It’s time for a smokers tax strike!
Considering that he recently sought to place himself in the tradition of J.S. Mill, it would be interesting to know what Clegg thinks of Osbourne’s latest budget, and in particular the large hike in tobacco tax. Mill, after all, was forthright in his opposition to sin taxes. It was not the place, he argued, of the tax system to police behaviors which could not justifiaby be policed by via legislation.
The budget will add 50p to a pack of economy cigarettes, and a whopping 67p to a pack of rolling tobacco, meaning a total of over £3.60 on every 25 gram pouch. If Mill had been a social democrat, then this would have given another reason to oppose the tobacco taxes – which are amongst the most regressive of all taxes, and take up nearly 3% of the income of the poorest 20%.
Smokers, I believe, would have no problem paying for the cost of their habit to the NHS. Yet even before this budget, we were already paying multiple times that amount. The roughly £7.5 billion raised by the tobacco duty exceeds most credible estimates of the cost to the NHS by a a factor of 5.
For this reason it is time for a smokers tax strike. I pledge that over the coming year I will get the majority of my tobacco from abroad – and I ask you to join me in doing this, to help spread the word, and to teach the treasury a lesson about levying regressive taxes on people’s lifestyles. Add #smokerstaxstrike to your tweets!
If you want to know how easy and cost-effective it is to legally source you tobacco abroad see my post here. Last time I checked, you could Eurostar it to Belgium and back for around £70 and pick up 3 kilos of tobacco at around a third of the price. It’s time to say no.
Reader Comments
“It was not the place, he argued, of the tax system to police behaviors which could not justifiably be policed by via legislation.”
Did you read to the end of Mill’s discussion, or just stop when you got to the bit you liked about how “To tax stimulants for the sole purpose of making them more difficult to be obtained, is a measure differing only in degree from their entire prohibition; and would be justifiable only if that were justifiable”?
Mill goes on:
*** These considerations may seem at first sight to condemn the selection of stimulants as special subjects of taxation for purposes of revenue. But it must be remembered that taxation for fiscal purposes is absolutely inevitable; that in most countries it is necessary that a considerable part of that taxation should be indirect; that the State, therefore, cannot help imposing penalties, which to some persons may be prohibitory, on the use of some articles of consumption. It is hence the duty of the State to consider, in the imposition of taxes, what commodities the consumers can best spare; and à fortiori, to select in preference those of which it deems the use, beyond a very moderate quantity, to be positively injurious. Taxation, therefore, of stimulants, up to the point which produces the largest amount of revenue (supposing that the State needs all the revenue which it yields) is not only admissible, but to be approved of. ***
It is every smoker in the U.K.’s duty to deprive the treasury of all tax on tobacco products.
I last bought cigarettes in the U.K. from a legitimate source in around 1984.
No need to spend £70 on Eurostar as up to 9 people in a vehicle can do the Dover to Calais ferry for a third of that price on a day trip.
Many people are now growing and curing their own tobacco which works out even cheaper !!
***Taxation, therefore, of stimulants, up to the point which produces the largest amount of revenue (supposing that the State needs all the revenue which it yields) is not only admissible, but to be approved of.***
Unfortunately I suspect that the tax is far too high for this purpose as there will be very many people like Brenda above who researched the possibilities of acquiring cheaper tobacco years ago.
Nice April fools joke, Reuben. Smokers tax strike… Hilarious!
Now enough talk encouraging tax avoidance, you might get the UKUncut lot riled up. Think for a moment about how much you added tax contribution thanks to your habit is saving some public services which would otherwise have to be cut.
Also, 3% tax, even on low incomes, is pretty low impact compared to the whopping 20% VAT rate. If your smoking habit is causing that much financial hardship maybe, just maybe, you should think about quitting. I had to do a similar thing with my fabergé egg habit years ago… It gets better.
Tripps, unfortunately the content of your argument is less impressive than the scathing style of your commentary.
THe fact that I could choose to quit is neither here nor their – if one considers smoking to be a legitimate lifestyle choice, then it ought not to come with a financial penalty beyond that which the exernaliies t creates necessitate. By your logic it would be perfectly reeasonable for he government to start fining people for wearing purple, because you know, they could just choose not to.
If I go out and buy a purple t-shirt, in line with my lifestyle choice, a fifth of the cost of that item will go to the government in the form of VAT. The additional duty of cigarettes may affect some on low incomes, but value added tax is larger and affects ALL on lower income. Perhaps you should look beyond your personal habits when choosing what crusades to go on.
Ultimately, the state as it stands needs to be fed and a tax on tobacco is perfect from the government’s perspective for not only appeasing the anti-smoking lobby but also, due to the addictive nature, sales will not see such sharp drop off as you would if a similar tax was placed on something else. Smokers are easy targets, sure, but I do not yet see them as victims.
Where do you think the government should alternatively source the £7.5b revenue? If the HMRC started closing some tax loopholes for Philip Green and the like should we pass all the money to a tax break for tobacco? Is that something you seriously believe we should be prioritising?
“The roughly £7.5 billion raised by the tobacco duty exceeds most credible estimates of the cost to the NHS by a a factor of 5.”
I’d be really interested to see your sources for this, if you have links. I was under the vague impression that this was not at all the case, but haven’t seen a solid scientific assessment either way myself.
“I had to do a similar thing with my fabergé egg habit years ago… It gets better”.
What a toss pot.
I love when i see people think they are clever but they just look like a child.