I am stretching myself to two posts tonight.

Is it any wonder that ASH ET AL are quiet?

There is a ‘Consultation’ from the EU about ‘standardising’ tobacco excise taxes.

That does not surprise me in the least, since it has been logically on the cards for years and years.

But why should should ‘excise’ taxes exist in the first place? The reality is that there is no justification at all. But it is possible that such taxes are levied on any goods which are not considered to be essential, such as food, water, shelter, clothing, energy. Everything else could be classed as luxury. And that is what is wrong with our taxation system. Everything has become ephemeral and uncertain. Some goods attract excise duties, such a alcohol, petrol, tobacco, without reasonable justification.

It is the lack of justification which renders ‘Ministers’ to be puppets.



What is important is for politicians to recognise and accept that such things, even though they might be important in revenue terms, are no longer justifiable or in the interests of the Nation.

And here is the crux – non-smokers, non-drinkers, etc, must pay their fair share of the costs of The Nation. For too long, the least wealthy people, those whose sole pleasures DO NOT include the Opera and the Concert but include a beer and a fag, have paid for the benefits of those who detest them.

Detest them? Well, Yes, non-smokers detest smokers, even though smokers pay exorbitant – really, really exorbitant – taxes.

I’m getting tired. My brain is feeling sad.


So what in the UK do we need? In my opinion, taxes are neutral in the sense that they are not ‘ring-fenced’.

Since the Brexit vote, everything is in a state of flux. ‘Flux’ means ‘flowing’. It is up to May and her cabinet to determine the THE REALITY.


5 Responses to “Flux”

  1. Samuel Says:

    Jefferson, and some of the other framers of their new system, was of the opinion that all “laws” (and, obviously, the rules and regulations and offices of enforcement that go with them) should expire and be replaced or readopted by ensuing, new, generations because it was immoral, at the least, and should be unlawful for any generation to force the laws they adopted for themselves and their times onto their children and grandchildren. So it should be for all taxes. Of course we are wise and know that no one places a tax upon themselves. We always, when our “leaders” bother to ask, place the tax burden onto others. There is no lawful or moral justification for taxes of any amount or for any purpose unless those being taxed are, somehow, the property of those collecting the tribute.

    • junican Says:

      I suppose, in a sense, that situation exists in that we elect the members of Parliament who have the power to repeal any previous legislation. Oddly enough, they rarely use that power.

  2. smokingscot Says:

    I know you were tired, but this is wrong:

    “non-smokers detest smokers”

    Much as ASH has elected to speak on behalf of non-smokers, the truth is they have no more authority to do so than Forest has for smokers.

    They’re both convenient creations and the MSM goes along with the charade because it allows them to get quotes and comments.

    I have no idea how many non-smokers do in fact detest us, however they are most certainly the minority. Most of my friends are non-smokers and – as we see consistently – when polled the majority of people are perfectly comfortable with the concept of smoking rooms in pubs and clubs.

    Let’s leave these gross generalisations to the other lot. They’re real good at besmirching the majority.

    • junican Says:

      I must plead ‘poetic license’, SS! Smokers, in effect, hand over about £10 billion per an to non-smokers via duty. Should not ALL non-smokers love smokers? So why are there so many commenters in newspapers who sneer at smokers when smokers are saving them loads-a-money?

      • smokingscot Says:

        Poetic License it is.

        Other bit’s real easy. I know the f…wits who drive massive status cars are taxed to the sky, but I still loathe those and their sordid modes of transport.

        All the more so as the vehicle is invariably a company (or government) perk.

        I do however smile at those who buy said SUV’s and limos second hand. When they go wrong – it’s expensive beyond belief.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: