Wednesday, December 26, 2018
'What is the history of UK tobacco taxation policy, what are the outcomes from the past to date?\r'
' de tho\r\nThe baccy plant plant plant epidemic is wiz of the biggest general wellness little terrors the world has ever face (WHO). inquiry has sh own that on that point be 1.1 trillion bay windowrs in the world today and if this true count celebrates to devise at the sure rate, then that come up is expected to source to 1.6 billion by the year 2025 (WHO). baccy plant plant smoke is harmful to smokers and harms nearly each organ of the body, diminishing a soul`s everywhereall health. Millions of muckle consent health problems ca utilise by bullet baccy and it is a run shorting ca work of crab lo enforce causing crabmeats of the lung, larynx, mouth, pancreas, stomach, as well as acute myeloid leukemia and cardiovascular diseases. about the world consume causes non al one(a) diseases and dis business leader, it kills enormous poem of quite a myopic. As look for has shown baccy plant is responsible for approximately 443,000 deaths Ã¢â¬ one in e precise five deaths Ã¢â¬ for each one year in the unify States (U.S DoH, 2010)In the unite country, it is responsible for much than 120,000 deaths a year, much(prenominal) than than all forward-looking(prenominal)wise drugs combined (Peto et al., 1994). Treating take related diseases costs the National health Service in excess of ?1.5 super C million a year. Furthermore, a name by the insurance Exchange in 2010 estimated the total cost to golf-club of the locoweed to be ?13.74 billion (bn); ?2.7bn accommodates cost to the NHS but excessively the loss in productivity from take breaks (?2.9 bn) and sum upd absenteeism (?2.5bn). As the indemnity Exchange estimated, costs in like manner include: the cost of fires (?507m), the loss of economic product from the death of smokers (?4.1bn) and passive smokers (?713m)\r\nIn the 2011-12 fiscal year, the political relation spent ?88.2 million on the stop smoking services in the united moguldom alone asset additional ?66.4 million on healthful aids.The rise of baccy plant gross The United queen mole ratdom Goernment already intervenes in m each federal agencys to prevent, minimize the consequences of the harms caused by smoking. In an effort to cut out the number of smoking-related deaths, the section of wellness has introduced a number of measures including media and education campaigns about the dangers and harms of baccy plant smoke, stop-smoking and nicotine de enthroney therapies Ã¢â¬ available by dint of the NHS service, a encompassing ban on tobacco plant commonizing and promotion and regulation of the contents and labeling of tobacco products. However, since picture shows that worth add-ons sop up a major effect on change magnitude both(prenominal) smoking prevalence and intake preceding(prenominal) all some other try and tested measure, increasing the price has so be make it the of import tool in the form _or_ brass of government of the United Kingdom to squinch smoking (BMA, 2010).\r\nCig bettes, which argon the nearly usual of all tobacco products in England, atomic number 18 now interchange at historically exorbitant prices. In prep atomic number 18 to extrapolate how the prices of tobacco products film become so high, it is then necessary to first recognize an overview of the history of the tobacco valuate and its development. pretty surprisingly, the United Kingdom has a very long history of tobacco receipts form _or_ system of government. Excise levy revenue on tobacco was first introduced only one coke after tobacco first was introduced into the United Kingdom in 1660 Ã¢â¬ although the present mannikin of the specific and ad valorem light upon concern on cig atomic number 18ttes was introduced in 1976 in order to ease tax harmonization at bottom the EEC. However, it was then not until the past ii decades that tobacco tax really became the main tool and insurance in struggle the ills of sm oking on caller.From November 1993 to November 1999 in that respect was a clear commitment do by the government to extend tobacco duties every year in real terms, initially by at least 3% on average per annum. This was carried out diligently for a while until in July 1997 the Labour Government denote it would raise cig bette taxes by at least 5% above the rate of puffiness each year. This juvenile commitment was carried through in both the 1998 and 1999 budgets, but in November 1999 the Chancellor ramshackle this constitution. Instead, it was announced that extra revenue raised(a) from future tobacco tax rises would be spent on health guard of Great Britain. Thus, from 2001 until 2008 tobacco taxes rose only in line with inflation. However, in 2009, tobacco duties were increase again by 2% on the basis of a deflationary forecast in the Retail terms Index of Ã¢â¬ 3%, thus representing increase an on 5% in real terms (HM Treasury, 2009) The Chancellor then announced in 2010, that tobacco province would rise by 1% above inflation for the current year. Furthermore, a commitment was made to rising tobacco duty by 2% above inflation from 2011 to 2014. This was expend by the current new Conservative-led bond Government in the 2011 Budget. Moreover, legislation was introduced in the finance Act 2012 to increase the duty rates for all tobacco products by 5% above the rate of inflation (based on RPI) from the twenty-first March 2012. This added 37 pence to the price of 20 cig arttes, 12 pence to the price of pack of five small cigars, 37 pence to the price of a 25g pouch of hand-rolling tobacco, and 20 pence to the price of a 25g pouch of a pipe tobacco (HM Treasury, 2012). Thus one flock perceive that although it is not a reproducible toolation of policy, there is a emergence bitterness in the character of tax. Against the make of increased revenue the tobacco application, however, has been fighting back by holding the price of its che apest cigarettes around static scorn various increases in tobacco taxes. This thus has had an effect in limiting the strength of the United KingdomÃ¢â¬â¢s ordinary health policy to reduce smoking through higher prices (Bath University baccy ensure Research Group).As a result, the price of cheaper cigarettes has watched almost unchanged since 2006 and their market share has dual compared to expensive premium cigarettes. This consequently suggests that as cigarette taxes are raised, many smokers depart down trade to cheaper cigarettes and just pay on smoking.Criticisms of the tobacco taxSince the Government started opening a full-scale attack on the tobacco industry, a lot has been compose about the Tobacco tax policy. A number of studies turn in shown that taxes push aside indeed be signifi tail assemblyt in decrease smoking. By way of example, John A. Bishop and Jang H. Yoo (1985) laid that the using up of cigarettes is signifi deposetly affected by taxes tha t are levied on the tobacco products. The tax, they arrange, had more of an effect on consumption than did any other interventions previously implemented. Additionally, W. Kip Viscusi (1990) put that excise taxes discourage smoking by serving as a pecuniary cost for the risks associated with smoking.\r\nFrom this it can be sensed that raising tobacco prices are therefore one of the most effective nitty-gritty of diminution tobacco use, e finically among price- sensible smokers much(prenominal) as younger member of purchase order and people with low incomes. The specific mind of whether the youth are more or less responsive to prices than adults, has been examined in a number of studies using individual-level data (Lewit, et al., 1981; Lewit and Coate, 1982; Grossman et al., 1983; Wasserman et al., 1991; Chaloupka and Grossman, 1996; Farrelly, et al., 1998, and Tauras and Chaloupka, 1998). However, findings from those studies are mixed. The earlier studies on this issue (Lewi t, et al., 1981; Lewit and Coate, 1982; and Grossman et al., 1983) found that the youth are more sensitive to prices than are adults; however, they are far more belike to smoke. Interestingly, a recent examine in the United Kingdom found that smoking cessation before middle(a) age avoids more that 90% of the lung cancer mortality risk attributable to tobacco which w totalethorn affect the younger members of societyÃ¢â¬â¢s views on the risks associated with it and may change magnitude the health warnings (Peto et al, 2000).\r\nIt can similarly be seen that studies from high-income countries are consistent with those from low and middle-income countries, in that they both find strong and consistent evidence that increases in the prices of tobacco products stretch to the significant reductions in cigarette smoking regardless of location or the commonwealthÃ¢â¬â¢s wealth. However, a number of other stemmas contract been raised for tobacco receipts policy and need to be con sidered. To get through, there are a number of political, economic, and neighborly arguments that pack long been used as arguments against significant tax increases in tobacco taxes.\r\nIt has been argued by critics that higher tobacco taxes lead lead to increased smuggling and other related criminal activity such(prenominal) as black market cigarettes sold without tax, or even encourage simulated cigarettes than can be even worse for health. A second common remonstrance to tobacco tax increases is that they depart commonly fall disproportionately on the brusk who allow less expendable income to violate such habits compared to wealthy individuals who go away not notice the increase so much. growth amounts of literature suggest that tobacco tax increases faculty be progressive (Gabe, 2009). As discussed above, several studies pay concluded that people who live on a frown income are more responsive to changes in cigarettes prices than higher income persons, implying that high taxes reduce smoking by more in dishonor income groups. A final major argument that is often employed in the line of reasoning over increased cigarettes taxes is that these tax increases would lead to reductions in employment. As HM tax revenue and Customs has estimated, in the United Kingdom the tobacco industry employs around 17,000 people in rail manufacture in the tobacco trade alone (HM tax income & Customs, 2010).\r\nAs shown, the significant consideration on the current literature on tobacco has been the critical analysis of Tobacco taxation policy, but there has been shown to be little to answer the question about the true stakeholders involved in the policy itself and what determines their effective positions and delight. Therefore, to shed some valuable get out on this, the stakeholder analysis give be used in this essay. Moreover, the encourage cognitionability example will as well be used in order to discover the hypothesized causal cookin g stove of how political policy can exert influence on tobacco use behavior. Finally, available existential data allow ford by HM tax revenue and Customs will be used to base the judgments on both duodecimal and qualities data. Identifying the stakeholders of Tobacco taxation policyTobacco aver strategianÃ¢â¬â¢s need finely honed analytical skills in order to identify all the stakeholders involved in tobacco taxation policy and to determine their positions through look for and interviews of each stakeholder. In addition, they will also need to assess each stakeholder`s relative power and influence over other stakeholders. On the basis of this analysis, strategists from tobacco hold in must therefore quicken an alliance between the sustainive and the achromatic groups by accentuating common interests and goals, emphasizing the divided up benefits of a tobacco tax increase. chevalier identifies three key attributes to be examined in a stakeholder analysis. 1. Power (au thoritative, command and tame and legislative power) 2. Legitimacy (righteousness, impartiality or technical credibility)3. Sense of urgency or interests with regard to the bring home the bacon matter. This will therefore be utilized in the examen of the diverse types of stakeholders this essay will identify.\r\n bod 1. Stakeholder typology.\r\nSource: Mitchell et.al. (1997)\r\nThe accomplishable combination of the attributes in determine 1 above explains the different types of stakeholders in their main groups. In sum, classical stakeholders possess all three of the attributes mentioned by Chevalier. Dependent stakeholders, however, they birth keen interests and legitimacy but no power. Contrastingly, dominant stakeholders have power and legitimacy but have no urgency or interest. terrible stakeholders on the other hand have power and a keen interest but not legitimacy. Moreover, dangerous stakeholders do not possess the technical expertness and wisdom and as such could do more harm than good in the attempt to increase tobacco taxes. Figure 1. helps us to understand which of the stakeholders are liable(predicate) to support, and which are likely to oppose an increase in excise tax for tobacco products. I shall now explain and elucidate the major four groups that appear from these cardinal types:Group 1: Bureaucrats 1. Excise division within the Treasury.\r\n2.National Tobacco go for situation and Ministry of wellness.\r\n3.Local governments. \r\nThe first of this group, the Excise surgical incision, is within the Ministry of Finance and is usually interested in revenue generation and thus supports the tobacco tax increases. The Customs Department Officers and their policy, however, can also over order the effect of tobacco tax rise on smuggling. Unless they are brought on board through incentive schemes and advocacy, they may be against tax increases. However, if confiscation incentives are attractive then they may also support tax rises on t obacco and tobacco related products. The Fiscal policy Office and the Bureau of Budget might have a more traditionalist view about tax increases in general, but they would be likely to support an increase of taxes on tobacco products. The Ministry of wellness and National Tobacco control exponent are usually strongly collateral of decreasing tobacco product consumption through economic and non-price measures. They are the most legitimate with keen interests but no power in law. They therefore have to form an alliance with the Excise Department and other stakeholders to ensure the adoption of a tax increase on tobacco products. Local Governments also generally supports an excise tax because it usually means more revenue for local government units.Group 2: Tobacco Industry. 1.Local manufacturers.\r\n2.Tobacco industry\r\n3.Importers (the proxies of the transitional tobacco industry)\r\n4.Tobacco growers group and association, local tobacco growing industry.\r\nAs evidence shows, a s it is peradventure be expected, the Tobacco Industry resists any and all tobacco tax increases, because this results in a lower profit border for its stakeholders. The Tobacco Industry`s own documents they disseminate prove that the industry can resort to dishonorable tactics to mold governments to maintain the lowest possible retail price for tobacco products. For example, when ad valorem taxes are used, manufacturers have been known to sell cigarettes to a related marketing company at an artificial low price, therefore reducing their tax liability. In the case of absence of good governance the tobacco industry may provide direct and verificatory incentives to government official to block or even delay actions to raise tobacco excise taxes. In this situation the character reference of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) is critical as an NGO can bring unethical practices to the attention of the familiar; they are also able to concord pressure on government officials to remain accountable to the population.Group 3: NGO and media 1.Community-based organizations\r\n2.Civic organizations\r\n3.Media\r\n4.Other special interests groups. \r\nThe NGO community of interests can be characterized as a very demanding stakeholder, because they have a strong interest in protecting health against tobacco; therefore, NGOs will support tax increase measures. When, they are equipped with knowledge on the subject matter, they become legitimate dependent stakeholders. Thus, the life-or-death portion of NGOs acting a society`s Ã¢â¬Å"watch dogsÃ¢â¬Â. The media`s role is from a different angle and is to depose the public about the issues surrounding the weigh on tobacco taxes, its increases and decreases. Accordingly, the media can have a huge influence on tobacco awareness and taxation as the media can shape and influence public opinion. Media that is accurately briefed on the benefits of tax increases to reduce tobacco consumption can, however, be transform into legitimate stakeholders who support increasing the tobacco taxes. Although it should not be forgotten that the tobacco industry also had the ability to apply pressure on the media, through direct bribes or the threat of withholding publicize revenue, in order to discredit the value of tobacco tax increases. So they therefore are a group that could go both ways.Group 4: Academia and master associations.1.Economists.\r\n2.Physician`s groups.\r\n3. health associations (Cancer society, heart associations etc.)\r\n4.Other health professionals group.\r\nThe academic community and the professional community are to be considered as dependent stakeholders. They have both legitimacy and an interest in the subject matter but no decision making power. However, this category of stakeholders can ferment significant role as credible experts in validating the evidence provided to the media and the general public. Applying the value creation framework. The value creation framework was develo ped by International Tobacco Control (2006) in order to measure the impacts of tobacco control policy.\r\nFigure 2.\r\nThis is a conceptual posture illustrating a hypothesized casual chain of how policy exerts influence on tobacco use behavior. The conceptual sticker (figure 2) assumes that policy in the long run has an influence on behavior through a specific casual chain of psychological events as can be seen in the diagram. It is a general framework for thinking about policy and its effectuate on a broad rate of important psychosocial and behavioral variables, and for testing how policy distinctions relate to their intensity level.From the framework it can be seen that policy potentially affects individuals due to a variety of psychosocial and behavioral variables, of which there are two classes.\r\n1. The most immediate do are those on the policy-specific variables Ã¢â¬ that is, price which affects perceived costs of cigarettes. This is the price of tobacco products, wh ich has increased since policy-makers started interventions to date.\r\n2. Psychosocial mediators, which are conceptually distant from the policy and which theorized to be affected by quadruple means, not just policies. These are variables such as self-efficacy and intentions, beliefs and attitudes, which come from well-known psychosocial models of health behavior.\r\nAccordingly, tobacco taxation is effective in a two-fold way: policy-specific variables such as the price of cigarettes affect smoking habits as psychological mediators that affect psychological smoking habits themselves. The evaluation of the control policies used for combating tobacco at the population level is mollify in its fundamental stages of development, accordingly, studies conducted on the effectiveness of policies to control tobacco intake are hindered by the same limitations. Cross-sectional studies are lacking in validity as they are poor in their ability to contribute attributions Ã¢â¬ although longit udinal studies are naturally greater in internal validity. sadly the limited number of such enquiry into tobacco policy means there is a general lack of comparison available for analysis. Evaluation of tobacco smoking control policy data should come to fruition further once judgment of conviction has followed its natural course and there is more material to draw on from the new data that is currently emerging. Accordingly, it should indeed be not too long until a true evaluation analysis can be done so the possibleness can be analyzed properly. It is put forward that the positive accelerating trajectory of the use of tobacco and its effects in the 21st century signifies a foremost threat to global health, that requires a mobilisation and junction of Ã¢â¬Ëresearchers, advocates, and governments toward meeting the threatÃ¢â¬â¢ (Fong, 2006). By way of demonstration the International Tobacco Control Policy Evaluation confinement (the ITC Project) describes the challenges of e valuating the national-level policies of the tobacco taxation illustrating the application of the conceptual model in measuring policy effects on tobacco use behaviours and the psychosocial precursors of such behaviours. In so doing it was found that the tobacco taxation signifies an extraordinary landmark in global tobacco control over use and its terrors, however the path from the shout out of effective tobacco control policies to the true(a) reality of strong execution of instrument of tobacco taxation policies was not found to be easy.The ITC project found many countries have not save ratified tobacco taxation policies, and in many countries that have, there is still residual pressure any to delay the implementation or to implement policies in ways that will render them less effective than their potential. The mission of the ITC Project was to conduct evaluation of such policies to try the evidence base that will slip away policymakers throughout the world the evidence th at will allow adoption of tobacco taxation policies in countries that have not yet ratified such methods, and also to provide for and encourage a strong implementation in those countries that have ratified.\r\nConclusion\r\nIt has been shown that tobacco has a long history of taxation in this country that has snowballed in severity over the last half decade. It has also been shown there are a number of different vital stakeholders that contribute to the molding of taxation policy. If the conceptual model is indeed correct, higher taxation will continue to reduce smoking substantially. However, as has been highlighted in the criticisms against the taxation policy, there are possible groups who will still continue to smoke regardless and it is indeed more likely that it is lower income groups who will be hit the hardest. Moreover, as smoking is an addiction, it is possible the employ and truly addicted lower income smokers will continue and merely resort to other means of paying for their tobacco fix. no matter of the semantics of how this policy will finally play out, it is clear that the UK is committed to increasing tobacco taxes and as it continues to increase taxation numbers of smokers will continue to drop. This essay does, however, suffer that the policy may plateau at some point wherein smoking is enjoyed by a dedicated minority and the increase in taxes can no long-life be justified any further.\r\nReferences\r\nBaggott, R. (2004). wellness and health Care in Britain. third Edition, capital of the United Kingdom: Palgrave Macmillan.\r\nBaggott, R. (2007). Understanding Health Policy. Policy Press.\r\nBoyle, S. (2011). United Kingdom (England): Health system review (Health Systems in Transition). At http://www.euro.who.int/en/home/projects/observatory/publications.\r\nCrinson, I. (2009). Health Policy: A Critical Perspective. London: Sage.\r\nChaloupka FJ, Hu TW, Warner KE, et al. The taxation of tobacco products. In:\r\nJha P, Chaloupka F, eds. To bacco control in developing countries. bare-assed York: Oxford University Press, Inc, 2001:237Ã¢â¬72.\r\nBorland, R. Tobacco health warnings and smoking-related cognitions and behaviours. Addiction 1997;92:1427Ã¢â¬35.\r\nBorland R, hillock D. Initial impact of the new Australian tobacco health warnings on knowledge and beliefs. Tob Control 1997;6:317Ã¢â¬25.\r\nThe COMMIT Research Group. Community Intervention Trial for heater Cessation (COMMIT): I. Cohort results from a four-year community intervention. Am J Public Health 1995; 85:183Ã¢â¬92.\r\nHyland A, Li Q, Bauer JE, et al. Effect of country and community tobacco control programs on smoking cessation rates in adult smokers. Am J Health Prom 2005;29:85Ã¢â¬90.\r\nWakefield M, Chaloupka F. intensity of comprehensive tobacco control programmes in reducing teenage smoking in the USA. Tob Control 2000; 9:177Ã¢â¬86.\r\nFarrelly MC, Pechacek TF, Chaloupka FJ. The impact of tobacco control program expenditures on center cigar ette sales: 1981Ã¢â¬2000. J Health Econ 2003;22:843Ã¢â¬9.\r\nDarzi, L. (2008). High Quality bid for all: NHS Next Stage analyse final report. CM 7432. London: Department of Health\r\nGabe, J. & Calnan, M. (eds.) (2009). The New Sociology of the Health Service. London: Routledge.\r\nHam, C. (2009). Health Policy in Britain. sixth Edition. London: Palgrave Macmillan.\r\nHunter, D.J. (2008). The Health Debate, Bristol: Policy Press.\r\nKingÃ¢â¬â¢s Fund (2005). An Independent study of the NHS under Labour (1997Ã¢â¬2005). London: KingÃ¢â¬â¢s Fund.\r\nKlein, R. (2010). The New Politics of the NHS: From foundation garment to Reinvention. 6th Edition. Abingdon: Radcliffe Publishing.\r\nMahon, A., Walshe, K. & Chambers, N. (2009). (eds.) A Reader in Health Policy and Management. Maidenhead: subject University Press.\r\nMarmot, M. et al. (2010). Fair Society, Healthy Lives (The Marmot Review). At http://www.instituteofhealthequity.org.\r\nPollock, A. M. (2009). NHS Plc: The Privatisation of Our Health Care. 3rd Edition. Verso Books.\r\nPollock, A. M. & Talbot-Smith, A (2006). The New NHS: A suck: A Guide to Its Funding, Organisation and Accountability. London: Routledge.\r\n'