Plain packaging of cigarettes.

Discuss any News, Current Events, Crimes
Forum rules
It's such a fine line between stupid and clever. Random guest posting.
Post Reply
mellie
Posts: 11811
Joined: Mon Feb 28, 2011 7:52 pm

Re: Plain packaging of cigarettes.

Post by mellie » Sun Dec 23, 2012 1:38 am

boxy wrote:So, you started again, because of plain packaging.

You're awesome... seriously.
No, guess again.

8-)

User avatar
boxy
Posts: 6748
Joined: Sat Dec 15, 2007 11:59 pm

Re: Plain packaging of cigarettes.

Post by boxy » Sun Dec 23, 2012 1:59 am

You're not awesome?

Awesome.
"But you will run your fluffy bunny mouth at me. And I will take it, to play poker."

mellie
Posts: 11811
Joined: Mon Feb 28, 2011 7:52 pm

Re: Plain packaging of cigarettes.

Post by mellie » Sun Dec 23, 2012 2:39 am

boxy wrote:You're not awesome?

Awesome.


Honestly, the packaging "style" was irrelevant, I wanted what was inside the box, didn't and still don't care what the box looks like.

The only thing that's pissed me off is that the quality of the overall product has deteriorated since the new packaging laws were introduced. Ie, my particular brand no longer has the fresh-lock seal yet I pay the same price for them.
My cigarettes are an expensive brand, and I paid more for the luxury of having a fresh-lock seal.
They don't pong as much as other cigarettes. Cheap cigarettes stink!

Also, the tobacco seems to burn much faster and the cigarettes taste stale.

And as you already mentioned, ( and I think you must be a closet smoker to know this Boxy ;) ) the plastic seal is difficult to pull off sometimes too.

It's cheap and nasty packaging, but the cigarettes still cost the same.

Time to get real, do you really think our government wants to stop us from smoking Boxy?

Do you truly believe they changed packaging laws this and increased the tax 25 pc during 2010 because they care about our helth?

13.2 Tobacco taxes in Australia
Show / hide chapter menu
Tobacco taxes are favoured by governments because of their relatively low level of unpopularity with voters—see Section 13.14—and because of their low administrative costs relative to the income they generate.53, 54


http://www.tobaccoinaustralia.org.au/ch ... -australia

mellie
Posts: 11811
Joined: Mon Feb 28, 2011 7:52 pm

Re: Plain packaging of cigarettes.

Post by mellie » Sun Dec 23, 2012 2:44 am

As can be seen in Figure 13.1, of the total cost of $11.25, 53.4% is accounted for by federal excise duty on tobacco, and a further 9.1% by GST, bringing total taxes to 62.5% of final price.


Image


http://www.tobaccoinaustralia.org.au/ch ... -australia

Truth is Boxy... our smoking is what's paying for public health, lol... 3 fold... now with a declining social acceptability of smoking comes stigma, this and less of what boxy?

Hint....$$$$$$

So next time you scowl at a smoker on the street, just remember that it's he/she that's paying your hospital bills you ungrateful arrogant fool.
No more revenue = no more comprehensive public health care.

So, are you going to continue stigmatising us for paying your medical bills you free-loading socialist tobacco Nazi?

8-) Be careful what you wish for.

mellie
Posts: 11811
Joined: Mon Feb 28, 2011 7:52 pm

Re: Plain packaging of cigarettes.

Post by mellie » Sun Dec 23, 2012 3:12 am

Why the plain packaging?

Well take a look at the pie chart...


If they shave a bit off the manufacturing costs,(cheap and nasty packaging) before increasing the federal excise duty yet again...(as they did back in 2010) ..it's a Win/Win for both cigarette company and government.

Never mind the consumer, there's no winning to be had here.

If I ever quit smoking for good, it will be for this reason and no other.

mellie
Posts: 11811
Joined: Mon Feb 28, 2011 7:52 pm

Re: Plain packaging of cigarettes.

Post by mellie » Sun Dec 23, 2012 10:48 am

And finally, I'd just like to add that I have comprehensive private health insurance, so effectively, I'm being slogged thrice. ...One for the master,(Government) and one for their dame, (Tobacco companies) and one for the little boy (you) who lives down the lane and benefits from the revenue, ie public health & Medicare, irrespective of whether you have private health insurance or not.

So, feel free to defend your thoughtful big red Ingsoc government Boxy.


Really, did you honestly believe they introduced plain packaging for the good of our health?

No, they just found a palatable way to appease the 'larger' tobacco companies in readiness for their next federal excise tax-hike.

For where the tobacco companies lose from having paid a higher federal excise tax, they gain from 'no frills' manufacturing costs this and from having gained a larger percentage of the market as the smaller companies producing lesser known rival brands will disappear. Companies have already began to shrink their product line, even the bigger ones. And why? Because there's no need to compete, they have it in the bag and our government has made sure the big boys (the big 3) will be taken care of, not unlike they have done with our power and telecommunications companies through increasing regulation and taxation.

This government wont be happy until you only have just one telecommunications company, (Telstra) one power company, and one tobacco companies cigarettes (Victory cigarettes :lol: ) to choose from.... because this government are aggressive socialists-communists who oppose free market.

This only ever stood to disadvantage 'some' tobacco companies, smaller lesser known Australian tobacco companies for instance, not the big 'international' 3, who have already established their majority steak in the market and really don't depend as heavily on marketing as the smaller ones do.

It was the smaller and more local tobacco companies who fought plain packaging, not those who stood to benefit most from the lions share of the market.

Try to remember this boxy, before you shoot yourself in the foot again.


Reality checkpoint Boxy....

http://www.tobaccoinaustralia.org.au/ch ... al-parties

At the end of the day, both Liberal and Labor reap the benefits of political donations and tobacco tax.
It's just Labor are more discrete about how they go about getting theirs, by way of receiving multiple smaller donations (under $10,000) that don't have to be disclosed to the public.

For example....

Australian Labor Party, South Australian branch political annual return aka donations 2000/2001

http://periodicdisclosures.aec.gov.au/R ... /P2070.pdf

Now whilst Labor gloats about not being in 'direct' receipt of tobacco companies donations, this and denigrates Liberals for openly receiving theirs, Labor fails to mention all the tobacco donations they receive indirectly via their affiliated groups, trade council, unions , etc.

It's a little like receiving a donation from a mate who has collected a donation from a third party and in his name on your behalf.


http://periodicdisclosures.aec.gov.au/R ... 0/X139.pdf


Labor = hypocritical sly dogs! 8-)

User avatar
boxy
Posts: 6748
Joined: Sat Dec 15, 2007 11:59 pm

Re: Plain packaging of cigarettes.

Post by boxy » Sun Dec 23, 2012 11:20 pm

Even though you talk a lot of shit, we'll still try to save you from yourself, Mel. Even idiots deserve a long and healthy life :smitten
"But you will run your fluffy bunny mouth at me. And I will take it, to play poker."

mellie
Posts: 11811
Joined: Mon Feb 28, 2011 7:52 pm

Re: Plain packaging of cigarettes.

Post by mellie » Mon Dec 24, 2012 12:32 pm

boxy wrote:Even though you talk a lot of shit, we'll still try to save you from yourself, Mel. Even idiots deserve a long and healthy life :smitten
It's not my fault you have comprehension issues, this and are unable to smell the shit under your own fingernails.

But you know me, I'll always try to bring you up to speed, even if I have to skull drag you kicking and screaming the whole way.


8-) Boxy, If ignorance is bliss, why are you so wretched?

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests