Cough up: trying to defend smoking is a dead end

Henry Featherstone is Head of Policy Exchange's Health Unit.

Let us come straight to the point.  Smoking kills people.  It kills tens of thousands of people in England every year, in a gruesome and horrific way.

In fact it’s most likely to kill poor people, as they are far more likely to smoke. 

So for Matthew Sinclair to argue that our proposal to reduce smoking is “regressive” is a bit rich, frankly.  There’s nothing “progressive” about a policy that means more poor people dying.  If you want a more trivial reason to cut smoking, helping people to break their addiction to fags makes them massively better off.

I thought the counter arguments – that absenteeism doesn’t cost anyone else money (wrong), and that people would only waste time in other ways, were spectacularly weak.  Other than labelling the costs to the NHS “dodgy”, it is not at all clear what your argument is.  It’s pretty obvious that smokers are less likely to die of natural causes in their bed, and - sadly - it is more likely that they will need expensive hospital treatment.

So Matthew’s post begs a number of questions. 

Firstly, what does he think the “right” level of cigarette taxation is?  He clearly thinks it should be lower, but how much lower?  Which taxes would he like to raise to pay for a cut in tobacco tax?  Taxes on jobs?  Taxes on hard work?  Please don’t say, “instead we should cut spending as much as possible” - because both agree about that 100%.  Or is the current cigarette tax rate the “right” rate?  If so, why?

He disagrees with our proposal to raise cigarette taxes.  But we know that raising the tax on cigarettes reduces smoking, which is why both parties have been doing it since the 1960s, and thereby reducing the rate of smoking, and saving lives.  So what’s his big idea?  Or do we just sit on our hands?

Thanks, by the way, for the question about whether the research was funded by ASH.  No it wasn’t.  But we would have no problem taking their money.  Let’s be clear: I think a campaign which aims to reduce the number of pointless, needless, deaths is a good thing rather than a bad thing.  It means thousands more families don’t have their loved ones snatched away in the middle of their lives.  Perhaps you disagree that it is a good cause.  If so, why?

What do the public think should be the priority for tax cuts?

Well, here’s the result of a YouGov poll of three thousand people, showing their net support for raising various taxes.  The first figure is everyone and the second is for tory voters.  Most people think most taxes are too high (they’re right) which is why most of the numbers are negative.  The most unpopular tax is council tax.  But there is strong support for an increase in tobacco taxes, and they are bottom priority of all the possible tax cuts.

Council tax -79 -83

BBC licence fee -67 -71

Fuel duty -64 -76

The basic rate of income tax -60 -69

National Insurance -57 -63

VAT -56 -59

Green taxes -52 -60

Stamp Duty -45 -57

Inheritance tax -36 -61

Air passenger duty -17 -30

Business taxes -8 -19

Capital gains tax -3 -20

Duties on alcohol 14 14

The top rate of income tax 32 17

Duties on tobacco 47 48

The TPA is a fine organisation, doing many brilliant things.  But trying to defend smoking is a dead end.