The Budget

Other people will dissect the budget in much more detail than I. 99% of it is of no interest to me since I am mostly self-sufficient, provided that my pension continues to appear in my bank account! The only part which really interested me was the tobacco part. Even that was unsurprising and rather pathetically predictable.

I found a transcript of Osborne’s speech. It is here:

https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/budget-2016-george-osbornes-speech

As regards tobacco products, this is what he had to say:

Mr Deputy Speaker,

Tobacco duty will continue to rise as set out in previous Budgets, by 2% above inflation from 6pm tonight – while hand rolling tobacco will rise by an additional 3%.

And to continue our drive to improve public health we will reform our tobacco regime to introduce an effective floor on the price of cigarettes and consult on increased sanctions for fraud.

Despite the brevity, there is a lot in that statement. Hand rolling tobacco will have its duty raised by 5% above inflation. I wonder why? Does it make any difference to ‘health’ if hand rolling tobacco costs a bit more? I would say not in the slightest of slightest. Therefore, the increase in tax is just a way of increasing revenue from the poorest of people who enjoy tobacco. (Erm… That is not to say that people who roll their own are poverty struck!)

The most interesting bit is:

And to continue our drive to improve public health we will reform our tobacco regime to introduce an effective floor on the price of cigarettes and consult on increased sanctions for fraud.

Forget the drive to improve public health bit. What the sentence says is that there is going to be a ‘minimum pricing’ of cigs. In effect, that means a ‘levy’. Weird, is it not, that ‘minimum unit pricing’ has been transferred from alcohol to tobacco?

And what does consult on increased sanctions for fraud mean? What is ‘fraud’? The word implies ‘fraudulent’. What can be fraudulent about tobacco products? Perhaps he means that tobacco products will be checked for authenticity of the quality of the tobacco, but I doubt it. Or does he mean fraudulent use of tobacco ‘duty paid’ stamps? Maybe that is the reason. Bringing home as many cigs as you wish for personal consumption is not fraud. Nor is smuggling. That is not ‘fraud’. Maybe he was told to use that word in order hide the true intentions. Maybe the true intentions are to persecute smokers more and more.

It a physical fact that increases in acceleration require greater and greater force, and that there is a greater and greater loss of energy, the greater the need for force. Tobacco Control is expending more and more energy (at greater and greater cost) to produce less and less benefit.

Frankly, it seems to me that the FCTC has shot its bolt. It was easy at first to make an impact, but resistance everywhere is becoming firmer and firmer. The same is true of the EU. It has had its day and has become a millstone around the necks of the people of Europe – at immense cost.

===

But talking about ‘weak’, how sad is the sugar tax? I mean, who actually governs? I mean, how pathetic are Cameron et al becoming?

There is only one answer, which is Revolution. If there is not a revolution, then our children and grandchildren are doomed to massive strife and destruction. Is there an answer?

For years I have championed the idea that the land belongs to The People. Individuals cannot ‘own’ the land, nor the minerals beneath it. Those minerals belong to The People. All the shit about smoking and such just distracts us all from what is really important. The riches of the Earth are being stolen from The People by gangs of criminals, such as the UN and the EU.

A world-wide revolution is required to dislodge the Corrupt and the Zealots. There is no other way. It will happen.

 

Advertisements

5 Responses to “The Budget”

  1. Timothy Goodacre Says:

    It is amazing to me that the Government is waging war on a large section of our population. This would not be allowed on religious or racial grounds. Therefore Why are smokers treated so appallingly?
    The tax raised on tobacco is far in excess of any so called medical costs. It is now the duty of all smokers to fight back. Anybody who can import their tobacco should do. If you can grow your own certainly do so. We must deprive these money grabbing bastards of as much revenue as we can.

  2. west2 Says:

    “The tax raised on tobacco is far in excess of any so called medical costs.”

    Of course it is and has been for quite a while. The aim is not to recover costs, the aim is to stop smoking. A smokefree (nicotinefree) utopia.

    The language used by politicians is simple. They say everyone agrees we need to reduce smoking and so we will do anything to achieve this. The next generation is to be ‘smokefree’

    If this isn’t clear enough I don’t know what is. They want to eliminate smoking at any cost.

    At first I did not believe this and thought we were dealing with reasonable people who were prepared to compromise. I tried to see the best in people and believed there were only a few extremists.

    It is hard to accept that was not the case. The smoking ban and the subsequent war on vaping, not forgetting Snus, clearly demonstrate that we are not dealing with reasonable people.

    They have their aim and they will do anything to achieve it. What frightens me more is that many just go along with it or grumble and move on. I am frightened by the hate aimed at people who smoke, that people do not care, or feel that nothing can be done.

    There is little to no support in the media, from politicians or celebrities. They all all seem to accept and buy in to what is happening as ‘the right thing to do’, even if it discriminates against individuals it is for ‘the greater good’. We need some high profile people to basically speak out and not care about the flack.

    I want change but have been too reasonable. The most difficult thing for me is to be unreasonable, yet it seems that is what you have to be in this world today.

    This has and continues to be social engineering on a large scale.

    • Timothy Goodacre Says:

      I agree. We have been far too reasonable and this must now stop.

    • junican Says:

      Frankly, I think there is a reason that the Zealots do not care who they hurt or what social damage they do. Their objective does not concern ‘a smokefree world’. Their objective is to destroy the tobacco industry. What is PP for? To frighten children? Rubbish! It is to diminish competition and make all tobacco products the same. But it will not work for the simple reason that the competition will be between licit and illicit tobacco products. Despite their best efforts to avoid it, the Zealots are creating a ‘Prohibitionist’ culture. Expect a collapse in legal tobacco sales in the UK, Ireland and Australia before long. Remember that ‘a collapse’ does not mean, say, a 50% reduction. It need only be, say, 15% or so. Or, better still, a trend to faster and faster collapse over time. Such a thing would not affect tobacco companies since they trade world-wide. It would only affect the countries involved.

      • Timothy Goodacre Says:

        Yes you are right. All ready many brands have disappeared and our choice diminished. PP will wipe out many more. I am amazed this destruction of brands got through. Alcohol and confectionary are next.

Comments are closed.


%d bloggers like this: