erm… said burger is well within an adult’s daily calorific intake, ok it’s hardly Egon Ronay but they’re not addictive and I’ve yet to meet any (non American) person that would consume 20 in a day
As far as I’m concerned, this.
I agree, the principle is obviously worth pursuing but the details are worth questioning.
They don’t burn nearly as well, though
Taken to its extreme you could make the case for legalising heroin and taxing it at a level that would benefit the public coffers. Would that ever make it right tho? Of course not
Completely, and as I said, I'm not advocating for letting money/income block public wellbeing and health at all. The collective benefit will always outweigh the cost.
I will continue with what I have believed for many years that this is untrue. Yes you’ve named one source, however a quick google will also provide other “sources” with figures leaning towards the NHS (and other services, The Fire Service for example) being out of pocket to the tune of about £6 Billion
The Office for Budget Responsibility says that we raise £10.4 billion in tobacco duties...
Could start IMHO by heavily taxing air travel. In particular short haul. Seems to me idiotic on every level that you can fly by air for a couple of hours to a european destination for twenty or thirty quid. I mean we all love to do it, but at the same time isn't it a little bit insane?
Yeah, sort of what I was implying. At the same time, I think realistically the only additional taxation policies that will win votes in the current climate are ones that punch up instead of down. If we heavily tax all air travel, doesn't that just widen inequality? A family on the median wage in this country can barely afford a holiday at the moment anyway, why should they be excluded from travel when the rich can afford it (and still contribute to pollution etc.)?
It's not a simple task to work out the ultimate net effect as there are a lot of indirect consequences and also assumptions at play (for arguments on both sides).
Some people, for sure.
I assumed they'll try to smoke them instead, the swines.
Yes, that's absolutely fair. I guess the income from tobacco duty is easily quantifiable, and the NHS do state that the cost to them directly is around £2.6bn so they are able to quantify that as well. That was my only argument really - when we can put those numbers on the table, the direct income outweighs the cost . All your points are valid however, as you say it is really complicated (impossible I'd argue) to try and quantify the wider impact as part of an argument.
And this has been proven at West Ham and Arsenal!
