Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

7 of the 8 Democrats running for president support a tax on stock trades

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post

    They've done that by forcing costs onto other countries, as one example. Europe and the EU won't allow pharma companies to recoup R&D costs for new drugs during patent periods. This has forced that cost onto countries like the US.
    At the same time, quality in Europe varies by country and locality sometimes greatly.
    Aside from those, the use of a tu quoque fallacy doesn't justify doing it here either.

    There is also nothing that says that ending government involvement in health insurance along with getting rid of insurance as the payee for routine care won't reduce costs. In the US the one segment of the heath care industry that has seen prices actually fall is cosmetic surgery, the only one that is not dependent on insurance or government for payment.



    While it's a bit dated now, this shows the trends quite well.



    Now you are offering trivial objections...


    Usual excuses

    There have been studies showing that the pharma cost is not based on higher R&D expenses

    The cost that companies pay for ads (which is not strictly regulated in the US) and buybacks are more important

    Two examples

    https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/...6.2018.1549842


    https://www.ineteconomics.org/uploads/papers/WP_60-Lazonick-et-al-US-Pharma-Business-Model.pdf


    And a full open access paper is here

    https://www.ineteconomics.org/upload...ness-Model.pdf

    US pharma companies claim that high drug prices fund investments in innovation. Yet the 18 drug companies in the S&P 500 Index in January 2016 and publicly listed from 2006 through 2015 distributed 99 percent of their profits to shareholders over the decade, 50 percent as buybacks and 49 percent as dividends (see Table 1).


    Yet over the past decade there has been a discussion of the “productivity crisis” in drug discovery (Pisano 2006; Cockburn 2007; Munos 2009; Lazonick and Tulum 2011; Pammolli et al. 2011; Khanna 2012; DeRuiter and Holston 2012; Graham 2014; Scannell and Bosley 2016; Lowe 2016; Gyurjyan et al. 2017). A major part of the problem, as we elaborate below, is that leading US pharmaceutical companies such as Merck and Pfizer have been spending the last two decades living off patented drugs with very little to replace them in the pipeline.


    Meanwhile, the pharma industry seemed to be very resourceful in opioid "research" with the usual cluster****...


    In the US the one service that has reduced prices in Medicare...

    And your graph is unclear.

    First, it does not show actual cost . It matters little if the price of a procedure which is already very expensive becomes somewhat less expensive. Second, I saw ads regarding the cost of cosmetic surgery noting that it does not include cost for anesthesia, operating room and other such expenses. In other words, it seems some people play games with how they even define the cost of a cosmetic procedure. Finally one cannot compare cost for necessary medical procedures to cost of unnecessary ones. Consumers are more willing to pay for the former than the latter and such attitude affects price offers.

    Finally, I do not offer a trivial objection. I just want a honest argument and the realization that different people even among the "middle class" are affected different by a certain policy.
    Last edited by pamak; 04 Mar 20, 14:09.
    My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by TacCovert4 View Post

      Which is why federal socialized medicine in the US is stupid. It should be figured out at a state level. Montana is vastly different than Alabama which is vastly different than Massachusetts. There are a lot of US states that are larger than entire countries in Europe. And some states that are more populous.
      This is about health insurance and not health provision. The insurance needs do not change based on where someone lives. The problem with a state based system is that it puts states which opt for better healthcare coverage at a disadvantage (need for much higher taxes to support a comprehensive healthcare system) compared to other states. And there is also the system of free riders from other states which may impose additional cost on those states which may decide to go with a sate-based system of comprehensive coverage.

      In short, such approach will only discredit the idea of socialized healthcare after the states which will try to implement it will suffer economically. Then the usual suspects will come forward and say "see, we told you that socialized healthcare is not realistic."
      Last edited by pamak; 04 Mar 20, 16:36.
      My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by Phaing View Post
        I don't understand this.
        Stocks are property, buying property is taxed. Why should this be an exception?
        Is grocery a property? Why is it exempt from sales tax in San Francisco? Is a pair of Nike's a property? Why is it exempt in New York City if it cost under $200?

        Short answer is is that the liberals always claim to help the little guys/poor but are all over the damn place with trying to find ways to make the government fatter and the people more reliant on it.

        And look at the bright side; won't this put a dent in the 150-million nano-trades going on ever minute?
        Since one computer malfunction could crash the market, why isn't a tax that would slow that kind of thing down a good thing?
        Large investment groups have tons of insider information. They also spend obscene amounts of money just stay ahead with equipment such as one of Bloomberg's monitors. It is the little guys that will be hurt. Independent day traders rely on low trade transaction costs to slowly nickel and dime a profit out of constantly trading stocks based on market reaction.

        Let the super rich that says they should pay more taxes put up or shut up. Bloomberg makes one and half billion dollars a year in interest alone. Let him STFU and pay 55% on that instead of finding loopholes and using capital gain and we'll see just how full of **** he is.
        Flag: USA / Location: West Coast

        Prayers.

        BoRG

        http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/8757/snap1ws8.jpg

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PtsX_Z3CMU

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by Salinator View Post
          Is grocery a property? Why is it exempt from sales tax in San Francisco? Is a pair of Nike's a property? Why is it exempt in New York City if it cost under $200?

          Short answer is is that the liberals always claim to help the little guys/poor but are all over the damn place with trying to find ways to make the government fatter and the people more reliant on it.


          Large investment groups have tons of insider information. They also spend obscene amounts of money just stay ahead with equipment such as one of Bloomberg's monitors. It is the little guys that will be hurt. Independent day traders rely on low trade transaction costs to slowly nickel and dime a profit out of constantly trading stocks based on market reaction.

          Let the super rich that says they should pay more taxes put up or shut up. Bloomberg makes one and half billion dollars a year in interest alone. Let him STFU and pay 55% on that instead of finding loopholes and using capital gain and we'll see just how full of **** he is.
          It is exempt because of a political choice to make food more affordable to those with very low wages who spend a large portion of their income in buying groceries. There is no such consideration for stocks


          Also, who is exactly is the "little giuy" who is going to be affected by such tax of stock trade when about half of the population does not even own stocks?

          Most of the stocks directly and indirectly owned through IRAs, 401Ks and so on) is concentrated at the top.
          A tax of this kind which will be used to say fund a system that benefits the whole society will basically be redistribution of wealth from the top (which has most of th stocks) to the bottom. The real "little guy" who has no stocks will certainly get a benefit.

          Some statistics are enlightening to show the concentration of stock ownership. The paper was published in 2017, but it gives a ballpark picture for people to understand who will be benefited or not from a stock trade tax

          From http://wid.world/wp-content/uploads/.../020-Wolff.pdf

          I changed the format to post it here. Middle 3 Quntiles includes households between the 20% and 80% of the wealth spectrum

          Page 44

          Stocks, directly or indirectly owned (Includes direct ownership of stock shares and indirect ownership through mutual funds, trusts, and IRAs, Keogh plans, 401(k) plans, and other retirement accounts)
          .
          All Households Top 1% Next 19% Middle 3 Quintiles
          49.3% 94% 86.2% 45%
          .

          Stocks directly or indirectly owned of value of $5,000 or more
          All Households Top 1% Next 19% Middle 3 Quntiles
          39.3% 94% 84.4% 33.9%
          .

          Stocks directly or indirectly owned of value of $10,000 or more
          All Households Top 1% Next 19% Middle 3 Quntiles
          34.9% 93.8% 82.7% 28.3%
          .
          In other words, slightly less than half of the households in the middle range of the economic ladder actually own a stock directly or indirectly through mutual funds, trusts, IRAs, Keogh plans, 401(k) plans, and other retirement accounts, and roughly only one in three households in the middle of the economic ladder have actually stocks of more than $5,000.


          My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

          Comment

          Latest Topics

          Collapse

          Working...
          X