This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

How can any smoker claim to be poor?

Jump to new

sptrawler

Joined
3 July 2009
Posts
27,818
Reactions
24,819
I was at the shops today, with the better half, while she was shopping I was idling away time.

I saw the lady at the smoke counter, so I strolled over and asked "how much is a carton of Winfield cigarettes".

She scanned them and said " one hundred and seventy dollars".

You have to be kidding me, people who are supposedly struggling are spending $170 on a carton of rolled up vegetation, then burning it and suck in the fumes.lol

Give me a break, do we need a reset button pressed or what.
 

How long will a carton a cigarettes last an average smoker?
 
skc said:
How long will a carton a cigarettes last an average smoker?
Click to expand...

How long is a piece of string?

Depends on the brand, but there's roughly 200 cigarettes in a carton (eg 8 x packets of 25). Not sure about any particular brand, but that's roughly the amount give or take a bit.

Not that I smoke these days. Used to but not now. Silly idea.

It's not just the cost of cigarettes however. Health insurance will also cost more if you're a smoker, as will future medical expenses.

I can't remember the exact prices, but from memory a pack of 30's was just over $3 in the early 1990's and they'd be about 7 times that price today. So a huge increase in costs that continues to run well above CPI or wages growth.

Something I noted recently is that I now know more people who regularly go to a gym than who smoke. That's a big change from the past when a lot more people smoked and only fitness freaks went anywhere near a gym (and there were nowhere near as many gyms around). Sure, a gym costs money but it's cheaper than smoking and a lot better for you too.

Looking at the people I work with it's an even starker reality. Blue collar workforce (trades and a few manual workers) but nobody smokes. And about half do significant regular exercise either in a gym or simply running on the street etc.

I do know one couple though where they both smoke quite a lot. Not sure exactly but I'd guess maybe 10 a day for him and 15 for her. That's over $7000 a year just for the cost of cigarettes. If it were me, I'd quit the gaspers and do something more useful with the money (pay off the mortgage, take the kids on holiday overseas, whatever - we're talking very significant money here after a few years not just a few $ here and there).
 
I don't know how anyone on the dole can afford to smoke but I see it happening all the time. The dole should be handed out a different way, perhaps food vouchers similar to gift cards, to be used for food only might be a good idea.
 
Smurf1976 said:
It's not just the cost of cigarettes however. Health insurance will also cost more if you're a smoker, as will future medical expenses.
Click to expand...
Where do you get this from? I've had private health cover all my adult life and have never been asked whether I'm a smoker or not. Neither have I ever been questioned about whether I'm a healthy weight or not or whether I engage in regular physical exercise. Or if I have any significant diseases like coronary artery disease, diabetes et al.

And suggesting people will be charged more for medical care if they smoke would be to open a huge can of the cliched worms. If that were to happen, then we'd also have to charge people more if they are overweight/obese (now two thirds of the population, to our national shame), have them declare how much alcohol they consume, whether or not they exercise regularly etc etc.
Completely impracticable.
 
Julia said:
Where do you get this from? I've had private health cover all my adult life and have never been asked whether I'm a smoker or not.
Click to expand...

Maybe I'm wrong on that point but I thought it made a difference to the cost of health insurance.

It definitely does for life insurance and the difference is quite significant.


And suggesting people will be charged more for medical care if they smoke would be to open a huge can of the cliched worms.
Click to expand...

There is overwhelming evidence that regular smokers are more likely to suffer a range of health problems when compared to non-smokers.

Whilst it's hard to put a figure on it, most people do incur at least some cost for medical treatment when they are ill. The actual cost of treatment is one given that many health insurance policies don't cover 100% of the actual cost. Then there's time off work and other practical costs as well and for some people these will end up as real, cash expenses.

I can't quote a figure, but as a general statement I think it's fair to say that someone who does something with a high chance of causing harm to their health will, on average, end up spending more on medical treatment than someone who is healthier. Not because they pay more for surgery, but because they are more likely to need it in the first place.

Even if the individual does not pay, if the cost of healthcare is 100% funded by insurance or taxpayers, society as a whole is certainly incurring a cost when people get sick.
 
Smurf1976 said:
There is overwhelming evidence that regular smokers are more likely to suffer a range of health problems when compared to non-smokers.
Click to expand...
Agree, of course.

Whilst it's hard to put a figure on it, most people do incur at least some cost for medical treatment when they are ill.
Click to expand...
My guess would be that most people who smoke would be dependent on the public system so yes, costs would be incurred but largely not by the individual.

I may have misunderstood your original post, but my point was that if you're going to charge people more for, eg, private health insurance (and I've yet to see a single example of this), then you'd equally have to charge them more for being obese, having various comorbidities etc.

Just imagine the screams of outrage about discrimination. I can't see any government having the political will to do it. Might, however, be the only way of getting people to realise that they can't go on stuffing themselves with junk and not find some sort of responsibility ultimately accrues to that behaviour.
 

Heard a talk back radio host talking about the cost of smoking, as he is a former smoker.

Before the massive tax hikes he paid around $8-9 for a packet of Longbeach 40's.

Out of curiosity he asked an employee at the local supermarket what they cost now and was shocked to be told they were now around the $29 mark.

A truly astounding increase.

Won't be too long before the do-gooders have their way and we see the price of alcohol heading in the same direction.
 
$170 can buy 2 cartons of Coopers Extra Strong Vintage Ale.

A far better investment than a carton of fags in my view.
 
It would be difficult to charge people more for health insurance if they drink, smoke, are obese etc, but it would be easier if people got a discount if they took regular health checks and were found to be within a normal weight range and showed no evidence of smoking. However you would think that the administrative costs of doing this would be greater than the benefits, if looked at in purely financial terms, but other benefits would be that potential problems would be picked up earlier and therefore treated easier and at less cost.
 

I think it will have an impact on Income Protection / Trauma insurance and probably life insurance policies too. I seem to remember when I got Ip and Trauma insurance last year they asked if I had been a smoker with the last 3 or 5 years.
 
Julia said:
If that were to happen, then we'd also have to charge people more if they are overweight/obese (now two thirds of the population, to our national shame)
Completely impracticable.
Click to expand...

Where are you getting that figure from? A lot of the basic stats only use BMI, which can be massively skewed. So much in fact that some AFL players and many NRL players are considered 'overweight' as muscle weighs more than fat

springhill said:
Won't be too long before the do-gooders have their way and we see the price of alcohol heading in the same direction.
Click to expand...

Grog in Aus is already very heavily taxed. People here cant believe it when i tell them it is $50 for a bottle of fairly standard vodka.

Here you can get a World class bottle of vodka etc for about $20
 
springhill said:
Won't be too long before the do-gooders have their way and we see the price of alcohol heading in the same direction.
Click to expand...

The tax on alcohol in Australia is already ridiculous. At present beer and especially wine are under taxed, while spirits are over taxed. If a Govt ever has the balls to take on the brewers and wine makers and move to a standardised alcohol volumetric tax would get around this distortion or making cask wine so cheap.
 

Getting off topic so will be my last post on the matter. Australian wine is (relatively) cheap, but there are a heap of extra import taxes for anything imported.

Here in the US those taxes seem non-existent to negligible as i can pick up a nice French wine, or comparative American one, for the same price, at all price point levels
 
sydboy007 said:
The tax on alcohol in Australia is already ridiculous. At present beer and especially wine are under taxed, while spirits are over taxed. .
Click to expand...

Beer and wine are overtaxed...spirits and tobacco are grossly overtaxed. They are all justified by the legislators as sin taxes, but they are excellent money spinners..
 
Calliope said:
Beer and wine are overtaxed...spirits and tobacco are grossly overtaxed. They are all justified by the legislators as sin taxes, but they are excellent money spinners..
Click to expand...

Not just "sins", increased health costs, absenteeism, loss of productivity.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...