Hi Van: Nope , not kidding.
Some corps and 1%ers pay some taxes, sure, but not nearly their fair share. Many pay nothing...except to tax lawyers and accountants.
If you are a teacher and bring home $40.000 / yr, you pay much more in taxes proportionately than someone who brings in $500.000. Corporate income continues to rise while middle and lower class wages are back where they were in the 70s. The middle class continues to shrink. It's been a long time since we were #1 and had the highest living standard in the world!
You must be kidding about the Chinese!!!
They are not mere socialists that you revile...They are full on, bloody authoritarian communists! They take both huge taxes and fat bribes for everything. Our capitalistic regulations and strictures are weaker than they have been in a long time, and still we slip behind.
We have neither cable, TV . Fox news,nor broadband reception here on our cliff above the ocean. Most info is via print, radio, or non-video internet. So your assumptions are as groundless there as they seem to be elsewhere.
PS...the market cost of our Hep C product has very little to do with taxes and all other pharmas have the equivalent burden.
Hi Ribeard...Guess i'm graybeard;
Our taxes are much less than many industrialized nations and our infrastructure, education and government services show it.
Many if not most big corporations and the 1% pay little if any taxes; certainly not their fair share.
By failing to pay for the things that support future competitiveness we've dropped far behind the Chinese since the Reagan tax cuts.
That shortsighted policy complex has sent us spiraling down the tubes just like the British Empire that the conservatives emulate.
I respond because you are interjecting political #$%$ where it does not belong and it shouldn't go unopposed.
Otherwise, i have great respect for your opinions.
Of course they care, that's silly.
But they are also an aging, underfunded government agency under tremendous political , lobbying and under the table pressure that inevitably biases their results.
Drugs with bad side effects that are less serious than their benefits should be approved.
Drugs like that saved my life big time.
Those decisions aren't simple, black and white judgements.
Fund them adequately and protect them from outside influences,
and we'd get a more satisfactory result...That's our fault.
This is a triple bagger for me, I like the company, but get real;
Even with our easier dosing, fewer side effects and a slightly higher cure rate;
ABBV is going to have to drop their price enough to grab off significant market share.
When they do, the insurance companies will follow....and we will sink.
A price war will ensue and profits will slide.
Isn't this obvious?
If they present a significant cost advantage they can #$%$ market share easily...The cost is prohibitive for a lot of folks with weak or no insurance.
We use pet coke as a feedstock bought pretty cheap from our parent company on long term contracts.
The competition uses natural gas as a feedstock which has become very cheap and suffers a supply glut due to fracking.
Aw comon...all this redundant self promotion isn't worthy of you Justice.
Cal...Please read some history, say starting with how we promised them backing during WW2 and the Japanese invasion and hung them out to dry repeatedly.
Then you can go back from there a long and sordid history. They remember all that humiliation and are patiently waiting their chance.
The Chinese civilization is very old. They think long term.
We think short term and it's a serious handicap.
Funny, but hey;
The shorts ate our lunch and then dinner while they stole out lunchbag at school for many years. They counted coup on us big time and are still hopeful.
Mmmmm...Wonder what they are having for lunch now?
Respectfully, this is financial masturbation and promises premature economic #$%$.
Counting hypothetical chickens when we only have an inkling that the hen was inseminated.....and so on