishes. There is no economic or political imperative to reduce spending on any particular area whatsoever.

Quoting 777236ER (Reply 40):
"Reviews of the cost effectiveness of smoking cessation measures [which includes high duty] all suggest that, on economic grounds, further efforts to product health gains through smoking cessation are fully justified."

And? The BMJ adopts a political stand on this issue. They can say what they like about it, but they are talking from a health perspective, an area in which the arguments are irrefutable. It doesn't alter one iota the fact that revenue from tobacco far outweighs the costs to the health service. Not slightly, far outweighs it. You can go even further: The health costs of treating smokers at the end of their lives are no different to the health costs in treating non-smokers at the end of their lives. In each instance, the costs are high. The difference is all the extra taxation gleaned from the smoker. From an economic perspective, it is inarguable: smoking should actually be encouraged.
She's as nervous as a very small nun at a penguin shoot.
 
777236ER
Posts: 12213
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2001 7:10 am

RE: Cheap Drink And Tobacco On Way To UK

Wed Nov 15, 2006 12:14 am

Quoting Banco (Reply 41):
No, that doesn't follow at all. It depends entirely on the product, for example fuel taxation can be levied at any level the nation in question chooses, because people can't buy from abroad.

People can buy for personal consumption abroad, and I'm sure it's cheaper for those in the south to do so.

Quoting Banco (Reply 41):
Government spending can be directed at anything the government in question wishes. Overall taxation can vary at any level the government wishes. There is no economic or political imperative to reduce spending on any particular area whatsoever.

This is a bit of a copout. The ultimate end to this ruling is that tax revenue in the UK will fall. With price elasticity, the amount smoked in the UK will rise. Tax revenue will fall, the burden on public services will rise.

Quoting Banco (Reply 41):
And? The BMJ adopts a political stand on this issue

Yes, they do, but when it comes to smoking, I'm more than willing to take advice and data from doctors than I am other groups with vested interests.

Quoting Banco (Reply 41):
They can say what they like about it, but they are talking from a health perspective, an area in which the arguments are irrefutable.

Yes, but the BMJ report focussed on macroscopic cost effectiveness of smoking cessation methods, including high duty.

Quoting Banco (Reply 41):
You can go even further: The health costs of treating smokers at the end of their lives are no different to the health costs in treating non-smokers at the end of their lives. In each instance, the costs are high.

I don't quite see how that argument holds up. Smoking causes cancers, which are increasingly expensive to treat. The cancers they cause tend to be ones which are difficult to treat and which require expensive drugs.

There are around 13 million adult smokers in the UK. Half who smoke will die from it (13. Peto R, Lopez AD, Boreham J et al.: Imperial Cancer Research Fund and World Health Organisation. Mortality from smoking in developing countries 1950-2000. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994. )

From the same paper, it is estimated that out of 1000 20-year old smokers, 1 will be murdered, 6 will die in car accidents and 250 will die - in middle age - from smoking.

Aside from the NHS cost, it's estimated that in 1996 there were 1 million lone parents on income support, of whom 55% smoked five packets a week at a cost of £2.50 per pack at the time. That means lone families spent £357 million of treasury money on cigarettes. (28. Dorset R, Marsh A. The Health Trap - Poverty, Smoking and Lone Parenthood. London (1998). The Policy Studies Institute. )

Given that people with lower income tend to smoke more than those with higher income, the sale of cigarettes is pretty price elastic.

Quoting Banco (Reply 41):
The difference is all the extra taxation gleaned from the smoker.

I don't think you'll find any reputable statistics that show the total cost smoking has on the UK. The direct cost of treating smokers is £1.7bn. The estimated revenue from cigarettes is £9bn (I think, I can't find a source right now). But that only considers the cost to the NHS of treating smokers for illnesses such as emphasema, heart disease and cancers. It doesn't take into acount other costs to public services.

17,000 admissions a year of children under the age of 5 are caused by their parents smoking. Passive smoking kills 11,000 a year, according to the BMJ. Those deaths aren't included in the NHS costs. On average, 5.7% of the working day is lost to smoking breaks. 8 million working days are lost each year through smoking-related problems with cost to the government (sick pay, loss of revenue through corporation tax, loss of revenue through lower income tax) and businesses (sick pay, loss of an employee with all the associated costs).

So I think the whole economic argument for smoking is a bit disingenuous.

Let's talk a bit about the EU. The EU has moved on from being a trade agreement to much more. Look at the health and safety legislation coming out of Brussels: for the most part, health and safety standards are being harmonised across the EU.

I like that any hotel in the EU will have the same coloured fire extinguishers and identical fire escape signs. I like that public transport in the EU should reach the same level of safety. It's a good thing that waste management, food standards, water management, worker protection, COSHH legislation, and many other, are harmonised acorss the EU.

Duty on tobacco and alcohol should be treated the same way. Tobacco and alcohol are serious public health issues - much more serious than work place safety, or fires, for example. Yet a crucial weapon used to reduce smoking rates in the EU - that of duty - isn't harmonised. Indeed, it's apparently encouraged for EU countries to compete with each other.

Imagine if some countries in the EU were allowed to lower worker protection standards, in order to gain an economic, competitive advantage. Imagine if some EU countries could reduce COSHH legislation, allowing citizens in the EU to buy hazardous substances cheaper in some countries than others.

Tobacco and alcohol should be treated like any other public health risk. The duty should be harmonised, and it should be high.
Your bone's got a little machine
 
BigOrange
Posts: 2291
Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2004 2:20 am

RE: Cheap Drink And Tobacco On Way To UK

Wed Nov 15, 2006 1:11 am

Quoting 777236ER (Reply 13):
The government didn't lose, the CPS did

BUT................the CPS is the government!


Why don't the EU decide the amount of tax to be charged on Alcohol and Tobacco and make every country charge the same amount?

If this law does get passed, there are going to be a lot of coach companies and ferry companies going bust. The booze cruisers are their main source of revenue!
 
Banco
Posts: 14343
Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2001 11:56 pm

RE: Cheap Drink And Tobacco On Way To UK

Wed Nov 15, 2006 1:38 am

Quoting 777236ER (Reply 42):
People can buy for personal consumption abroad, and I'm sure it's cheaper for those in the south to do so.

People who live in Folkestone and Dover who work on the ferries or the Channel Tunnel do (or at least "did"). Others, no, it isn't cost effective.

Quoting 777236ER (Reply 42):
This is a bit of a copout. The ultimate end to this ruling is that tax revenue in the UK will fall. With price elasticity, the amount smoked in the UK will rise. Tax revenue will fall, the burden on public services will rise.

That's nonsense. Taxation isn't a single basket affair. Taxes are obtained through numerous different methods. When the tax on betting was abolished, tax revenue didn't fall, it was just recouped elsewhere. You're being far too simplistic in your approach, viewing taxation of a single item in a vacuum.

Quoting 777236ER (Reply 42):
I'm more than willing to take advice and data from doctors than I am other groups with vested interests.

You don't think doctors are a vested interest? Curious.

Quoting 777236ER (Reply 42):
I don't quite see how that argument holds up. Smoking causes cancers, which are increasingly expensive to treat. The cancers they cause tend to be ones which are difficult to treat and which require expensive drugs.

End of life treatment is always expensive. Whether a person is dying from tobacco related illnesses or others is largely beside the point. It will cost a lot of money to treat. The difference is that smokers die that much younger. One again, you're viewing something in a vacuum, considering the cost of smokers deaths without considering the deaths of others 20 or 30 years down the line.

Quoting 777236ER (Reply 42):
I don't think you'll find any reputable statistics that show the total cost smoking has on the UK. The direct cost of treating smokers is £1.7bn. The estimated revenue from cigarettes is £9bn (I think, I can't find a source right now). But that only considers the cost to the NHS of treating smokers for illnesses such as emphasema, heart disease and cancers. It doesn't take into acount other costs to public services

And nor does it take into account the savings made through not having to pay pensions for all those years.

You can calculate these things one of two ways: You can either take into account tax revenue and expenditure directly related to smoking, or you can take into account all the other bits that you go on to further down the line. If you do the latter you MUST also take into account pension savings, the subtraction of otherwise expected treatment cost had the person not been a smoker, corporation tax derived from tobacco companies, many of which are UK based, income tax from tobacco industry workers and ancillary industry companies and their employees and so on and so forth. Where will that finish up? Don't know, but you cannot take the debit side and list them without also fully covering the credit side. You will note I haven't touched on the ethics or otherwise of this debate, I am solely talking economics.

Quoting 777236ER (Reply 42):
So I think the whole economic argument for smoking is a bit disingenuous.

You will do because you're only taking one side of it and ignoring the other.

Quoting 777236ER (Reply 42):
Yet a crucial weapon used to reduce smoking rates in the EU - that of duty - isn't harmonised. Indeed, it's apparently encouraged for EU countries to compete with each other.

Because it's none of the EU's business that's why. All the items you mention in terms of harmonising safety regulations can be argued for because you have an increasingly mobile workforce who need to be able to work to matching standards across the community. Hotel standards and so forth likewise because it should be equitable across the Union. Taxation of a legal product is not, because there is no similar advantage to adopting an EU wide focus. You only want it because you don't like smoking. Well, I'm sorry, that's tough titty. The situation is not the same.
She's as nervous as a very small nun at a penguin shoot.
 
N1120A
Posts: 26468
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: Cheap Drink And Tobacco On Way To UK

Wed Nov 15, 2006 2:01 am

Quoting RichardPrice (Reply 26):
We do have freedom of speech, as guaranteed by a number of laws including the 1998 Human Rights Act.

Which can be, at any time, changed to restrict freedom of speech as much as Parliament wants

Quoting Banco (Reply 27):
or film companies going to the Czech Republic because it's cheaper.

I thought that was just the porn industry?

Quoting Banco (Reply 34):
A constitution is merely the rules by which any organisation is governed, hence the rider written constitution.

Which I use interchangably with true constitution, given that a fully written constitution cannot be changed at the mere whim of anyone or group.

Quoting Banco (Reply 34):
A country cannot fail to have a constitution unless it is an anarchic society, so the UK does have a constitution.

The UK has Constitutional laws, but there is nothing stopping them from being changed. Rights are not protected by a single supreme law.

Quoting Banco (Reply 34):
It is partly written, partly case law, partly common law and partly convention.

Case law = Common law.

Quoting Banco (Reply 36):
First of all, you have the ultimate buttress: The Royal Assent. For any Bill to become law, the monarch must sign it. Thus, the theory goes, the monarch is the final bulwark against tyranny, but refusing to sign a draconian piece of legislation, thus preventing it passing. Such a refusal would cause a constitutional crisis, and in truth, no-one knows what would happen from that point.

And do you really think the Royals would do such a thing? Further, it still means that the monarchy and parliament have ultimate power.

Quoting Banco (Reply 36):
Thirdly, there is all the existing law, which would have to be repealed before new, harsher legislation could take its place, otherwise it would be thrown out by the courts.

Except that you have the problem with the High Court having said that, though they can overturn a law on review, there is nothing to stop Parliament from overridding them with a simple majority and defying their will.

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 37):
Which is why I don't think Parliament is as free to do what they want as N1120A thinks it could be.

Again, the assent of a symbolic monarch that approves everything and anything? Further, it still goes to show that any constitutional structure the UK has is embodied in the Rule of Man and not any supreme Rule of Law.

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 37):
Hard to get around the Magna Carta and the fact that much of the infrastructure isn't beholden to Parliament.

Parliament funds the infrastructure. Further, unless the infrastructure decided to remain on the side of a monarch that was essentially starting a coup d'etat, they wouldn't go against the whim of Parliament.
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
RichardPrice
Posts: 4474
Joined: Sat Apr 23, 2005 5:12 am

RE: Cheap Drink And Tobacco On Way To UK

Wed Nov 15, 2006 2:06 am

Quoting N1120A (Reply 45):
Which can be, at any time, changed to restrict freedom of speech as much as Parliament wants

The Law Lords have struck down many laws and motions passed by Parliament as 'unlawful', just like any law in the US can be declared 'unconstitutional'.

A written constitution doesnt automatically stop laws from being passed.
 
RichardPrice
Posts: 4474
Joined: Sat Apr 23, 2005 5:12 am

RE: Cheap Drink And Tobacco On Way To UK

Wed Nov 15, 2006 2:10 am

Quoting N1120A (Reply 45):
Case law = Common law.

Common law is not just case law, in the UK its also tradition and custom as well as precident.
 
N1120A
Posts: 26468
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: Cheap Drink And Tobacco On Way To UK

Wed Nov 15, 2006 2:10 am

Quoting RichardPrice (Reply 46):
The Law Lords have struck down many laws and motions passed by Parliament as 'unlawful', just like any law in the US can be declared 'unconstitutional'.

Yes they have, but they have also admitted that Parliament can overrule them at any time and the only warning they have given is that there may be public backlash

Quoting RichardPrice (Reply 46):
A written constitution doesnt automatically stop laws from being passed.

No, but it gives a true basis for their review.
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
RichardPrice
Posts: 4474
Joined: Sat Apr 23, 2005 5:12 am

RE: Cheap Drink And Tobacco On Way To UK

Wed Nov 15, 2006 2:13 am

Quoting N1120A (Reply 48):

Yes they have, but they have also admitted that Parliament can overrule them at any time and the only warning they have given is that there may be public backlash

No, thats the House of Lords, not the Law Lords. Parliament cannot overrule judicial judgements passed by the Law Lords. Yes I am aware that the Law Lords are members of the House of Lords acting under the authority of the judicial functions of that House, but in this example the power of overrule does not extend to judicial judgements.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 48):

No, but it gives a true basis for their review.

When a constitution can be amended, is that really true?

[Edited 2006-11-14 18:19:27]

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 20 guests