19 ms·

"There would be an estimated NZ$5 billion ($4.7 billion) in savings on future public health expenditure as a result of the plans." - NZ Associate Health Ministe

"There would be an estimated NZ$5 billion ($4.7 billion) in savings on future public health expenditure as a result of the plans." - NZ Associate Health Minister Ayesha Verrall https://amp.theage.com.au/world/oceania/nz-to-create-smoke-free-generation-with-lifetime-tobacco-ban-20211209-p59g7d.html https://amp.theage.com.au/world/oceania/nz-to-create-smoke-f...

InvertedRhodium 5y ago
What is the value in measuring expenditure alone? Doesn't the income generated by those activities also factor into the equation?
- brokenmachine 5y ago
  Governments don't usually do things from the joy in their hearts, or out of the care for their constituents. I'm more inclined to think that smokers aren't subsidizing everyone as much as they like to think.
  - InvertedRhodium 5y ago
    Governments, when objectively correct, tend to release data to support their position. The only value in measuring expenditure alone is in how the uneducated interpret it as more favorable.
    - brokenmachine 5y ago
      So what you're saying is that the government is leaving money on the table out of care for the health of the people? That's terrible...
tmnvix 5y ago
Over what timeframe? It can't be yearly. The population of NZ is 5,000,000. The smoking rate is 12%. A saving of $5B/y would mean $8,333 per smoker, per year. Don't forget that a typical smoker in NZ might pay about $5000/y in tobacco tax ($100/w for 2.5 packs or 1 pouch per week taxed at 80%+). Let's call it a saving of $13,333/y then. But wait! This $5B figure obviously can't be based on eliminating smoking, just a reduction. So the estimate must be based on saving much more than $13,333/y for each smoker this 'stops'. On top of that, smokers on average die much younger than non-smokers. Healthcare costs are mostly accrued in old age.

19 ms·

"There would be an estimated NZ$5 billion ($4.7 billion) in savings on future public health expenditure as a result of the plans." - NZ Associate Health Ministe

by brokenmachine 5y ago

InvertedRhodium 5y ago
What is the value in measuring expenditure alone? Doesn't the income generated by those activities also factor into the equation?
- brokenmachine 5y ago
  Governments don't usually do things from the joy in their hearts, or out of the care for their constituents. I'm more inclined to think that smokers aren't subsidizing everyone as much as they like to think.
  - InvertedRhodium 5y ago
    Governments, when objectively correct, tend to release data to support their position. The only value in measuring expenditure alone is in how the uneducated interpret it as more favorable.
    - brokenmachine 5y ago
      So what you're saying is that the government is leaving money on the table out of care for the health of the people? That's terrible...
tmnvix 5y ago
Over what timeframe? It can't be yearly. The population of NZ is 5,000,000. The smoking rate is 12%. A saving of $5B/y would mean $8,333 per smoker, per year. Don't forget that a typical smoker in NZ might pay about $5000/y in tobacco tax ($100/w for 2.5 packs or 1 pouch per week taxed at 80%+). Let's call it a saving of $13,333/y then. But wait! This $5B figure obviously can't be based on eliminating smoking, just a reduction. So the estimate must be based on saving much more than $13,333/y for each smoker this 'stops'. On top of that, smokers on average die much younger than non-smokers. Healthcare costs are mostly accrued in old age.