Log In

Reset Password

Stop the tobacco tax grab


Many low-income families could feed their children if tobacco taxes, which are doing the most harm financially, were wound back.

It now costs roughly $70 for a 30-gram packet of tobacco — times that by two if both parents smoke, and there goes half your grocery money for the week.

This hoha about being smoke-free by 2025 is a lot of rubbish. The instigator of this smoke-free bill is harming her people the most.

Drop the tax grab that is hurting the lower-income families.

Winston Peters' advice was that the average packet of cigarettes should cost no more than $20.

Kerry Jones

  1. Jack Adams says:

    Maybe, just maybe, you should stop smoking or grow your own tobacco (perfectly legal).

    The tax is to reduce the large impact you, as a smoker, have on the health system that we must all use.

  2. Bernie Kaa says:

    So this Government thinks that in four years NZ will be smokefree – what a joke.
    Honestly, smoke prices go up faster than my wages, which have come to a halt.
    Young ones are smoking, so if they are in their teens or are young adults do you think they are going to quit within four years?
    People are not going to stop, no matter how much they have to pay for it. Sad? Yes, but it is the truth.

    1. Jack Adams says:

      So, to be clear, you think the Government should do nothing, based on the anecdotal evidence that you and your children will not stop smoking?

      How about all the other people who have stopped smoking as a result of the raised prices?

      Have you tried to stop smoking? I mean actually tried, as in using the free resources and help available to you as a smoker.

      1. Bernie Kaa says:

        Where does it say in my comment that they are my kids? Young kids throughout the country is what I’m talking about. And who said I smoke? I gave up smoking many years ago.
        So before you start judging my comment, make sure you read properly.

  3. Ramon Sanders says:

    Yup, freeze the tobacco tax grab, these smokers have more than paid for their healthcare!! Also, I’m a non smoker, have never smoked.

    1. Moana says:

      I agree with Ramon.

  4. A McKellow says:

    The theory that an item should be taxed proportional to the harm it inflicts has a sound basis.
    Tobacco has been proven to cause harm.
    But so too has alcohol.
    Whilst tobacco’s harm is limited largely to the user and to a lesser extent the passive inhaler, the same cannot be said of alcohol.
    The inconsiderate alcohol user causes more immediate physical and emotional harm.
    If the point of taxes is to reduce this harm by increasing the tax to discourage use, then alcohol taxes need to be dramatically increased. But alcohol prices have fallen over the years.
    The prohibition era taught us that trying to eliminate a product does not work.
    That then leaves only taxes to discourage. A pity the same rules that are applied to tobacco are not applied to alcohol.