The graphic at the top of the page is from this report by Aaron Zitner and Adrienne Tong at the Wall Street Journal on which economic proposals from the the campaigns both Democrats and Republicans agree.
As you can see there is agreement on the topmost five proposals. I would like to see some analysis on the budget and fund impact of most of them. I’m skeptical that any of them is prudent. All I can say is if you think food and drug “deserts” are common now, wait until these proposals become law. With respect to taxing tips, why tax income at all? A prebated tax on consumption instead of an income tax would be economically more efficient.
Maybe a bright spark in a MBA program will win fame and fortune by investigating the actual cost to produce insulin.
as for the rest, those wily Asian investors will snap up the bonds, notes etc as we move the next outrage of the day, hmm.. required black ink on white government forms.
It’s been done. See here and here, for example.
If you have not, you should read up on the PBMs, big pharma and the rebate system. It is fiendishly clever. They have created this complex system that not many people understand that lets them say the published costs arent real because they leave out the rebates while actually charging many people the full cost.
Cutting taxes is always popular. It gets you elected, as the GOP knows. However, I must say that I am surprised that not taxing tips is all that popular. I had just assumed that neither of those tax cuts was likely to happen but seeing how popular they are can see the GOP passing them since they dont seem to worry about deficits when paying tax cuts.
Steve
News at 5; people like free beer.
It would be more interesting if they had a study on what was popular if they also had to raise revenue to pay for outlays; and no gimmicks like unconstitutional taxes; or increased funding for the IRS.
On insulin; I think the drug makers (Novo and Eli) will soon be quite willing to lower costs. They have a far more lucrative business in GLP-1 which trials have shown are 95% effective at preventing type II diabetes.
Interestingly, the relationship between increased IRS funding and increased federal tax revenue is weak.
Re: weak correlation between IRS funding and revenue.
Of course it is. Most of the taxes are paid by those who would hire tax accountants. And despite abundant ignorance about “loopholes” etc the IRS drills a lot of dry holes for professionally prepared returns. Tax accountants are not in the fraud business.
That leaves agents, or an increased number of agents, to chase a relatively small piece of the pie.
Joe Biden was always lying about this.
Thanks for the steer, however, looking for something that gives a complete breakdown from the cost of precursors, labor cost, storage, etc. With that in hand, better able to see what a reasonable price with a say 15% markup would be.
Hmmph.. shades of Nixon’s price controls? I recall VAT being hyped as a way to control inflation by taxing the middle men.
I certainly agree that the poll results would have borne more weight if those polled had been asked about their willingness to pay for benefits. However, the poll we have is what we have.
In addition to Curious’ observation that free beer sells….
Note Dem efforts to give away money to people who can’t afford a home. 2008 redux anyone? Steve?
Dems clearly don’t understand that “corporations” pay no tax. Economic illiteracy.
Funny how Dems think tariffs are borne by consumers…….but not corporate taxes.
Lastly, shame on Republicans who support the baby subsidy. That’s the Code as social engineering. We see how well that works in the welfare system.
“It’s been done.”
That kind of margin in pricing $2.50-$250.
Needs to be answered with a bullet.