Health experts say axing plan to block sales of tobacco products to next generation will cost thousands of lives

  • @trebuchet@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    711 year ago

    Lol sounds like this increases tax revenues by increasing the number of addicted smokers buying cigarettes and then taxing the sales.

    Really sound government policy there.

    • livus
      link
      fedilink
      26
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      They have actually admitted this is going to be revenue gathering. NZ has some of the highest tobacco tax in the world.

      Basically their election promise was tax cuts, which they intended to do by allowing more foriegn ownership of real estate and taxing it.

      After the election they found out they could only govern with the help of a populist party and a libertarian party.

      The populists won’t allow more foriegn ownership of real estate. Meanwhile the libertarians’ wet dream is stuff like more lung cancer tobacco.

      So we get shitty last minute law changes we didn’t see coming, like this one.

      • @SkyeStarfall@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        16
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Wait, they want more foreign ownership of real estate?? Are they high lol. That’s going to price out every last young person there from homes that’s not already priced out.

        • @kaffiene@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          11 year ago

          They are supported by boomers and farmers both of which own property and are happy to flog it off to the highest bidder. They don’t care a jot for the rest of society not having a place to live

      • @kaffiene@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        11 year ago

        Everyone could see that the foriegn buyers tax wasn’t going to work. It wasn’t going to raise enough revenue and was also illegal. It was obvious that something was going to get cut to pay for taxes. It’s not like this wasn’t pointed out ad nauseum during the election

      • Vornikov
        link
        fedilink
        -3
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        The populists won’t allow more foriegn ownership of real estate.

        I don’t see a single problem here. Fuck, I wish Australia would get behind this.

        Also good, fuck prohibition laws. Leave them in the fucking past where they belong. If I want to slowly kill myself by inhaling burning plant matter, then that’s my decision. The taxes I pay more than cover my eventual cost to the state’s healthcare system. The government does not get to dictate what I do with my own body.

    • @tankplanker@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      171 year ago

      It’s worse than that as it’s short term tax gains now but increased public health spending later from those same taxes when they start getting cancer in a decade or two.

      • @az04@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        -1
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        But lower pension costs, and overall it saves money to allow people to smoke themselves to an early death. Even if you count the cost of their treatment, it’s cheaper than 20 extra years of pension payments. It’s a terrifying but sound economic policy.

        • @tankplanker@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          21 year ago

          Using the UK numbers, around 80k people die of smoking per year, costing the NHS alone £2.6bn, their full state pension cost is around £900m, so there is a sizeable gap between just the NHS cost and the amount on their pension as the pension saving has to be significantly more than the remaining years on their state pension as there is another set of costs next year, and the year after and so on… Total cost per year is estimates at about £12bn, but direct government cost is a bit over £4bn. This doesn’t include the fact that it ties up beds for other people who do not smoke, which means worse outcomes fro them, and this has knock on costs.

          They just aren’t killing them fast enough.

    • @jonne@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      91 year ago

      Tax revenue that you’ll have to plow right back into the health care system to treat expensive lung cancers. But hey, that’s only 20 years down the line, so you look good now.

      • Bo7a
        link
        fedilink
        31 year ago

        I’m not sure about how accurate it is, but I read something a while back about it being the opposite in canada. You don’t spend more on smokers because they don’t live long enough to get to the really expensive part.

        This is just a foggy memory so I’m definitely open to being corrected.

    • @Akasazh@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      61 year ago

      Yup. It’s really effective. I’ve paid my share of lung ruining tax in my lifetime. And for most of that time I’d be happy to defend my right to soil my airways to something close to the death.

      I’ve been clean for over a year. But that addiction is so fucking emotional that you let them squeeze you dry and you almost applaud it. The perfect capitalist drug.

    • gila
      link
      fedilink
      41 year ago

      Yes but actually most western governments do this. The Aus health minister made a comment to the same effect a couple of months back. The US even collateralises loans using payments from tobacco companies that have not yet been made, as compensation for harm to public health that has not yet been done.