Extra tax on tobacco what next?

[RG]

Whilst I couldn't really give half a fat rats about the increase (I quit years ago) the proposed plan to ban any labeling on packets and go to generic plain packaging worries me.

There are so many things wrong with that, from the fact that it promotes anti competitive behavior, to the fact that the Govt will no doubt have to use tax dollars to compensate the Tobacco co's. Then there's also the question where will that line end? No more labels on Alcohol? McDonalds, KFC etc having to rebrand their stores to just say "Fast Food"?

Scary stuff, really does bring the "Rudd China" comments into perspective. He is a scary little man with a big ego, a chip on his shoulder and a lot of power.

[GasoLane]

I give up smoking 25 times a day

[zdcol71]

Originally Posted by GasOLane

Firstly I smoke but rarely drink.... But I don't go around shouting about the cost to society (and health system) of alcohol related incidents.

Smokers are the current pariahs. However when the social do-gooders have finished with them, drinkers will be next.

I don,t either, I simply responded to a topic on an auto forum. If the topic were titled "additional tax on alcohol" then you may have been able to read my opinion on that. And if you think I am a social do-gooder for thinking that cigarette smoking and smokers place a huge strain on an already stressed public health system, ..then I respect your opinion.

[MAD]

Does anyone have some figures on how many people affected by cigarettes are in hospital beds at the moment?

Giving up smoking can be very different to what the ads tell you... It's really only a minor adjustment of your thinking required, not will power.
I was given the example of flying on a plane, during the flight I dont feel like a smoke, simply because I 'know' that I cant have one.
The hard part is convincing yourself to 100% decidedly make the decision that you are now a 'non-smoker'. Because if you are a 'non-smoker' you dont turn to a smoke when you feel stressed or bored because you are a 'non-smoker'. So as a 'non-smoker', smoking is no longer a choice so now you cant smoke.
This is what the hypnotherapist that I visited used. All they do is help you make the decision that you are a 'non-smoker'.
After nearly 2 years without a smoke, I can comfortably have the occasional cigar, be around smokers, be in clubs that still allow smoking, etc without even a thought of wanting a ciggy.
It was the best $245 I have ever spent. It was so damn easy this way, no will power required.

[|||]

i've been looking into growing my own tobacco. seems pretty simple if you have a bit of land . all the smooth taste of natural tobacco and none of the dollars going to the fat cats in taxes.

[MAD]

Originally Posted by |||

i've been looking into growing my own tobacco. seems pretty simple if you have a bit of land . all the smooth taste of natural tobacco and none of the dollars going to the fat cats in taxes.

And that's why its illegal to grow your own.

[Chopped]

Smoking is addictive to smokers.

Revenue from smokers is addictive to the government.

We will see the Tobacco "black market" open up again ??
Anyone remember the 1kg / 5kg bags a while ago !!

[Black F6]

I dont smoke, but they should leave smokers alone, if they are serious about it, just make it illegal, but they make way to much revenue so thats not going to happen

[4Vman]

I hope they don't make smoking illegal too, because i don't want the revenue deficit transferring onto something i might enjoy!

[zdcol71]

Originally Posted by MAD

Does anyone have some figures on how many people affected by cigarettes are in hospital beds at the moment?

.

Tobacco smoking is the leading cause of preventable death and illness in Queensland, increasing the risk of lung cancer, cardiovascular disease and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease amongst others.
The total smoking-related financial burden on the Queensland community is estimated at $2.2 billion annually, which includes health care costs, loss of productivity through sickness and absenteeism, and the impact of premature death.
Each year in Queensland, an estimated 3,400 die from illnesses caused by their smoking; one in two people who start smoking as teenagers will eventually die from tobacco related diseases.
Smoking costs the health system dearly, with 168,115 hospital bed days at a cost of $137.8 million directly attributable to smoking-related conditions each year.
(media release from Qld health from April last year)

[irlewy86]

Originally Posted by Walt Kowalski

Simple

After it gets re elected (I bet it will) this Rudd Government will continue to spend spend spend.

I mean waste waste waste.

And then it will raise taxes to pay for that waste.

If you do not think it is a pattern with Labor Governments you need to study some history

Name me a Labor government that pork-barrelled one south coast elctroate by a Billion dollars?

[stang65]

Anybody that thinks the tax on smoking covers the cost of treating people affected by smoking has got ot be kidding themselves. The problem with smoking is it slowly poisons the body, after a smoke you still feel o.k but the damage is still being done.

my father went in to get a graft form a vien in back to his leg because of bad circulation in his leg after 60 years of smoking once they opened up his leg they stitched it back up again as they said that it was to far rotted inside to do anything.

Recently just lost my uncle to Lung cancer hole in the lung from smoking went in to hospital with a cough 6 months later he passed away. And his the clincher he was 78 they told us they couldn`t do anything however if he had of been say 30 to 40 they might have tried to save him. The last few weeks were the worst hearing him screaming in pain, the only time he was quiet was when he was doped up on morphine.

Think how many people have similar stories.
Then you have all the suffering from people close to that family.

People want to smoke it`s thier perogative but don`t say your taxes cover your treatment and the pain and suffering you may cause.

[cs123]

Originally Posted by zdcol71

Tobacco smoking is the leading cause of preventable death and illness in Queensland, increasing the risk of lung cancer, cardiovascular disease and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease amongst others.
The total smoking-related financial burden on the Queensland community is estimated at $2.2 billion annually, which includes health care costs, loss of productivity through sickness and absenteeism, and the impact of premature death.
Each year in Queensland, an estimated 3,400 die from illnesses caused by their smoking; one in two people who start smoking as teenagers will eventually die from tobacco related diseases.
Smoking costs the health system dearly, with 168,115 hospital bed days at a cost of $137.8 million directly attributable to smoking-related conditions each year.
(media release from Qld health from April last year)

But smokers conveniently don't live to an old age. So what is the comparison to someone who live to say 80 years old and live the last 5 years in a hospice with multiple visits to the hospital

[zdcol71]

Originally Posted by cs123

But smokers conveniently don't live to an old age. So what is the comparison to someone who live to say 80 years old and live the last 5 years in a hospice with multiple visits to the hospital

Not really sure what the point is, but I'm still inclined to think that those who have smoked for a long time or even most of their lives will still be a bigger cost impost to society than those who spends their last 5 years in a hospice with multiple visits to hospital.

[naddis01]

Is it not obvious why smokers have been hit with this tax increase, other then to divert attention from all of the other failings? Rudd has just had to buy off the states to approve his health 'reform' (using that word very loosely). How was he going to pay for this, which is about $5,000,000,000 (yes nine 0's)? He would hit the smokers who are an easy target. And how much would the increase in tax generate? Thats right about $5,000,000,000. There's those nine 0's again. How convenient.

[FGII-XR6]

I would rather see a dangerous addictive drug taxed than have yet another slug for the other cash cow (the motorist). Lets face it as much as smokers hate to hear it they are just self indulgent drug addicts who scream every time changes are made that they don't like. Smoking has no inherent good properties so taxing it to pay for health programs is not a bad thing, ultimately there programs have to be funded from somewhere
puts on flame suit

Originally Posted by naddis01

Is it not obvious why smokers have been hit with this tax increase, other then to divert attention from all of the other failings? Rudd has just had to buy off the states to approve his health 'reform' (using that word very loosely). How was he going to pay for this, which is about $5,000,000,000 (yes nine 0's)? He would hit the smokers who are an easy target. And how much would the increase in tax generate? Thats right about $5,000,000,000. There's those nine 0's again. How convenient.

[auxr]

Originally Posted by au3xr6

I would rather see a dangerous addictive drug taxed than have yet another slug for the other cash cow (the motorist). Lets face it as much as smokers hate to hear it they are just self indulgent drug addicts who scream every time changes are made that they don't like. Smoking has no inherent good properties so taxing it to pay for health programs is not a bad thing, ultimately there programs have to be funded from somewhere
puts on flame suit

Seems to me the only people screaming the most on this forum at the moment are the non-smoking brigade.

An extra $2 - $3 for a packet of cigarettes is a personal tax that only a smoker has to pay - you smoke, you pay, you don't smoke you don't pay.

It's a personal choice, same as drinking alcohol to excess and living off fast food.

[Polyal]

True, non smoker here and I couldn't care less. The repackaging thing is just a joke, have those pics really made any difference?

It will be enough to make some stop, but not the majority; aslong as you dont light up near my kids I dont care!

[irlewy86]

Originally Posted by Polyal

True, non smoker here and I couldn't care less. The repackaging thing is just a joke, have those pics really made any difference?

The idea for "graphic packaging" originated in Canada and resulted in a 5-7% decrease in the smoking rate.

[Polyal]

Then it just shows how trivial an issue it is.

Imagine, somehow, cigarettes just vanished tomorrow. People would live and get on with their lives.

[SpoolMan]

Quit line had a 57% increase in calls today people wanting to quit.

Guys unless we can keep this thread about the ''tax on cigarettes'' it will be closed.
It seems some of you are more interested in turning threads into political rubbish and breaching T/C when it suits, same people who hit the report button when others step out of line on the forum..
Want to discuss politics to it here:
http://aussiepolitics.proboards.com/index.cgi

[naddis01]

Originally Posted by au3xr6

I would rather see a dangerous addictive drug taxed than have yet another slug for the other cash cow (the motorist). Lets face it as much as smokers hate to hear it they are just self indulgent drug addicts who scream every time changes are made that they don't like. Smoking has no inherent good properties so taxing it to pay for health programs is not a bad thing, ultimately there programs have to be funded from somewhere
puts on flame suit

I was not having a go at the notion of getting smokers to pay their 'fair share' towards the health system. I was mearly pointing out that we have a certain Prime Minister that simply throws cash at every problem he has. Which is many. He was going to bring hell to the states and make them sign onto his health 'reforms' however he left with his tail between his legs as the only way to get everyone to agree is throws BILLIONS of dollars towards them. He then had to find an easy target to pay for it, and smokers are that. Which I am not one if you thought so.

The health 'reforms' were just rushed out with little thought to deflect from the many failings of this Government that were prominent in the press at the time.

[svo supporter]

Fair enough taxing tobacco to fund what ever the gov't plans to. However, by using the excuse of, "it'll cut back the number of smokers by 7 to 9%", how's that going to help fund what ever the gov't is planning to fund?

By dumping this sort of hike on smokers with SFA warning is just low. But you expect that sort of thing in life.

Yes, I'm a smoker. I have also worked in the motor vehicle industry for many years too. (Asbestos in brake pads, and motor gaskets) I was brought up in a fibro house as well. So there is a good chance I'll get cancer. What sort and from what part of my lifestyle, who knows. So it's pointless getting into the "burdon" on the hospital system speil with me.

[vztrt]

ok, this is suspected to be apart of the Henry tax review. As the thread tittle says what's next... this is whats to be expected.

http://www.theage.com.au/business/fe...0430-tyt7.html

What to expect from the Henry tax review
April 30, 2010 - 4:18PM

One thing’s for certain: after the Henry tax review is released on Sunday we’ll still be paying taxes.

Apart from that, and the GST which has been quarantined, opinions vary widely, both on what the review should recommend and what it actually will recommend.

Visit this website from 2.30pm on Sunday for complete coverage of the Henry tax review.

A resources rent tax and more fiddling with the superannuation rules are seen as fairly safe bets and many experts worry they may have undesired effects.

Tax return may be scrapped

One move that might be applauded is the possible scrapping of the annual tax return for many - perhaps most - taxpayers.

But University of NSW professor of business law and taxation Dale Boccabella said he doubts the government would do it even if the Henry review advises it.

Getting rid of the tax return would be popular, but many taxpayers might see it as a loss of employment-related tax deductions, he said.

‘‘Some deductions are quite high - the scaremongers amongst the media will focus on government taking away your deductions.’’

Capital gains tax

On the other hand, Professor Boccabella would like to see capital gains taxed at the full income tax rate.

‘‘The capital gains tax discount is wrong, blatantly wrong, unfair and plain stupid,’’ he said.

In 1999, government cut the income tax payable on capital gains on investments like shares and property by half.

The move may exaggerate booms and busts in those markets.

‘‘Tax settings that favourably treat capital gains can magnify cyclical price volatility by encouraging investment targeted at capital gains rather than income flows,’’ the Henry review panel said in a consultation paper in December 2008.

The consultation papers canvassed a wide range of suggestions for changing the way capital gains are taxed but, while it seems very likely there will be some recommendations in the report on Saturday, there has been no real suggestion about their content.

Negative gearing

Another contentious issue is negative gearing, where losses on investments like real estate - where interest costs can exceed the income from rent - can be used as a deduction to reduce tax payable on other salaries and other income.

It is widely seen as a rort used by high income earners to avoid tax.

Not everyone wants to increase the tax on those with money to invest, though.

Sal Carrero, chief executive of accounting firm Chan & Naylor, is concerned that negative gearing of investment property might be in the firing line.

‘‘Reducing negative gearing benefits to investors could destabilise the property market considerably, while adversely impacting the affordability of rental housing,’’ Mr Carrero said.

Resources rent tax

The potential for reforms to have unintended effects is just as keenly feared in the mining sector, where it is widely speculated that a resources rent tax (RRT) might be imposed.

The aim of a RRT is to cream off part of the profits made above and beyond what is needed to make a project economically viable, transferring profits from the private sector to the public purse without affecting investment behaviour.

With commodity prices booming, this applies to much of the profit currently being made by the mining sector.

Russell Garvey, director of BDO Corporate Tax (WA), said the reality is that ‘‘Australia’s fuel tank has been emptied to a large degree, to ward off the effects of the global financial and economic crisis’’.

The government would be looking to refill the fiscal fuel tank.

‘‘It’s a question of the political reality and who’s best able to pay,’’ Mr Garvey said. ‘‘They’re going to look to the mining sector to fund a large part of it.’’

There is potential for the government to get it wrong ‘‘on a number of fronts’’ when implementing an RRT, including setting an appropriate rate, warned Mr Garvey.

Superannuation

The same type of risk applies to superannuation - where the lure of potentially massive tax revenues can be at odds with the need to use the system to encourage saving for retirement.

Craig Wilford of chartered accountants Nexia Court and Co said any changes came with the risk of denting confidence in super as a saving vehicle.

‘‘If revenue generation in the long term - or the efficiency of that revenue generation - is their objective, then they need to be careful not to cut off their nose to spite their face,’’ he said.

Meg Heffron of Hunter Valley self-managed super fund (SMSF) advisory firm Heffron and Associates also worries about the seemingly constant shifting of the goalposts in the superannuation arena.

‘‘What Id like to see for SMSFs is ... nothing.

‘‘My main concern with Henry is that I suspect the most likely outcomes are negative - reduced super tax concessions et cetera - and the more tinkering that is done, the less confidence people have in the system,’’ Heffron said.

The view is shared by Pauline Vamos, chief executive of the Association of Superannuation Funds of Australia.

‘‘The big fear is that there’ll be, yet again, more recommended changes to the superannuation system,’’ she said.

‘‘Our research shows time and time again that constant tinkering with the system, particularly substantial tinkering, reduces members’ confidence that the tax incentives to save for retirement are gong to be sustained.’’

‘‘This has to be stopped,’’ she said.

Not that it will be stopped, of course.

Incentives for low-income earners

One area where change would be positive is the incentives for people on low incomes.

‘‘I think there will be a recognition that people on very low incomes should be provided with greater incentives to invest in super,’’ Ms Vamos said.

But this is mostly speculation that might not be vindicated by the contents of the review.

AAP

[vztrt]

http://www.theage.com.au/national/wh...ml?autostart=1

Where there's smokes
LINDSAY MURDOCH AND GEOFF STRONG
April 30, 2010

WHEN the last of Australia's tobacco farms closed near the Victorian country town of Myrtleford about three years ago, Australian law enforcement agencies thought it would shut down a black market in what smokers know as ''chop chop'', or unbranded loose-leaf tobacco. But, it seems, little has changed.

''My corner store sells me half a kilo of chop chop under the counter for $70,'' says a hard-core smoker in Geelong, who does not want to be named. ''That makes me 400 cigarettes and costs me less than half it would to buy them legitimately.''

Sydney University professor Renee Bittoun runs Australia's only dedicated smoking cessation clinics in two of Sydney's hospitals. She believes illegal tobacco, both locally grown and imported, is widespread and could account for a quarter of all tobacco being smoked in Australia.
Henry Review.

Henry Review.

Bittoun fears that the government's increase in excise will further increase illegal tobacco's market share, doing even more damage to the lungs of those who inhale its smoke.

''It is not hard to grow and, given it looks like big spinach, might not normally attract much attention. I have been told the Tax Office loses $400 million a year in excise due to illegal crops. Given the size of government excise, chop chop is very cheap and it is often sold under the counter by weight by unscrupulous tobacconists, grocers and even service stations.''

She says that although the regulated industry is gone, farmers can easily plant tobacco in an an isolated back paddock. ''They are paid cash in hand and its distribution is controlled by Mafia-like organised crime organisations.

''My information is that whenever there is a bust and a container of chop chop is seized, legal cigarette sales increase.''

While illegal tobacco continues to be grown in Australia - a backyard full of it was discovered in Sydney's famous Bondi only a year ago - most of it comes from overseas.

According to customs officials at wharfs and airports, criminals are importing huge quantities of tobacco products into Australia and officials say they now expect the trade to increase following the hefty tax rise for cigarettes announced by the federal government.

Over the past three years, customs and border protection officers have seized 715 tonnes of tobacco and 217 million cigarettes in sea cargo. They can only guess at how much is being smuggled undetected, some of it in shipping containers filled with tobacco products worth millions of dollars.

According to a recent PricewaterhouseCoopers report that was commissioned by the tobacco industry, illegal tobacco now accounts for a staggering 12.8 per cent of total tobacco consumption in Australia, resulting in a $624 million revenue loss for the federal government.

The World Health Organisation has predicted that illegal tobacco consumption will outstrip legal tobacco worldwide by 2020. An estimated 10.7 per cent of global sales of tobacco are illicit, representing 600 billion cigarettes, according to the Framework Convention Alliance, a conglomerate of international non-government organisations that works to reduce the devastating health and economic impact of tobacco.

This represents revenue losses of between $US40 and $US50 billion to governments around the world.

Former Australian Customs investigator Richard Janeczko says tobacco smuggling has become as big a problem as the smuggling of drugs, weapons and wildlife.

''Tobacco smuggling is popular with criminals because the penalties are far less severe than [for] other crimes like drug smuggling,'' says Janeczko, who was customs national manager for investigations until he retired in October last year.

''Some criminals have made the choice to smuggle tobacco because of that.''

Drug smugglers face up to 25 years' jail, but the maximum penalty for tobacco smuggling is only 10 years. ''Drugs are a highly emotional issue for governments, while tobacco is seen as being quite benign,'' says Janeczko, who now works as an industry consultant, including for tobacco companies.

Janeczko says reports indicate that some terrorist organisations are even using the trafficking of illegal tobacco to fund their activities. ''These range from the IRA to Middle Eastern groups,'' he says.

Indeed, a 2008 report by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police identified 105 organised crime groups involved in illicit tobacco trading. Most of the groups were also involved in either drugs or weapons smuggling, or both. According to PricewaterhouseCoopers, tobacco smuggling has been linked to organised crime in Australia, including drugs, money laundering, identity fraud and stolen car rackets.

In Australia, the smuggling ranges from people arriving from overseas with more cigarettes in their luggage than they are allowed, to shipping containers that criminals hope will not be checked on arrival at ports.

''A container may be marked as containing pretzels and the criminals are prepared to run the gauntlet at the dock and hope it slips through unnoticed,'' Janeczko says.

''The organisers are extremely difficult to catch.''

(In 2003, customs officers found 7 million cigarettes hidden in a shipping container in Sydney. The tobacco haul, which would have cost the federal government $1.5 million in lost duty, was found at Botany Bay in a shipment of decorations and novelties from China.)

Janeczko says that when governments raise the value of goods, such as cigarettes, law enforcement agencies worldwide have found they have had to step up their efforts to stop criminals flooding the market with illegal products.

The main source of black-market tobacco in Australia is now believed to be Indonesia, where the tobacco industry is largely unregulated.

The PricewaterhouseCoopers report says that as well as Indonesia, illegal tobacco has been coming into Australia from China, Vietnam, Syria, the Philippines, Brazil and the United Arab Emirates.

A confidential report by Australian Customs/Border Protection Services says that in the six months to December 2009, 12 consignments of illegal tobacco were intercepted - a 100 per cent increase on the same period in 2008. Eleven of the 12 were from Indonesia. Also, more than 37 million cigarettes were seized during the same six months - 39 per cent more than the same period in 2008.

Five of seven of these seizures were from China.

The PricewaterhouseCoopers report estimates that 2.3 million kilograms of illegal tobacco was consumed in Australia in 2009, representing a taxation revenue loss of $624 million, up from an estimated $450 million in lost government revenue from illegal tobacco sales in 2007.

Chop chop is a distinctly Australian term that is said to have been coined by staff at the tobacco manufacturer W.D. and H.O. Wills in the mid 1990s when they were coming to terms with the illegal trade on their business. It is supposed to refer to the production process of the illegal traders, who merely chop up the cured leaves.

While there are some who believe that smoking chop chop is less harmful that conventionally manufactured cigarettes, chemical analysis of various samples has found it to be contaminated with everything from raw cotton to cabbage leaves and grass clippings.

Of particular concern to health officials, a dense fungal contamination is usually found because of the way it is cured. This is believed to cause toxic responses in the lungs, liver, kidneys and skin ranging from allergies to bronchitis and asthma. This is in addition to the lung cancer caused by smoking all tobacco products.

Professor Bittoun says it is difficult to determine how much chop chop is being smoked because people are loath to admit doing something illegal. But a study done in her clinics in 2002 found that 43 per cent of her patients smoked it, with 83 per cent saying they did so because it was cheaper and 58 per cent because they believed it to be healthier.

Overseas evidence confirms the widespread use of illegal tobacco. In 2005, visiting professor Gilbert Geis of the University of California undertook a study of the use of chop chop for the Australian National University. While he refers to the difficulty of establishing real facts on smoking because people play down the amount they smoke, he cites British researchers aware of such underestimation who resorted to examining empty cigarette packets left by fans at a football match. They found 50 per cent were counterfeit, suggesting the cigarettes contained inside were composed of illegal tobacco.

But some health researchers believe the use of chop chop in Australia is not as great as others believe. Rob Moodie, chairman of the Preventative Health Taskforce, which recommended the increased excise and plain packet labelling, says it accounts for about 12 per cent of tobacco use in Australia.

He says the reforms will have little impact on chop chop use. ''It is much easier in Australia to manage illegal tobacco than it is in middle Europe, for example. I admit that policing illegal tobacco is going to have to be dealt with, but increasing the excise is likely to be a key tool to encourage smokers to give up.''

Professor Ron Borland, of Melbourne University and Cancer Council Victoria, believes the total use of illegal tobacco is even less than 12 per cent, but is relatively high in very low socio-economic groups such as the homeless. He says chop chop use has fallen since the demise of the local tobacco industry.

[vztrt]

http://www.theage.com.au/executive-s...0429-twhn.html

Tax on the poor man
DAVID PRESTIPINO
April 30, 2010 - 2:10PM

WINESTEIN UNCORKED

In the late 80s and early 90s, the renowned Penfolds Bin 389 was regarded as the "poor man's Grange" because it was aged in barrels that used to house the Grange and was about 1/20th of the price.

These days it's shot up in price and, at more than $60 a pop, isn't really relevant to the poor at all.

I was reminded of all this when reading about proposed changes to taxes on alcohol under the Henry review of the Australian taxation system, which will be released on Sunday.

Wine is taxed very differently to other forms of alcohol, but under Ken Henry's proposed plan it is expected there will be just one tax rather than a myriad others.

It means wine, spirits, beer and other alcohol will be taxed the same rather than under 13 different tax rates as is currently used. And wine prices will be most affected because of the way wine is taxed.

But what does it mean for you the wine drinker?

Well, it depends if you were one of those poor men (or women) looking for a hint of that Grange or if you were one of the lucky ones able to purchase Australia's most iconic wine.

You see, under a single rate of excise at a rate proposed in the Henry review, any wine under $27 would go up in price, while anything over $27 would come down.

Essentially, the more expensive the wine, the cheaper it will be if the proposals are put in place, as expected.

It will be an interesting fallout, whatever happens.

Health groups have long lobbied about how easy it is to get your hands on cheap booze. For example, they say cask wine is equal in price to soft drink.

But the Australian Hotels Association is at odds with the health lobby. They don't want the new tax to hit low-income workers while the rich further deepen their pockets.

Under Henry's proposal of one volumetric tax, the current Grange recommended retail price of $620 would drop by $100, while a four-litre cask wine worth $15 would soar to around $35.

In essence, the poor man may be a little closer to attaining a Grange, just don't expect him to drink much (cheap) wine while he pursues his dream.

[vztrt]

Originally Posted by uranium_death

RTDs (which I do not buy anyway) have not gone down at all.

Alchopop tax is still there, so don't expect it to go down (mind you the alch content in certain brands has dropped).

Originally Posted by |||

i've been looking into growing my own tobacco. seems pretty simple if you have a bit of land . all the smooth taste of natural tobacco and none of the dollars going to the fat cats in taxes.

Unfortunately it'll stink 20 times more then the ciggies you buy.

[BA Baracus]

Car rego will continue to rise and possibly skyrocket where based on cylinders of the car. In today's highly jaded society Joe Citizen next door doesn't care if you want a V8, that's a luxury he doesn't indulge in and he'll be all for the idea of you paying through the teeth for it. You'll just be told it's to help fund campaigns, policing and medical expenses involved with reducing the road toll, and if you don't like it "simple.. don't drive one and you wont need to pay".

[Franco Cozzo]

Funny, how that majority of the people here support a tax on Cigarettes because its a "luxury" and a "optional tax". Yet they'd be all up in arms if Victoria and the other states brought in higher registration costs for 6 and 8 cylinder cars like one or two states have.

6 and 8 cylinder cars aren't always neccessary, and could be considered a "luxury" like smoking. We could all be driving around Suzuki Alto's, if you're a tradey you can get a Hyundai iLoad, or a 4 cylinder turbo diesel ute.

THEY CAME FIRST for the P platers,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a P plater.

THEN THEY CAME for the Motorcyclists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a motor cyclist.

THEN THEY CAME for the smokers,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a smoker.

THEN THEY CAME for me
and by that time no one was left to speak up."

Just because it doesn't effect you, doesn't mean you shouldn't stand up against it. Maybe you can organise to stand up for smokers, drinkers and gamblers if they agree to protest about extra taxes on cars? Would work quite well with massive numbers.

[FGII-XR6]

a car can be considered to be neccessary ( including larger cars) as we need transport but inhaling the smoke from a filthy smoldering weed is never neccessary it is purely self indulgence so there is really no comparison between the 2. As i have said before smokers are just drug addicts and if you wish to continue to use this drug you now have to pay more, this is not a tax on items neccessary for day to day living this is a tax on a completly useless item that shortens life, overloads the health system, impacts on productivity and has a smell that is offensive to those that don't indulge ( more than 2/3 of the population)

Originally Posted by Big Damo

6 and 8 cylinder cars aren't always neccessary , and could be considered a "luxury" like smoking. We could all be driving around Suzuki Alto's, if you're a tradey you can get a Hyundai iLoad, or a 4 cylinder turbo diesel ute.
.