Posts by Keir Leslie
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
As far as I can tell, what Jobs brought to it was superb taste and a singular ability to yell at the right people the right way to do things he personally could not.
As far as I can tell, what Napoleon brought to it was superb vision and a singular ability to yell at the right people the right way to do things he personally could not.
-
It would also be a good thing (on that sole measure) to kill disabled people. Your point is?
That when Sacha says `Most of the harms I experience from smokers come from sharing a publicly-funded health system with them' he is talking nonsense, or `For both smokers and drinkers, that would mean paying for *all* of the health and social system impacts, if you want to claim total freedom' he fails to understand that then he'd have to pay for the extra years of super that his non-smoking is going to cost us, (again `Applying limited public health and social resources to treat smokers (or drinkers, for instance) means those resources are not available for other people', which misunderstands the economics of healthcare massively.)
I have no larger point. I think smoking is something the government should commit to eradicating in New Zealand. I don't think it should do this because cost-benefit analyses tell it so.
-
No Sacha, it is indisputably true that if every 65 y.o went out and shot themselves, that would be a very good thing for the state of the government books. Of course, it would also be a bizarrely horrible thing to happen, and I would support massive state intervention to stop that happening the same way I support massive state intervention against tobacco and tobacco companies.
-
In other words: We don't stop providing healthcare to people aged over 65 because their superannuation bill will be less if they die earlier, and in the same way, we don't count it as a benefit if smokers die early and therefore incur a lower superannuation bill.
But purely from the point of view of the public accounts it is a benefit, and it is nonsense to disagree. I certainly agree that smoking related deaths are a horrible blight on society; but I do not agree with non-smokers complaining about the cost to them of smoking, and the cost to the public health system.
-
Maybe the $350 million smoking-related health bill you cited earlier could be redirected to other parts of the health system?
Maybe we'd have to spend way more on pensions if people stopped smoking and lived longer?
-
Wrong. Most of the harms I experience from smokers come from sharing a publicly-funded health system with them. Not because they offend my nose or pollute my lungs.
Smokers die younger, but they don't age faster. So they work until 65, like non smokers, paying taxes all the time, and then they go on the pension (and start costing the government money). They draw the pension for a decade or so less than non smokers. Like all of us, smokers will cost the state a vast amount of money in the final months of their lives, but that is a fact about modern death. Smokers are not in fact a noticeable burden on the public revenue, or the public health system.
-
OnPoint: Sock-Puppeting Big Tobacco to…, in reply to Rich Lock,
O sure. I should say that in certain places and certain times I think tobacco is a very attractive illegal commodity, and even in NZ I would expect a small but thriving black market. I do think it would be small, compared both to current consumption and even pot consumption.
There's two differences that are I think quite important. First, that tobacco was legal until it entered the country, and then probably goes out through grey market channels --- local dairies, kiosks, etc. So it's not an entirely black market supply chain --- it was legally grown, harvested, processed etc. Second, Europe has very porous borders and smuggling is very easy. That's not true in New Zealand. Tobacco smuggling in Europe is basically a matter of tax evasion.
-
Hmm. I have to say, I doubt that tobacco would be a very viable black market commodity. Let's take the classic ounce. That's 30 grams of pot more or less. Retail value is around 300-4oo dollars, depending on quality and location. Port Royal retails for 30-40 dollars per 30 grams. That's a tenth of the price. So, assuming the same percent profit, to make the same amount of money, you'd have to move ten times the product. This is logistically problematic, especially given that in fact Port Royal moves very cheaply at the moment, by legal means.
Now, sure, we're comparing apples to saffron here, right? Once tobacco goes illegal the price will soar, and so that stuff won't matter too much. But when the price soars, people will stop smoking, and the market will crater. It doesn't make sense to pay 200 dollars for 30 grams of tobacco unless you are amazingly rich. So if I was working for the gangs and someone asked me if tobacco looked like a good industry to move into, I'd say no. Focus on the high end.
-
That’s an argument, but could we agree that 1) it’s ultimately not the Metropolitan Police paying the bill but tax-payers and 2) a blaring headline in the Torygraph about poor hard-up multinational corporations claiming their corporate welfare entitlement isn’t a good look?
Well, yes. Of course it is the tax payer, but (a) not the local tax payer, but the city-wide police and (b) the tax payer can I think handle giving a bit of money to victims of violence. And no, I don't think it's a bad look. I think that the Riot (Damages) Act has been on the books a very long time (since 1886!), and has surely been applied before. If people don't like insurance companies looking out for their interests, and the interests of their customers, then I don't quite think people understand capitalism.
-
It's hardly socialising the losses to apply the law as it stands, and I think that if the insurers have to claim against the police within a 14 day period, and therefore need claimants information within 7 days, it is hardly fair to complain they are rushing things.