Looks like the price of cigarettes is about to rocket.

[Doc Alan]

Here is what I said less than a couple of months ago on another thread ( http://filipinaroses.com/showthread....t=PNoy+smoking )
It attracted little attention at the time. I’m sorry, but as I explained in another thread, with my other commitments I’m unable to reply – or add anything significant - to every new thread on related topics.




• Sin taxes are an unreliable way of reducing consumption or improving public health. They are regressive – taking a proportionally greater amount from those on lower incomes.


• Smokers and heavy drinkers may cost the state more during their shorter than average lives. At least the sin taxes they raise pay for treating the ill health and social costs of their habits. Chronic diseases associated with old age are far more expensive than the lethal diseases associated with smoking and alcohol excess.


• The ( worldwide ) decline in smoking over the past 50 years; and ( UK but not Philippines ) overall alcohol consumption over the past 10 years, is due to factors other than taxation. Britain’s alcohol problems - binge drinking by the young, and daily excessive consumption by middle-class home drinkers - are not curable by minimum pricing.


• Governments like sin taxes. The main purpose is to raise revenue – by forcing people who are least likely to live to old age to pay for the escalating costs of an ageing population. A means-tested health tax, hypothecated ( ring-fenced ) for improving health, would be more honest.


• Sin taxes are counterproductive. They discourage serious and honest attempts to improve health, and encourage the black market. They are also cynically applied to some – but not all - “ unhealthy sins “.



• The implicit assumption in the Philippines Sin Tax Bill is that the population will continue at the same rate of smoking, guaranteeing revenue … until their premature deaths. That’s immoral, unethical and defeatist ! Will they genuinely be pleased if fewer people smoke and the sin tax revenue declines ?


• I’m also in favour of freedom of choice and don’t judge people on their chosen lifestyles, but I do encourage healthy living. The way forward ? - HEALTH PROMOTION, SCREENING, and INSURANCE .

[fred]

Here is what I said less than a couple of months ago on another thread ( http://filipinaroses.com/showthread....t=PNoy+smoking )
It attracted little attention at the time. I’m sorry, but as I explained in another thread, with my other commitments I’m unable to reply – or add anything significant - to every new thread on related topics.




• Sin taxes are an unreliable way of reducing consumption or improving public health. They are regressive – taking a proportionally greater amount from those on lower incomes.


• Smokers and heavy drinkers may cost the state more during their shorter than average lives. At least the sin taxes they raise pay for treating the ill health and social costs of their habits. Chronic diseases associated with old age are far more expensive than the lethal diseases associated with smoking and alcohol excess.


• The ( worldwide ) decline in smoking over the past 50 years; and ( UK but not Philippines ) overall alcohol consumption over the past 10 years, is due to factors other than taxation. Britain’s alcohol problems - binge drinking by the young, and daily excessive consumption by middle-class home drinkers - are not curable by minimum pricing.


• Governments like sin taxes. The main purpose is to raise revenue – by forcing people who are least likely to live to old age to pay for the escalating costs of an ageing population. A means-tested health tax, hypothecated ( ring-fenced ) for improving health, would be more honest.


• Sin taxes are counterproductive. They discourage serious and honest attempts to improve health, and encourage the black market. They are also cynically applied to some – but not all - “ unhealthy sins “.



• The implicit assumption in the Philippines Sin Tax Bill is that the population will continue at the same rate of smoking, guaranteeing revenue … until their premature deaths. That’s immoral, unethical and defeatist ! Will they genuinely be pleased if fewer people smoke and the sin tax revenue declines ?


• I’m also in favour of freedom of choice and don’t judge people on their chosen lifestyles, but I do encourage healthy living. The way forward ? - HEALTH PROMOTION, SCREENING, and INSURANCE .

Good post again Doc Alan!!
I have no real problem with this sin tax as I believe that as long as the Politicians are kept from diverting the proceeds to Switzerland, the extra funding will go into the seriously underfunded Philhealth system.. (along with funding for other important social programs) Ive watched the new administration very carefully over the last 6 months and I am generally impressed.. Hopefully they mean what they say in regards the proceeds from this new tax.. 40 Billion PHP will hopefully go a long way and do an awful lot of good..
Lets see.
Fred.