Tobacco tax on the increase.

[Oakie]

Thought someone else would have started this thread by now. Perhaps all the smokers are off stocking up before the price rises at midnight (probably)?

The stated aim of the increase is to stop people smoking and so reduce the burden on the health system of smoking related diseases. It'll be interesting to see if it makes the difference they're hoping for.

[Maha]

It wont make a difference at all and heres why,
When I was a smoker, price hikes did not bother me at all.
The Government says the increase will hopefully make smoking less affordable to smokers....bullshit!
The are just collecting more taxes.
If they wanted smokers to quit, they would put all smokes up to $25-30 per packet overnight (even then some would still pay)
An extra dollar or so is fuck all to a smoker.
Smokers wont get sucked in by this little attempt to drag more money out of them.

[steve_t]

It's nearly A$20 a pack in Australia!
I remember the last time the tax on smokes went up, they interviewed a couple on TV who said the rise would mean their kids would go hungry... WTF?!

[mashman]

Good incentive for some no doubt... i'll keep puffing away til the day I don't want to anymore... or the day it doesn't want me anymore... or the day it becomes illegal... whichever comes soonest. And i've not been a drag on any health service (apart from stoopid broken kid bits)...

[mashman]

It wont make a difference at all and heres why,
When I was a smoker, price hikes did not bother me at all.
The Government says the increase will hopefully make smoking less affordable to smokers....bullshit!
The are just collecting more taxes.
If they wanted smokers to quit, they would put all smokes up to $25-30 per packet overnight.
An extra dollars is fuck all to a smoker.
Smokers wont get sucked in by this little attempt to drag more money out of them.

It's ALL smoke and mirrors... if they wanted you to quit, they'd make it illegal.

[Maha]

It's ALL smoke and mirrors... if they wanted you to quit, they'd make it illegal.

They dont wont smokers to quit, not with almost 1 Billion dollars in taxes collected each year.

[EJK]

Them fat maori mums wont afford baby foods no more!

[LBD]

Just walking back from lunch down town Bishkek, as we walked past a kiosk, I commented on how expensive smoking must be in Kyrgyzstan.....as you can buy cigarettes....each, one, 1/20 of a packet.

[SMOKEU]

Them fat maori mums wont afford baby foods no more!

Yeah but many niggas can't afford food in the first place. They spend all their money on booze, smokes and gambling anyway.

[Milts]

They dont wont smokers to quit, not with almost 1 Billion dollars in taxes collected each year.

What about all the public health care costs associated with smokers. And the loss of income tax on people who die early or retire early due to health problems.

It's not the most effective way of lowing the rate of smoking, and to be honest I don't think taxing it to up the price is the way it should be done. But the fact is that there will be a few people for whom this will be the straw that breaks the camel's back, and will push them into quitting. And I'm sure the extra revenue can be put to good use somewhere.... preferably ACC or the health system (not that I believe it will. But it's possible).

[Gone Burger]

Might have the desired effect on the younger generation of smokers (teens). Can imagine that it will be a real hard push for many of them to find that extra cash time and time again. My brother started smoking at the age of 14, and to be honest, he may not have smoked so much through his teens if the price has been much higher.

But yes, when there is a will, there is a way. I'm sure many will not be put off but the cost increase, just end up with even less cash in the pocket at the end of the week. And in some situations, that may be a particually bad outcome.

[LBD]

And the more smokers...the lower the life expectancy, leading to lower demand on pensions and old age care.....

[Headbanger]

What about all the public health care costs associated with smokers.

Smokers subsides the health system to the tune of about $600m a year.

If they ban smoking, half our hospitals would close.

[CookMySock]

They dont wont smokers to quit, not with almost 1 Billion dollars in taxes collected each year.Exactly. It's all about maximising revenue.

Steve

[Oakie]

Smokers subsides the health system to the tune of about $600m a year.

If they ban smoking, half our hospitals would close.

If they ban smoking, half our hospitals would be able to close.

[Headbanger]

If they ban smoking, half our hospitals would be able to close.

Because people who don't smoke don't get sick and die?

Nice thought, afraid thats not how it works.

I'm a non-smoker,actually I'm an ex-smoker, and I'm quite happy for all the smokers to pay all that extra tax and then die before they become a strain on society.

[Jonno.]

Is this shit for real? Does anyone actually think this is going to make anyone quit.

Since I smoked cigarettes have gone up by about 25%.
I know many people who smoked for 10 years before I started who are still smoking. I've never met someone who quit due to a price rise.

[EJK]

Is this shit for real? Does anyone actually think this is going to make anyone quit.

Since I smoked cigarettes have gone up by about 25%.
I know many people who smoked for 10 years before I started who are still smoking. I've never met someone who quit due to a price rise.

But I think it will stop some non-smokers to go to smokers. For example, "Oh man, that's so expensive. Nah, fuck it". That's my case.

[DMNTD]

But I think it will stop some non-smokers to go to smokers. For example, "Oh man, that's so expensive. Nah, fuck it". That's my case.

Heh! Doesn't stop people buy meth...or beer...or...

[Headbanger]

Is this shit for real? Does anyone actually think this is going to make anyone quit.

Since I smoked cigarettes have gone up by about 25%.
I know many people who smoked for 10 years before I started who are still smoking. I've never met someone who quit due to a price rise.

Granted we have never met, But I gave up after 17 years as they were just too damn expensive.

That $100 a week was enough for a Harley, and then a Speed Triple.....

[EJK]

heh! Doesn't stop people buy meth...or beer...or...

or... MORE KFC YO!!!!!!!!!

[Jonno.]

What I meant is I'd definetly say this is more financially motivated then socially.

[EJK]

Still it will work for some people. Not all people. Yes, it will work.

[twotyred]

why do people think that the gubmint gives a shit about you peons smoking or not?... it's just more revenue gathering

[rainman]

Thought someone else would have started this thread by now.

Maybe because it getting harder and harder to say any good things about this government? Plus the risk of having a smartarse like me pointing out that this is easily as Daddy State as anything to do with shower heads and lightbulbs :)
For a change, I think this is a great move by National.


What about all the public health care costs associated with smokers. And the loss of income tax on people who die early or retire early due to health problems.

I came across a link on another site that claims that tax on smokers already pays more than the health costs. Not sure lost income tax from early death/retirement/etc was counted in that, though. Anyone know if this is actually true?


Exactly. It's all about maximising revenue.

Got it in one. Gotta pay for those tax cuts for the rich pricks!


I'm a non-smoker,actually I'm an ex-smoker, and I'm quite happy for all the smokers to pay all that extra tax and then die before they become a strain on society.

Problem is they tend to die in slow, messy, and expensive ways. Or not actually die, but just need expensive treatment. I haven't smoked for about 20 years, and the further I get from it the more I think it must have been a period of astounding insanity on my part. Why would any sane person smoke?

Of course, the hypocrisy regarding taxing ciggys more heavily but not alcohol should be astounding, but is completely expected (of either National or Labour).

Wonder if it's illegal to sell home grown tobacco? I have some seeds around somewhere. Could make a pretty penny, I suspect. Can't sell my homebrew though, so I expect it's Not Allowed by the State.

[Headbanger]

Problem is they tend to die in slow, messy, and expensive ways. Or not actually die, but just need expensive treatment.

Income from smoking 1.2 billion
Cost of smoking related diseases 400 to 600m

The way they die isn't a problem, they pay for their own health care and a huge whack of other peoples.

[rainman]

Income from smoking 1.2 billion
Cost of smoking related diseases 400 to 600m

The way they die isn't a problem, they pay for their own health care and a huge whack of other peoples.

Ta for that, confirms the info from the other site was correct. So, tax the smokers because they're an easy target, is it?

[Mrs Cowboyz]

Wait til alcohol becomes just as socially unacceptable, then you will see tax rises on that as well.

[Headbanger]

They only do what we allow them to do.

[CookMySock]

They only do what we allow them to do.Yeah but how long before people get angry enough to tell them to get fucked? Thats going to take ages. The govt just wants more cash to run their political machine. More cash = more promises = longer in power.

No one is angry enough to do anything about it.

Steve

[Gareth51]

My first packet cost me a couple of bob, you know your got to spend your money on something besides wild woman and booze

[Mudfart]

yeah they pay for the health care of the non smokers who contract illness from passive smoking....and they contribute to the friday and saturday night a&e drunks......

[Mudfart]

Yeah but how long before people get angry enough to tell them to get fucked? Thats going to take ages. The govt just wants more cash to run their political machine. More cash = more promises = longer in power.

No one is angry enough to do anything about it.

Steve yeah NZ is a great place to govern, you can do what you want, take kickbacks, bribes etc, let the maoris claim most of the land, make untouchable national parks, but let people mine them........and the public will moan and gripe, but no revolution. no risk of the mp's having their heads chopped off. Viva la revolutione!. every once in a while you've got to chop off a polititians head, to remind them of how important their job is.

[oldrider]

There will be more crime, black market cigarettes, the gangs will make a killing! Dumb move in my opinion!

[pete376403]

So this is why they raided all the hydroponics garden suppliers, to stop smokers having an alternative to highly taxed tobacco?

is it legal to grow tobacco for your own consumption?

[freedom-wedge]

There will be more crime, black market cigarettes, the gangs will make a killing! Dumb move in my opinion!

To true, I think the focus is revenue, its obvious really, and so easy to do these days. Booze will be the next hit and soon by all acounts.
Then anything else they can find that people are addicted to for various reasons, a round of golf anyone ??? only thing is there's a gov surcharge for playing the 18th. Your gonna bitch and moan but they know your gonna T off on the 18th anyway. And no I dont smoke or chase the little round ball.

Pedro

[freedom-wedge]

There will be more crime, black market cigarettes, the gangs will make a killing! Dumb move in my opinion!

To true, I think the focus is revenue, its obvious really, and so easy to do these days. Booze will be the next hit and soon by all acounts.
Then anything else they can find that people are addicted to for various reasons, a round of golf anyone ??? only thing is there's a gov surcharge for playing the 18th. Your gonna bitch and moan but they know your gonna T off on the 18th anyway. And no I dont smoke or chase the little round ball.

Pedro

[freedom-wedge]

sorry for the dbl post, puter running slow and hit the post button twice

[Motig]

Dont smoke but am mightily pissed off with the Nats and their smiling donkey conman frontman. In return for a huge tax cut of approx $4 there just seems to be a never ending rise in other taxes ie GST (coming), ACC, ETS (coming), Excise tax, plus a reduction in services ie Elderly care etc. The majority of increases justified by creative accounting. Just cant understand how they continually have such a lead in the polls. Just an aside wasn't John Key known as the 'smiling assassain' in his previous life ?

[Bald Eagle]

Dont smoke but am mightily pissed off with the Nats and their smiling donkey conman frontman. In return for a huge tax cut of approx $4 there just seems to be a never ending rise in other taxes ie GST (coming), ACC, ETS (coming), Excise tax, plus a reduction in services ie Elderly care etc. The majority of increases justified by creative accounting. Just cant understand how they continually have such a lead in the polls. Just an aside wasn't John Key known as the 'smiling assassain' in his previous life ?

Wouldn't be so bad if the extra revenue provided fully funded quit smoking treatments for addicts, but according to todays media its just going into the general fund. Smart John Key sacrifice Maori Party popularity and get the extra dosh as well.

[mashman]

Dont smoke but am mightily pissed off with the Nats and their smiling donkey conman frontman. In return for a huge tax cut of approx $4 there just seems to be a never ending rise in other taxes ie GST (coming), ACC, ETS (coming), Excise tax, plus a reduction in services ie Elderly care etc. The majority of increases justified by creative accounting. Just cant understand how they continually have such a lead in the polls. Just an aside wasn't John Key known as the 'smiling assassain' in his previous life ?

because there's still no other viable alternative party to vote for... that's why they have the lead... unless you offer people more money in their pockets you can pretty much forget becoming the next government

[oldrider]

Placating the Maori party influence and securing their support in forming a government next election, Key is buying Honi Hariwera"s support! :yes:

This is an indicator of what to expect from MMP next year! :shit:

Politicians are not interested in "your" problems, getting re elected to the trough, is "their" only priority! :shifty:

[Milts]

Sorry to all of those who think it's purely about revenue and believe that smoking related tax is hundreds of millions above smoking related health costs.
From Fairfax thismorning:

The increase in excise will account for an extra $200 million a year in government revenue, with tobacco taxes raising about $1.3 billion annually.

But it says that is still around $500m less than the cost of treating smokers for smoking-related illnesses.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/3635577/Smokers-whacked-in-wallet

So unless you can find some numbers saying otherwise, it looks like smoking related costs are still well above the new tax rises and not the other way around.

[DMNTD]

Sorry to all of those who think it's purely about revenue and believe that smoking related tax is hundreds of millions above smoking related health costs.
From Fairfax thismorning:

The increase in excise will account for an extra $200 million a year in government revenue, with tobacco taxes raising about $1.3 billion annually.

But it says that is still around $500m less than the cost of treating smokers for smoking-related illnesses.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/3635577/Smokers-whacked-in-wallet

So unless you can find some numbers saying otherwise, it looks like smoking related costs are still well above the new tax rises and not the other way around.

Heh!! Sounds like a similar 'argument' ACC just used on motorcyclists.
As per usual, stats can be interpreted several ways

[Bald Eagle]

Sorry to all of those who think it's purely about revenue and believe that smoking related tax is hundreds of millions above smoking related health costs.
From Fairfax thismorning:

The increase in excise will account for an extra $200 million a year in government revenue, with tobacco taxes raising about $1.3 billion annually.

But it says that is still around $500m less than the cost of treating smokers for smoking-related illnesses.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/3635577/Smokers-whacked-in-wallet

So unless you can find some numbers saying otherwise, it looks like smoking related costs are still well above the new tax rises and not the other way around.

It's also about the punishment/reward paradigm. I seem to recall you get better results with the carrot rather than the stick, but maybe we are not considered adult enough to appreciate the difference and need to be treated like naughty children.

[Milts]

Heh!! Sounds like a simalar 'arguement' ACC just did on motorcyclists.
Asd per usual, stats can be interperated several ways

Sure, but these come from the health department rather than the government itself. If you have contradicting data, go ahead and post it.


5000 – The number of deaths due to tobacco a year, including from second-hand smoke.

19.9 – The percentage of Kiwi adults that smoke. (Maori adults - 40.4)

$1.3 billion– The total yearly revenue that will be raised by tobacco excise and GST after the changes are fully in place (2012).

$1.9b – The annual health-related costs of smoking according to the Health Department.

$57m – What the Government pumps into tobacco control and stop smoking programmes each year.

40,000 – How many people the Health Ministry estimates will stop smoking because of the price rises.

300 – How many deaths are estimated to be prevented by the rises.


Also note that the number for tax raised from cigarettes includes GST on top of the tobacco tax.

[Milts]

It's also about the punishment/reward paradigm. I seem to recall you get better results with the carrot rather than the stick, but maybe we are not considered adult enough to appreciate the difference and need to be treated like naughty children.

I agree that it's not the best solution, by a long way. I'm just disagreeing with everyone who was posting "it's all about revenue" and "they are still profiting on tax after health costs" who didn't post any stats to support their claims.

I also find it odd that national agreed to push this through under urgency, claim they are saving lives, and all of this just days after they refuse to even consider any extra tax on alcohol despite the Law Commission reccomending it with full support from the NZ police, among others.

[Bald Eagle]

I agree that it's not the best solution, by a long way. I'm just disagreeing with everyone who was posting "it's all about revenue" and "they are still profiting on tax after health costs" who didn't post any stats to support their claims.

I also find it odd that national agreed to push this through under urgency, claim they are saving lives, and all of this just days after they refuse to even consider any extra tax on alcohol despite the Law Commission reccomending it with full support from the NZ police, among others.

Tragic as well I am sure we are all aware of stories of over indulgence in alcohol killing people on a regular basis,in most violent and unpleasant ways. I have yet to hear of a single incident where someone had too many cigarettes and then beat up their partner/kids/strangers etc. I do believe the double standard at work here is money driven. Whats the govt revenue from alcohol taxes ?

[slofox]

Whats the govt revenue from alcohol taxes ?

$907,000,000 in 2008 (customs nz figures)

[p.dath]

I think the increase in excise tax on tobacco will be a good thing. I think the largest effect it will have is to reduce the number of youths who are considering taking up smoking.

Those already well addicted are probably going to continue to smoke and give up something else so that they can (and probably complain loudly about it, yet fail to acknowledge the terrible burden smoking places on the health system).

This will probably help those that are thinking about quitting to make the decision easier for them.

There is also bound to be some negative impacts, such as the illicit sale of tobacco products, and the growth of a small underground business. But even considering this, I think the benefit to the rest of the country is so great that we need to do this.

Hopefully we'll be able to move to making tobacco a restricted drug like cannabis in 10 years.

... flame retardant suit on ...

[Milts]

Tragic as well I am sure we are all aware of stories of over indulgence in alcohol killing people on a regular basis,in most violent and unpleasant ways. I have yet to hear of a single incident where someone had too many cigarettes and then beat up their partner/kids/strangers etc. I do believe the double standard at work here is money driven. Whats the govt revenue from alcohol taxes ?

I have no idea, but probably pretty high. To be honest I can almost see where they're coming from, because alcohol, drunk sensibly and in moderation (even if you get drunk not doing so 3 times a week), CAN have minimal effects. Whereas smoking is harmful in smaller amounts and also addictive in a way alcohol is not. It is still a bit of a double standard though...

[Bald Eagle]

I think the increase in excise tax on tobacco will be a good thing. I think the largest effect it will have is to reduce the number of youths who are considering taking up smoking.

Those already well addicted are probably going to continue to smoke and give up something else so that they can (and probably complain loudly about it, yet fail to acknowledge the terrible burden smoking places on the health system).

This will probably help those that are thinking about quitting to make the decision easier for them.

There is also bound to be some negative impacts, such as the illicit sale of tobacco products, and the growth of a small underground business. But even considering this, I think the benefit to the rest of the country is so great that we need to do this.

Hopefully we'll be able to move to making tobacco a restricted drug like cannabis in 10 years.

... flame retardant suit on ...

A reformed sinner perhaps, or just a well intentioned nanny state supporter ?

[Eyegasm]

"Thank you for Smoking"

Greatest film ever about smoking!!!

......And, Fuck giving the gubbermint more moolah

......................I QUIT!!!

[p.dath]

Heh! Doesn't stop people buy meth...or beer...or...

But the cost and difficulty in availability of meth (as in you can't just buy it from a shop) will prevent many people from trying it and getting addicted.

[p.dath]

A reformed sinner perhaps, or just a well intentioned nanny state supporter ?

Yawn. Well intentioned nanny state supporter. Smoking does nothing good. Nothing.

[Tony.OK]

Man there's some "precious" people on here................."oh all you smokers are costing the country money!!!"



So if I earn more than someone else..........that means I pay more tax..............so I should be allowed to have better or longer health care than someone who's paid less tax in a lifetime of working?


The way I see it is smokers are funding the possible future health costs themselves........................this is just National turning NZ further into a dictatorship state.............SORRY VOTERS, WE WILL DO ANYTHING WE WANT 'CAUSE WE KNOW THERE AIN'T NO ONE BETTER TO VOTE FOR!

[Swoop]

Dont smoke but am mightily pissed off with the Nats and their smiling donkey conman frontman.
Yes. This must have been the National party at work again. Do you not realise that the majority of parliament voted for this?

After a debate under urgency tonight the bill was passed into law on a vote of 118-4 (http://www.stuff.co.nz/southland-times/news/national-news/3634098/) with all parties except ACT giving it full backing. ACT split its vote with one MP supporting the bill - John Boscawen - and the other four opposing it.

[p.dath]

The way I see it is smokers are funding the possible future health costs themselves........................this is just National turning NZ further into a dictatorship state.............SORRY VOTERS, WE WILL DO ANYTHING WE WANT 'CAUSE WE KNOW THERE AIN'T NO ONE BETTER TO VOTE FOR!

But they aren't funding it. There is a shortfall. But that's not the worst bit, the worst bit is they are also hurting their family, children, friends, work colleagues, and those around them. That's the bit that is not acceptable. Period.

[Motig]

Yes. This must have been the National party at work again. Do you not realise that the majority of parliament voted for this?
After a debate under urgency tonight the bill was passed into law on a vote of 118-4 (http://www.stuff.co.nz/southland-times/news/national-news/3634098/) with all parties except ACT giving it full backing. ACT split its vote with one MP supporting the bill - John Boscawen - and the other four opposing it.

You do realise that the fag tax was not complained about dont you, just the never ending increases in other items :bleh:

[dogsnbikes]

For me all this has done is increased my smoking habit by about $5 aweek,so its not something I'm really going to notice........those that will be stung hardest is those on lower income's where finding the money to afford the smoke's becomes piority,the sad part about it will be its most likely going to mean less money for house keeping/food,so although the goverment is trying to hit the adult smokers in the pocket and making it a good incentive for the younger generation to not start smoking,I feel there will be more hungry mouths out there...

The reality is for those that can't afford it should'nt do it

[FlangMasterJ]

Smokers wont get sucked in by this little attempt to drag more money out of them.

I see what you did there.

[rainman]

is it legal to grow tobacco for your own consumption?

Not sure but I think so. It's apparently illegal to sell seeds or plants though (but you can give them away). I'm trying to grow some because apparently slugs and snails eat the leaves and die pretty much immediately - a salutary warning to those daft buggers that might think it's a good idea to dry 'em, light 'em afire, and inhale the smoke - and I'm very non-buddhist when it comes to slugs, snails, and my brassicas. And I'm lazy: if putting some leaves down saves me heading out to the garden every night with a torch and my squashing boots, excellent. One good use for tobacco!

Actually two: I understand bees quite like the flowers.


Just cant understand how they continually have such a lead in the polls.

'Cos people are stoopid.


because there's still no other viable alternative party to vote for...

Yeah and that too.

[onearmedbandit]

Hmmm, I wonder if I can get Lucky Strike to pay me for advertising their product on my bike. I'd accept cartons in lieu of cash.

[Tony.OK]

But they aren't funding it. There is a shortfall. But that's not the worst bit, the worst bit is they are also hurting their family, children, friends, work colleagues, and those around them. That's the bit that is not acceptable. Period.

Agree'd that smokers should be much more aware of where and when nowadays, its common sense type stuff. And also think laws could be changed to ban people from smoking in cars with kids etc.

But this at the end of the day is just a revenue collecting excercise......nothing more nothing less.

Sorry but after seeing the fudged figures re biker levies I just can't believe any figures given out by any gubbermunt.

I don't smoke inside, or around non smokers......if they choose to come sit next to me outside then thats their choice..............don't go stereotyping just because the media says so.

If the problem was really big enough they would ban smoking would they not? Nah...too much easy money to be had......same as alcohol and fuel.

[Milts]

If the problem was really big enough they would ban smoking would they not? Nah...too much easy money to be had......same as alcohol and fuel.

There is no way that this is the reason it hasn't been banned. Imagine if a political party suddenly said they were going to permanently ban all alcohol, or all cigarrettes. How long do you think they'd stay in power? In all seriousness? Even if the party recovered and made a comeback, it would be unlikely to happen during the political careers of those who banned said substance.

People who think the government are refusing to ban substances like this due to the tax they receive are deluding themselves. It's much simpler - political survival.

[Tony.OK]

There is no way that this is the reason it hasn't been banned. Imagine if a political party suddenly said they were going to permanently ban all alcohol, or all cigarrettes. How long do you think they'd stay in power? In all seriousness? Even if the party recovered and made a comeback, it would be unlikely to happen during the political careers of those who banned said substance.

People who think the government are refusing to ban substances like this due to the tax they receive are deluding themselves. It's much simpler - political survival.
Exactly.................so they put prices up knowing that people will still buy them..............easy money, then spout some bullshit about this n that.

[Mudfart]

i just read the article. rollies are going up 24%, then 10% for the next two years, thats 44%!. fark i hope the missus stops smoking, but she wont, she will only leech more money out of the family food bill. a packet of 30g is what 20$? so its going up to about 28$?!. shit thats gonna be another 16$ at least, per f/n.

[robertvi]

Tragic as well I am sure we are all aware of stories of over indulgence in alcohol killing people on a regular basis,in most violent and unpleasant ways. I have yet to hear of a single incident where someone had too many cigarettes and then beat up their partner/kids/strangers etc....

well a few weeks ago a young guy (Maori as it happened) threated to assault me after I politely declined to give him cigarettes (or money for them) in the street. nicotine, although it does not induce aggressive behaviour in the same way alcohol does, is a highly addictive drug, and someone craving it (rather than intoxicated by it as with alcohol) can certainly be more irritable than normal - in a way that is absent with cannabis for example. the goverment should have the balls to move towards restricting its availability (i think a total ban would not work, much as prohibition failed with alcohol, or is failing with pretty much any other 'illicit' drug)


Monty Python on taxation:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lTfdn5x7td8

(how do I embed a vid properly?!)

[p.dath]

If the problem was really big enough they would ban smoking would they not? Nah...too much easy money to be had......same as alcohol and fuel.

If the Government banned smoking it would free up cash in the long term, not reduce it. Remember, smokers cost more than they contribute.

This is not revenue collecting, this is reclaiming costs.

[mashman]

If the Government banned smoking it would free up cash in the long term, not reduce it.

And you're 100% sure of that FACT p.d? Health problems couldn't be related to us breathing in exhaust fumes or anything like that? Wonder why they took lead out of petrol and how long ago that was??? I think the anti-smokers love their culprit... why bother looking anywhere else... it's not as if we breath for a living...

[imdying]

Easy to fix without pissing off the existing voters... 20+ can smoke this year, 21+ next year, 22+ the following year, till they all either quit, or die out.

[spajohn]

It's nearly A$20 a pack in Australia!

A mate recently gave up over there, the reason being he figured out how much a year he spent on them.

[p.dath]

And you're 100% sure of that FACT p.d? Health problems couldn't be related to us breathing in exhaust fumes or anything like that? Wonder why they took lead out of petrol and how long ago that was??? I think the anti-smokers love their culprit... why bother looking anywhere else... it's not as if we breath for a living...

I don't think anyone denies that smoking is bad for you. Did you see the head of American Tabaco for NZ at the select commitee (it was on TV)? He got asked, and said smoking was dangerous, and he had personally given up smoking. And this is from their top man in NZ.

So if the guys selling it wont use their own product, what can you say?

Smoking is a huge drain. Imagine if all the money spent on smoking was re-directed into other areas of the NZ economy, not to mention the huge long term savings in health care.

Smoking has to go.

[Milts]

Easy to fix without pissing off the existing voters... 20+ can smoke this year, 21+ next year, 22+ the following year, till they all either quit, or die out.

This idea is genius. Maybe you should suggest it?

Yet another point to all those saying that this is purely revenue gathering. If noone bought cigarettes, then that money would be spent (and taxed) elsewhere. Hence the drop in revenue would not be the full amount gained from the sale of tobacco. If you combine this with the already outbalanced healthcare costs then the country would be significantly better off economically.

[neels]

Is this just another case of using statistics to prove the case you are pushing?

Much like ACC spouting the cost of motorcycle accidents, even those where the motorcyclist is not at fault, how many of these 'smoking related' costs are people that tick the smoker box on the form and therefore their stroke/heart attack/brain cancer are attributed to them being a smoker. And where is the contribution to the health system from those people rude enough to have strokes/heart attacks/lung cancer when they haven't even had the decency to pay tax on tobacco to pay for their healthcare.

Really, smokers should be congratulated, they are paying for the health system in their general taxes, and also specifically in tobacco tax. If you add that up they are probably more than covering the cost of their healthcare and probably subsidising other peoples as well.

[imdying]

Yet another point to all those saying that this is purely revenue gathering. If noone bought cigarettes, then that money would be spent (and taxed) elsewhere. Hence the drop in revenue would not be the full amount gained from the sale of tobacco.And even if they didn't spend any of it, they keep bitching that we as a country need to get better at saving, so they can't have it both ways.

[imdying]

Much like ACC spouting the cost of motorcycle accidents, even those where the motorcyclist is not at fault, how many of these 'smoking related' costs are people that tick the smoker box on the form and therefore their stroke/heart attack/brain cancer are attributed to them being a smoker. And where is the contribution to the health system from those people rude enough to have strokes/heart attacks/lung cancer when they haven't even had the decency to pay tax on tobacco to pay for their healthcare.What about people who have smoking related stroke whilst driving and head on a family of five... what of that cost?

[Tony.OK]

I don't think anyone denies that smoking is bad for you. Did you see the head of American Tabaco for NZ at the select commitee (it was on TV)? He got asked, and said smoking was dangerous, and he had personally given up smoking. And this is from their top man in NZ.

So if the guys selling it wont use their own product, what can you say?

Smoking is a huge drain. Imagine if all the money spent on smoking was re-directed into other areas of the NZ economy, not to mention the huge long term savings in health care.

Smoking has to go.

Yep and bikers cost NZ money too........(if ya believe everything you read/see)........that should go too? People freely admit thats dangerous too, you happy to pay double the amount for rego without batting an eyelid?

Where would you like to see the money redirected? Pay the politicians more, or increase the benefits so we don't upset someone that can't afford to get wasted and beat up their kids?

PC gone bloody mad is what seems to be the flavour of the decade.

If you don't smoke then good for you, if I get sick and have to use up my share of healthcare, don't see it as you paying for it, if it makes you feel better then imagine that your hard earned tax dollars are paying for the newest non working immigrants that NZ just loves to invite over:innocent:

Ok I'm done.............not gonna argue with non smokers, there will always be "ayes 'n' nayes"

I'll pay my bit more until I'm ready and want to give up, as far as I'm aware I still have the right to make my own decisions, be them good or bad.

[mashman]

I don't think anyone denies that smoking is bad for you. Did you see the head of American Tabaco for NZ at the select commitee (it was on TV)? He got asked, and said smoking was dangerous, and he had personally given up smoking. And this is from their top man in NZ.

So if the guys selling it wont use their own product, what can you say?

Smoking is a huge drain. Imagine if all the money spent on smoking was re-directed into other areas of the NZ economy, not to mention the huge long term savings in health care.

Smoking has to go.

At least with a rolling product I get a purer product. It's the chemicals that are bad are they not? not the smoking directly? Yet you'll put aftershave on your face? Powder on your privates? Eat off plates that have come from a detergent soaked box? Walk into office toilets and inhale the latest and greatest in poo repellent? There's plenty of dead animals that testufy as to how dangerous these chemicals are... yet smoking is the cause of it all?

[Murray]

Hate to say it but a friend of mine has just being diagnosed with the big C and was told by the experts its a smoking related cancer how much do you smoke? His answer "never have". How does that work???

[imdying]

At least with a rolling product I get a purer product. It's the chemicals that are bad are they not?Both the papers and the tobacco still contain the majority of the same chemicals. Unless you're rolling a different product? :shifty:

[mashman]

What about people who have smoking related stroke whilst driving and head on a family of five... what of that cost?

I dunno. But i'd berate him no more than the non-smoking stroke victim that's just had a head on with a bus full of schoolkids... the bus being pushed over the edge of the cliff and rolling down through the town below killing more children and Siamese cats :)

[mashman]

Both the papers and the tobacco still contain the majority of the same chemicals. Unless you're rolling a different product? :shifty:

True... the chemicals are bad, but loo paper just goes up in a flash... I thought there were more chemicals used in ready made cigs (to keep them burning)?... I could be wrong though. Not that it'll stop me from contracting whatever i'm going to contract, but hopefully i'm on the healthier version :innocent:

[imdying]

True... the chemicals are bad, but loo paper just goes up in a flash... I thought there were more chemicals used in ready made cigs (to keep them burning)?... I could be wrong though. Not that it'll stop me from contracting whatever i'm going to contract, but hopefully i'm on the healthier version :innocent:They've run a campaign to advise smokers on the reality of 'rollys being healtheir' as of late. You'll have to read the propaganda and decide for yourself... but it ain't fairy cake and ice cream that makes a slow burning Rizla slow burning :lol:

[peasea]

Hate to say it but a friend of mine has just being diagnosed with the big C and was told by the experts its a smoking related cancer how much do you smoke? His answer "never have". How does that work???

Passive smoking probably.

Again, the actions of one person affecting the life of an innocent party. I don't care if someone wants to smoke, that's their business, just don't do it in my airspace.

[mashman]

They've run a campaign to advise smokers on the reality of 'rollys being healtheir' as of late. You'll have to read the propaganda and decide for yourself... but it ain't fairy cake and ice cream that makes a slow burning Rizla slow burning :lol:

No need for the propoganda. I know it's a silly thing to do with ones lungs, i just happen to like it still... mmmmmmm cake...



Again, the actions of one person affecting the life of an innocent party. I don't care if someone wants to smoke, that's their business, just don't do it in my airspace.


when anyone does that fake cough or wafty screwed up face looking down the nose thingy... apart from wishing I could apply a darn swift thrashing, it would be nice if they just said "oi, fatty, can you get that away from me please"... it ain't fair, passive smoking being potentially dangerous and all...

[peasea]

when anyone does that fake cough or wafty screwed up face looking down the nose thingy... apart from wishing I could apply a darn swift thrashing, it would be nice if they just said "oi, fatty, can you get that away from me please"... it ain't fair, passive smoking being potentially dangerous and all...

I would, however, suggest that if someone sits down to light up they should ask first. Conversely, I don't sit where smokers do and then ask them to move nor do I pull a silly face. (My face looks silly naturally.)

[imdying]

I know it's a silly thing to do with ones lungs, i just happen to like it stillDamn skippy.

[mashman]

I would, however, suggest that if someone sits down to light up they should ask first. Conversely, I don't sit where smokers do and then ask them to move nor do I pull a silly face. (My face looks silly naturally.)

Absolutely. But it's when they sit next to you... yes the courtesy doesn't always swing both way though... after all it's a dirty dirty habit :innocent:...

[peasea]

Absolutely. But it's when they sit next to you... yes the courtesy doesn't always swing both way though... after all it's a dirty dirty habit :innocent:...

Quote:
"Since I lost one of my lungs, I cut my smoking in half"

Cheech and Chong.

[Mrs Cowboyz]

Hate to say it but a friend of mine has just being diagnosed with the big C and was told by the experts its a smoking related cancer how much do you smoke? His answer "never have". How does that work???

Its actually more common than you think, I have heard quite a few stories, and there was even one on 60 minutes (I think) not so long ago. Just some people are quick to blame other people and their habits. It couldnt be that they live in polluted cities and breathe in exhaust fumes etc etc. It couldnt be the all the chemicals in most everyday products that we use. No...its passive smoking, must be cause that is the only way someone who has never smoked could contract a "smoking related cancer".

Can I sound more sarcastic?

[Mom]

Hate to say it but a friend of mine has just being diagnosed with the big C and was told by the experts its a smoking related cancer how much do you smoke? His answer "never have". How does that work???

Yepper not surprising at all.


Can I sound more sarcastic?

I thought you were very mild actually. Cancer is an over growth of normal cells. This over growing causes tumors. Depending on where they are and how they develop will determine how long you live with the cancer. Some types will metastasise and you will get it dotted all over your body. Everyone of us has the potential to develop cancer, we all have different triggers, that is why someone that has never smoked can develop lung cancer and the like. If it were that simple there would be an easy fix against it. Dont even start me on the business that is cancer.

[mashman]

Will this affect him in later life?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1210472/Pensioner-wins-compensation-chemical-burns-toxic-sofa-landmark-ruling.html

[Mudfart]

a good indicator of how treatable an illness, disease whatever is, is to watch how many rich/famous people die of them.
that also tells you how expensive the "miracle" cure costs.

[pete376403]

There is no way that this is the reason it hasn't been banned. Imagine if a political party suddenly said they were going to permanently ban all alcohol, or all cigarrettes. How long do you think they'd stay in power? In all seriousness? Even if the party recovered and made a comeback, it would be unlikely to happen during the political careers of those who banned said substance.

People who think the government are refusing to ban substances like this due to the tax they receive are deluding themselves. It's much simpler - political survival.

Gummint will never outright ban smoking (or drinking) on health related reasons. They would loose the tax take immediately, but will be stuck with the long term cleanup costs (health costs for many more years.

[Owl]

But they aren't funding it. There is a shortfall.

And you actually believe that crap?

I wonder how many cot death babies have been used to up their figures this time?

[peasea]

Something not to say in a gay bar;

Can I bum a fag?

[Morcs]

If they ban smoking, half our hospitals would be able to close.

But whats gonna fund the other half of them then?

[oldrider]

If you are unable to learn from historical mistakes, you are probably doomed to repeat them!

Arnold Nordmeyer (Labours infamous Black Budget) http://www.dnzb.govt.nz/dnzb/alt_essayBody.asp?essayID=5N12 tried this in 1958 and in 1960 he was gone never to return again, enter Norman Kirk!

Labour carried the label of "one term wonders" for a very long time following that infamous "BLACK" budget!

Alas under the influence of MMP, today's politicians are immune from the effects of history and have nurtured a completely new arrogance instead!

Why are National pandering to the Maori Parties every wish?

Because they want to partner up with them again after the next election!

Politicians are not interested in the wants and needs of the electorate because under MMP they can do what they like, if they have the numbers following the Lotto/election!

They "will" still have the numbers and "you" will still have (enhanced in their favour) "MMP"!

Are most New Zealanders really such slow learners? :confused: Apparently they are! :mellow:

[Swoop]

Government should stay out of the issue. Simply tell the tobacco companies that they can seel as much of their stuff as they want, NO TAXES involved whatsoever.

BUT... they become responsible for ALL of the medical bills for ANYONE with issues related to their products.

See if they like the idea of footing that bill?

[Brian d marge]

ooooohhh yeaaaaahhhh

take it bebe all bebe :innocent:

[kave]

I'm a non-smoker but I am disgusted by this legislation.

The mad thing in all of this is the horrendous use of outright lies by the government. The government tells you that the health related cost to society of smokers is 1.9 billion dollars. That is a lie. If any sane person goes through the health departments itemised costing to see how the figure of 1.9 billion is arrived at they would be horrified to see what is included on the list. Eric Crampton (a Senior Lecturer in the Department of Economics at the University of Canterbury) notes in the New Zealand Medical Journal (15th of February 2008) that "Indeed, tobacco taxes collected, at $980 million, dwarf health care expenditures of $350 million". Now, if the heathcare expenditure on smoking smoking related problems has increased six-fold in two years I would be very suprised.

If you want the actual facts look at what is released in peer-reviewed journals, not what is released by government spin-docters. After costs are recouped smoking provides over 600 million dollars in tax to the government. That is a very substantial amount. And that is before we take into account the reduced pension paid to smokers because of shortened life expectancy. If you ban smoking then tax has to be recouped elsewhere.

[onearmedbandit]

http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=206017&d=1272546705

[davereid]

I'm always interested in those who think they have the right to stop other people doing things that dont affect them. Or worse, those that claim they are affected as they pay tax, and the afflicted may get sick blah blah.

Easy solution. Ban only the most dangerous thing, leave the less dangerous things alone.

Then dangerous things, like unprotected sex, alcohol, motorcycling, DIY, are safe right ?

Except, that once smoking is banned, it wont be dangerous. Then something else will be the most dangerous. Hmm, maybe even stuff I like doing. Like motorcycling.

I dont smoke, never have. The only drug I use is alcohol. But, when I was an impoverished student, alcohol was a big part of my budget.

So I made a still. Now I make my alcohol, it better than the bought stuff - I had it tested on a gas chomatograph, and its great. I also make my own beer. Sometimes its good, even excellent.

So just grow your own tobacco. Its legal, and easy as growing cabbage.

http://hubpages.com/hub/Tobacco-Growing-and-Curing-at-Home

[Skyryder]

Of course it wont work. This one is no different from all the other Nat policies. It's just that a few more on here are starting to see the 'light'.'


Skyryder

[davereid]

Of course it wont work. This one is no different from all the other Nat policies. It's just that a few more on here are starting to see the 'light'.'
Skyryder

The entire Left voted for it, without debate.

[SS90]

I dont smoke, never have. The only drug I use is alcohol. But, when I was an impoverished student, alcohol was a big part of my budget.

So I made a still. Now I make my alcohol, it better than the bought stuff - I had it tested on a gas chomatograph, and its great. I also make my own beer. Sometimes its good, even excellent.

So just grow your own tobacco. Its legal, and easy as growing cabbage.

http://hubpages.com/hub/Tobacco-Growing-and-Curing-at-Home

I don't smoke either, never have, and never will.

I support the idea of raising taxes on such things, Beer as well, jesus, have you seen the price of a friggin Beer in a inner city bar in NZ lately?

It's unbelieveable, but we still pay, push the price up, the money comes from other areas. simple.

The government don't want you to stop smoking, they need it.

Let's say the revinue is a billion NZ (as a round figure), the health costs are 400 million (round figure), then, if everyone did stop smoking, then the government will have to find 600 million dollars from somewhere else, it's that simple!

[blackdog]

cigs go up 25% in oz tonight

what is the connection here that i can't quite put my finger on?

[pete376403]

The entire Left voted for it, without debate.
Probably because the tax was a maori party initiative. Labour could not be seen to be against it 'cos the M P are going to be the kingmakers (again) at next election.

[freedom-wedge]

There is no way that this is the reason it hasn't been banned. Imagine if a political party suddenly said they were going to permanently ban all alcohol, or all cigarrettes. How long do you think they'd stay in power? In all seriousness? Even if the party recovered and made a comeback, it would be unlikely to happen during the political careers of those who banned said substance.

People who think the government are refusing to ban substances like this due to the tax they receive are deluding themselves. It's much simpler - political survival.

Political survival makes it ok to fudge the figures, its happend many time before, and its more frequent now, all ministries are directed from a central point, intent on verifying their own point, I would beleive these fgures if they were provided by an independant org, its just to easy to do this sort of thing, look at ACC and the fgures, they only add up becuase the minister says they do , P .Dath even knows this, I can see his point but Its all messed up and theres a lot more bullshit going to be fed to us very soon, in order to claw a few more cents here and there, personally I wish everyone would just quit smoking and force the issue. most points of veiw in this thread are valid, its just the figures and who puts them together thats the real worry, once your mislead on purpose it will happen again and become normal, its for your own good remember.

[p.dath]

So just grow your own tobacco. Its legal, and easy as growing cabbage.

http://hubpages.com/hub/Tobacco-Growing-and-Curing-at-Home

I'd be really interesting to see a study of "grown your own" tobacco. I suspect it wont be nearly as dangerous as commercial ciagrettes. They put all sorts of nasty chemicals into commcerical cigarettes. Then again, you might find the lack of these additional chemicals working on your brain might produce a product less satisfying ...

[freedom-wedge]

Back in the good old days, cigs, drink and other vices were all targets on budget day regardless, health figures werent even mentioned, it was a progressive tax becuase it was easy and became easier to sell. The demonisation of smokers now is an example of how to use popular opionon against the populace in order to raise the take. Its easy stuff. The finance ministers obviously got hold of the publication, how to raise money from dummies. well thats my take on it all

[p.dath]

Back in the good old days, cigs, drink and other vices were all targets on budget day regardless, health figures werent even mentioned, it was a progressive tax becuase it was easy and became easier to sell. The demonisation of smokers now is an example of how to use popular opionon against the populace in order to raise the take. Its easy stuff. The finance ministers obviously got hold of the publication, how to raise money from dummies. well thats my take on it all

Nah. The majority of the population has jot sick of smokers and dealing with them.

[freedom-wedge]

True but sticking it to them like this is acceptable because it dosnt affect you maybe, I,m a non smoker dont hang with them even, by choice, as I understand your a bit of a libertarian, and if people wanna burn dry leaves in there mouths well shouldnt it be their choice, if you want to ride a bike its the same, take some of that money they are stealing from joe pub and take out medical insurance for the smoker so he or she wont tax the health sector, on a large scale it could be done and be cost effective, only then you would see what a big take they get, the true take lets say. Anyway I do hear ya

[freedom-wedge]

Nah. The majority of the population has jot sick of smokers and dealing with them.

did reply but I forgot to quote you, I havent had a cigerette this morning yeeeetettttt :-)

[p.dath]

True but sticking it to them like this is acceptable because it dosnt affect you maybe, I,m a non smoker dont hang with them even, by choice, as I understand your a bit of a libertarian, and if people wanna burn dry leaves in there mouths well shouldnt it be their choice,

They (or should I say, people) should be free to exercise their own choices - unless they hurt others or their actions are against the morals of society. The line gets crossed for me when other people get hurt.

Smoking endangers the health of others. Their children, brothers and sisters, mothers and fathers, friends, colleagues, work mates, etc. And because it is addictive they can't stop.
And children are encouraged to smoke who watch their parents (who smoke). I don't know of any parent who seriously wants their children to take up smoking.

Hurting others is not acceptable, and this is why action needs to be taken. You have to remember, smoking messes with your brains chemistry. It can distort perceptions.

Now of course, some smokers try to be considerate by not smoking around others, going outside, etc. But on the whole, the damage being done to society and loved ones is so great that action needs to be taken.

[freedom-wedge]

They (or should I say, people) should be free to exercise their own choices - unless they hurt others or their actions are against the morals of society. The line gets crossed for me when other people get hurt.

Smoking endangers the health of others. Their children, brothers and sisters, mothers and fathers, friends, colleagues, work mates, etc. And because it is addictive they can't stop.
And children are encouraged to smoke who watch their parents (who smoke). I don't know of any parent who seriously wants their children to take up smoking.

Hurting others is not acceptable, and this is why action needs to be taken. You have to remember, smoking messes with your brains chemistry. It can distort perceptions.

Now of course, some smokers try to be considerate by not smoking around others, going outside, etc. But on the whole, the damage being done to society and loved ones is so great that action needs to be taken.

Agreed, direct action not direct taxation however, they have the money to solve this even though they say not. Its a problem once solved will create another problem, a shortage of cash for the gov. Their not seriously trying to slove this issue I feel. Anyway your points are valid and I,m in agreement.

[onearmedbandit]

They (or should I say, people) should be free to exercise their own choices - unless they hurt others or their actions are against the morals of society. The line gets crossed for me when other people get hurt.

Which is why I, as a smoker, don't smoke around anyone else who doesn't smoke. Even if I'm out in the open, I'll go have a smoke away from non smokers and out of view of children.


Smoking endangers the health of others. Their children, brothers and sisters, mothers and fathers, friends, colleagues, work mates, etc. And because it is addictive they can't stop.
And children are encouraged to smoke who watch their parents (who smoke). I don't know of any parent who seriously wants their children to take up smoking.

I have a 10yr old daughter (who I never smoke in front of) who is aware of all the risks and dangers of smoking, who I can almost guarantee will never have a single smoke. She doesn't like the fact that I do, but accepts that it is my choice. I will also work hard to help make sure she never takes up the habit. As a smoker I'm pretty sure I should be able to spot the signs.


Hurting others is not acceptable, and this is why action needs to be taken. You have to remember, smoking messes with your brains chemistry. It can distort perceptions.

Smoking what now? Do you have any evidence to back up your claim?


Now of course, some smokers try to be considerate by not smoking around others, going outside, etc. But on the whole, the damage being done to society and loved ones is so great that action needs to be taken.

So even though we self regulate (out of courtesy and decency) our legal habit you still want action taken?

[oldrider]

The entire Left voted for it, without debate.

You suggest that there is a "right" in there!

I see two "major" left wing (socialist) parties vying for the support of the "minor" left wing parties!

If the entire house voted, it would be "left wing" in my opinion!

Big government (the state) forcing their will upon the unsuspecting people equals freedom lost, in the guise of "saving us from our selves"! Yeah right! :brick:

[Skyryder]

The entire Left voted for it, without debate.


True but it's the Nats that will be remembered for it. If this increase is to work then the tax has to be adjusted to keep up with the cost of living. Short term there will be a decrease but as the cost of living rises to match the tobacco 'tax' the increse will have less effect.

Skyryder

[Milts]

You suggest that there is a "right" in there!

I see two "major" left wing (socialist) parties vying for the support of the "minor" left wing parties!

If the entire house voted, it would be "left wing" in my opinion!

Big government (the state) forcing their will upon the unsuspecting people equals freedom lost, in the guise of "saving us from our selves"! Yeah right! :brick:

Funny. I see two economically very right wing parties and one properly left wing. On a social scale they are both pretty left wing but on an economic scale both pretty right wing imo.
And I don't think any government which created or allows for SOEs and non nationalised information infrastructure as 'socialist' by any stretch of the imaginiation.

[Milts]

http://www.nzma.org.nz/journal/118-1213/1403/content.pdf
http://www.nzma.org.nz/journal/115-1165/240/content.pdf

The new zealand medical profession's academic perspective on tobacco tax and the impact of second hand smoke. The conclusions of the article in the first link are particularly interesting.

[oldrider]

Funny. I see two economically very right wing parties and one properly left wing. On a social scale they are both pretty left wing but on an economic scale both pretty right wing imo.
And I don't think any government which created or allows for SOEs and non nationalised information infrastructure as 'socialist' by any stretch of the imaginiation.

Look back at your state school education and it is little wonder that you come to that conclusion, they have done their work well and you are conforming as programmed!

I don't need the "state" to save me from my unnatural desire to ride a "dangerous" motorcycle, no matter how high they tax my behaviour in order to stop me! :no:

I don't smoke or drink or they could have saved me from myself there too with their excessive tax regime!

New Zealanders seem to just love governments taxing their freedoms and running their lives!

Have they been brainwashed by the State school system? IMHO, yes! :yes:

[Milts]

Look back at your state school education and it is little wonder that you come to that conclusion, they have done their work well and you are conforming as programmed!

I don't need the "state" to save me from my unnatural desire to ride a "dangerous" motorcycle, no matter how high they tax my behaviour in order to stop me! :no:

I don't smoke or drink or they could have saved me from myself there too with their excessive tax regime!

New Zealanders seem to just love governments taxing their freedoms and running their lives!

Have they been brainwashed by the State school system? IMHO, yes! :yes:

....What?
Do you even understand the difference between social policy and economic policy?

Everything you have listed is essentially a social policy. I'm saying that from an economic policy perspective, they are both 'right wing'; they both believe in privatisation to some extent or another. Socialism is not capitalism and does not believe in the free market. Now which of the two major parties in New Zealand doesn't believe in the free market? Actually, they both do!

Choosing to tax tobacco to reduce smoking is a social policy. The state taking over production of tobacco and allowing workers to allocate its distribution is socialism.

Here (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/socialism) are (http://usconservatives.about.com/od/glossaryterms/g/Socialism.htm) some (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism) defintions of socialism. Please explain how the ideologies of either labour or national fit into these catagories.
If you want to talk about their social policy being mostly left wing, go ahead. I agree with you. But don't confuse 'social policy' and 'socialism', because they are two entirely different concepts.

Also, I'm pretty sure my Venezuelan politics lecturer is about as far from 'brainwashed by the state' as it is possible to get. And if you are talking about the 'state school system', I've attended schools in NZ, Germany, and have a BA in political science. Apparently the government mind control is reaching further every day.

[oldrider]

....What?
Do you even understand the difference between social policy and economic policy?

Everything you have listed is essentially a social policy. I'm saying that from an economic policy perspective, they are both 'right wing'; they both believe in privatisation to some extent or another. Socialism is not capitalism and does not believe in the free market. Now which of the two major parties in New Zealand doesn't believe in the free market? Actually, they both do!

Choosing to tax tobacco to reduce smoking is a social policy. The state taking over production of tobacco and allowing workers to allocate its distribution is socialism.

Here (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/socialism) are (http://usconservatives.about.com/od/glossaryterms/g/Socialism.htm) some (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism) defintions of socialism. Please explain how the ideologies of either labour or national fit into these catagories.
If you want to talk about their social policy being mostly left wing, go ahead. I agree with you. But don't confuse 'social policy' and 'socialism', because they are two entirely different concepts.

Also, I'm pretty sure my Venezuelan politics lecturer is about as far from 'brainwashed by the state' as it is possible to get. And if you are talking about the 'state school system', I've attended schools in NZ, Germany, and have a BA in political science. Apparently the government mind control is reaching further every day.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: Non so blind as those who will not see! :mellow:

[Milts]

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: Non so blind as those who will not see! :mellow:

I disagree. I'd say there are none so blind as those who think they see, but don't.

[oldrider]

I disagree. I'd say there are none so blind as those who think they see, but don't.

OK, fair enough.

While I deeply respect your academic achievement, it is in "real life experience" that I make my observations.

The first government that I ever became "aware" of was the labour government in New Zealand in the 1940's during WW2.

I have witnessed successive governments in NZ ever since (not withstanding world affairs) and the net value of the outcomes have always been relatively the same.

Higher taxation, higher levels of personal debt, reduced freedom and liberties, increased crime, decreased standards of justice punishment and corrections.

Higher debt and costs with corresponding deterioration in standards of education, public health and every other government run institution, etc , etc etc! (the list goes on)

There has been no difference in those outcomes, just the net constant of decline regardless of it being a National or Labour government responsible at any time.

All the time there has been a net increase in government influence (of dubious quality) in the daily lives of the citizens of the country, the "state" is growing in power at the cost of individual!

State influence in education (IMHO) insures that the bulk of the population are dumbed down and accepting of the situation as normal and that they are powerless to change it.

That is my perception of New Zealand "socialism" based on 60 years of life being subjected to the "results" of the cosy little political club that has controlled this country over that time! (MMP has made it even more secure for "them")

Yes, I have read the links (as well as many others) that you directed and it has done nothing to change my perception of the state controlled political rubbish dump New Zealand has become!

Right or wrong in your eyes, my perception is my reality!

[mashman]

Nah. The majority of the population has jot sick of smokers and dealing with them.

BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA... the govt says that smoking is just real bad... what about the booze soaked weekend Accident and Emergency cycle? what about exhaust fumes (only 20 years since lead in fuel was banned)? what about factory fumes that mix with the moisture in the clouds, turn to Acid Rain and destroy forests etc... and the "majority" want to stop us smoking... FUCK OFF... BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

[mashman]

and have a BA in political science. Apparently the government mind control is reaching further every day.

Hi there and welcome to the Further Education system... We would like you to leave your mind in the reconditioning basket as you enrol for the course... this will be returned to you when you leave... enjoy chatting with the other idealists (idealism will be removed from your returned mind)... Let's study the past as it's turned out to be such a success... :blink:

Political Science: didn't I see that in the oxymoron section?

[davereid]

.[B]Choosing to tax tobacco to reduce smoking is a social policy. The state taking over production of tobacco and allowing workers to allocate its distribution is socialism.[/

Well, not really. Socialists can and do exist quite cheerfully without state distribution and control. Socialism is very much defined by its social policy, not by its economic policy.

A country like NZ, is by any measure very socialist. We offer free health, free pensions, free schools and full welfare from cradle to grave. We tax income progressively, and actively seek an "egalitarian" society.

I use the word "free" carelessly, as its not free, its just that its paid for by taxation, and we live in hope that we get more than our fair share !

Its simply not relevant that we operate some free market policies. We are a trading nation, and we have no choice but to buy or sell on the world stage, so a socialist country with free market policy is no surprise, its merely a pragmatic solution to the issue of trade.

This leads us to the policy of taxing tobacco. Its from the (very) socialist school of "I, and my officials are clever, you are not, we will make these decisions in your best interests, you have demonstrated you inability to make them correctly yourself."

Inevitably backed up with facts and figures on "public health" socialists steal freedom in this manner, while all the time proclaiming they care for me.

God save me from those who would use violence against me to make me safer.

[Milts]

Maybe you guys are just working off a completely different definition of 'socialism' to the definition accepted by political scientists... In which case what you classify as a 'socialist' country, a political scientist would classify as a 'liberal democracy' with a number of state benefits. The definition of liberal democracy has expanded to include countries which provide healthcare etc, because that's fairly normal nowadays...
I mean, in America even before Obama, taxation was done on a progressive basis, there was a form of welfare, healthcare etc - yet very few (if any) political scientists would have labeled America under Bush a 'socialist' nation. In fact it was basically the definition of a modern liberal democracy. And again 'egalitarian' goes hand in hand with classic liberalism. You can't say that because a society is egalitarian it is socialist. And arguing that socialism is defined by social policy more than economic policy is akin to arguing that the theory (not practice) of communism is more about the state changing speed limits than it is about economic restructuring.

Socialism is much more extreme. The list of socialist countries in the world at the moment is in fact very small.
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/56207/list_of_socialist_countries_with_individual.html?c at=37

I think socialism gets confused with protectionist policy because a lot of socialists strongly agree with 'nanny state' style protection and taxation; however being a 'nanny state' does not make a nation socialist. I hope I'm making sense here.

As to Oldboy's comments on the 'deterioration' of New Zealand, some of it's true and some isn't. I mean, in the 90s, crime figures dropped (http://search.stats.govt.nz/search?p=R&srid=S2%2d5&lbc=statsnz&w=%2a&uid=12211245&sid=2&ts=nav&method=and&af=ct2%3acrimejustice%5fcrime%20ct1%3acrimejustice&isort=score&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.stats.govt.nz%2Freports%2Fana lytical-reports%2Fcrime-in-new-zealand.aspx&rk=3&rurl=yes&nurl=http%3A%2F%2Fsearch.stats.govt.nz%2Fsearch%3F p%3DR%26srid%3DS2%252d5%26lbc%3Dstatsnz%26w%3D%252 a%26uid%3D12211245%26sid%3D2%26ts%3Dnav%26method%3 Dand%26af%3Dct2%253acrimejustice%255fcrime%2520ct1 %253acrimejustice%26isort%3Dscore%26url%3Dhttp%253 A%252F%252Fwww.stats.govt.nz%252Freports%252Fanaly tical-reports%252Fcrime-in-new-zealand.aspx%26rk%3D3%26rurl%3Dyes%26nurl%3Dhttp%2 53A%252F%252Fwww.stats.govt.nz%252F~%252Fmedia%252 Fstatistics%252Fpublications%252Fanalytical-reports%252Fcrime-in-nz%252Fcrime-in-nz.aspx).

I mean, tertiary education used to be free. By the time I finish my masters I'll have about a $25,000 student loan. Yeah, New Zealand is totally becoming more socialist. Also, some of your points seem to contradict others in some ways. We only have the 38th highest % of GDP spent on education (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2206rank.html?countryName=New%20Zealand&countryCode=nz&regionCode=au&rank=38#nz) in the world (don't forget there are what, 30 countries in the OECD? So we're even behind the most economically developed countries in the world). We're even behind Israel and Vanuatu, for christ's sake.

And your point about 'higher level of personal debt' contradicts your argument that NZ is becoming more socialist. In a socialists state the government pays for more things, and individual debt would go down.

And apparently the state influence on education isn't enough to teach you the difference between 'ensure' and 'insure'. Not to mention, university students are the most politically active and most likely to protest demographic in the entirety of society. Hardly 'brainwashed to accept the current state as the norm'.

I've been trying to find year by year literacy statistics for New Zealand, but can't at the moment. However I'm willing to bet you anything that literacy has gone up in the last 50 years, which is probably one of the best measures of the success of our education system. Which would contradict your statement that education standards are slipping. The stats I can find indicate that we are above average in the OECD, but especially above average in terms of child literacy - this to me suggests that the current school sustem is more effective than the average in the OECD. Stats here (http://www.statistics.govt.nz/Publications/Product-Development-and-Publishing/nz-in-the-oecd/education.aspx).

Also davereid, your argument that - "I, and my officials are clever, you are not, we will make these decisions in your best interests, you have demonstrated you inability to make them correctly yourself." - is a socialist perspective is only partially true. It could equally be a communist, facist, or totalitarian policy. And facism and socialism are on completely different ends of the idealistic scale.

I agree that taxing tobacco is a step towards a more controlled (and possibly more 'socialist') society. But to be socialist it would have to go much further. You could also argue that tax on tobacco is in keeping with classical liberalism (ie, you can do anything so long as it does not harm others; we pay for your healthcare therefore you are harming us therefore we tax you for it).

I also love how in these threads people go on about politicians loving MMP, or how MMP is a tool used by parties for this and that, when it was in fact implemented due to popular vote in a referendum of New Zealand citizens.


Oh, and one last quick dig at those opposing socialism (not saying I support it!) (http://digg.com/world_news/Those_socialist_countries_They_re_happy)
And Sweden is considered one of the best-off socialist countries in the world today. And isn't ghostrider (http://www.ghostridermovie.net/start.html) Swedish?

[davereid]

davereid, your argument that - "I, and my officials are clever, you are not, we will make these decisions in your best interests, you have demonstrated you inability to make them correctly yourself." - is a socialist perspective is only partially true. It could equally be a communist, facist, or totalitarian policy.

Of course. Socialists, Facists, and Communists all share the view that the individual is subservient to the state, and that, therefore the state can do what it wishes with the individual, and his property.


.....You could also argue that tax on tobacco is in keeping with classical liberalism (ie, you can do anything so long as it does not harm others; we pay for your healthcare therefore you are harming us therefore we tax you for it...

Yes, this is the part I hate the most. Firstly, the (classically liberal democratic) state extracts money from me at gunpoint, against my will, to fund a health system that I didn't ask for, don't want, and don't have any confidence in.

Then the state claims to be my benefactor, as it turns $100 of my money into $20 worth of health-care.

Then it says "Ooohhh look at your life-style. You smoke, you drink, you have unprotected sex. You ride a motorbike, and eat too many chippies !! The free things we give you are threatened by your terrible attitude. We will get the gun out again, and TAX those terrible things to protect the good clean living people from your abhorrent behaviour !"



I also love how in these threads people go on about politicians loving MMP, or how MMP is a tool used by parties for this and that, when it was in fact implemented due to popular vote in a referendum of New Zealand citizens....


Yes democracy. Thats a bit of a laugh really.

Lets draw an analogy.
Theres three kids in the playground. One has lunch. Its morally wrong for either of the other two to beat him up and take his lunch, maybe we can hope he will share it, but thats all.

But what if we form a democracy ! Then the other two kids can vote to take the third kids lunch and apparently its all legal.

Classically liberally democratic even. Specially if one of the kids appoints himself the government department in charge of lunch, and eats most of the lunch himself, then shares the crusts with the original owner, and the kid who didn't have lunch.

Somehow, the state was delegated the power to steal, by voters who never had that power to delegate !

"In keeping with classical liberalism you can do anything so long as it does not harm others".

The bit about not hurting others is the bit the socialists like to apply to others, but not to themselves. Your right not to be hurt by the state is completely ignored.

[Eyegasm]

The mad thing in all of this is the horrendous use of outright lies by the government. The government tells you that the health related cost to society of smokers is 1.9 billion dollars. That is a lie. If any sane person goes through the health departments itemised costing to see how the figure of 1.9 billion is arrived at they would be horrified to see what is included on the list. Eric Crampton (a Senior Lecturer in the Department of Economics at the University of Canterbury) notes in the New Zealand Medical Journal (15th of February 2008) that "Indeed, tobacco taxes collected, at $980 million, dwarf health care expenditures of $350 million". Now, if the heathcare expenditure on smoking smoking related problems has increased six-fold in two years I would be very suprised.

If you want the actual facts look at what is released in peer-reviewed journals, not what is released by government spin-docters. After costs are recouped smoking provides over 600 million dollars in tax to the government. That is a very substantial amount. And that is before we take into account the reduced pension paid to smokers because of shortened life expectancy. If you ban smoking then tax has to be recouped elsewhere.

Finally, someone that has sense.

I actually work for the Ministry of Health and was laughing at all those that believed the 1.9 billion price tag
that was stated.

Eyegasm

[oldrider]

OK, the label on the can of worms is politically incorrect!

Society spends all it's time focussing on the correctness of the label.

Meanwhile the quality and behaviour of the worms goes unchecked.

Great deal for the worms! :shifty: