Cigarette Tax Receipts v Cost of Running the NHS

Ian Walker made this Freedom of Information request to Department of Health

The request was partially successful.

From: Ian Walker

13 January 2009

Dear Sir or Madam,
My partner,trying hard to give up smoking, suggested that if every
smoker 'gave up' then the NHS would be in even greater financial
difficulty. I replied that the cost to the NHS as a result of
smoking related illness would far out-weigh the Tax Income from
cigarette sales.
Where-as we appreciate that cigarette Tax falls into the Revenue
Tax bucket, as opposed to forming an identifyable money paid direct
to the NHS, we all (as this was part of a pub discussion group) be
interested in some hard financial facts relating to cigarette Tax
Income and costs to the NHS resulting from smoking. Thankyou for
your time.

Yours faithfully,

Ian Walker

Link to this

Department of Health

13 January 2009

Thank you for your enquiry.

We aim to respond within 20 working days.
If there is likely to be any delay we will contact you to let you know.

show quoted sections

Link to this

Department of Health

22 January 2009

Attachment Reply 19 01 2009 vs 0.1.html
1K Download

DE00000381542

Dear Mr Walker,

Thank you for your recent email to the Department of Health about the
revenue generated from tobacco sales. I have been asked to reply.

It is very difficult to establish an exact figure on what smoking related
ill-health costs the NHS. However, smoking is the largest single cause of
preventable illness and premature death in the UK. It kills 106,000
people every year and costs the British taxpayer more than -L-1.7billion a
year in treatment bills alone. It causes 84 per cent of deaths from lung
cancer and 83 per cent of deaths from chronic obstructive lung disease,
including bronchitis.

The revenue generated from tobacco products is a matter for HM Treasury.
However, it should be noted that the Government, as a whole, has made the
decision to reduce smoking rates in England. In 2004, the Government
agreed an overarching target to reduce smoking substantially from 25 per
cent in 2004 to 21 per cent or less by 2010 and to reduce smoking among
routine and manual groups to 26 per cent or less. The Government expects
that reducing smoking rates will lead to a loss of revenue to the
Exchequer. However, any loss to the Exchequer is balanced by the fact
that thousands of lives are saved through the Government's tobacco control
strategy.
Should you wish to contact HM Treasury about the revenue generated from
tobacco products, their email address is:
[1][email address]

I hope this reply is helpful,

Yours sincerely,

Cameron Gordon
Customer Service Centre

show quoted sections

Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or
recorded for legal purposes.

References

Visible links
1. mailto:[email address]

Link to this

Mark left an annotation ( 5 June 2009)

Ian,
this question was addressed in a study in Australia several years ago. Doran et al. A cost-benefit analysis of the average smoker: a government perspective. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health. Volume 20 Issue 6, Pages 607 - 611.

I guess the applicability of the results to the UK depends on differences in smoking habits and tax rates between Australia and UK.

In summary, keep on smoking, your country needs you.

Mark

Link to this

Rob left an annotation (16 October 2009)

I have had a similar discussion with friends and wanted to try and find an answer to the question. People are always giving out to me for smoking saying that my fellow smokers and I cost them money in taxes. My belief being that more money is made by the government from cigarettes than smokers cost the NHS. I might not have the full answer but at least I think this gives some steer.

I want to quote the hard facts that the department of health. These things I accept. Smoking has health risks and I am not trying to escape them.

“smoking is the largest single cause of preventable illness and premature death in the UK. It kills 106,000 people every year and costs the British taxpayer more than £1.7billion a year in treatment bills alone. It causes 84 per cent of deaths from lung cancer and 83 per cent of deaths from chronic obstructive lung disease, including
bronchitis”

So

Smoking “costs the British taxpayer more than £1.7billion a year in treatment bills”
(from this article)

And from elsewhere on the internet:

“Most of the expenditure of The Department of Health (£98.7 billion in 2008-9[4]) is spent on the NHS.”
(from Wikipedia - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_He...(England)

And

UK Tax revenue from tobacco products - £10 billion (approx)
From tma website
http://www.the-tma.org.uk/tobacco-tax-re...

So
NHS costs - £100 billion
Smoking makes the government £10 billion
Smoking costs – £2 billion

I know there are other issues to be added to this balance sheet, many of which are beyond financial. However, from my point for view, I know what I am going to be saying to the people who claim that I am costing them money from smoking.

Rob

Link to this

Peter Eaton left an annotation (13 August 2010)

Smokers die earlier, It is estimated 5 years on average, therefore there is another saving to the government in pension or benefits payouts.
P. Eaton

Link to this

V A Willis left an annotation (17 January 2011)

Whilst smokers are vilified and accused of costing the NHS, the figures do tend to point to a net gain to the exchequer of £8 Billion.

What is stunning is the cost of alcohol abuse to the country in general. The latest figures put the cost at £25 Billion www.metro.co.UK/news/230760-25billion-sp...,. Not to mention the carnage caused by drunk drivers and the cost to victims of drunken assaults.

It is strange that alcohol is seen as socially acceptable and smoking is frowned upon, when in fact alcohol is just as hazardous to your health and I don't recall any reports of an assault due to the over use of tobacco.

Link to this

not_a_scab left an annotation (23 March 2011)

As of 2005/6 a cost to the NHS of £5.17 billion was estimated to come from smoking, and this was thought to be an underestimate if anything, meaning that smoking isn't that great a benefit

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/...

Link to this

Joe left an annotation ( 6 April 2011)

The reason smoking is considered less acceptably than alcohol, is because it directly affects others, while alcohol *can* indirectly affect others (but often doesn't).

A non smoker in the vicinity of smokers will be affected by the unpleasant smell and toxic fumes. For people who suffer from asthma or other breathing related difficulties, passive smoking can be especially bad and can leave people gasping for breath.

By contrast, someone drinking does not cause any harm or discomfort to those around them. Moderate, sensible consumption of alcohol has little or no affect on other people, the only problem with alcohol is excessive consumption.

There is also the fact that many smokers smell even when not directly smoking... It is most unpleasant when someone with a strong smell, wether due to sweat, smoking or general uncleanliness is around you and this is especially bad in situations such as public transport.

Also the inefficiency of the process, consumption of alcohol involves the direct ingestion of it, virtually all of the alcohol is consumed by the drinker and none is generally wasted. Smoking on the other hand sends the majority of the chemicals up into the surrounding air, an extremely inefficient process. Drinkers generally do not evaporate their alcohol into the air and hope to inhale a small percentage of it.

Link to this

Things to do with this request

Anyone:
Department of Health only: