Messi denies tax evasion in Panama Papers scandal The avoidance of tax by corporate executives and the very rich is the last thing the Turnbull Government needs as it prepares for a federal budget that is likely to be anchored by a cut in the company tax rate, writes Peter Lewis. This week's Panama Papers data dump of one law firm's contribution to the global sport of tax avoidance looms as a wild card in the federal election. The avoidance of tax by corporate executives and the very rich is the last thing the Turnbull Government needs as it prepares for a federal budget that is likely to be anchored by a cut in the company tax rate. As I argued last week, the Turnbull Government's mishandling of its tax conversation was already pushing it into a corner where it is seen as governing for the top end of town rather than the broader public.
The tobacco industry is very profitable. This can be attributed to the oligopoly which the companies enjoy therefore making entry into the market very difficult. The legal cost required by the government which should come from the high levels of sales makes it difficult for new companies to enter in to the market.
Billboard advertising, bus sides and on top of taxis are some of the measures that have been taken by the governments to effect the desired change. Taxes on tobacco can also be increased in order to indirectly reduce tobacco consumption. Effects brought about by smoking have different reactions from different people.
It is worth noting that the use of tobacco accounts for a very significant percentage of cancer deaths. It is also a major cause of heart disease, colds, gastric ulcers, cerebrovascular disease and emphysema.
There are instances where the tobacco companies have agreed to take care of treating people who suffer from smoking-related illnesses. The companies also go an extra mile to provide funding for the potential use in to tobacco control meant to prevent people especially the young from starting to smoke and encourage current smokers to reduce and even quit smoking.
There are also a couple of arguments that do not support the idea that tobacco companies are responsible as much as many people have died due to tobacco related illnesses. Research done by some scientists show that there is possibility of some percentage of genetic disposition towards people who contract lung cancer and those who does not.
The study went ahead to reveal that the risk of contracting cancer of the lung for the relatives of people who smoked nearly doubles and that there was no single evidence to show that those who did not smoke would have lung cancer.
Some researchers have lined these predispositions to the sharing of genes, exposures or a combination of both. This idea means that tobacco companies are responsible for personal actions. There have been instances where a tobacco company has been ordered to compensate a dying victim of cigarette smoking illness.
Ethical Implications Ethic is a term that used in referring to the universal character of morals and the precise proper choices an individual makes in relating to others.
Like most major issues, the tobacco issue poses some decent questions that are complex to counter. One factor that makes these ethical questions so complex is that people commonly search for the answers that please them the most.
However, if someone were to ask a nonsmoker who should be responsible, he or she would probably answer that the individual himself is responsible.
Some of the ethical issues that society is facing with the tobacco industry are: Just like many other products that are sold today, they are dangerous to our health if used exceptionally.
If it were to be decided that the tobacco companies were responsible for smoking related illnesses, it could open up a whole new view on product accountability. Take the alcohol manufacturing companies for example: Should the alcohol manufacturers be responsible for this?
The coherent and reasonable response is NO! Conclusion Regulars of tobacco products identify with the fact that there are certain health risks involved in smoking. What it comes down to is individual freedom: Supplementary to any type of right or concession are penalties and errands associated with excessive or regular smoking.
People usually make the mindful option of smoking and must consequently acknowledge the costs of whatever choice they make.
Buy Should tobacco companies be held responsible for smoking-related illnesses and deaths?It was inevitable: Anti-police protests all over the country are bound to have an effect on the way officers do their jobs. A perfect example is the difficult decision made December 1st by police officers in Milwaukee, Wisconsin.
When tobacco companies face off in court against the families of people who died from smoking, the central issue always is corporate responsibility vs. personal responsibility. The tobacco companies argue that people can quit.
And they claim the dangers have been well-known for decades. The families. Tobacco companies however should not be solely held responsible for smoking related illnesses and deaths. It is inappropriate to shelf the blame of smoking related illnesses to tobacco companies while it is well known that it is individuals who make the choice to smoke.
Persian Bracelet, Quality Leather Gold, Farvahar Bracelet.
out of 5 based on reviews for Persian Bracelet, Quality Leather Gold, Farvahar Bracelet. 5 out of 5. of them.
This should never have happened. Train personnel should held accountable for these deaths, as should the railroad itself. 3 out of 5. George. This essay will discuss about why the tobacco companies should be held responsible for smoking related illness or death.
The Juvenile Smoking Act (Bengal ACT II of This is an act for the prevention of smoking by Juveniles. Read Should Tobacco Companies Be Responsible for Smoking Related Illnesses? free essay and over 88, other research documents.
Should Tobacco Companies Be Responsible for Smoking Related Illnesses?.
Tobacco companies should not be held liable for the consequences of smoking related illness or death because as people we have a choice /5(1).