.@Ed_Miliband plan to make tobacco pay for NHS investment - big alcohol to pay towards #21billion cost of alcohol? #Lab14
— Drink Wise UK (@DrinkWiseUK) September 23, 2014
Our Children's Health Fund - revenue frm #sugarydrinksduty 2 pay 4 preventative health measures - similar idea to EdM's cig tax 2 fund NHS
— Malcolm & CFC team (@Childrensfood) September 23, 2014
NHS fund hits tobacco firms. Pressure from Labour delegates to extend to alcohol firms
— Socialist Health Asn (@SocialistHealth) September 23, 2014
This smacks of arbitrary and capricious government. And it will ultimately be paid for by the consumer, as one analyst told the Guardian...
“The obvious solution for companies is likely to be a pass-on of the cost through higher prices, so you would expect the consumer to ultimately bear the cost.”
Yep. But there is one thing that puzzles me about the way the media reported the story and it is this:
The fees, similar to those introduced by Barack Obama in 2009, are to be based on the firm’s market share.
Most newspapers echoed the claim that Obama did the same thing in 2009, but I can't work out what they're referring to. Obama introduced a major tax rise on tobacco in 2009, but that can't be it. Miliband's idea more closely resembles the Master Settlement Agreement, but that was a legal settlement and it happened way back in 1998 under Bill Clinton.
Can any readers explain? Or is this the Labour press office desperately trying to get the words 'Obama' an 'Miliband' into the same sentence?
