Albert Tatlock Posted February 15, 2009 Share Posted February 15, 2009 dream on, how much do you think transplant surgery costs? and then there is the constant need to take expensive anti rejection drugs. even on 300 fags a week at todays prices and at your 80% duty figure thats only 3k a year in round numbers. a quick google estimated the cost between 150 and 300 thousand dollars US!! so at todays exchange rates thats 100 - 200 thousand quid!! so 33 years at 300 a week gets you the low estimate, and 66 years the high. but when you consider the cash duty on a pack of fags from 30 years ago?? 20p??? and the rise in between, it would take a lot longer to get the 100k than the 33 years of the maths now answer. how the cost of chemo and radiation therapy compares without the need for a transplant, i didn't bother looking up. but very few folks will actually pay more into the NHS than they actually take out if they had major surgery for cancer. Rubbish, your costs are at least twice the 'NHS reference' costs. Comparison with the US is useless, that is why they envy our NHS so much. Most smokers are affected by heart conditions, strokes and cancer. Very few (smokers and non-smokers alike) get heart AND lung transplants that cost £80K, heart transplants alone around £70K. A triple heart-bypass costs around £15K, treatment for cancer (chemo etc.) averages £35K. The duty on a packet of 20 cigarettes is £3.20, so over 40 years a smoker will pay an additional £48K into the system, over 50 years £58K. You also have to consider smokers live 10 years less on average, so that is an average of 10 X £5K they don't get back in state pension i.e. another £50K they 'contribute'. So in total the average smoker 'pays' £100K into the system in addition to normal taxes more than a non-smoker. And, not so many smokers even get the chance to 'recoup' much of that extra money they have paid in. But of course heart conditions, strokes and cancer affect non-smokers too (they don't die of nothing) - and they require treatments and surgery too, never mind treatments for additional conditions, drugs, and long term care (homes/at home etc.). Non smokers are also, for example, in that additional 10 years, more likely to require hip/knee replacements at around £8K. If a quarter of the working population smoke, then on the island that equates to 10,000 people. 10,000 X £100K over their lifetime on top of what non-smokers pay in is an additional £1 Billion in revenue. That's a new hospital every 20 years, or a free triple heart bypass for 66,000 people. I think Albert's figures are nearer reality. However, smokers impose other costs on the community. Second-hand smoke incurs a significant cost. Yer...at least a few £million in anti-smoking posters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebees Posted February 15, 2009 Share Posted February 15, 2009 Oh the no smoking fascists - you are so tiresome. Did they tell you on the telly that smoking was bad for you? I do not argue that smoking is quite bad for you but there are worse things & people do not go on about them half as much as they do smoking. This is a thread about transexuals...WTF has that got to do with smoking? Tell you what, give me a couple of million grant to research it and I will tell you..."The hormonal changes caused by the expectant mother smoking while pregnant interfere with the X's & Y's during fusion of the fetus, thus it it smoking during pregnancy that causes people to be born transexuals" ...nothing to do with all of the hormones in the water supply, nor all the shite that is added to drinks, food etc etc etc. Life is a marvelous thing, everyone is different. If I stop smoking I gain weight and become absolutely miserable, so I smoke, not a lot (maybe 4/5 rollies a day, if that) but Im happy with the whole deal, I smoke out the back (in the kitchen with the window open if its raining) so I'm only harming myself (I am from a long line of people who live into their 90's and smoke so I dont think my time will be cut short by my smoking). I will stop again one day but only when I am ready to join the fatty brigade - fat people, now theres a point, why should they get treated on the NHS?.........(I do not mean that to be taken seriously in any way btw) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WTF Posted February 15, 2009 Share Posted February 15, 2009 dream on, how much do you think transplant surgery costs? and then there is the constant need to take expensive anti rejection drugs. even on 300 fags a week at todays prices and at your 80% duty figure thats only 3k a year in round numbers. a quick google estimated the cost between 150 and 300 thousand dollars US!! so at todays exchange rates thats 100 - 200 thousand quid!! so 33 years at 300 a week gets you the low estimate, and 66 years the high. but when you consider the cash duty on a pack of fags from 30 years ago?? 20p??? and the rise in between, it would take a lot longer to get the 100k than the 33 years of the maths now answer. how the cost of chemo and radiation therapy compares without the need for a transplant, i didn't bother looking up. but very few folks will actually pay more into the NHS than they actually take out if they had major surgery for cancer. Rubbish, your costs are at least twice the 'NHS reference' costs. Comparison with the US is useless, that is why they envy our NHS so much. Most smokers are affected by heart conditions, strokes and cancer. Very few (smokers and non-smokers alike) get heart AND lung transplants that cost £80K, heart transplants alone around £70K. A triple heart-bypass costs around £15K, treatment for cancer (chemo etc.) averages £35K. The duty on a packet of 20 cigarettes is £3.20, so over 40 years a smoker will pay an additional £48K into the system, over 50 years £58K. You also have to consider smokers live 10 years less on average, so that is an average of 10 X £5K they don't get back in state pension i.e. another £50K they 'contribute'. So in total the average smoker 'pays' £100K into the system in addition to normal taxes more than a non-smoker. And, not so many smokers even get the chance to 'recoup' much of that extra money they have paid in. But of course heart conditions, strokes and cancer affect non-smokers too (they don't die of nothing) - and they require treatments and surgery too, never mind treatments for additional conditions, drugs, and long term care (homes/at home etc.). Non smokers are also, for example, in that additional 10 years, more likely to require hip/knee replacements at around £8K. If a quarter of the working population smoke, then on the island that equates to 10,000 people. 10,000 X £100K over their lifetime on top of what non-smokers pay in is an additional £1 Billion in revenue. That's a new hospital every 20 years, or a free triple heart bypass for 66,000 people. I think Albert's figures are nearer reality. However, smokers impose other costs on the community. Second-hand smoke incurs a significant cost. When somebody dies before their working life is over (whether from their own smoke or somebody else's), the loss of earnings is significant, and devastating for dependents. My dry-cleaning costs have dropped over the years - back in the 60s, getting rid of the smell of smoke was the main reason to have clothes cleaned. Good pubs spent a fortune replacing carpets and chair covers, and repainting their ceilings. Bad pubs didn't bother, of course. The same applied to railway carriages, aircraft cabins, and hotel rooms. S the figures i came up with were the first things that google came up with. but which ever figures you go by, you are basing the final cost of treatment in 30 - 40 years time with todays starting point of duty costs. in 40 years with inflation etc what you pay in in the first year on duty now will barely be a weeks wages by then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted February 15, 2009 Share Posted February 15, 2009 the figures i came up with were the first things that google came up with. but which ever figures you go by, you are basing the final cost of treatment in 30 - 40 years time with todays starting point of duty costs. in 40 years with inflation etc what you pay in in the first year on duty now will barely be a weeks wages by then. So? - fags are going up and will continue to go up well ahead of inflation, it's been a government budget committment for years, that's why they are £6 a packet now. Also, on that £Billion generated by just the working smokers (there are others too) - one could say - what about the interest on that money too? If that money was invested for each smoker over 40/50 years it would well double for when the smoker might need it to pay for treatment - but no it gets spent, because tobacco duty is a government cash cow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheesemonster2005 Posted February 15, 2009 Share Posted February 15, 2009 It was me who drove us off topic by replying to a post several pages ago. Yes, smoking is bad and it doesn't have any positive benefits to society but I was saying that smokers should not be denied treatment. In fact nobody should be denied treatment on the NHS. If you want a system which can deny people treatment then let's privatise the NHS and introduce real medical insurance and let the insurance companies decide who they want to insure and then we'll end up with a large minority of the population without insurance and with a very miserable life just like in the USA. Moving back on topic again, people who want a sex change should be entitled to one on the NHS but that also is not the issue here because the Human Rights leglislation has nothing to do with NHS treatment and only concerns treating transequals as equal to the rest of the population which anyone with half a brain and a gram of decency would agree is the right thing to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sebrof Posted February 15, 2009 Share Posted February 15, 2009 the figures i came up with were the first things that google came up with. but which ever figures you go by, you are basing the final cost of treatment in 30 - 40 years time with todays starting point of duty costs. in 40 years with inflation etc what you pay in in the first year on duty now will barely be a weeks wages by then. Invest the money, earn a return, and you will surprised how much it will be in 40 years time. S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sebrof Posted February 15, 2009 Share Posted February 15, 2009 Oh the no smoking fascists - you are so tiresome. Did they tell you on the telly that smoking was bad for you? I do not argue that smoking is quite bad for you but there are worse things & people do not go on about them half as much as they do smoking. This is a thread about transexuals...WTF has that got to do with smoking? Tell you what, give me a couple of million grant to research it and I will tell you..."The hormonal changes caused by the expectant mother smoking while pregnant interfere with the X's & Y's during fusion of the fetus, thus it it smoking during pregnancy that causes people to be born transexuals" ...nothing to do with all of the hormones in the water supply, nor all the shite that is added to drinks, food etc etc etc. Life is a marvelous thing, everyone is different. If I stop smoking I gain weight and become absolutely miserable, so I smoke, not a lot (maybe 4/5 rollies a day, if that) but Im happy with the whole deal, I smoke out the back (in the kitchen with the window open if its raining) so I'm only harming myself (I am from a long line of people who live into their 90's and smoke so I dont think my time will be cut short by my smoking). I will stop again one day but only when I am ready to join the fatty brigade - fat people, now theres a point, why should they get treated on the NHS?.........(I do not mean that to be taken seriously in any way btw) Take some exercise and you won't need to smoke. You'll feel better, look better, smell better, and be better off. S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Declan Posted February 15, 2009 Share Posted February 15, 2009 Take some exrecise and you won't need to smoke. You'll feel better, look better, smell better, and be better off. And be smugger. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sebrof Posted February 15, 2009 Share Posted February 15, 2009 Take some exrecise and you won't need to smoke. You'll feel better, look better, smell better, and be better off. And be smugger. Actually, I am a tiresome fascist. S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sebrof Posted February 15, 2009 Share Posted February 15, 2009 Take some exrecise and you won't need to smoke. You'll feel better, look better, smell better, and be better off. And be smugger. Smuggness does indeed appear to be the best way to live to a ripe old age. Whatever you say. But you'll usually find that my "smug" replies are the result of provocation - in this case being called a tiresome fascist for no good reason. The post that triggered that retort was an attempt by me to find a balance between the exaggerations of WTF and the somewhat selective response by AT. I happen to think that smokers are fully taxed, if not over-taxed, relative to their cost to society. For that reason, I personally wouldn't see much merit in increasing taxes further. If people haven't got the message already, they never will. But in establishing that cost to society, we need to be more objective than either WTF or Albert T. If that's being smug, then I'm smug. S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted February 15, 2009 Share Posted February 15, 2009 Whatever you say. But you'll usually find that my "smug" replies are the result of provocation - in this case being called a tiresome fascist for no good reason. The post that triggered that retort was an attempt by me to find a balance between the exaggerations of WTF and the somewhat selective response by AT. I happen to think that smokers are fully taxed, if not over-taxed, relative to their cost to society. For that reason, I personally wouldn't see much merit in increasing taxes further. If people haven't got the message already, they never will. But in establishing that cost to society, we need to be more objective than either WTF or Albert T. If that's being smug, then I'm smug. S In your opinion of course. The costs I quoted are easily calculated, the NHS reference costs available and published by HMG for all too see. If anything, I have been conservative in my estimates. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WTF Posted February 15, 2009 Share Posted February 15, 2009 the figures i came up with were the first things that google came up with. but which ever figures you go by, you are basing the final cost of treatment in 30 - 40 years time with todays starting point of duty costs. in 40 years with inflation etc what you pay in in the first year on duty now will barely be a weeks wages by then. Invest the money, earn a return, and you will surprised how much it will be in 40 years time. S sweet FA, the banks will use it to pay wages and bonuses while 'loosing' the capital and do a BCCI or SIB on you, and at the current 1+ %'s saving is actually devalueing your cash against inflation. to get the most out of your money today you need to spend it. the banks have proved themselves a pyramid scheme that has to collapse on a regular basis so they can start again and keep showing a profit on paper. how can their claimed value be real? no one has suddenly cashed X thousand million and wanted their money back ( that the banks claim to be worth ) so the paper worth is not real cash capital. they are so interlended and borrowed with all sorts of titles for different financial options that they are as good as one big bank living of the backs of 'savers' and they just show profit on paper even though there is no substance to it. in a black and white world it would be falsifying accounts. what makes it look like it works is because some people do get their interest and their capital out and it works for them over quite a few years.but if you don't get out when the leak starts, you go down with the ship. but there is no real cash for it to work for all. what you could end up with is with zimbabwe like value to cash along side the pretend value the banks claim to have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manxman2 Posted February 15, 2009 Share Posted February 15, 2009 i like that posting WTF .. i would say similar but my wording would contain much stronger language .. strictly for impact value mind.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Domino Posted February 15, 2009 Share Posted February 15, 2009 If I stop smoking I gain weight and become absolutely miserable, so I smoke, not a lot (maybe 4/5 rollies a day, if that) but Im happy with the whole deal, I smoke out the back (in the kitchen with the window open if its raining) so I'm only harming myself (I am from a long line of people who live into their 90's and smoke so I dont think my time will be cut short by my smoking). I will stop again one day but only when I am ready to join the fatty brigade - fat people, now theres a point, why should they get treated on the NHS?.........(I do not mean that to be taken seriously in any way btw) Why not have a sex change? Then when you get miserable you'll have a willy to play with. And when you try and give the smokes up as well, you'll have something to hold between your fingers Sorry, Sunday sesh in the boozer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sebrof Posted February 15, 2009 Share Posted February 15, 2009 Whatever you say. But you'll usually find that my "smug" replies are the result of provocation - in this case being called a tiresome fascist for no good reason. The post that triggered that retort was an attempt by me to find a balance between the exaggerations of WTF and the somewhat selective response by AT. I happen to think that smokers are fully taxed, if not over-taxed, relative to their cost to society. For that reason, I personally wouldn't see much merit in increasing taxes further. If people haven't got the message already, they never will. But in establishing that cost to society, we need to be more objective than either WTF or Albert T. If that's being smug, then I'm smug. S In your opinion of course. The costs I quoted are easily calculated, the NHS reference costs available and published by HMG for all too see. If anything, I have been conservative in my estimates. I wasn't arguing with your figures - I was simply pointing out a couple of things you had omitted. Overall, whilst I don't exactly support smoking, I do think that smokers probably pay enough tax. S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.