What is the history of UK tobacco taxation policy, what are the outcomes from the past to date?

IntroductionThe baccy epidemic is i of the biggest public wellness curses the world has ever faced (WHO). Research has shown that there argon 1.1 meg smokers in the world today and if this current chassis continues to establish at the current rate, then that number is expected to rise to 1.6 billion by the year 2025 (WHO). baccy smoke is harmful to smokers and harms nearly every organ of the body, diminishing a persons everyplace in alone health. Millions of tidy sum conduct health problems lay downd by take in baccy and it is a egesting ca usage of netcer causing layaboutcers of the lung, larynx, m knocked out(p)h, pancreas, stomach, as well as acute myeloid leukemia and cardiovascular diseases. Around the world pot ca parts not solely diseases and disability, it kills wondrous numbers of people. As research has shown baccy is responsible for approximately 443,000 deaths iodin in every five deaths each year in the f in altogether in States (U.S DoH, 2010) In the linked ground, it is responsible for much than 120,000 deaths a year, much than all other drugs combined (Peto et al., 1994). Treating sess striked diseases costs the National wellness armed service in excess of ?1.5 thousand billion a year. Further more than, a radix by the indemnity deputise in 2010 estimated the total cost to rank of the smoking to be ?13.74 billion (bn) ?2.7bn includes cost to the NHS solely besides the spill in productivity from smoking breaks (?2.9 bn) and change magnituded absenteeism (?2.5bn). As the Policy Exchange estimated, costs in like manner include the cost of fires (?507m), the loss of economic getup from the death of smokers (?4.1bn) and passive smokers (?713m)In the 2011-12 financial year, the Government fatigued ?88.2 million on the stop smoking services in the United soil alone plus additional ?66.4 million on medicinal aids.The rise of tobacco plant plant r compensateue The United solid ground Government already intervenes in m any(prenominal) dashs to pr stock-stillt, minimize the consequences of the harms ca utilise by smoking. In an effort to make out the number of smoking-related deaths, the discussion section of wellness has introduced a number of measures including media and education campaigns closely the dangers and harms of tobacco smoke, stop-smoking and nicotine replacement therapies available finished the NHS service, a comprehensive throw away on tobacco advertising and promotion and regulation of the contents and labeling of tobacco products. However, since usher shows that scathe increases agree a major(ip) effect on decrease both smoking prevalence and consumption in a higher place all other tried and tested measure, change magnitude the price has thence hold out the main tool in the insurance of the United Kingdom to pare smoking (BMA, 2010).Cigarettes, which are the around popular of all tobacco products in England, are now sold at historically exorbitant prices. In decree to understand how the prices of tobacco products affirm become so high, it is thence necessary to first gain an overview of the history of the tobacco tax revenue and its development. some surprisingly, the United Kingdom has a very wide history of tobacco taxation constitution. Excise tax on tobacco was first introduced solitary(prenominal) one century after tobacco first was introduced into the United Kingdom in 1660 although the present framework of the particularized and ad valorem come to commerce on cigarettes was introduced in 1976 in order to ease tax harmonization in spite of appearance the EEC. However, it was then not until the past two decades that tobacco taxation really became the main tool and policy in fighting the ills of smoking on association.From November 1993 to November 1999 there was a clear commitment made by the government to increase tobacco duties annually in real terms, ab initio by at least 3% on average per annum. This was carried out diligently for a while until in July 1997 the Labour Government proclaimed it would raise cigarette taxes by at least 5% preceding(prenominal) the rate of inflation each year. This new commitment was carried through in both the 1998 and 1999 budgets, but in November 1999 the Chancellor abandoned this policy. Instead, it was proclaimed that unembellished revenue raised from future tobacco tax rises would be spent on health care of Great Britain. frankincense, from 2001 until 2008 tobacco taxes rose only in line with inflation. However, in 2009, tobacco duties were increased again by 2% on the basis of a deflationary forecast in the Retail Price Index of 3%, so representing increase an on 5% in real terms (HM Treasury, 2009) The Chancellor then announced in 2010, that tobacco duty 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 tooled by the cur rent new Conservative-led coalition 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 cigarettes, 12 pence to the price of constrict of five small cigars, 37 pence to the price of a 25g pouch of consecrate-rolling tobacco, and 20 pence to the price of a 25g pouch of a pipe tobacco (HM Treasury, 2012). Thus one put up perceive that although it is not a consistent slaying of policy, there is a growing severity in the percentage of tax. Against the effect of increased taxation the tobacco persistence, however, has been fighting back by belongings the price of its cheapest cigarettes around static despite various increases in tobacco taxes. This therefore has had an effect in limiting the efficaciousness of the United Kingdoms public health policy to annul smoking through higher prices (Bath University Tobacco Control Research Group).As a result, the price of cheaper cigarettes has remained almost unchanged since 2006 and their market share has doubled compared to expensive premium cigarettes. This therefore suggests that as cigarette taxes are raised, many smokers ordain down tack to cheaper cigarettes and just carry on smoking.Criticisms of the tobacco taxSince the Government started launching a full-scale attack on the tobacco industry, a lot has been pen about the Tobacco taxation policy. A number of studies consider shown that taxes pile and then be substantial in reducing smoking. By way of example, John A. Bishop and Jang H. Yoo (1985) determined that the consumption of cigarettes is prodigiously take uped by taxes that are levied on the tobacco products. The tax, they open, had more of an effect on consumption than did any other interventions previously implemented. Additionally, W. Kip Viscusi (1990) found that excise taxes discourage smoking by serving as a monetary cost for the risks associated with smoking.From this it can be perceived that raising tobacco prices are therefore one of the most effective federal agency of reducing tobacco spend, especially among price- natural smokers much(prenominal) as younger member of society and people with low incomes. The specific question of whether the youth are more or less reactive to prices than adults, has been examined in a number of studies using individual-level entropy (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, palpateings from those studies are mixed. The before studies on this issue (Lewit, 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 new-made study in the Unit ed Kingdom found that smoking boundary before middle age avoids more that 90% of the lung cancer death rate risk attributable to tobacco which may affect the younger members of societys views on the risks associated with it and may lessen the health warnings (Peto et al, 2000).It can alike be seen that studies from high-income countries are consistent with those from low and middle-income countries, in that they both find unfluctuating and consistent evidence that increases in the prices of tobacco products lead to the significant reductions in cigarette smoking regardless of location or the hoidenishs wealth. However, a number of other arguments have been raised for tobacco taxation policy and need to be considered. To elucidate, there are a number of political, economic, and social arguments that have long been used as arguments against significant tax increases in tobacco taxes.It has been argued by critics that higher tobacco taxes bequeath lead to increased smuggling and other related criminal employment such as black market cigarettes sold without tax, or even encourage fake cigarettes than can be even worse for health. A second common objection to tobacco tax increases is that they will ordinarily fall disproportionately on the poor who have less sacrificeable income to indulge such habits compared to wealthy individuals who will not notice the increase so much. Growing amounts of literature suggest that tobacco tax increases susceptibility be progressive (Gabe, 2009). As discussed above, several studies have concluded that people who live on a lower income are more responsive to changes in cigarettes prices than higher income persons, implying that high taxes reduce smoking by more in lower income gatherings. A final major argument that is a good deal employed in the debate over increased cigarettes taxes is that these tax increases would lead to reductions in employment. As HM Revenue and Customs has estimated, in the United Kingdom the t obacco industry employs around 17,000 people in spryly manufacture in the tobacco trade alone (HM Revenue & Customs, 2010).As 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(a) stakeholders involved in the policy itself and what determines their actual positions and interest. Therefore, to shed some valuable light on this, the stakeholder analysis will be used in this try out. Moreover, the appreciate being framework will also be used in order to understand the hypothesized causal orbit of how political policy can sustain find out on tobacco use behavior. Finally, available empirical data appropriated by HM Revenue and Customs will be used to base the judgments on both quantitative and qualities data. Identifying the stakeholders of Tobacco taxation policyTobacco entertain strategists need finely honed analytical skills in order to identify all the stakeholders involved in tobacco taxation policy and to determine their positions through research and interviews of each stakeholder. In addition, they will also need to assess each stakeholders relative power and knead over other stakeholders. On the basis of this analysis, strategists from tobacco get a line must therefore facilitate an alliance between the supportive and the neutral groups by accentuating common interests and goals, emphasizing the shared benefits of a tobacco tax increase. chevalier identifies three key attributes to be examined in a stakeholder analysis. 1. Power (authoritative, involve and control and legislative power) 2. Legitimacy (righteousness, impartiality or technical credibility)3. disposition of urgency or interests with regard to the subject matter. This will therefore be utilized in the examination of the different types of stakeholders this essay will identify. see to it 1. Stakeholder typology.Source Mi tchell et.al. (1997)The manageable combination of the attributes in Figure 1 above explains the different types of stakeholders in their main groups. In sum, definitive stakeholders possess all three of the attributes mentioned by Chevalier. Dependent stakeholders, however, they have keen interests and legitimacy but no power. Contrastingly, dominant stakeholders have power and legitimacy but have no urgency or interest. Dangerous stakeholders on the other hand have power and a keen interest but not legitimacy. Moreover, dangerous stakeholders do not possess the technical expertise and experience 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 credibly 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 six typesGroup 1 Bureaucrats 1. Excise segment within the Treas ury.2.National Tobacco Control office and Ministry of Health.3.local anesthetic governments. The first of this group, the Excise Department, is within the Ministry of Finance and is usually interested in revenue generation and indeed supports the tobacco tax increases. The Customs Department seatrs and their policy, however, can also overestimate 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 arrogation incentives are attractive then they may also support tax rises on tobacco and tobacco related products. The Fiscal Policy Office and the Bureau of Budget might have a more conservativist view about tax increases in customary, but they would be likely to support an increase of taxes on tobacco products. The Ministry of Health and National Tobacco control office are usually strongly supportive 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 fancy 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.2.Tobacco industry3.Importers (the proxies of the transitional tobacco industry)4.Tobacco growers group and association, local tobacco growing industry.As evidence shows, as it is perhaps 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 Industrys own documents they disseminate prove that the industry can resort to dishonorable tactics to persuade governments to maintain the worst 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 content of absence of good governance the tobacco industry may provide direct and indirect incentives to government official to block or even delay actions to raise tobacco excise taxes. In this situation the usage of non-governmental organizations (nongovernmental organizations) is critical as an NGO can bring unethical practices to the forethought of the public they are also able to apply pressure on government officials to remain accountable to the population.Group 3 NGO and media 1. friendship-based organizations2.Civic organizations3.Media4.Other special interests groups. The NGO corporation 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 association on the subject matter, th ey become legitimate dependent stakeholders. Thus, the crucial voice of NGOs acting a societys watch dogs. The medias percentage is from a different angle and is to inform the public about the issues surround the debate on tobacco taxes, its increases and decreases. Accordingly, the media can have a abundant 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 transformed 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 advertising 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 professional associations.1.Economists.2.Physicians groups.3.Health as sociations (Cancer society, optic associations etc.)4.Other health professionals group.The 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 family line of stakeholders can play significant role as credible experts in validating the evidence provided to the media and the general public. Applying the value mental home framework. The value creation framework was developed by International Tobacco Control (2006) in order to measure the dazes of tobacco control policy.Figure 2.This is a abstract get illustrating a hypothesized casual chain of how policy exerts influence on tobacco use behavior. The conceptual sit around (figure 2) assumes that policy ultimately 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 effects on a broad array of important psychosocial and behavioral variables, and for testing how policy distinctions relate to their effectiveness.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.1. The most immediate effects are those on the policy-specific variables that is, price which affects perceived costs of cigarettes. This is the price of tobacco products, which has increased since policy-makers started interventions to date.2. Psychosocial mediators, which are conceptually distant from the policy and which theorized to be affected by multiple 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.Accordingly, tobacco taxation is effective in a two-fold way Policy-specific variables such as the price of cigarettes affect smoking ha bits as psychological mediators that affect psychological smoking habits themselves. The military rating of the control policies used for combating tobacco at the population level is gloss over in its fundamental stages of development, accordingly, studies conducted on the effectiveness of policies to control tobacco wasting disease are hindered by the same limitations. Cross-sectional studies are lacking in validity as they are poor in their ability to endure attributions although longitudinal studies are naturally greater in internal validity. deplorably the limited number of such research into tobacco policy means there is a general lack of comparison available for analysis. valuation of tobacco smoking control policy data should come to recognition further once time 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 military rank analysis can be don e so the theory 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 best threat to global health, that requires a mobilisation and alignment of researchers, advocates, and governments toward meeting the threat (Fong, 2006). By way of demonstration the International Tobacco Control Policy Evaluation Project (the ITC Project) describes the challenges of evaluating 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 anomalous landmark in global tobacco control over use and its terrors, however the path from the promise of effective tobacco control policies to the actual reality of strong implementation of tobacco taxation policies was not found to be easy.The ITC project found many countries have not insofar ratified tobacco taxation policies, and in many countries that have, there is still residual pressure either to delay the implementation or to implement policies in ways that will render them less effective than their potential. The armorial bearing of the ITC Project was to conduct evaluation of such policies to establish the evidence base that will give policymakers throughout the world the evidence that will appropriate 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.ConclusionIt 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 taxati on 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 dedicated and truly addicted lower income smokers will continue and still resort to other means of paying for their tobacco fix. Regardless 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, concede that the policy may plateau at some level wherein smoking is enjoyed by a dedicated minority and the increase in taxes can no longer be justified any further.ReferencesBaggott, R. (2004). Health and Health Care in Britain. 3rd Edition, London Palgrave Macmillan.Baggot t, R. (2007). Understanding Health Policy. Policy Press.Boyle, S. (2011). United Kingdom (England) Health system review (Health Systems in Transition). At http//www.euro.who.int/en/home/projects/observatory/publications.Crinson, I. (2009). Health Policy A Critical Perspective. London Sage.Chaloupka FJ, Hu TW, Warner KE, et al. The taxation of tobacco products. InJha P, Chaloupka F, eds. Tobacco control in developing countries. New York Oxford University Press, Inc, 200123772.Borland, R. Tobacco health warnings and smoking-related cognitions and behaviours. Addiction 199792142735.Borland R, Hill D. Initial impact of the new Australian tobacco health warnings on knowledge and beliefs. Tob Control 1997631725.The COMMIT Research Group. Community Intervention Trial for Smoking Cessation (COMMIT) I. Cohort results from a four-year community intervention. Am J Public Health 1995 8518392.Hyland A, Li Q, Bauer JE, et al. heart and soul of state and community tobacco control programs on smo king purpose rates in adult smokers. Am J Health stroll 2005298590.Wakefield M, Chaloupka F. Effectiveness of comprehensive tobacco control programmes in reducing teenage smoking in the USA. Tob Control 2000 917786.Farrelly MC, Pechacek TF, Chaloupka FJ. The impact of tobacco control program expenditures on aggregate cigarette gross sales 19812000. J Health Econ 2003228439.Darzi, L. (2008). High Quality care for all NHS Next Stage Review final report. CM 7432. London Department of HealthGabe, J. & Calnan, M. (eds.) (2009). The New Sociology of the Health Service. London Routledge.Ham, C. (2009). Health Policy in Britain. 6th Edition. London Palgrave Macmillan.Hunter, D.J. (2008). The Health Debate, Bristol Policy Press.Kings caudex (2005). An Independent Audit of the NHS under Labour (19972005). London Kings Fund.Klein, R. (2010). The New Politics of the NHS From Creation to Reinvention. 6th Edition. Abingdon Radcliffe Publishing.Mahon, A., Walshe, K. & Chambers, N. (2009). (eds .) A Reader in Health Policy and Management. Maidenhead Open University Press.Marmot, M. et al. (2010). Fair Society, Healthy Lives (The Marmot Review). At http//www.instituteofhealthequity.org.Pollock, A. M. (2009). NHS Plc The Privatisation of Our Health Care. 3rd Edition. Verso Books.Pollock, A. M. & Talbot-Smith, A (2006). The New NHS A trace A Guide to Its Funding, Organisation and Accountability. London Routledge.