(16/05/14 02:36 PM)Agenthoover Wrote: Im probably going to get slapped and kicked about the head for this.... but you are all wasting your time ... when are people going to wake up... where money and government is concerned ....you are going to lose... you can protest, riot, petiton, shout and scream as much as you want there is no way any government is going to watch billions of pounds/dollars just walk out the door due to tax loss.... and thats exactly what this is all about, if just half of the UK alone were to quit smoking the amount of lost revenue would be obcene....No governmet on earth is going to accept that...Unless of course they can think of a way to scam the lost billions out of the ecig market, In which case you might have a little hope,,.... let the slapping comence.
Personally I believe that the "tobacco taxation" argument whilst important is actually a red herring as the £12 billion or so obtained from tobacco taxation is under 2% of Governments total expenditure and could if necessary easily be replaced from other tax. Crucial I believe to the financial argument is the simple fact that life long smokers die 10 years before non smokers. Imagine that smoking didn't exist and in the UK alone this would mean 20% of the population over time living up to 10 years longer and the long term financial repercussions of this equate to an additional annual cost of £70 billion of state pensions at today's prices - or 10% of today's Government expenditure. The demographics of an increased elderly population is well known as is the financial pressures of fewer tax payers having to pay for more pensioners and and smokers actually reduce this pressure, as they die younger. This additional Government expenditure would have to be found and the 80% of current non smokers would all see their tax bills increase. Add in the fact that both Pharma and Tobacco are important to UK's balance of trade payments notwithstanding the corporation tax that results from profitable Tobacco and Pharma companies who implicitly gain because of tobacco smoking and you have a complex financial justification which results in a strong political motivation to ensure that the less harmful ecig does not replace the tobacco cigarette. Financially and politically the ecig replacing tobacco smoking is bad news for every faction (Govts, Big T, Big P, Tobacco Control, etc etc) who all stand to be net losers financially should the humble ecig replace tobacco smoking. Sadly, the only financial winners are the tobacco smokers who if they are allowed the option of using ecigs will not only save themselves money, but will also benefit from using a product that will not reduce their life by up to 10 years, but financial and political considerations are deemed more important than actually reducing the harm from tobacco smoking and I've yet to see any political evidence that this isn't the case.
Basically the 20% of smokers living shorter lives is considered a lesser evil (or maybe a greater good if one's looking for justification) than having to increase future taxes for the 80% of non smokers to actually pay for the future increased lives of the "ecig induced" non smoking population.