Big Blow for Big Tobacco

[RougeUnderoos]

On the CFCN news tonight they had a couple of figures -- (I didn't tape it so these are estimates but I think they are fairly accurate)

Alberta gov makes 730 million a year on cigarette taxes. Each pack of smokes is taxed about $7 (a pack costs from 10 - 11$).

If you buy a carton (8 packs for $80) the province gets $32 of that, GST is $5.60 and the feds get 13$ for a grand total of $53 in taxes.

[Trujew]

Originally posted by RougeUnderoos@Oct 1 2005, 12:54 AM
On the CFCN news tonight they had a couple of figures -- (I didn't tape it so these are estimates but I think they are fairly accurate)

Alberta gov makes 730 million a year on cigarette taxes. Each pack of smokes is taxed about $7 (a pack costs from 10 - 11$).

If you buy a carton (8 packs for $80) the province gets $32 of that, GST is $5.60 and the feds get 13$ for a grand total of $53 in taxes.

$4 a pack is taxed not 7

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally posted by Trujew@Sep 30 2005, 07:18 PM
$4 a pack is taxed not 7

Maybe. Take it up with CFCN then because they say it's 7 bucks.

As of right now they have a link to the story but they don't show the whole breakdown of the prices. They do have a tobacco rep saying that the price of a pack of cigarettes is more than 70% taxes. On the newscast they went on further than just that and reiterated the numbers I used above.

[evman150]

25%? Maybe in Quebec...

That number sounds really high.

At least in my age group smoking is really not popular at all. Out of my graduation class in 2004 I'd say maybe 2% or less were smokers. Of course that sample is not representative at all, but I would think the percentage would be closer to 10 than 25.

I'd like to see some real stats. Broken down by demographic would be nice as well.

As for cigarettes, I say put a $30 tax on each pack to give a real "fudge you" to all the tards who smoke. Then put that money towards making university in Canada free like in some Euro countries.

:geek:

[calf]

Originally posted by evman150@Sep 30 2005, 10:08 PM


As for cigarettes, I say put a $30 tax on each pack to give a real "fudge you" to all the tards who smoke.
:geek:

That won't work. Happened in the early or mid '90s, where taxes were "too high", giving rise to quite the black market, which brings demons of itsown.

[Resolute 14]

Originally posted by evman150@Sep 30 2005, 09:08 PM
25%? Maybe in Quebec...

That number sounds really high.

At least in my age group smoking is really not popular at all. Out of my graduation class in 2004 I'd say maybe 2% or less were smokers. Of course that sample is not representative at all, but I would think the percentage would be closer to 10 than 25.

I'd like to see some real stats. Broken down by demographic would be nice as well.

As for cigarettes, I say put a $30 tax on each pack to give a real "fudge you" to all the tards who smoke. Then put that money towards making university in Canada free like in some Euro countries.

:geek:

According to Smoke-free.ca, 20% of Canadians were smokers in 2004, down from 49.5% in 1965.

And to echo Calf's post, if cigarettes get taxed too highly, they very quickly end up on the black market. Taxing the heck out of them even more would serve no purpose.

[HOZ]

Originally posted by hulkrogan@Sep 30 2005, 05:56 AM
As much as I hate tobacco companies, the biggest problem is that people are now educated about the effects of smoking yet they are still stupid enough to do it.

Sorry smokers, but its true, and all of you know it deep down every time you light one up

Agreed. A while back they once advertised themselves as a healthy habit and then spent decades denying that smoking was detrimental to peoples health.

Nowadays....there is no excuse.

[HOZ]

Originally posted by Snakeeye@Oct 1 2005, 04:33 AM
According to Smoke-free.ca, 20% of Canadians were smokers in 2004, down from 49.5% in 1965.

And to echo Calf's post, if cigarettes get taxed too highly, they very quickly end up on the black market. Taxing the heck out of them even more would serve no purpose.

Actually that is already happening in places. The most obvious place is the Mohawk reserves that are on both sides of the boarder.

[Jake]

Heres an idea... lets let smokers pay for their own health care. Theres no excuse for doing it anymore, the consequences are well known. I don't care if its hard to quit, just do it. I'd even include broken legs etc (things that have nothing to do with smoking) in this to further discourage it.

Doctors can easily tell if your a smoker or not, hell your dentist can even tell. I don't think that would be a problem.

I personally don't think sueing tobacco companies is the solution. They don't force people to smoke and cover packaging with warnings. However I hate all things about smoking so we might as well.

[Flames89]

Why doesn't anyone talk about Alcohol?

For some reason the booze companies can continue raking it in, when alcohol has as much impact to the society (maybe not as much, but competitive).

I drink, and I smoke when I drink (and sometimes a bit more) ... personally, I would like the government to stay out of our proverbial "bedrooms".

[evman150]

Originally posted by Flames89@Sep 30 2005, 09:05 PM
I drink, and I smoke when I drink (and sometimes a bit more) ... personally, I would like the government to stay out of our proverbial "bedrooms".

Then perhaps the government will stay out of your future health care bills when you're dying from lung cancer as well.

:unsure:

[shoestring]

Tax it so high that it goes illegal. Nobody gets any money but me and my
ability to traffic budds,we are organized.We will take the money.

When I die from lung cancer I will be in a hospital from car pollution
as much as from smoking and it will cost your government. Unless.
You want to challenge me in court,over health care,good luck.

When you profit of the product/s it is very hard to tell people they can't
access a different product from the same revenue stream.

[Resolute 14]

Originally posted by Flames89@Sep 30 2005, 10:05 PM
Why doesn't anyone talk about Alcohol?

For some reason the booze companies can continue raking it in, when alcohol has as much impact to the society (maybe not as much, but competitive).

I drink, and I smoke when I drink (and sometimes a bit more) ... personally, I would like the government to stay out of our proverbial "bedrooms".

I suspect the difference is that drinking alcohol in moderation has no long term health risks, and in some cases (ie: wine) can actually be beneficial. The primary dangers from alcohol arise when a person either starts drinking to excess or attempts to do things like drive while drunk.

Any amount of smoking can have negative health effects, and while a person getting drunk around you does not present an immediate health hazard to you, a person smoking around you does.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally posted by evman150@Oct 1 2005, 01:14 AM
Then perhaps the government will stay out of your future health care bills when you're dying from lung cancer as well.

:unsure:

What brand of bubble do you live in?

[Winsor_Pilates]

My old man has smoked for 40 years and he's paid an absolute fortune in taxes directly on cigarettes and plain old income taxes.

This is true, but are the taxes generated through tabacco sales enough to compensate for the added costs to health care. Judging by these lawsuits, I would say no. Your father may have paid a fortune in taxes, but health care has paid an even bigger fortune in treating smoke related illness.

Your theory of "knowingly make themselves sick" should also apply to most fat people, boozers, speeders, workaholics, and people who live in polluted big cities.

Yes it could also apply to anyone who consciously makes a decision to make themselves sick, but the difference between smoking and all of these other things, is that smoking is ALWAYS bad for you. There is no other purpose or benefit to it. All of your other examples are things that are only bad in excess and not harmful by design.

Anyway, I don't actually think my idea could be applied. Just something I wrote cause smoking p*sses me off.
I know it would open up huge can of worms and isn't a realistic possibility under our system of health care. It just really bothers me that people continue to smoke when it's something that in 1 way or another harms us all. Smokers act like it's their health, thier decision, but through second hand or health care we all are getting shafted by smokers.
IMO, our society is far to accomodating to smokers.

[Winsor_Pilates]

Originally posted by Flames89@Sep 30 2005, 10:05 PM
I drink, and I smoke when I drink (and sometimes a bit more) ... personally, I would like the government to stay out of our proverbial "bedrooms".

It's not your bedroom if it ends up costing the government (and citizens) in the end. Shouldn't the gov have the right to be involved in something that will later cost them alot of money?

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally posted by Winsor_Pilates@Oct 1 2005, 05:16 PM
This is true, but are the taxes generated through tabacco sales enough to compensate for the added costs to health care. Judging by these lawsuits, I would say no. Your father may have paid a fortune in taxes, but health care has paid an even bigger fortune in treating smoke related illness.


Yes it could also apply to anyone who consciously makes a decision to make themselves sick, but the difference between smoking and all of these other things, is that smoking is ALWAYS bad for you. There is no other purpose or benefit to it. All of your other examples are things that are only bad in excess and not harmful by design.

Anyway, I don't actually think my idea could be applied. Just something I wrote cause smoking p*sses me off.
I know it would open up huge can of worms and isn't a realistic possibility under our system of health care. It just really bothers me that people continue to smoke when it's something that in 1 way or another harms us all. Smokers act like it's their health, thier decision, but through second hand or health care we all are getting shafted by smokers.
IMO, our society is far to accomodating to smokers.

Smoking p*sses you off? Don't smoke. Don't go where you know people will be smoking.

You don't want to pay the healthcare costs for smokers? Maybe Joe Blow doesn't want to pay for the guy who broke his leg playing shinny because hey, it's his fault and he willingly played shinny. Maybe Joe's wife doesn't want to pay for little Sally's asthma treatments because Sally's dad drives a Hummer to work everyday. Maybe RougeUnderoos doesn't want to pay the medical bills for some teenager who drove his Cavalier into a fire hydrant. Maybe Bob Lunchpail doesn't want to pay for Shirley Secretary's Carpal-Tunnal treatment because she spent her days gabbing on Messenger.

We either have universal medical care or we don't. Which way do you want it?

[Flames_Gimp]

Originally posted by RougeUnderoos@Oct 1 2005, 04:42 PM
Smoking p*sses you off? Don't smoke. Don't go where you know people will be smoking.

and where is that? hell, you cant even sit on a patio at a restaurant, or coffee shop without a dirty smoker blowing it in your face.

[FireFly]

Originally posted by Flames_Gimp@Oct 1 2005, 07:38 PM
and where is that? hell, you cant even sit on a patio at a restaurant, or coffee shop without a dirty smoker blowing it in your face.

Actually, patios are the one place you can go where smoking is banned, although people can smoke on the sidewalk on the other side of the 'patio'...

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally posted by Flames_Gimp@Oct 1 2005, 07:38 PM
and where is that? hell, you cant even sit on a patio at a restaurant, or coffee shop without a dirty smoker blowing it in your face.

Don't you live in Calgary? You can't smoke in coffee shops or on the patio in this town. Restaurants are, I'm sure, 99% smoke free now. I think if you allow smoking you can't allow minors in.

I understand your argument and actually would have agreed with you but I think it's outdated now. The city is practically smoke free. It's a lot easier to list the places you can smoke (bars) than you can't smoke (everywhere else).