If the drug were not produced at all you couldn't do anything. Production of something important does not give anyone a claim to it as an "exception" to the rights of individuals.

Not double taxing people forced to pay high taxes does not punish low tax states.

No, it is not moral to use taxes to force people to move. Whether or not it is practical for someone to move he should not be punished with double taxes for not moving.

I agree totally. I would rather have less stolen from me than more. Obama and Hillary and sanders are into radically higher taxes and more regulation NOW. Look at how Obama et al. Destroyed medical care with the stroke of a pen. It will never be repealed now. It will turn into Medicaid for everyone at tremendous cost and inflation.

It’s unlikely we can reverse the trend to socialism until people become more receptive to personal freedom and tiny government by the current government and economic collapsing Its a long process, maybe 100 years of slow decline and education. AS didn’t wake people up as Rand hoped because the producers were still propping up the current system. Every dollar we make and spend just prolongs the existence of our socialist country at this point. Dang my and Hank were just wrong to keep trying to make things work while the philosophy of the country was against them. That was the message if the biok

I would suggest that taxes and deductions are decided on the basis of political expediency- tax those who have little political power and dole out exemptions to the stringer special interest groups. That is the nature of the swamp in the us government. These decisions are made by lobbyists and campaign contributions Citizens get told what the govt thinks will keep us obedient and quiet.

This might seem a bit harsh, but I think you are overlooking the basic evil in taxation. It’s theft being done either by a king, a dictator, or by mob rule as in a democracy.

People want to buy clothes and cars and food too. Those costs aren’t deductible! There isn’t a deduction on the cost of the house, only on the interest. I stick by my comment it was a pork barrel thing to benefit banks and home builders. Look at the political blowback from those two special interest groups when it is proposed to eliminate or even reduce the deduction.

I think the government would like taxes to rise much much higher such that we give all our earnings to the government- and then the government gives each person a minimal living stipend. I get it. Unfortunately for them, people would stop earning so much money so the government has to periodically cut the taxes to encourage the economy to bounce back. Then they raise taxes again to milk more out of citizens again.

Well, I think maybe stagnant primitive tribalism may be one of the few wys to be at peace with yourself and others. Which concept, may explain peoples fascination with socialism, seeking that peace of working some, living life. The problem is, every socialist society in modern times inevitably sells a bill of goods to the people, then basically enslaves those people to support the 1%. Other than the fact we still do have some opportunities to succeed on our own, it seems to me a lot of people are already there in the US today, just with a slightly higher standard of living.

I agree with your primary point, but, I think the drug company thing is almost a unique set of circumstances. You have companies that produce life saving, or altering drugs, in limited quantity and with legal restriction under patenets. Then you have people with the need for those drugs, and a system that basically is out of control (health care system) that just pays whatever they get billed, or passes that on to the consumer. Noe, the consumer has no option, they cannot go to another company, nor can they dicker the price, as they are basically locked into whatever that compnay wants to charge. Again, I go back to the Epi Pen company, and the fact that they had a patent of some kind (and I do not remember the details, but it limited the options people had), who did just as you say, charged what the market would bear. Same Pen was 50.00 in Canada, costs 500 in the US. Their justification is they had a right to charge whatever people would, or could pay. While I hold that you are correct, in 99% of the cases, but when you get to medical, it gets very, very weird. One reason I try to stay as healthy as I can, and refuse to go on any medication, as when you start one, you cascade with more and more, to combat the side effects of the first. I have a "run to fail" model. So, that way, I do not support what I think ids the exception to the free market natural order.

Indeed an accelerating scale of depravity.....

I agree that the tax system should not be used to punish political enemies, but by having a system that allows for deductions of state and local taxes, such punishment has already been inflicted on low tax states like mine for decades.

Ah, but people in high tax states like CA or NY can do something. They can move to another state, as many already have.

No producer is supposed to charge only his costs or just beyond. He has a right to charge what people are willing to pay. The costs only determine the least he can afford to sell for, not the maximum. If he goes too high then he risks competitors underselling him. If he has a patent then he can hold on longer until someone finds another way. Anyone who doesn't like the price can contemplate what he could without the creation and without the property owner willing to produce and sell at all. That kind of resentment leads to the price controls elsewhere and demanded here by alturists; it doesn't justify attacking drug companies.

As Obama and Hillary made their predecessors look like amateurs.

Collectivism never worked for primitive tribes either -- it kept them in stagnant primitive tribalist conditions. But whether someone will try another variant despite the long history of failures depends on what he is trying to accomplish. With a moral goal of altruism and collectivism there is nothing to stop it.

"Other countries should not benefit from their statism," but they do benefit, and intentionally so. There is a reason big pharma lives in the US. There is also the often tried excuse of "costs", and my counter argument is the epi pen debacle where the company got taken over, and increased their price from 50 to 500 a pen, because they could. The insurance "health care business" is the root cause of that mess, and the overall drug mess, as they will pay whatever, and just jack up rates. There is no reason for medical costs to go up 8% if (and it is a big if, given the propensity for lies from government), inflation is 2%. Other countries just take advantage of that, and so, if not selling at a loss, then the true cost of manufacturing must be below that, thus making the action more heinous.

It doesn't make any difference that most deductions today were not in the original income tax, which was imposed on a small percentage of wealthy targets in a fit of Marxist demagoguery. The New York Times article is speculative bunk. Business deductions have nothing to do with government policy making it easier for home ownership for the middle class, which took off mainly after WWII.

And it doesn't make any difference that 'high income areas' benefit most from not having to pay more taxes because they have more money; that objection is a resentful populist-Marxist argument. The capital gains exclusion for selling a primary residence to move to another one makes it possible to retain your assets in home ownership whatever your income and whatever the price of the home you buy. And even that exclusion is limited, biting more people as inflation overcomes the limit. Why should anyone have to pay a tax for selling his own home? That would be wrong even if most of the 'gains' were not artificial due to inflation.

I have no good argument against that position, as he has clearly not been able to do anything that he claimed he would do, whether his own fault or not, and it will continue downwards. The failure of the Republicrats to get anything done (which I point at their stubborn need to feed their patrons and ignore what is needed to save the country, all the while giving lip service to saving it), will enable the Democrats to regain control, and I do not believe they will ever relinquish it. They got burned once by being incompetent and arrogant, they will now have layer upon layer of insurance. Next round will make Obama and Hillary look like amateurs.

That is certainly truth.

"People don't support socialism just because they "want goodies supplied by others" like any ordinary thief; socialism is regarded as a moral ideal, and that is what gives it its motivating force emotionally and intellectually, serving as the perceived justification across society in a way that just being a thief wanting someone else's assets never could. Socialists have an anti-individualist philosophical view of man based on a moral premise of altruistic duty to live for others as the basis of ethics as such, and which consequently is the basis for collectivism in politics as mutual looting. Every altruistic act has a recipient Altruism accepted as the good provides a moral force for mass looting beyond what an ordinary thief could conceive."

That is a very good point, although the wrinkle is that socialism, in a pure form, has never worked or been seen (that I can say) in a modern society. I think the closest thing is the more "primitive" ones such as tribes, where all work together and share together, like the tribes of reindeer herders in Russia do today. It seems the less politics you have, the more equitable the society, possibly because each individual is part of their own success and the group flows with that success.

Trump was a backlash on the way down. He was the 'man on the white horse' who doesn't know what to do and has no principles, but will forever be tied to capitalism giving it a bad name.

If they were selling at a net loss in other countries they wouldn't do it. We pay for the development and overhead and they sell the rest for a margin in volume. Without that the prices here could conceivably be even higher. Put price controls in the US and we lose all of it. Other countries should not benefit from their statism, but selling drugs in this country for profit is not an unsavory "money machine".

I do disagree ewv, in that I am sure that the mortgage deduction was not in the original income tax code. All interest was deductible, and it went back and forth. It finally ended up being in an almost business like form, here is a good description of how we got here:

https://taxfoundation.org/history-mor...

Another tidbit:
n the United States, there are additional tax incentives for home ownership. For example, taxpayers are allowed an exclusion of up to $250,000 ($500,000 for a married couple filing jointly) of capital gains on the sale of real property if the owner used it as primary residence for two of the five years before the date of sale. Economists have demonstrated that high-cost high-income areas receive most of the tax benefit. For example, San Francisco, California receives $26,385 per home while El Paso, Texas receives $2,153 per home, a 1,225% difference.[25] The five highest income metros receive 87% of tax inflows, with over half going into California alone.[26]

from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Home_mo...

That is indeed very true, as removing deductions and other bits and pieces to benefit another group (individuals vs business) is what is happening right now, and is one of the real discussion points we are talking about. The overall tax system in the US has become an onerous burden on everyone, and the power of manipulating it is increasing. I would say if the Republicrats get their "tax cut" passed, they will not be in the majority in 2018, and will lose the Presidency for sure in 2020, and may never regain it. It will open the door to the Democrats assuming full control, and after the last round and the huge number of unpunished, uninvestigated , obvious criminal and corrupt acts they did, they will be sure to ensure they do not lose ever again. Call me a conspiracy theorist, but I do believe they did not anticipate an event like Trump, and will insure it cannot happen again.

No, selling drugs for an huge amount in one country, because you can, yet selling that same drug for a significant amount less in other countries, because they have laws and restrictions, makes the US consumer foot the bill for the fact these other countries are imposing restrictions on business. If you have a Cancer drug that sells for 1000 a dose in the U.S., yet is sold in Canada for 50.00 a dose, how can that be construed as fair or just? The company certainly is not selling it at a loss there, or is so, is making up that loss at the US purchasers expense, thus making the US a subsidizer to other countries medical needs. That brings in the issue of how other counries economic restrictions and laws can be deflected, or impact others (like us), It has nothing to do with straight up business. If you have a cancer drug, why can you not sell it at 200 a dose everywhere? The market is not free, nor unencumbered, it is rigged in so many ways, by so many players.

Well, that takes us back to "paying for what you get" which leads tothe fact taxes, in and of themselves have to be considered an injustice unless strictly for specific reasons that all agree on.
What I see is 98% of all taxes are levied across a large group and end up being for a specific thing or group. For instance, is a tax on gasoline connected to bike paths on roads? Isn't having bike paths and access strictly a bike person issue, and that the car drivers do not have a dog in that fight? Just one example of an unjust tax. Same with all the loopholes and exemptions within the system (which at the huge, monstrous size of the Tax Code alone, is evidence of an awesomely big number). Each is tailored to a specific group or condition.

You cited an example of an injustice. So is the rest in any of the various forms. None of them is a "fair" alternative and should not be promoted that way.