Is it any wonder there is so much Petty Theft, Begging and general Misery in the Philippines

[Jollygoodfellow]

4 hours ago, Snowy79 said:

It's a sin tax added by the President as I know he's pushing for a complete smoking ban.

The sin tax was introduced about 3 or so years ago.

[Jack Peterson]

9 minutes ago, Jollygoodfellow said:

The sin tax was introduced about 3 or so years ago.

2012 rings a bell implemented in Jan 2013 I believe with amendments each Quarter and a % rise in the Budget but April saw the 1/4 rise now we see another one even Bigger and that is what I was referring to.

Edited May 2, 2017 by Jack Peterson
a little punctuation if you don't mind

[Snowy79]

37 minutes ago, Jollygoodfellow said:

The sin tax was introduced about 3 or so years ago.

I think this is an ammendment to the sin tax (HB4144) due to Senate reforms in addition to the previous so called sin tax (RA10352). This link has both Acts: http://www.congress.gov.ph/legisdocs/basic_17/HB04144.pdf

[Jack Peterson]

7 hours ago, Jack Peterson said:

Anyway I am sure others have noticed these more than Gradual increases of late.

 Just one of the questions I asked, or hinted at. It was not just about TAX. it was about how it affected our Employees that things are escalating more than the given inflation rate

[jpbago]

6 hours ago, Jack Peterson said:

 Just one of the questions I asked, or hinted at. It was not just about TAX. it was about how it affected our Employees that things are escalating more than the given inflation rate

I have talked about these increases before and I feel for the little guy. The capitol workers and some others get a 13th and a 14th month pay but many do not yet they have to bear the same increases in goods and services. It is not fair.

[mogo51]

It appears that DU30 is following the western philosophy regarding cigarettes - tax them to pay for the cost of attending cancer sufferers.  In Oz pack of 20 cigs is $20 plus.  Smoking has been declining in Oz over many decades.  They are very much in the minority now.  

Away from the impact of your post Jack, but thought worth mentioning.

[Dave Hounddriver]

1 hour ago, mogo51 said:

tax them to pay for the cost of attending cancer sufferers.

 That won't happen here in my lifetime.  They let 'em die.  Easy to make more people.  The tax is going somewhere but I doubt its gonna ease the suffering of an cancer patients.  Just my opinion.  

[Jack Peterson]

9 minutes ago, Dave Hounddriver said:

 Just my opinion.  

 A very valid Opinion if I may so, This sin tax was meant to be to build new Hospitals to care for these people + additional schools buildings to cater for the Education promised but as you say, it is going anywhere but where it was intended for in my Opinion. Private Ventures are Building Hospitals as we know so.......... Aghhhh Forget it cos it is the same old Story EH? 

[mogo51]

On 5/3/2017 at 8:22 AM, Dave Hounddriver said:

 That won't happen here in my lifetime.  They let 'em die.  Easy to make more people.  The tax is going somewhere but I doubt its gonna ease the suffering of an cancer patients.  Just my opinion.  

You are probably right Dave, sad but true.  I must have over polished my 'rose coloured glasses'

[Mike J]

It is interesting that agencies that tax cigarettes will attempt to justify the tax by citing society's increased cost of health care for people who smoke.  They always cite the "cost" of treating cancer, COPD, etc, but they NEVER talk about the health care savings because these people (on average) die several years earlier that non-smokers.   Most of us will have more and more physical problems as we age, so it makes sense that the longer we live, the greater will be the health care expense in that longer life span.  There have been a number of studies that show the average life time health cost for a smoker is less than for a non-smoker.  Because smokers tend to die at an earlier age than non-smokers, they do not experience the extra years of "old age health care expense" of their non-smoking counterparts.  Since no one seems to want to hear that cigarette smoking results in a net savings to national health care most people are not aware of these studies.  I would not be surprised if similar studies exist for alcohol abuse.   As to where the "sin tax" revenue really goes, I would agree with other posters that it almost certainly does not go to treat/prevent cancer.  I am not suggesting that "sin taxes" are either good or bad, just that the arguments used to justify the taxes may not be factually correct (at least for smokers).

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/health/2009-04-08-fda-tobacco-costs_N.htm