Duty Free Cigarettes - New limits from 1 July 2017

bobbified on 16/07/2017 - 22:38

For smokers like myself who don't already know, there's a new limit on the number of duty-free cigarettes allowed into Australia.

I really don't recall hearing any announcements about this change and only found out because my mate mentioned it on the weekend.

Previously, it was 50 cigarettes plus an open pack - although the allowance for that "open pack" was never really publicised well, nor was it on the Entry Card.

From the Border website:

Tobacco
From 1 July 2017, you can bring 25 grams of tobacco in any form (cigarette, loose leaf, etc.), equivalent to approximately 25 cigarettes, plus an open packet, for each traveller 18 years or older.
(https://www.border.gov.au/Trav/Ente/Duty-Free-concessions)

Bloody money-grabbing government!

Travel

Comments

  • Clear on 16/07/2017 - 22:44

    Been travelling a lot lately and there was no sign of duty free cigarettes anywhere.

    • bobbified on 16/07/2017 - 22:49

      Don't they sell it in the duty free shops on the way out of Australia anymore? Its been 6 months since I've travelled overseas and at the time, they were still selling it. I never really bought it though because "duty free" here was still about 10 times the cost of what it is in the countries I go to.

      • altomic on 16/07/2017 - 23:27
        +2

        just like in shops , they are hidden.

    • voteoften on 16/07/2017 - 23:29
      +1

      Heaps of cartons on royal Caribbean ships duty free.

      • Clear on 17/07/2017 - 08:59

        And usually in US dollars. The onshore stores don't stock many anymore.

        • voteoften on 18/07/2017 - 01:31
          +1

          I don't smoke but I do have the impression that they are cheap in Aus, after conversion.

    • TenaciousTom on 18/07/2017 - 15:21

      That's because you can't advertise cigarettes, there are no signs anywhere in Aus.

      • Clear on 18/07/2017 - 16:54

        Was referring to overseas stores.

        • TenaciousTom on 19/07/2017 - 10:05

          That makes zero sense… any cigarettes overseas are free from Australian taxes…

        • Clear on 19/07/2017 - 10:29

          @TeanaciousTom: Or you misunderstood what I originally said. I went overseas to many countries and there were no cigarettes in any of the duty free stores which have previously sold them.

  • Sinful on 16/07/2017 - 22:49

    Wow, that's terrible….
    used to be 250g when I imported some last…. used to get a 5 pack of 50g sachets.

    Not a bargain as much as it used to be.

    • Shwayne on 19/07/2017 - 10:27
      +17

      Boy have I got a bargain for you.

      Quit.

      • Sinful on 19/07/2017 - 15:39
        +7

        Yea, I did 5 years ago mate.

        Can't help but feel sorry for the everything that's going on with the smokers, because I used to be one of them.

        • Shwayne on 19/07/2017 - 22:49

          I can't sympathise with them, because quitting is an option and they choose to pay ridiculous taxes instead.

        • pat0809 on 01/08/2017 - 12:27

          @Shwayne:
          Addictions aren't always easy to break.

        • Shwayne on 02/08/2017 - 23:38

          @pat0809: That's true, but there's a huge incentive to try and quit.

  • shapers on 16/07/2017 - 22:50
    +29

    Im not a smoker so it doesnt effect me but that is ridiculous

    • tomsco on 17/07/2017 - 09:11
      +5

      Same here, but I remeber 8 years ago, I bought back 250 smokes (cost around $20) from Bali for a mate. I was his god.

    • callum9999 on 20/07/2017 - 16:26

      Why is it ridiculous? Duty free undermines the government strategy with domestic tobacco, it's ridiculous to have duty free full stop.

  • Cluster on 16/07/2017 - 23:08
    +11

    I don't smoke but I have a friend who does. The restriction from 250 cigarettes to 50 plus one open pack was very harsh, but 25 and one open pack is getting a bit silly. Is Customs going to start counting and taxing individual cigarettes next?

    I tried the 'one open pack' rule last year and didn't have any problems. The Customs agent just very pointedly asked me if the last pack was open or not.

    Meanwhile, you can bring in 2.25L of 40%+ alcohol. A class 1 carcinogen (WHO) and a substance which can easily kill someone if you drink too much and decide to drive.

  • justhooked on 16/07/2017 - 23:09
    +4

    It's simple the government relies on the tax from cigarettes so the more people that give up the higher they put up the tax to cover those giving up
    Now its got to a stage where they would have to put the tax up heaps to collect the same amount of tax ,they had to find a new sources, easy stop people bringing in tax free smokes so even visitors to Australia help in two way
    1/help employment
    2/ keep the tax revenue high

    • Cluster on 16/07/2017 - 23:10
      +4

      Increasing the taxation to extremely high levels on a popular and addictive substance is likely to just grow the black market for tobacco. Then the government needs to spend even more money chasing people importing illegal quantities.

      • justhooked on 16/07/2017 - 23:20
        +1

        The black market is already big on tobacco but the resources the government allocates to catch them
        Is very small .when they changed to plain packaging they put a department in charge that didn't understand the rules it was a big joke .

    • Diji1 on 17/07/2017 - 08:23
      +2

      relies on the tax from cigarettes

      Relies on it for what? There's not a seperate ledger for taxes from tobacco …

      • bobbified on 17/07/2017 - 09:51
        +1

        Relies on it for what?

        Take $8 billion out of the consolidated revenue each year and see what happens.

        https://www.businessinsider.com.au/an-australian-senator-has…

      • justhooked on 17/07/2017 - 09:58
        +1

        They budget each year on the expected revenue from the cigarette tax when that falls below they have to make up the loss simple increase tax when that is not enough look fo other ways within that area
        Stop tax free . They review the tax twice a year on tobacco.

        • bobbified on 17/07/2017 - 12:43
          +1

          Eventually when the tax revenue on cigarettes drops to a certain point, they'll find something else to tax - Right now, it's looking like alcohol is next!

        • justhooked on 17/07/2017 - 13:07

          @bobbified:
          Very true

      • bringbring on 21/07/2017 - 01:51

        One point to consider… Smoking related illness costs an enormous amount of money in public healthcare.

        I remember being told a couple of years ago that the recent tax increase on tobacco only just managed to cover these costs.

        Mind you I suspect that even with Australia's high tax on alcohol, the cost to society in health problems/social issues/lost work etc wouldn't be matched

        • jacross on 01/08/2017 - 11:52

          The excise more than covers the health costs. It's not close.

          Whether you accept the methodology on 'social costs' in the studies (I think the WHO but it's been a while) periodically puts out is up to you though (aka the approx. $30B figure). Personally as someone without much skin in the game (occasional as in maybe one a year cigar smoker) I think their methodology is deliberate gamesmanship.

    • kingmw on 18/07/2017 - 15:33
      +4

      Taxation on tobacco is one of the most effective ways of reducing smoking and is one of the main contributor to our very low rates of smoking in Australia.

      The WHO recommend that the taxation levels on tobacco to be >70% of the price and many other developed countries have much higher taxes than Australia on it.

      • bobbified on 18/07/2017 - 15:47
        +2

        Taxation (or increasing the prices so that the cost is out of reach of most of the population) is going to be the most effective way of reducing anything! I don't think anyone needs a "world organisation" to tell us that.

        • kingmw on 18/07/2017 - 16:14
          +2

          Tobacco is hardly out of reach for most of the population, housing yes but definitely not for a packet of cigarettes.

        • bobbified on 18/07/2017 - 20:01

          @kingmw:

          Of course one pack is affordable. I'm single and on a mid six figure salary with no-one to support except myself.

          A few years ago, I honestly never thought the cost would ever really bother me.

          But nowadays, I actually really feel the $1000/month habit on my pockets.

          There's not many households I make that could afford to be spending that much.

        • kingmw on 18/07/2017 - 22:18

          @bobbified: Hopefully the costs will make smokers think twice about continuing to smoke. However in reality the addictive nature of nicotine forces low-income smokers to smoke cheaper cigarettes for their fix and give up essential spending (i.e. healthcare, food, shelter) to fuel their habit.

        • bobbified on 19/07/2017 - 09:26

          @kingmw:

          It's definitely making me think twice.
          What I have noticed is, I don't give them out as freely to the homeless people that ask anymore.

          I've had times where I've had to decide between food for myself or cigarettes. And I'm a little ashamed to say that I chose cigarettes.

        • tsunamisurfer on 19/07/2017 - 11:38

          @bobbified:

          "I'm single and on a mid six figure salary with no-one to support except myself."

          Why do you have to decide between Ciggies and food on 500k?

        • bobbified on 19/07/2017 - 12:50

          @tsunamisurfer:

          mid six figure salary

          haha. sorry, my bad! In my mind, I had $100K as "six figures"! What I meant was about $150K!
          I wish I was on $500K.. although, the more you make, the more you spend!

          Thanks for pointing that out! haha

        • cheng2008 on 19/07/2017 - 13:06
          +2

          @bobbified: haha I was thinking that as well. If I was on 500k I'd be throwing whole cartons at any random guy on the street asking for them

      • railspider on 20/07/2017 - 14:34

        I don't think that's true - last I checked Australia had the highest tobacco tax in the world, closely followed by NZ.

        • kingmw on 20/07/2017 - 16:21

          Check the graph on the bottom of the link below which shows "Excise as a proportion of leading cigarette prices in Australia and comparable English-speaking and European countries, 2014"

          Australia - 47.67%
          Not certain if this includes GST but GST affects most goods and services and is not unique to tobacco.

          http://www.tobaccoinaustralia.org.au/13-2-tobacco-taxes-in-a…

    • Save Medicare on 19/07/2017 - 20:41

      Less healthcare expenditure and more economic productivity if people aren't dying of and having to care for people dying of lung cancer / copd / coronary artery disease as much

  • Cluster on 16/07/2017 - 23:21
    +2

    For the smokers out there, I was in Ukraine last year and purchased Marlboro cigarettes for a friend. 20 smokes for AU$1.50, retail from a supermarket. The cigarettes are so cheap they're smuggled into the rest of Europe.

    • ThithLord on 19/07/2017 - 08:11
      +2

      Yup. I went on a holiday to Zimbabwe and was like "Okay, three weeks overseas, a good detox - no cigarettes!" and the first bar I get to, the bartender says: "Hey boss, One Zambezi Lager $2 - you want some Dunhills for a $1?"

      I was basically throwing money down the drain if I didn't buy a packet for a dollar!

  • voteoften on 16/07/2017 - 23:30

    You can or at least could bring in 2kg of kava pp as traditional Medicine.

    • apptrack on 18/07/2017 - 12:41

      Federally yes, but as soon as you step out of airport land the state/territory could arrest you depending on their laws. It's banned in the NT, but legal when bringing it in..

      • voteoften on 19/07/2017 - 03:21

        Mmm. Interesting. I wonder if its legal in nsw. When I got off the cruise ship, I declared it incorrectly. It's traditional medicine not drugs. The agent was friendly helpful and chatty. I would have thoutght he would have said something. Maybe not.

  • tassieeagle on 16/07/2017 - 23:34
    +4

    Wowee, I remember when you could bring a carton back no questions asked. Pretty harsh I think

  • nubzy on 16/07/2017 - 23:37
    +4

    Australia is becoming a miserable place to live. Too much greed and over regulation. I don't smoke cigarettes and don't know how anyone affords it, but I do like cigars and always bring some back from my travels. Whats the point with a 25gm limit..

      • TeslaFan on 20/07/2017 - 23:19

        yep, because we know how all the cigarette companies tried to enrich our lives previously by spending billions on their advertising and lobbying efforts.

    • robbyjones on 17/07/2017 - 09:46
      +3

      Tell that to the people living I Syria or Iraq, Afghanistan, Nigeria or many other countries.

  • chumlee on 17/07/2017 - 00:20
    +6

    What's the big deal? 25 cigarettes less per person, so if you smoke a pack a day it's nothing over the rest of the days of your life

  • [Deactivated] on 17/07/2017 - 00:56
    +30

    Just smoke yourself to death overseas.

  • Findo on 17/07/2017 - 01:09
    +1

    The rising costs makes cigarette brand snobbery easier, except stupid plain packaging laws mean that no one can see my fancy Dunhill pack :(

  • Diji1 on 17/07/2017 - 08:31

    I can't imagine why people support the black market and fund money to criminals, the product will be higher quality apart from anything else.

    • bobbified on 17/07/2017 - 09:38

      I can't imagine why…

      hmm.. your imagination mustn't be very good!

  • Peck on 17/07/2017 - 09:54
    +10

    basically they have limited it to the maximum cigs that a smoker would ever carry on them. IE an amount for immediate use only.
    Sorry smokers, but you are an additional impost on the health budget. I had a wonderful uncle who suffered a lot before dying from mouth, throat, and tongue cancer related to smoking :.(

  • bobbified on 17/07/2017 - 10:26
    -8

    but you are an additional impost on the health budget.

    The amount smokers cost on the health system is many times less than the amount that's collected in tobacco tax.

    So really, the health budget is being subsidised by smokers!

    • [Deactivated] on 17/07/2017 - 10:28
      +4

      Really? Do you have any clue how much does a round of radiotherapy and chemotherapy cost?

      • bobbified on 17/07/2017 - 10:54
        -2

        Is $8 billion enough to cover the radiotherapy/chemotherapy for the sick smokers for a year?

        Don't forget - We should also not be looking at the total cost of medical procedures for smokers. We should only be looking what the additional costs are.

        According to this article, smokers cost the health care system $320 million and another $150 million in bushfire control.
        (https://www.businessinsider.com.au/an-australian-senator-has…)

        Even if we were to multiply that $320M+$150M by 10-fold, it'll still be less than the total tax collected.

        • [Deactivated] on 17/07/2017 - 11:04
          +9

          Smoking actually costs Australia $31.5 BILLION
          http://www.health.gov.au/tobacco

          My father went through a number of rounds of chemotherapy and radiotherapy, totalling $1.5 Million. You can't tell me only 200 people go through it.

        • bobbified on 17/07/2017 - 11:24
          -2

          @Drew22:

          That $31.5 billion figure has been around for a few years.

          Seeing the breakup of that figure might show how ridiculous it really is - esp that $19bn "hypothetical" amount!

          Within that figure, they've included:
          $5.75 billion in workplace absenteeism and workforce reduction
          $8 billion is attributed to a reduction of unpaid household labour
          $3.6 billion in the cost of resources used in the manufacture and distributions of tobacco products and;
          $19 billion in “intangible costs”, the hypothetical cost of pain and suffering and the “valuation of life” — an estimate of the loss of productive capacity from a premature death.
          (source: http://catallaxyfiles.com/2015/09/04/does-smoking-cost-the-a…)

          So how much are the actual costs on the health system?

          It looks like whoever's come up with this $31.5 billion figure has just thrown in as many things as they can think of!

          I have no doubt that there are more than 200 people on radio and chemotherapy. Again, the question is going to be how many of those people are who are on that treatment as a direct result of smoking?

          My grandma passed away from throat cancer a few years ago - she never smoked a cigarette in her life. I have to admit, it wasn't a pretty thing to see.

        • [Deactivated] on 17/07/2017 - 12:03
          +6

          @bobbified:

          I'm not sure how much trust I would put into some random blog on the internet, but you know… thats just me.
          Cancer in many of its forms is unavoidable, but why increase your chances by smoking?
          People that wear seat belts still die in car accidents, so should we all stop wearing seat belts?

          Just read a few blog posts on your "source", its utter crap, the whole website is full of shit.

        • bobbified on 17/07/2017 - 13:18
          -2

          @Drew22:

          Just read a few blog posts on your "source", its utter crap, the whole website is full of shit.

          A basic google search shows that figures on an Australian government website is consistent in breaking up that so-called $31.5 billion cost. It clearly shows that the $19 billion is an "intangible" cost - in other words, that part alone is nothing but crap! Read further and it becomes obvious that the other $12 billion is from "work abseetism", etc.

          They may as well add a "carbon cost" component into their estimate so that it alarms everyone.

          http://www.health.gov.au/internet/drugstrategy/publishing.nsf/Content/34F55AF632F67B70CA2573F60005D42B/$File/mono64.pdf

          http://www.tobaccoinaustralia.org.au/chapter-17-economics/17-2-the-costs-of-smoking
          (Table 17.2.1 and Table 17.2.2)

          The way they've gone about with their research reminds me of how they would always cry out "speed is a contributor to 100% of accidents!" - Well, no shit! Because if there was no speed and no-one was moving, then there would be no accident!

        • Cluster on 17/07/2017 - 13:27
          +1

          @bobbified: Whenever some organisation or charity wants to grab media attention with a shock headline that 'X disease costs us $Y billions every year, so give us more money!' they put intangibles into the mix. Really helps in boosting the figure. Sometimes I wonder if anyone's combined all such studies. Would they show the 'costs' to the economy are larger than the entire Australian economy? I bet they would.

          Anyway, all governments love tobacco and alcohol taxes because the current government reaps the money and will not be around in 30 years time when the effects of bad habits weigh on the health budget.

        • bobbified on 17/07/2017 - 13:32

          @Cluster:

          shock headline that 'X disease costs us $Y billions every year, so give us more money!' they put intangibles into the mix. Really helps in boosting the figure.

          I definitely agree with you there! - I'm just trying to point that out to Drew22.

          Truth is, you can twist stats and figures any way you like. I know, because I work at a consulting firm and when someone is willing to pay big bucks to commission a report, we ask them "what are you hoping to achieve with this report?". Once we know that, then we can do our jobs.

        • errorius on 18/07/2017 - 16:11

          Your grandma might have been a passive smoker.

        • kingmw on 18/07/2017 - 16:21
          +1

          While these are intangible there have a direct impact on the population and economy.

          Consider this:
          1) Your smoking colleagues has to take 5-10 additional sick days due to chest infections while the workers left behind have to pick up the slack and do extra work.
          2) If your friend is a smoker and develops cancer earlier, then there is 1 less person contributing to the economy and taxation and your taxes paying for their treatment and social welfare (because they can't work).

          Magnify this by the number of smokers and you can see that this is a major health problem for most countries.

          If you want more information, check this out:

          http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs339/en/

        • [Deactivated] on 18/07/2017 - 16:50
          +2

          @bobbified:

          You doubt that there are fewer than 200 people on radio and chemotherapy. You expressed doubt that many of those cases are linked to smoking.

          You are wrong. The oncology department has more than 200 patients currently being treated as a smoker or ex-smoker. A significant proportion of oncology patients are either smokers, or live in an indoor smoking household. The statistics are widely available on PubMed. This is only the oncology department in one hospital of one of the smaller states.

          200…. seriously, if that was the number of oncology patients, the oncology department would be having crazy parties everyday to fill in time.

        • bobbified on 19/07/2017 - 08:23
          +1

          @tshow:

          You've misread what I wrote in my original post, I said:

          I have no doubt that there are more than 200 people on radio and chemotherapy.

          My question is, of all the people in there, how many of those people are directly related to smoking?

          That $31.5 billion annual figure that the government and anti-smoking campaigners keep using, why is only $320M (about 1%) of that total figure attributed to the net health costs? That figure is from the same study.

        • bobbified on 19/07/2017 - 08:33
          +1

          @kingmw:

          My problem with these stats is they are guestimates at best.

          If someone gets sick and dies early, as bad as it might sound, there is also a saving on the health system.

        • bobbified on 19/07/2017 - 08:36
          +1

          @errorius:

          I thought about that and no, she wasn't.

          Most of her life was spent in the countryside with her non-smoking family and barely anyone else around.

          Over here in Australia, she barely left the house and no one at home smoked. I lived separately and never smoked around her.

        • lookwithin on 19/07/2017 - 13:15

          @Drew22: 31.5 billion = 31,500 million. so it is about 21000 people, not ~200 ppl

        • bobbified on 19/07/2017 - 14:17
          +1

          @lookwithin:

          Drew22 was referring to $320M figure that I pointed out (that is the amount attributed to the "net health" costs within the study that came up with the $31.5 billion figure).

          He said that his father had $1.5 million worth of chemo so, $320 million divided by $1.5 million equals approx 200 people. (That's where the "200" figure originally came from).

        • [Deactivated] on 19/07/2017 - 16:54
          +2

          @bobbified:
          Those studies about cost to government and society are in all honesty, written to fulfil an agenda. Whether that agenda is to make the cost look acceptable so we can continue with tobacco sales, or for government to increase taxes, or make the general public likely to buy a smoking cessation product, or doctorate title from a PhD topic done to death… who knows.

          All I can tell you is that these studies are sponsored by someone and a different sponsor would produce a different result.

          As to the actual cost, we can argue about the exact figure too but the figure is definitely a very high one. If a pharmacist would care to chime in, please give us the exact cost of anti-cancer medication (I know the ballpark but approximation doesn't make for sufficient effect).

          As to medical legitimacy that smoking causes cancer… how many elite doctors do you see smoking in the car park? Please don't count the over stressed interns and residents, those guys need a stiff drink… but better not for the patient's sake.

        • mooseymoose on 20/07/2017 - 14:48
          +1

          @bobbified: Death is not a 'saving' to the government. Dying prematurely means one less person paying tax.

  • boomramada on 17/07/2017 - 12:03
    +2

    Good idea, I think government should also increase the legal age of smoking, before new generation of kids legally start smoking :)

  • caferider on 17/07/2017 - 12:07

    Here's a thought!

    The price of tobacco/cigarettes have almost or exceeded the price of gold per gram.

    No wonder places like service stations and other stores selling tobacco have been robbed numerous times at about $25,000+ per pop!

    What is he real cost of each robbery?

    About $50000!
    Damage, insurance, time, and a lot more,,,,

    • Cluster on 17/07/2017 - 12:41
      +4

      "Here's a thought!"

      "The price of tobacco/cigarettes have almost or exceeded the price of gold per gram."

      A cigarette contains less than 1g of tobacco and costs a bit over $1. Gold is currently AU$1568 for 31.1g, or $50 per gram. Cigarettes have a very long way to go before exceeding the price of gold.

      Cigarettes however are more expensive per gram than silver, which costs around AU$700 per kilo, or 70c per gram.

      • tsunamisurfer on 17/07/2017 - 13:00

        Right thats it….I'm going to tear up all my electronics, strip out the silver and get my tally-ho. Good-bye Tobacco!

        • altomic on 17/07/2017 - 14:10

          Heeey man, you wanna buy some silver? It's top sh!t. Best quality. i smoked some last night and it was crazy.

  • simmos on 17/07/2017 - 16:47
    -1

    Let the mugs cough up more at the border and keep coughing up phlegm on the way home. No sympathy.

  • mousie on 18/07/2017 - 12:14
    +7

    Outragerous - Where is the fat tax on Dominoe's pizza which will cost the health system more..

    • lookatthesizeofthat on 18/07/2017 - 13:25
      +6

      Were not allowed to tackle obesity as it may offend someone yet we can harass the living shit out of smokers.

      The world's gone mad.

      • Melong on 18/07/2017 - 16:59
        +1

        Eating junk food is a lifestyle choice and you shouldn't discriminate!

        • humdingaling on 19/07/2017 - 11:25
          +4

          so….smoking isnt a lifestyle choice?

      • PonyTable on 19/07/2017 - 14:18

        Have you seen this movie? Thank You For Smoking. (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0427944/?ref_=ttqt_qt_tt)

        There is a great scene where the three "Spin doctors" from Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms discuss this same point.

        • lookatthesizeofthat on 19/07/2017 - 15:18

          Seen it twice, a really great movie. So much irony.

    • Hirolol on 18/07/2017 - 15:03

      Wow, really?
      You're going to have a crack at pizza?
      I can think of many different things that are worse than pizza.

      Don't get me wrong though, bring on the sugar tax.

      • mousie on 18/07/2017 - 15:07

        Like Poker machines?

        • voteoften on 19/07/2017 - 03:23

          Pokies are a tax on the ignorant, srupid and greedy. I feel sorry for them, but you can't molly coddle everyone. Thank heavens they don't have non casino pokies in WA.

    • lookatthesizeofthat on 19/07/2017 - 20:10

      The government has enough tax money they are just highly unorganised. If they tax us anymore how the hell can the consumer spending rise?

  • kkmenon1156 on 18/07/2017 - 12:37
    +24

    great news.
    neg me quick

    • whooah1979 on 18/07/2017 - 13:38

      we support a user pay system. so a pos from us.

    • bobbified on 18/07/2017 - 13:49

      I see one big problem with the way the public reacts to ridiculous and unfair policy changes here.

      Everyone's got the "well, it doesn't affect me so I don't care" mentality and the government knows that it can go for certain groups without the likelihood of repercussions.

      For example, if you've got two groups of people - one group who only smokes and one group who only drinks.

      Say the government jacks up the prices of smokes. While both groups think it's unreasonable, the drinkers might think "well, it doesn't affect me, so I don't care!". The smokers might kick and scream, but the group is too small to cause the government to rethink their policy.

      The government then realises that they can target certain small groups and no-one really cares.

      Once the price of cigarettes can't go any higher, the government turns to alcohol and starts raising the taxes on that. Now, the smokers will think "alcohol prices don't impact me, so I don't care!". But there's not enough drinkers to protest and cause a big enough scene.

      Now both groups are screwed!

      What would have helped is, if both groups at the start backed each other up (instead of just thinking about themselves) and fought the ridiculous changes at the start.

      Not sure if what I've written explains what I'm trying to say properly. I've tried to use a very simple example.

      • whooah1979 on 18/07/2017 - 14:44
        -1

        the government turns to alcohol and starts raising the taxes on that.

        We don't have an issue with more taxes on alcohol. A user pays system is reasonable.

        • bobbified on 18/07/2017 - 14:50
          +3

          I've used alcohol as an example - the question is, where does it stop?

          Instead of taxing, incentives could be provided,

          But our government is too broke!

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join