中華民國後備憲兵論壇 | ROCMP Forum

每包菸將增加25元。

[複製連結]
a0925234799 發表於 2013-5-10 23:46:58 | 顯示全部樓層 |閱讀模式
檢視: 13415|回覆: 15
資料來源:頻果日報2013年05月09日
行政院會通過《菸害防制法》、《菸酒稅法》修正草案,菸捐每包從20元提高到40元,增加20元,菸稅每包從11.8元提高為16.8元,總計每包增加25元。

衛生署副署長戴桂英說,依《菸害防制法》規定每2年檢討一次,世界銀行要求每包菸的菸捐、菸稅應佔零售價67%到80%,但現在只有54%仍偏低,預期調漲後,以價制量,降低吸菸率20.8%,且健康捐增加268億。

財政部次長曾銘宗說,菸稅每包雖增加5元,但預期買菸者減少,稅收減少6.1億元。國民健康局長邱淑媞也說,調漲菸價可減少74萬人吸菸,長期社會效益(醫療、生產力耗損)2960億元。江揆說,2006、2009年調漲菸捐時曾發生大量走私問題,指示海巡、警署配合強力查緝,並加強與立委溝通。
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

是該戒菸了!每包煙將漲25元!以大眾品牌香菸來說平均一包要價超過百元, 抽菸顧人怨!為了健康學長/學弟們一起努力把菸戒掉吧!
邱明宗 發表於 2013-5-11 10:52:10 | 顯示全部樓層

每包菸將增加25元。

這是變相的徵稅,對於目前吸煙人口的降低,並無很大的作用力,反而是健康捐已經徵收多年,防止對於青少年的吸煙人口數,勸導與戒菸有成果嗎?
linyuhsiung 發表於 2013-5-11 11:12:03 | 顯示全部樓層
我必須承認,即使再增加25元,我恐怕也戒不掉,增加健康捐不是降低吸菸率的好辦法,就跟發消費卷想刺激經濟一樣,沒有長期性的效果.
ahyang 發表於 2013-5-11 15:48:18 | 顯示全部樓層
提示: 作者被封鎖或刪除 內容自動遮蔽
aaa0828 發表於 2013-5-11 22:35:04 | 顯示全部樓層
像我這個老煙槍,一包煙漲到200元,我都不可能戒掉

問題是戒煙的人口真的有下降嗎?

如果有下降,我為何還是經常看到一堆國中生刁著煙

再則,健康捐到底捐到哪裡去了?

從來沒有公布明細過

你漲吧,我只是小老百姓,也只能發發牢騷
sp01361 發表於 2013-5-11 22:56:46 | 顯示全部樓層
唉!看到香煙要漲價,心裡就痛,抽了那麼多年,要戒真的是要有很大的決心.
但我覺得什麼會有多少人口會因此而戒煙,增加或減少多少的稅收,那都只是行政官員們的說詞罷了.
反正政府官員怎麼說怎麼做我們都得逆來順受,而我們這些小老百姓只能發發牢騷, X 在心裡,
SmokeyLT 發表於 2013-5-11 23:26:30 | 顯示全部樓層
昨天想了很久,美國這裡一包普通的Marlboro, 平常要價大約是美金六元(含稅),也就是台幣一百八十。如果住在邊境,開車去加拿大再回來,經過免稅店帶兩條是美金52元,平均一包2.6元,也就是新台幣七十八元。菸稅的確很重,從價格上我想到三個問題。

1.在台灣,一包長壽漲價25元,真是一種歧視的行為。為何菸稅和菸捐要隨量抽稅?照理說應該隨價抽稅越貴的菸品就抽越多稅,這樣才公平合理吧。所謂升斗小民,也許只抽得起長壽,隨量抽稅等於是剝削窮人。世界銀行又怎樣,大家都知道世界銀行根本就是跨國資本主義的侵略打手,他要你菸價含稅要六到八成,其實也就是變相摧毀小國自己的菸草工業,讓西方資本主義大國的菸草商能夠更加占領市場。我們的政府的好壞也許見仁見智,但是幫著西方資本主義跨國企業打壓本國小老百姓則是,相信萬人同口一聲,真是做得挺徹底

2.在台灣,雖然海巡的防有人走私進口,警察防有人販賣走私進口,但是還是有管道:出國甚至去大陸,經過機場都可買免稅商品,台灣的免稅店,所謂個人限額,都只是參考而已,巴不得整個貨架東西都賣給你。我個人經驗是,海關幾乎不檢查,你要帶幾條菸都可以。被抓到只能算倒楣。這樣,又是剝削窮人一層,因為窮人也許不能經常出國,可是有錢人出國不當回事,而且有錢人的有錢朋友也比較多,我敢打賭,雖然有錢人也許不在乎繳點菸稅菸捐,但是要是他們有心,絕對可以整年抽菸一毛稅都不必繳。有人會說,那就要海關加強執法,每個遊客都要仔細檢查行李。說這話的人不是太天真就是腦殘,嚴格檢查,商家會抗議,等待的旅客會抗議,海關的人員恐怕也會要求加薪。這是不可能的!所以加收菸捐菸稅,更加是歧視和剝削社會較低收入者!

3. 戒菸。我戒了兩年多了。說真的,中間也有抽過,一兩包。說真的我還是喜歡抽菸,喜歡香菸的味道,但是我就是戒了,從我十一歲抽到三十七歲,二十七年的時光,不能說短,所以我知道一件事:戒菸和價錢,偏好,或是菸齡可說是無關。我抽了27年說戒就戒,馬上把手中那包菸丟進垃圾桶不再買新的。有機會和朋友吃飯固然可以來一根,但我抱定了不買就不抽的想法,根本不買。但是那是我,不敢說每個人都是如此。重點在於,菸價再貴,要抽的人還是會去抽。美國菸價這樣高,抽菸的人並沒有減少。台灣的話,大家過得太苦悶了,不抽菸又要怎樣?除非政府有誠意,直接讓娼妓和賭博完全無限制的就地合法化,否則我覺得要抽菸的還是要抽,(我這兩年多來抽的一兩包菸都是在台灣抽的。哈哈。)
junrone6868 發表於 2013-5-13 12:16:29 | 顯示全部樓層
在還沒戒掉菸癮前,
漲價---心好痛,但是還是繼續買。
現在菸癮戒掉了,
漲價---心裡有點幸災樂禍(各位學長對不起)
戒菸的確很難,
我抽了30年,中間戒菸最長2個星期,
戒菸是因為騎不上觀音山,蹲在路邊暈眩和喘氣,
很神奇竟然已經2年不抽菸了,
戒菸真的很好也很難!
但是健康捐有用在該用的地方嗎?
該不會像014等作法給消耗抹乾?
w73w99n3 發表於 2013-5-13 13:29:02 | 顯示全部樓層
煙漲價,以健康而言是好事,但如果扯到政治就令人生氣,政府缺錢不往資方著手、不往商業著手,往基層的士、農、工 人階級挖稅,這難怪造成對立與不平衡。
以上扯遠了,如有冒犯到各位學長請包涵、不要筆戰我。
asun 發表於 2013-5-13 13:57:40 | 顯示全部樓層
洛杉磯時報最近有篇社論,與這個主題有關,小弟覺得還有幾分道理。
社論的標題是「人們有權作選擇,即使是一種愚笨的選擇」。
小弟的感想是,這些選擇需要付出某種代價。

有興趣的學長請看看原文。


Smoking and the right to dumb choices


By The Times editorial board

April 24, 2013


As thoroughly awful as everyone knows cigarettes to be — still the No. 1 cause of premature death in this country — public officials walk a blurry line when they try to reduce smoking's terrible toll. As long as they lack the will to ban tobacco altogether, they face all sorts of ethical, legal and political problems in regulating a product that is, after all, perfectly legal.

High tobacco taxes, critics say, unfairly punish smokers, who are disproportionately low income. Banning advertising of a legal product raises free-speech issues. And can tobacco companies really be forced to put large graphic warnings on their own products to discourage customers from buying them? Does that make sense?

Now, the New York City Council
, backed by Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg
, is considering another tactic:
making it illegal for anyone younger than 21 to buy cigarettes. Currently, anyone 18 or over can buy a pack.

Bloomberg has taken a lot of ribbing for previous nanny-state proposals involving salt and trans-fats and, especially, for his plan to ban the serving of soft drinks larger than 16 ounces. The new proposal would, at least theoretically, make cigarettes difficult to obtain by those who are most vulnerable to peer pressure and tobacco marketing. Prevention makes sense because smoking is so addictive that more than 85% of those who try to quit relapse.

Yet the good intentions are outweighed by the proposal's problems. For one thing, it's practically doomed to have minimal effect. A 20-minute bus ride will transport any Bronx resident to neighboring Yonkers, where 18-year-olds would still be allowed to buy as many cartons as they wanted. According to the U.S. Surgeon General, nearly 90% of smokers take up the habit before the age of 18
— apparently unfazed by the existing rules barring stores from selling to them.

Beyond the practical considerations, government leaders should think twice about taking away the right of adults to buy a legal, if dangerous, product like cigarettes. And 18-year-olds are adults — allowed to sign legally binding contracts, to vote, to go to war and to seek and obtain a doctor's prescription for Oxycontin
. True, the legal drinking age is 21 in every state. But that is justified by the fact that an 18-year-old's dumb decision to drink may harm others. A decision to smoke harms only the smoker.

More than 1,200 people die of smoking-related disease each day
in this country. By all means, there should be more education about the dangers of smoking, more bans on where people may smoke, more advertising to counter the tobacco industry's marketing. But adults should retain the right to make most decisions that affect only themselves, even very bad decisions.
你需要登入後才可以回覆 登入 | 加入後憲

本版積分規則

禁閉室|手機版|Archiver|後憲論壇

GMT+8, 2024-11-21 16:36 , Processed in 0.033053 second(s), 6 queries , Gzip On, APCu On.

Powered by Discuz! X3.4

© ROCMP.org since 2005