Originally posted by ShutterBug:
This cigarette tax thing is actually ( to me that is ) a double edged sword: discourage smoking, as well as bring in revenues for the government. It's a money making device, in other words.
I smoke too, and I intend to quit. But, before I can, I still need to buy my smokes at exhorbitant prices.
But when I lay down to sleep at night, I thought that cancer and heart attack is a real potential killer if I continue to smoke. But on the other side of my mind, a voice tells me that I could as well die of cancer, high blood pressure, or heart attack due to the stress of making a living in Singapore anyway. Stress alone, is just as likely to give a person cancer, high blood, and heart diseases - apart from the diet we keep due to stressful eating.
So, from outside looking in, and inside looking out, I just don't see the difference. Only thing I'm sure off is, if I come down with a major disease and I don't have enough money to treat it, I might just as well comit suicide. Yes, it is that tough.
Up till now, I still don't know whether is quiting better, or work towards migrating. The latter, seems more logical though....
What do you guys think???
Now there is this interesting point that had been mentioned here by ShutterBug.
Is the taxation of cigerettes import and sales really a double edged issue?
Looking at the immediate picture, yes it might appear to be of course.
But over long term perspective, will the sums of tax revenue gained from cigarette tax really be sufficient to cover upon the medical subsidizes from health complications that might eventually arise from smoking related harms?
Now, just simply work out and compare the sums that will be involved from say, the amount of tax collected from the import / sale of a pack of cigarettes to an individual, against the potential sum of medical subsidize amount from the government from a smoking related health problem - like lung cancer.
Would the miserable cigarette tax amount collected truly be sufficent to cover upon the sum of subsidized medical amount?
Chances are that the account will not balance. And this of course implies that the remaining 'deficit' amount of subsidize which will have to be given, will be done so at the expense of other taypayers - a significant number of whom will be non-smokers.
So looking at this concern from this aspect, is there really a double edge issue now?
And please take this into note as well.
Being sick or falling ill from the harms of smoking don't merely end there at an economical or accounting equation logic.
The smokers themselves will also be faced with the physical sufferings - along with the deep worries of their caring family members as well.
So for the sake of your family and yourself - drop that damn stick today.
The sums will never work out to a smoker's advantage.