Bombs in LOndon

Following up to DDT Filled Mormons

As, on average, low earners smoke more should we reduce the
tax on ciggies?

No, because smokers cost the health system more than non-smokers.

do they? They tell us our longer life expectation is increasing
health costs, so surely dying early saves money.
--
Mike Reid
Walk-eat-UK "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" -- you can email us@ this site
Walk-eat-Spain "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" -- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap
Photos of both "http://www.lawn-mower-man.co.uk"

Following up to Jim Ley

Well, many disagree that over 10% of income going in council tax
is OK and its not on housing costs,

Of course it's on housing costs, if you're homeless, you don't pay it.

housing cost is rent, mortgage, upkeep, council tax is a tax to
fund local authority spending, not housing.
--
Mike Reid
Walk-eat-UK "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" -- you can email us@ this site
Walk-eat-Spain "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" -- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap
Photos of both "http://www.lawn-mower-man.co.uk"

On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 21:43:12 +0100, The Reids
wrote:

Following up to Jim Ley

Well, many disagree that over 10% of income going in council tax
is OK and its not on housing costs,

Of course it's on housing costs, if you're homeless, you don't pay it.

housing cost is rent, mortgage, upkeep, council tax is a tax to
fund local authority spending, not housing.

It's a cost that only exists if you live in a house, how is it not a
housing cost? What makes it distinct?

Jim.

Following up to Jim Ley

housing cost is rent, mortgage, upkeep, council tax is a tax to
fund local authority spending, not housing.

It's a cost that only exists if you live in a house, how is it not a
housing cost? What makes it distinct?

its the cost of your local authority services, which include many
things not house related, like education. It could be levied
against houses, windows, income, cars or even beards. In
accountancy it is included under the housing head, but that's
because under current arrangements in varies in proportion to
housing costs. If funded by local income tax where would the
connection to housing be, other than that you live in the area,
which could be related to an electoral register, hence the name
"poll tax" that Thatcher hated so much.
--
Mike Reid
Walk-eat-UK "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" -- you can email us@ this site
Walk-eat-Spain "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" -- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap
Photos of both "http://www.lawn-mower-man.co.uk"

On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 21:43:11 +0100, The Reids
wrote:

Following up to DDT Filled Mormons

As, on average, low earners smoke more should we reduce the
tax on ciggies?

No, because smokers cost the health system more than non-smokers.

do they? They tell us our longer life expectation is increasing
health costs, so surely dying early saves money.

It's a long, slow, expensive death which diverts resources from those
that don't smoke. Smokers are also less productive, due to time taken
off for cigarette breaks.
--
---
DFM - http://www.deepfriedmars.com
---
--

On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 21:05:49 +0100,
(chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn and prestwich tesco)
wrote:

DDT Filled Mormons wrote:

On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 21:03:55 +0200, "tim \(moved to sweden\)"
wrote:
[]
As, on average, low earners smoke more should we reduce the
tax on ciggies?

No, because smokers cost the health system more than non-smokers.

Not necessarily as much as the tax spent on the tobacco though.

It dramatically varies by country and health system.
--
---
DFM - http://www.deepfriedmars.com
---
--

DDT Filled Mormons wrote:

On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 21:05:49 +0100,
(chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn and prestwich tesco)
wrote:

DDT Filled Mormons wrote:

On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 21:03:55 +0200, "tim \(moved to sweden\)"
wrote:
[]
As, on average, low earners smoke more should we reduce the
tax on ciggies?

No, because smokers cost the health system more than non-smokers.

Not necessarily as much as the tax spent on the tobacco though.

It dramatically varies by country and health system.

Not least given the amount of tax, naturally.

--
David Horne- www.davidhorne.net
usenet (at) davidhorne (dot) co (dot) uk

On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 22:16:12 GMT, DDT Filled Mormons
wrote:

Smokers are also less productive, due to time taken
off for cigarette breaks.

Unlikely, or at the very least dependant on the job, lots of people
I've worked with are the most productive who take lots of breaks with
their co-workers, where they discuss work...

Jim.

Following up to DDT Filled Mormons

do they? They tell us our longer life expectation is increasing
health costs, so surely dying early saves money.

It's a long, slow, expensive death which diverts resources from those
that don't smoke. Smokers are also less productive, due to time taken
off for cigarette breaks.

do non smokers not have slow deaths? Don't plenty of smokers have
heart attacks? That's what we should be encouraging, no cost at
all if the ambulance is slow.
--
Mike Reid
Walk-eat-UK "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" -- you can email us@ this site
Walk-eat-Spain "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" -- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap
Photos of both "http://www.lawn-mower-man.co.uk"

Following up to Jim Ley

Smokers are also less productive, due to time taken
off for cigarette breaks.

Unlikely, or at the very least dependant on the job, lots of people
I've worked with are the most productive who take lots of breaks with
their co-workers, where they discuss work...

I don't think two social groups, the nons and the smokers is good
for an organisation.
--
Mike Reid
Walk-eat-UK "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" -- you can email us@ this site
Walk-eat-Spain "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" -- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap
Photos of both "http://www.lawn-mower-man.co.uk"