The ‘Levy’ on Tobacco Company Profits

I mean, what sort of idea could be disguised in such a way? It can only be the idea of disguising an increase in Duty on tobacco products. In fact, the press release from CRUK does not even try to avoid the accusation that its demand for a ‘levy’ is just an increase in tobacco duty. As usual, these propagandists conflate different issues. In this case, they are saying, “Tobacco companies make worldwide massive profits. We want a share of those profits to fund the massive costs of anti-smoking activities”. But their proposal is not actually a demand for a share of the profits. It is a demand for an increase in the retail price of a packet of cigarettes. 1p per cigarette equals 20p per packet. How could that ‘levy’ be achieved with any sort of cost-effectiveness? It could only be achieved, cost-effectively, by an increase in Duty. But there is no need for an increase in Duty. All that is required is for the Government to assign 1p per cigarette from existing tobacco products Duty to “Smoking Cessation Services”.

The illogicality of such a suggestion is clear and obvious. Since Government, whether national or local, is cutting the cost of Smoking Cessation Services because they are a failure, then it would be very, very stupid to make special endeavours to raise more money for the failed SCS when it would make a lot more sense to raise more money for repairs to potholes, etc. Thus, it would make a lot more sense for calls to be made for a ‘Levy’ of 1p per litre of petrol, justified by the profits of Big Oil, to repair the roads. After all, Big Oil ’causes’ the potholes.

There is a fairly exact symmetry between the two. If Big Tobacco ’causes’ Lung Cancer and the costs thereof, then Big Oil ’causes’ the potholes in the roads and the costs thereof.

Further, since Fatties are not responsible for their own greed, but are forced by Big Food to eat and eat, then a Levy of 1p per potato chip is justified. The funds raised by that Levy must go to funding the propaganda which blames Big Food for the increase in the number of fatties, but does nothing to reduce the number of fatties.

But what do we notice about these Levies? It is that they NEVER affect the politicians who vote for them.

Is that not also true of Smoking Bans? When would your average politician call into his local, wherever that may be, and get a bit pissed? He would not dare! Nor would he stand outside with the smokers, unless he was Nige. No. He would do what we all do on aircraft, and put up with the ban. Our average politician will get home, light up and breath a sigh of relief. That is the beauty of tobacco – it is wonderful for the relief of low-level stress.

But do not expect such an illogical, costly, time-wasting addition to Tobacco Duty to be ridiculed out of existence. It can only be that CRUK publicists have some sort of blackmail material which they can reveal if politicians do not act as CRUK and the Medical Profession desires. Nothing else can explain the inexplicable grovelling of PM Cameron and Health Sec, Hunt, in the face of a few Crazy,Corrupt, Unaccountable Zealots.

===

‘Crazy, Corrupt, Unaccountable Zealots’ is a phrase which might encompass the Elite of the EU. Personally, I find it very sad that the people of Europe, the indigenous people, who were brainwashed for decades to believe that other nationals were devils, are now being misled into believing that we are all ‘standard human beings’; that we have no cultural differences, no climate differences, no religious differences, no natural mineral differences, no agricultural differences, etc (and there are loads and loads of differences).

I vaguely see the problem with the EU as a ‘Mission Creep’ problem. That is that politicians in the UK and elsewhere were so NOW involved that they were oblivious of the future.

Is that not patently true of the UN and the WHO?

====

There really is only one answer. It is to stop funding them and ignore them. The IPCC? Who cares what these corrupt quasi-scientists say? Refuse to fund them and refuse to fund the UN to the same degree.

—-

The British Commonwealth is not dead, but it needs some revitalising.

Gosh! I am way out of my depth here. For example, when will European ‘refugees’ invade Syria and Saudi Arabia on the grounds of ‘human rights’? Would it matter if that invasion was accomplished by an army as compared with the pressure of numbers? Suppose that Europeans engaged boats (which do not sink) and invaded, say, Lybia? Why not? In fact, that might be the precisely correct way to correct the imbalance of zealotry. Perhaps an invasion of Syria by Serbocroats, or Romanian gypsies might be just the thing to drag the populace out of the 9th Century. Perhaps tens of thousands of black Africans could be persuaded to relocate to Syria and Saudi Arabia.

Why not? The USA is committed to ‘the standard human being’, is it not?

I leave the reader to consider the implications.

Excuse typos – it is late.

 

 

Advertisements

4 Responses to “The ‘Levy’ on Tobacco Company Profits”

  1. Timothy Goodacre Says:

    Why should we smokers pay for people to berate us ? Everyone knows that cigarettes should only be £2 a packet.

    • junican Says:

      The real challenge is to get the price of cigs back to the what it should be, allowing for some sort of ‘luxury tax’ which ought to be applied to ALL luxuries.
      Fat chance.

  2. Some French Bloke Says:

    “But their proposal is not actually a demand for a share of the profits. It is a demand for an increase in the retail price of a packet of cigarettes.”

    We should never miss an opportunity to point out how CRUK and other anti-smoking outfits are ever so considerate and accommodating towards “Big Tobacco”, and never so as regards smokers themselves.

    After all, the notion of “Big Tobacco” includes those countries where it happened to be a state monopoly when the risks of tobacco-related lung cancer and heart disease were “discovered” and publicised (e.g. France in the 1950s). Didn’t those monopolies also “lie to the public” regarding those risks? Or should the presumption of “guilty knowledge” be suspended in this special instance?

    The level of corruption here is dizzying and we better start wrapping our heads around that fact, even though it goes against the grain of our vision of a mythical fight between “Big Business” and “Big Government”.

    • junican Says:

      “The level of corruption here is dizzying….”
      That is the important thing. The people who are supposed to protect the people against corruption are themselves corrupt.

Comments are closed.


%d bloggers like this: