Bloody hell Tim!
You just caught on? I was saying that 30 years ago.
The trick is, now, not to let the government enjoy the taxes.
MakajazMonkee
My sister’s was always telling me this as reverse psychology to get me to stop smoking. “You smokers help us in the NHS as you pay loads of tax and die relatively quickly and cheaply”..Never worked mind you,
Jim
My old family doctor (an old school, home visits at all times of day and night type chap) said that the most effective line he could ever come out with to get a person to give up smoking was to point out how much pension the government was going to save when they died young.
Sir Humphrey Appleby of Yes Minister fame made that point a long time ago – possibly before you did.
HJ
And as I pointed out at the ASI, Tim, the paper says nothing of the sort.
For a start, it looks only at the effect of a CHANGE in tobacco taxes in the US. It does not look at overall costs vs savings – just the effect of an increase (which it concludes would save the government money until 2060, costing more only thereafter). The study is peculiar to the USA (where tobacco taxes are different and so is medical funding).
Bloody hell Tim!
You just caught on? I was saying that 30 years ago.
The trick is, now, not to let the government enjoy the taxes.
My sister’s was always telling me this as reverse psychology to get me to stop smoking. “You smokers help us in the NHS as you pay loads of tax and die relatively quickly and cheaply”..Never worked mind you,
My old family doctor (an old school, home visits at all times of day and night type chap) said that the most effective line he could ever come out with to get a person to give up smoking was to point out how much pension the government was going to save when they died young.
Bloke in Spain:
Sir Humphrey Appleby of Yes Minister fame made that point a long time ago – possibly before you did.
And as I pointed out at the ASI, Tim, the paper says nothing of the sort.
For a start, it looks only at the effect of a CHANGE in tobacco taxes in the US. It does not look at overall costs vs savings – just the effect of an increase (which it concludes would save the government money until 2060, costing more only thereafter). The study is peculiar to the USA (where tobacco taxes are different and so is medical funding).
What’s more, it doesn’t look at alcohol at all.