What's new

Federal cabinet shoots down ‘Sin Tax’ proposal

Dubious

RETIRED MOD
Joined
Jul 22, 2012
Messages
37,717
Reaction score
80
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
By Shahbaz Rana
Published: February 22, 2019

1915864-imagex-1550804572-811-640x480.jpg

A file photo of PM Imran Khan chairing a federal cabinet meeting. PHOTO: PTI

ISLAMABAD: The federal cabinet on Thursday rejected a proposal to impose Sin Tax on consumption of tobacco and beverages due to legal and administrative hitches in enforcement of the levy.

The Ministry of National Health Services tabled the draft bill, seeking permission to impose Rs10 federal health levy on a 20-stick cigarettes pack and Re1 on 250 milliliter sugar sweetened beverage. The federal health levy has been originally called a “Sin Tax”.

The cabinet approved an eleven-member board of Sarmaya-e-Pakistan Limited (SPL) company that has been setup to reform dozens of loss making state-owned enterprises by separating them from their parent ministries.

The Federal Minister for Information Fawad Chaudhry told The Express Tribune that the federal cabinet did not approve health levy. He said the cabinet also approved board of the SPL Limited.

The Ministry of National Health Services had proposed the Sin Tax to “finance health insurance scheme and fatal diseases programme” of Prime Minister Imran Khan.

But Finance Minister Asad Umar took the stance that it was not appropriate for any other ministry to make taxation proposals, according to participants of the meeting. Under the Rules of Business, it is the job of the Revenue Division to propose tax measures.

There were also concerns that the decision to impose a Levy through Finance Bill may not withstand courts’ scrutiny. The revenues generated through imposing a levy instead of a tax do not become part of federal divisible pool being shared by the provinces and the Centre.

There was also a concern that the provinces may raise constitutional objections to collect levy on health, which is a provincial matter under the 1973 Constitution, said the officials. Furthermore, any increase in tax burden of the tobacco sector could lead to reduction in its revenues.

The FBR collected Rs74 billion revenues from the cigarette manufacturers in the last fiscal year –which was down by one-third over the previous fiscal year due to change in tax slabs. It now expects to collect around Rs115 billion by end of this fiscal year.

The Health Ministry wanted that the Sin Tax should be charged, levied and paid on manufacturing, sale or transfer of cigarettes and sugar-sweetened beverages by manufacturers, producers and importers. Revenue collected through health levy should be allocated for health budget of the federal government.

The cabinet directed the Health Minister Aamer Kiani to hold a meeting with Finance Minister Asad Umar to get financing for his health projects instead of imposing a levy, said the officials.

Under the National Health Programme, originally launched by former PM Nawaz Sharif, nearly 3.2 million families in 38 districts were given health coverage. PM Khan wants to expand the programme’s horizon to 18 million poor families across Pakistan.

In Pakistan tobacco is a cause of death of around 160,189 people annually. Almost 15.6 million adults currently smoke tobacco in the country, according to the Ministry of National Health Services. The economic cost of the smoking is estimated at Rs143.2 billion annually, including direct and indirect cost.

Over consumption of sugar is a major cause of obesity, diabetes and tooth decay. Over 27.4 million people are suffering from diabetes and another 14.5 million are at risk of diabetes.

The federal cabinet on Thursday also approved eleven-member board of Sarmaya-e-Pakistan Limited (SPL) aimed at reviving the loss making government enterprises.

The cabinet ratified the decision of the Cabinet Committee on State Owned Enterprises (CCoSOEs) that had finalised eight private member candidates out of a list of 21, proposed by the Finance Division.

The cabinet approved the names of Kamran Yousaf Mirza, Ahmad Jaudat Bilal, Arshad Nasar, Musharraf Hai, Babar Badat, Zubyr Soomro, Nadeem Babar and Ehsan Malik for appointment as directors on the company’s board.

The cabinet approved names of five alternative members to be considered in case any of the members from the approved list chooses refuses to become a director. These are Waqar A Malik, Muhammad Aliuddin Ansar, Zafar A Khan, Khalid Mansoor and Atif Aslam Bajwa.

The CCoSOEs had also considered few names for appointment of chairman of the Saymaya Company but it left the decision on the board to pick its chairman.

The names have been approved a week after the government incorporated the company. It is an unlisted public company with 100% shareholding of the government. The Cabinet Committee, being headed by Prime Minister Imran Khan, will oversee the SPL Company.

In addition to eight private members, there are three ex-officio government members – secretary Finance Division, secretary Industries and Production Division and secretary Power Division.

The private sector members have been picked on basis of capability, credibility and integrity. It has also been decided that the board will formulate a Conflict of Interest Policy under Corporate Governance Rules.

The Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) government has set up the company to reform the ailing state-owned enterprises. After coming into power, the government had delisted almost 55 enterprises from the list of active privatisation including Pakistan Airlines and Pakistan Steel Mills.

The cumulative debt of the PSEs increased to over Rs1.5 trillion by end of December. The government on Thursday also gave ‘look after charge’ of the Pakistan Steel Mills’ to Naeem Jan, joint secretary of Ministry of industry.


https://tribune.com.pk/story/1915867/1-pm-office-expenses-slashed-31-cabinet-told/
 
.
This is stupid!

The basic msg is money is more important than life!

I mean tobacco and sugar is killing the nation! If you dont act smartly you wont have a nation to fix!
Almost every developed nation taxes alcohol and tobacco heavily! It becomes revenues for health care to help fix the damage done to those who consume it! So the people kind of pay for their future treatment!
 
. .
This thing worked in Chile so why they didn't approved it? Not even the tax on cigarettes?https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/20...s-chiles-sugar-tax-has-sharply-reduced-sales/
This is stupid!
If i am not wrong many people in PTI itself were against this decision no wonder it didn't got approved :/
All that is left is to make alcohol legal, and the unholy trifecta will be complete: tobacco, sugar, alcohol.




(And chocolate. :D )
Tho i like this guy Fawad CH he's doing fine work but his stance regarding alcohol was disappointing. :disagree:
 
. . .
This thing worked in Chile so why they didn't approved it? Not even the tax on cigarettes?https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/20...s-chiles-sugar-tax-has-sharply-reduced-sales/

If i am not wrong many people in PTI itself were against this decision no wonder it didn't got approved :/

Tho i like this guy Fawad CH he's doing fine work but his stance regarding alcohol was disappointing. :disagree:
Not sure how people are at 1 instance thinking of going welfare and the other instance cant even think of the welfare when it comes to tobacco and sugar :disagree:

I bet the real story is that the government looked at the tax figures and potential political costs and decided not to touch the issue.
Or someone has investments in tobacco and sugar mill :tsk:
 
.
I bet the real story is that the government looked at the tax figures and potential political costs and decided not to touch the issue.
They would've got more voters on their side if they had banned it completely. Also those taxes are not worth the problems that thing brings into the societies.
Not sure how people are at 1 instance thinking of going welfare and the other instance cant even think of the welfare when it comes to tobacco and sugar :disagree:
As you said maybe it's about someone's investments in sugar mills now we should look at the people extremely close to the gov and their businesses. ;)
 
.
Higher taxes implies to low profits thus reduction in job opportunities.
Instead of putting higher taxes, FBR should have a system to collect taxes properly. In his yesterday speech, PM siad: 2 tobacco companies having nearly 60% market share pay 98 pc taxes while companies having remaining 40% share do pay only 2 pc taxes.
Secondly, our parliamentarians do consume tobacco and alcoholic beverages. Taxes on such products is out of question for them.
 
.
Stupid decision.. pathetic to be honest...
Taxing cigarettes is also part of TFI (Tobacco Free Initiative) of WHO. Many countries have started this with the last one being Qatar. The government needs to reconsider this. If they have a problem with Health ministry tabling this decision then better if finance ministry tables this.
The same way government needs to tax Sweetened beverages, energy drinks, palm oil based ice creams and fast food restaurants while subsidizing milk and milk based products. WHO stops just short of recommending taxing the sweetened beverages but this is discussed and presented in length by various global agencies and organizations.

One needs to realize that the value of Tobacco and Sugar tax is not merely the collection of revenue. The real benefit will start to appear in about 5 to 10 years time when the number of new cases of cardiovascular diseases (Angina, MI), diabetes, diabetes related complications and obesity/overweight start to decrease. We will save billions in health expenditure. Pakistan as a nation is prone to Diabetes mellitus and there is nothing we can do to change this susceptibility (its in our genes). The only thing that we can do is prevent or delay the occurrence of overweight / obesity, type 2 diabetes (non-insulin dependent type, treated by tablets) and many diseases of heart and lungs. Smoking and Sweetened beverages are the biggest contributor of morbidity and mortality due to most of the non communicated diseases.
 
.
They would've got more voters on their side if they had banned it completely. Also those taxes are not worth the problems that thing brings into the societies.

Right now the government is desperate for every penny without raising the ire of the people even further by adding to inflation.

Or someone has investments in tobacco and sugar mill :tsk:

And here I thought that Naya Pakistan would be different. If what you said is true, it sounds very much the same as Purana Pakistan. :D
 
. . . . .

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Country Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom