5 ms·

> In a country with taxpayer funded healthcare. I believe that taxes paid by smokers help to subsidise the healthcare of non-smokers, not the other way around.

by tmnvix 10y ago

> In a country with taxpayer funded healthcare. I believe that taxes paid by smokers help to subsidise the healthcare of non-smokers, not the other way around. Or put it this way - if all Australians stopped smoking then either everyone's taxes would have to go up to cover the shortfall or the quality of the healthcare would be lower.

nl 10y ago
This isn't true. Tobacco excise raises about $2B a year(1), but smoking costs around $30B a year(2). A 10% increase in the excise reduces the smoking rate around 4%, so simplistic analysis indicates that around $200M raised would save nearly $1.5B (lots of simplification and assumptions there obviously). (1) http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/BudgetReview201617/Tobacco http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departm... (2) http://www.health.gov.au/tobacco http://www.health.gov.au/tobacco
- aplummer 10y ago
  Exactly, smoking costs a lot more than the taxes raised. Worse, it uses up the free hospital beds and there is a waitlist.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- rjbhtrf 10y ago
  The main cost of smoking in that study is value of life, the cost of premature deaths. But in terms of raw dollars it's different. If smokers die 10 years earlier, that's 10 years less of unproductive period in life, retirement. No pensions, no medical costs, no living expenses. They pay and save for retirement, but don't use it.
  - nl 10y ago
    Actually medical costs associated with smoking are extremely significant. I'm not aware of any studies showing that they are less than average costs associated with death in old age.
    - rjbhtrf 10y ago
      I don't know Australia, but in Poland total taxes from tobacco and alcohol are similar to income tax, and to healthcare budget. -Tobacco and alcohol tax: 40 billion PLN 2013 [1] -Personal income tax 42 billion PLN 2012 [2] -Healthcare budget: 64.5 billion PLN 2013 [3] Cigarettes (and to a lesser extent alcohol) account for 2/3 of whole healthcare, for everyone! And smokers pay retirement insurance for whole life, statistically getting nothing. Especially when being male; females have 5 years lower retirement age and live 7.8 years longer. 5+7.8+10=22.8 years difference. So a male smoker pays every month, but gets nothing. [1] - http://natemat.pl/77753,alkohol-i-papierosy-sa-dla-polskiego-budzetu-wazniejsze-niz-podatek-pit http://natemat.pl/77753,alkohol-i-papierosy-sa-dla-polskiego... [2] - http://www.pit.pl/aktualnosci-podatkowe/2011/archiwum-2011-v/0905-ile-panstwo-zarabia-na-podatkach-9854/ http://www.pit.pl/aktualnosci-podatkowe/2011/archiwum-2011-v... [3] - http://pulsmedycyny.pl/2642297,42366,znamy-budzet-nfz http://pulsmedycyny.pl/2642297,42366,znamy-budzet-nfz
      - nl 10y ago
        The post you replied to had how much it raises in Australia: AU$2B/year. That compares to AU$258B/year in income tax[1]. The health, aged care and sport spending allocation is AU$89.5B[2] [1] http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/5506.0 http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/5506.0 [2] http://www.health.gov.au/internet/ministers/publishing.nsf/Content/budget2016-mediarel-ley001.htm http://www.health.gov.au/internet/ministers/publishing.nsf/C...
        rjbhtrf 10y ago
        That's interesting! Completely different.
    - spangry 10y ago
  - brokenmachine 10y ago
    > They pay and save for retirement, but don't use it. Since we're throwing around random opinions... Would you say that the kind of person that continues such an expensive habit nowadays despite what everyone knows about smoking is the kind of person who "pays and saves for retirement"? Poorer, less-educated people are much more likely to smoke. How about we also take this into account when we're speculating about how much they might be saving.
    - rjbhtrf 10y ago
      In many countries retirement insurance is automatically witheld from salary. In Poland it's 19,52% of salary. https://www.mpips.gov.pl/ubezpieczenia-spoleczne/ubezpieczenie-emerytalne/skladka-na-ubezpieczenie-emerytalne/ https://www.mpips.gov.pl/ubezpieczenia-spoleczne/ubezpieczen... In Australia it's 9% http://crr.bc.edu/briefs/australia%E2%80%99s-retirement-system-strengths-weaknesses-and-reforms-2/ http://crr.bc.edu/briefs/australia%E2%80%99s-retirement-syst...
- tmnvix 10y ago
  The $30B figure you quote has to be pure hyperbole. It isn't possible to tell from the link you provided but I assume it must be allocating a monetary value to human life along with lost tax revenues and productivity due to early death. $30B, with just over 3M smokers in Australia is $10,000 per smoker per year. I call bullshit. Even in NZ the health department were only claiming a cost of $1.9B per year and that was controversial. An anti-smoking group's report in NZ only managed to stretch it as far as $350M per year. Edit: Ok, I found the paper where they came up with the $30B figure. "The average intangible value of the loss of one year’s living in 2004/05 prices was calculated to be $53,267." That is where the number comes from. Like I said, hyperbole. Also, some napkin calculations: $2b / 3m smokers = $666 / year. $666 / 52 = $13. The average smoker is paying a lot more than that in tax each week (a single pack is $20 - $30). The quoted $2B tax revenue is bunkum too. NZ was taking in $1B seven years ago with a population 1/5 of Australia's and with prices 1/2 what they are now.
  - spangry 10y ago
    Well, I tried to stay away... Here are figures from the latest Commonwealth budget, and the latest inter-generational report: http://imgur.com/a/UWFAa http://imgur.com/a/UWFAa Tobacco excise takes in $9.4bn in revenue per year, and is expected to hit north of $10.5bn over the next four years, due to the recent excise hike. This will make tobacco the largest 'earner' when it comes to excise and customs duty (even beating diesel and petrol). The IG report contends (as it has for many years now) that when people hit about age 62, their individual tax / revenue curves cross-over. By 70, they are receiving public expenditure 2.5 times greater than the tax they pay. By 75 it's about 3 times. By 80, it's about 4.5. And before anyone plays the "you're a monster" card, I also think it's good that people are living longer and not dying from smoking related illness. But I would suggest that public finance is not the strongest grounds to argue anti-smoking on. The fact that it kills so many people, in pretty awful ways, is more than enough justification for us to try and hasten tobacco's demise. Please think carefully about the issue, because you'll be better able to pressure our politicians to take more effective action (and also make it impossible for them to quietly go backwards).
    - tmnvix 10y ago
davegardner 10y ago
The revenue of taxes isn't specifically allocated in this way in Australia. Another way of looking at it, the federal government doesn't specifically dictate that x% of the health budget must be allocated to subsidising the healthcare of smokers vs non-smokers.

by tmnvix 10y ago

nl 10y ago

This isn't true. Tobacco excise raises about $2B a year(1), but smoking costs around $30B a year(2). A 10% increase in the excise reduces the smoking rate around 4%, so simplistic analysis indicates that around $200M raised would save nearly $1.5B (lots of simplification and assumptions there obviously). (1) http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/BudgetReview201617/Tobacco http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departm... (2) http://www.health.gov.au/tobacco http://www.health.gov.au/tobacco

aplummer 10y ago
Exactly, smoking costs a lot more than the taxes raised. Worse, it uses up the free hospital beds and there is a waitlist.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
rjbhtrf 10y ago
The main cost of smoking in that study is value of life, the cost of premature deaths. But in terms of raw dollars it's different. If smokers die 10 years earlier, that's 10 years less of unproductive period in life, retirement. No pensions, no medical costs, no living expenses. They pay and save for retirement, but don't use it.
- nl 10y ago
  Actually medical costs associated with smoking are extremely significant. I'm not aware of any studies showing that they are less than average costs associated with death in old age.
  - rjbhtrf 10y ago
    I don't know Australia, but in Poland total taxes from tobacco and alcohol are similar to income tax, and to healthcare budget. -Tobacco and alcohol tax: 40 billion PLN 2013 [1] -Personal income tax 42 billion PLN 2012 [2] -Healthcare budget: 64.5 billion PLN 2013 [3] Cigarettes (and to a lesser extent alcohol) account for 2/3 of whole healthcare, for everyone! And smokers pay retirement insurance for whole life, statistically getting nothing. Especially when being male; females have 5 years lower retirement age and live 7.8 years longer. 5+7.8+10=22.8 years difference. So a male smoker pays every month, but gets nothing. [1] - http://natemat.pl/77753,alkohol-i-papierosy-sa-dla-polskiego-budzetu-wazniejsze-niz-podatek-pit http://natemat.pl/77753,alkohol-i-papierosy-sa-dla-polskiego... [2] - http://www.pit.pl/aktualnosci-podatkowe/2011/archiwum-2011-v/0905-ile-panstwo-zarabia-na-podatkach-9854/ http://www.pit.pl/aktualnosci-podatkowe/2011/archiwum-2011-v... [3] - http://pulsmedycyny.pl/2642297,42366,znamy-budzet-nfz http://pulsmedycyny.pl/2642297,42366,znamy-budzet-nfz
    - nl 10y ago
      The post you replied to had how much it raises in Australia: AU$2B/year. That compares to AU$258B/year in income tax[1]. The health, aged care and sport spending allocation is AU$89.5B[2] [1] http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/5506.0 http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/5506.0 [2] http://www.health.gov.au/internet/ministers/publishing.nsf/Content/budget2016-mediarel-ley001.htm http://www.health.gov.au/internet/ministers/publishing.nsf/C...
      - rjbhtrf 10y ago
        That's interesting! Completely different.
  - spangry 10y ago
- brokenmachine 10y ago
  > They pay and save for retirement, but don't use it. Since we're throwing around random opinions... Would you say that the kind of person that continues such an expensive habit nowadays despite what everyone knows about smoking is the kind of person who "pays and saves for retirement"? Poorer, less-educated people are much more likely to smoke. How about we also take this into account when we're speculating about how much they might be saving.
  - rjbhtrf 10y ago
    In many countries retirement insurance is automatically witheld from salary. In Poland it's 19,52% of salary. https://www.mpips.gov.pl/ubezpieczenia-spoleczne/ubezpieczenie-emerytalne/skladka-na-ubezpieczenie-emerytalne/ https://www.mpips.gov.pl/ubezpieczenia-spoleczne/ubezpieczen... In Australia it's 9% http://crr.bc.edu/briefs/australia%E2%80%99s-retirement-system-strengths-weaknesses-and-reforms-2/ http://crr.bc.edu/briefs/australia%E2%80%99s-retirement-syst...
tmnvix 10y ago
The $30B figure you quote has to be pure hyperbole. It isn't possible to tell from the link you provided but I assume it must be allocating a monetary value to human life along with lost tax revenues and productivity due to early death. $30B, with just over 3M smokers in Australia is $10,000 per smoker per year. I call bullshit. Even in NZ the health department were only claiming a cost of $1.9B per year and that was controversial. An anti-smoking group's report in NZ only managed to stretch it as far as $350M per year. Edit: Ok, I found the paper where they came up with the $30B figure. "The average intangible value of the loss of one year’s living in 2004/05 prices was calculated to be $53,267." That is where the number comes from. Like I said, hyperbole. Also, some napkin calculations: $2b / 3m smokers = $666 / year. $666 / 52 = $13. The average smoker is paying a lot more than that in tax each week (a single pack is $20 - $30). The quoted $2B tax revenue is bunkum too. NZ was taking in $1B seven years ago with a population 1/5 of Australia's and with prices 1/2 what they are now.
- spangry 10y ago
  Well, I tried to stay away... Here are figures from the latest Commonwealth budget, and the latest inter-generational report: http://imgur.com/a/UWFAa http://imgur.com/a/UWFAa Tobacco excise takes in $9.4bn in revenue per year, and is expected to hit north of $10.5bn over the next four years, due to the recent excise hike. This will make tobacco the largest 'earner' when it comes to excise and customs duty (even beating diesel and petrol). The IG report contends (as it has for many years now) that when people hit about age 62, their individual tax / revenue curves cross-over. By 70, they are receiving public expenditure 2.5 times greater than the tax they pay. By 75 it's about 3 times. By 80, it's about 4.5. And before anyone plays the "you're a monster" card, I also think it's good that people are living longer and not dying from smoking related illness. But I would suggest that public finance is not the strongest grounds to argue anti-smoking on. The fact that it kills so many people, in pretty awful ways, is more than enough justification for us to try and hasten tobacco's demise. Please think carefully about the issue, because you'll be better able to pressure our politicians to take more effective action (and also make it impossible for them to quietly go backwards).
  - tmnvix 10y ago

davegardner 10y ago

The revenue of taxes isn't specifically allocated in this way in Australia. Another way of looking at it, the federal government doesn't specifically dictate that x% of the health budget must be allocated to subsidising the healthcare of smokers vs non-smokers.