FairTax

ddrueding

Fixture
Joined
Feb 4, 2002
Messages
19,534
Location
Horsens, Denmark
Odd, these same drugs are sold in other countries at a third the price.
Odd, when the patent runs out, the drug companies change the color of the tablet, call it improved, and the patent is extended. Gouge the consumer some more.
Odd, it cost $0.002 to manufacture a pill, but the drug companies charge $40.00 per pill. Just so the CEO gets his big bonus.

The fact that they squeeze more money from those that have more money makes sense to me. If they averaged the price to something like $1 per pill, how many in third world countries would not be able to buy?

The fact that our patent system sucks doesn't mean that a company shouldn't do what it can within the law to make more money. If they didn't, they would be out of the business in a hurry.

I don't know how much R&D is involved with a drug, but I would be interested. Also of interest is how many projects receive funding for years and never show a marketable product. I suspect these represent some of the cost that doesn't make it to the CEO's paycheck.

Drug companies are no better than the oil companies.

BTW, did you notice that Ms Clinton got some HUGE campain funds from Big Oil and Big Drug?

Correct. No better. Why would they be?

Clinton definatly represents the same corrupt bureaucracy, and will favor those in Washington with power. Therefore she will win. Nothing ever changes.
 

Mercutio

Fatwah on Western Digital
Joined
Jan 17, 2002
Messages
21,607
Location
I am omnipresent
For what it's worth, American drug companies spend about $30,000,000,000 a year on R&D, and about $90,000,000,000 on marketing... if that tells you anything about their priorities.
 

ddrueding

Fixture
Joined
Feb 4, 2002
Messages
19,534
Location
Horsens, Denmark
...and what does that tell you about the American consumer? That is the fundamental problem that needs to be fixed. We need a smarter population.
 

sechs

Storage? I am Storage!
Joined
Feb 1, 2003
Messages
4,709
Location
Left Coast
You're out to lunch...

The gov't's job is to stay out of the way of its citizens and empower them, not run and control their lives. I don't have to be able come up with a comprehensive list of what gov't should do. I don't have one already thought up. That's not the way I think. The gov't isn't my god. I don't worship at the altar of big gov't. I could get up in the morning and survive if the gov't was shut down.
The personal attack aside, that's just a bunch of baloney. You're avoiding the question at the core of this debate. In fact, you're actively attempting to avoid the question.

I dismiss, out of hand, any furthur attempted arguments on this subject from you. "The way that you think" is obviously nonsense, and there's nothing that you can make from that.
 

jtr1962

Storage? I am Storage!
Joined
Jan 25, 2002
Messages
4,184
Location
Flushing, New York
Everything is done for profit. You fix computers for profit. So what? You don't see me trying to tell you how much you can charge for your services.
I think what Merc is trying to say is that the medical sector should be run as a non-profit entity. Sure, the doctors and everyone else will continue to be paid a fair, market rate salary for what they do, same as today. What would be different is you won't have shareholders and rich CEOs to pay "profits" to. Neither of these does a thing to increase the quality of medical care, but they increase the cost. Same thing with the malpractice lawyers.

I'll also add that it seems everyone here is under the collective illusion that modern medicine, and access to all sorts of drugs, actually makes us healthier. Truth is most of the drugs have long term consequences worst than what they're curing. I'm almost 100% sure Lipitor played a bit part in killing my father. He didn't even need to take it if he would have eaten a better diet. In fact, he wouldn't have had his first heart attack in 1989, nor the second one which killed him in 2006, had he led a healthier lifestyle. We need to change the so-called poison lifestyle first before we worry about anything else. That one thing, even if we still have millions with no access to doctors, will enable us to live longer, healthier lives. Until we do that, our current medical system will spend ever increasing amounts of money saving people from themselves. I personally haven't been to a physician since 1980. I don't plan to go to one either unless I need stitches, or to set a broken bone, or anything else I can't do myself. In the meantime I know my body, what to do and not to do, so I can maintain some modicum of reasonable health at least until my body wears out and I'm well into my 90s. Maybe by then I'll need a hip replacement or some other joint repair. Really, that's the only thing modern medicine has had good success with-repairing people's joints as they wear out. Treating anything else is pointless. Heart disease is 100% preventable. So are most cancers. Even when they're not, the current cure rates are abysmal. Everyone I know who has had chemo or radiation therapy died anyway within 5 years. With results like that why even bother? Actually, I know why. Cancer treatment is big money. My guess is even if a cure existed it would sit on the shelves forever. That's really the problem. There's no incentive to get people to change lifestyles when big money is made letting them slowly kill themselves via poor lifestyle chocies, but keeping them alive a little longer. It speaks volumes about the mindset regarding preventive medicine when you see a bunch of nurses puffing away outside during a break.
 

Mercutio

Fatwah on Western Digital
Joined
Jan 17, 2002
Messages
21,607
Location
I am omnipresent
...and what does that tell you about the American consumer? That is the fundamental problem that needs to be fixed. We need a smarter population.

I don't think that it's an issue of the average person not being smart enough. Most people know they don't need a pill for "restless leg syndrome." I think it's indicative of corporate culture and priorities, and of a need to change the rules under which drug companies are governed. Everyone who is reading this thread can remember a time when it was not legal to advertise prescription medication in the US.
 

Mercutio

Fatwah on Western Digital
Joined
Jan 17, 2002
Messages
21,607
Location
I am omnipresent
I think what Merc is trying to say is that the medical sector should be run as a non-profit entity.

Yes. That is exactly what I'd like to see. Saving people's lives - or even saving them from mild discomfort - isn't something that needs to be mixed with a profit motive. Think about how hilarious life would be if you had to wave $100 bills in the air to get someone to come put out your house fire.
 

Mercutio

Fatwah on Western Digital
Joined
Jan 17, 2002
Messages
21,607
Location
I am omnipresent
You want drug companies to develop new drugs, you have to give them a financial motive. They aren't going to develop new drugs out of a sense of responsibility to society.

They already get patented drugs that they're allowed to reap vast, vast profits on for 14 years. Do you think that sum of money somehow insufficient? Do you think that 14 years is not long enough for a real-live breakthrough drug to net billions of dollars in return?

We certainly could put a cap on the price of a drug. Say, the amount of money that a cycle of treatments costs the Veteran's Administration. It's not like the drug company is going to fail to make money on that transaction; it's just not the anal rape price that the poor uninsured or underinsured bastard has to pay at the local Walgreens.
 

Mercutio

Fatwah on Western Digital
Joined
Jan 17, 2002
Messages
21,607
Location
I am omnipresent
Yeah, and the French economy is just booming! I'm sure those riots were really just celebrations of the functional social welfare program.

That the French have issues with integrating immigrants into the culture that its native residents are taught to treasure really is not part of its social welfare programs. The programs themselves appear to be working well.
 

Stereodude

Not really a
Joined
Jan 22, 2002
Messages
10,865
Location
Michigan
That the French have issues with integrating immigrants into the culture that its native residents are taught to treasure really is not part of its social welfare programs. The programs themselves appear to be working well.
The super high unemployment over there might have something to do with it too.
 

Mercutio

Fatwah on Western Digital
Joined
Jan 17, 2002
Messages
21,607
Location
I am omnipresent
The super high unemployment over there might have something to do with it too.

A lot of the unemployment issues have to do with their immigrants as well. France offers citizenship to residents of its former colonies (eg Algeria), who come for the promise of a better life, but find out that France doesn't have work for them. The end result of that is a bunch of pissed off immigrants.

I've always admired the willingness of the French to take to the streets and protest, and to tolerate protesters. Completely off the subject, but I heard an interview with some Parisian commuters a few weeks ago regarding a rail workers' strike. These were people who had to commute across one of the biggest cities on Earth by bicycle or on foot, and they were talking about how the rail workers had every right to inconvenience them by striking. That's very admirable, and quite unlike the "every man for himself" opinions that so many people in this thread seem to have.
 

Stereodude

Not really a
Joined
Jan 22, 2002
Messages
10,865
Location
Michigan
That's not fair either. That's the opposite of fair, since it would put the highest burden on those least able to pay.
Well then I guess the grocery store isn't fair. Best Buy's not fair. McDonalds isn't fair. Not a single retail or commercial establishment in the country is fair if that's your criteria.
 

Mercutio

Fatwah on Western Digital
Joined
Jan 17, 2002
Messages
21,607
Location
I am omnipresent
Not a single retail or commercial establishment in the country is fair if that's your criteria.

So people who for whatever reason are wealthy should not have to contribute in any greater amount to the well being of their country than those who live in trailer parks and eat ramen noodles five nights a week, and that's what "fair" is?

'Cause I would say that's unbelievably, moronically selfish.
 

Stereodude

Not really a
Joined
Jan 22, 2002
Messages
10,865
Location
Michigan
So people who for whatever reason are wealthy should not have to contribute in any greater amount to the well being of their country than those who live in trailer parks and eat ramen noodles five nights a week, and that's what "fair" is?

'Cause I would say that's unbelievably, moronically selfish.
First of all let get something straight it's not a contribution. It's a tax. Taxes are not contributions. I contribute to charity. I don't contribute to the federal government. The Federal gov't takes my money.

I also never said that charging everyone the same amount of money was practical or realistic. However, it would be "fair".

You want the rich to pay more, great. Charge everyone the same percentage (aka flat tax). But wait, no, that's still not good enough for you. The rich still aren't paying enough money. They need to pay a higher percentage than everyone else. And, they currently do, but that's still not good enough. They still need to pay more. At what point will they pay enough? When you take all the money they make over a certain amount will they then pay enough?

This whole class envy / warfare thing is completely absurd and has gotten completely out of hand. Does screwing the rich on their taxes make your life better? Does it make you feel better? Does making someone else miserable change your situation? The US affords anyone the opportunity to become rich. We don't have a caste system. I'm not for soaking the rich with taxes because one day I hope to be rich, and I don't want to be soaked with taxes when I'm rich.
 

Bozo

Storage? I am Storage!
Joined
Feb 12, 2002
Messages
4,396
Location
Twilight Zone
I beleive the fairest tax would be a flat tax.
No tax for anybody on the first $25000. (Ajusted annually by the inflation rate). After that, every one pays 10% of their income. No deductions at all. A flat 10% for everybody.

Bozo :joker:
 

ddrueding

Fixture
Joined
Feb 4, 2002
Messages
19,534
Location
Horsens, Denmark
So people who for whatever reason are wealthy should not have to contribute in any greater amount to the well being of their country than those who live in trailer parks and eat ramen noodles five nights a week, and that's what "fair" is?

'Cause I would say that's unbelievably, moronically selfish.

It is fair. But long ago we decided that instead of just being fair, that taxes would take on a "Robin Hood" role of wealth distribution. It is (a bit) better for the society as a whole. But don't say that the wealthy paying more is fair. It's a good idea, but it isn't fair.
 

ddrueding

Fixture
Joined
Feb 4, 2002
Messages
19,534
Location
Horsens, Denmark
I beleive the fairest tax would be a flat tax.
No tax for anybody on the first $25000. (Ajusted annually by the inflation rate). After that, every one pays 10% of their income. No deductions at all. A flat 10% for everybody.

I'll stand behind that.
 

timwhit

Hairy Aussie
Joined
Jan 23, 2002
Messages
5,278
Location
Chicago, IL
I beleive the fairest tax would be a flat tax.
No tax for anybody on the first $25000. (Ajusted annually by the inflation rate). After that, every one pays 10% of their income. No deductions at all. A flat 10% for everybody.

Bozo :joker:

I'm not sure that this would generate the revenue necessary for the government to continue operating.
 

Stereodude

Not really a
Joined
Jan 22, 2002
Messages
10,865
Location
Michigan
I beleive the fairest tax would be a flat tax.
No tax for anybody on the first $25000. (Ajusted annually by the inflation rate). After that, every one pays 10% of their income. No deductions at all. A flat 10% for everybody.

Bozo :joker:
I agree, that would be the fairest tax that you would get people to sign up to. Unfortunately it will never happen because:

1) It will put the IRS out of business, and we know gov't never gets smaller.

2) It would put tax lawyers and all the tax services companies out of business, so they'll fight it tooth and nail.

3) A lot of people are too stupid to get past the fact they're not getting any deductions.

4) A flat tax doesn't redistribute wealth and some people will have a problems with this.
 

Stereodude

Not really a
Joined
Jan 22, 2002
Messages
10,865
Location
Michigan
It is fair. But long ago we decided that instead of just being fair, that taxes would take on a "Robin Hood" role of wealth distribution.
It's the tyranny of the majority. Rich people are a minority, so they are an easy target of the majority to go after. The politicians of course play this card over and over and over.
 

Bozo

Storage? I am Storage!
Joined
Feb 12, 2002
Messages
4,396
Location
Twilight Zone
I'm not sure that this would generate the revenue necessary for the government to continue operating.

I think it would. Remember, no deductions. For me, after subtracting the first $25000.00, I end up paying close to the same. But, even the people that 'work the system' would have to pay. ( I know a person that makes 3 times what I do, and pays about the same as I do with the present system.)

Bozo :joker:
 

ddrueding

Fixture
Joined
Feb 4, 2002
Messages
19,534
Location
Horsens, Denmark
4) A flat tax doesn't redistribute wealth and some people will have a problems with this.

It does, just to a lesser degree. Someone who makes $1M/yr doesn't use the roads, police, or schools 20x more than someone who makes $50k/yr. In fact, even though they pay for public schools, it's likely that they would pay for private schools as well.
 

Fushigi

Storage Is My Life
Joined
Jan 23, 2002
Messages
2,890
Location
Illinois, USA
Well, some agency will still be needed to collect the funds so the IRS wouldn't go away. It and the rest of the associated tax industry (lawyers, accountants, etc.) would see job losses but would not go away. Expect lots of people to try to redefine "income" for their convenience.

I'd add:

5) Charities won't fare well under any system that doesn't include tax breaks for donations.

6) How are capital gains taxed? If the same then don't expect people to ever move up in home ownership as the tax penalty when selling would be hard to overcome. And if you provide an exclusion for this, then what's the next exclusion you provide? Eventually you have the current system all over again.
 

Bozo

Storage? I am Storage!
Joined
Feb 12, 2002
Messages
4,396
Location
Twilight Zone
Let me rephrase: earned income. For the individual taxpayer. Not on capital gains, not on interest, not on 401Ks, just earned income.

We had this in our state for a long time. Then the Democrates got into office and Fxxked all up.

Bozo :joker:
 

Stereodude

Not really a
Joined
Jan 22, 2002
Messages
10,865
Location
Michigan
5) Charities won't fare well under any system that doesn't include tax breaks for donations.
Personally, I don't buy this. I find it really hard to believe that people donate money to charity, church, or other non profit organizations because they're going to get a tax deduction.

And, ultimately if you let people keep more of their money they will be more generous with it.
 

Stereodude

Not really a
Joined
Jan 22, 2002
Messages
10,865
Location
Michigan
The fastest way to tax reform is to eliminate automated employer deductions from paychecks. Give people their full pay check and have them get a bill from the gov't each month that they have to pay along with their mortgage, cell phone, cable, credit cards, etc. You'd have tax reform so fast it'd make your head spin.
 

jtr1962

Storage? I am Storage!
Joined
Jan 25, 2002
Messages
4,184
Location
Flushing, New York
It is fair. But long ago we decided that instead of just being fair, that taxes would take on a "Robin Hood" role of wealth distribution. It is (a bit) better for the society as a whole. But don't say that the wealthy paying more is fair. It's a good idea, but it isn't fair.
Actually, having everyone pay the same is patently as unfair as a lot of the other schemes. Even without getting into the ability to pay, a lot of people will be paying for services they simply will never use. From a strictly fair standpoint, the best system is one where the user pays for whatever they use. That means paying full tuition for school if you have kids, paying the police if they come to your house for a domestic quarrel, paying the full cost of gasoline and roads if you drive (including the cost of any wars in Middle Eastern nations to secure gasoline supplies), paying for all your food and housing. Obviously this system is unworkable but it would be fair in every sense.

I'm not for direct income redistribution, but government providing some basic necessities to level the playing field to give those in the lower classes a fair shot at bettering themselves isn't a bad thing. By basic necessities I mean transportation to get to work or school, education at least through high school, perhaps subsized housing or food if the market prices for these things in a area are not affordable. It can also mean a program to connect job seekers with employers. The poor can better their lot with a decent job, but the simple fact is that many jobs aren't advertised, and many (most?) people really are incapable of finding a job best suited to their talents on their own. Most just blunder into whatever they happen to be doing by chance. Another good feature of a job registry is that it connects jobs to local talent. No sense for someone to travel 20 miles to be a cashier when a similar job might exist 3 blocks away. What my idea on help doesn't mean is just giving the poor direct cash handouts so they can buy big screen TVs or Cadillacs or drugs or alcohol. In a nutshell, I believe in the old adage "Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day, teach him to fish and you feed him for a lifetime."
 
Top