Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

TV Networks Lobby Against End of Tax Deductions for Drug Ads - May Raise $37Bil in 10Yr for HealthCa

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
Shallah Kali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-16-09 02:00 AM
Original message
TV Networks Lobby Against End of Tax Deductions for Drug Ads - May Raise $37Bil in 10Yr for HealthCa
One reason why the 9/12ers got so much air time and the MSM gives any credibility to the teabaggery in general?

July 10, 2009, 12:21 PM ET

TV Networks Go to Bat for Drug Makers (and Themselves)

http://blogs.wsj.com/health/2009/07/10/tv-networks-go-t...

Charles Rangel, the House Ways and Means Committee chairman, is considering a plan to drop the drug-advertising deduction to raise as much as $37 billion over 10 years toward overhauling the health-care system. Rangel has said his committee needs to come up with $600 billion from new taxes over the decade to help finance planned changes.

Yesterday, the four big television networks Walt Disneys ABC, CBS, News Corp.s Fox and General Electrics NBC and the Chamber of Commerce wrote Rangel urging him to drop the idea of ending the tax deduction on drug ads because U.S. advertising supports more than 21 million jobs, including 1.3 million in New York. News Corp. also owns Dow Jones & Co., publisher of Dow Jones Newswires and the Health Blog.

In addition, the Advertising Coalition, which also includes other media companies, sent a separate letter to President Obama asking him to oppose the proposal. (Read the letters to Rangel here and here, and to Obama here.)

Elimination of pharmaceutical advertising as a business expense would make
it more expensive and inevitably would reduce the amount of this advertising, wrote the networks in the letter to Rangel. Because the tax deduction currently applies to all businesses, ending it for pharma would send a discordant note to other businesses in America if we begin using the Tax Code to favor or disfavor one form of advertising over another.

Its not the first time that advertisers and media have gotten involved in supporting Big Pharma. In 2007, their lobbying efforts helped water down provisions to restrict drug-ad marketing in an FDA bill.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
me b zola Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-16-09 03:30 AM
Original message
WTH?
I don't believe that pharma should be allowed to advertise prescription drugs at all. But they've been getting a tax break for their ad dollars? Oh yeah, this goes a long way in understanding the medias coverage of the health care debate.

:grr:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Raine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-16-09 03:57 AM
Response to Original message
2. I didn't know that either
it really pisses me off!!!! :mad:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
me b zola Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-16-09 03:30 AM
Response to Original message
1. Self delete
Edited on Wed Sep-16-09 03:32 AM by me b zola
Sorry, posting problem.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ejpoeta Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-16-09 04:22 AM
Response to Original message
3. What!! They get to deduct advertising!!! Oh come on!! wtf!! well, if they try to do that
then the networks are going to fight it! pharma companies most likely won't advertise as much as they do if they can't deduct it from their taxes!! I wish they couldn't advertise in the first place. I am so sick of commercials about erectile dysfunction....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HamdenRice Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-16-09 06:25 AM
Response to Reply #3
5. Advertising has always been deductible as a cost of sales
Edited on Wed Sep-16-09 06:34 AM by HamdenRice
Traditionally, it's in the same category of cost as, for example, the salaries of salesmen and sales clerks.

All companies that advertise are able to deduct advertising as a cost.

Businesses are taxed on profits, not on revenue. You deduct costs from revenue to get profit. So car companies deduct the cost of steel, plastic and glass to get the profits on their cars.

Similarly, all companies that have to sell stuff to the public get to deduct the cost of selling, including advertising, from revenue to determine profit (I assume cigarettes are an exception).

Rangel is therefore making a very bold proposal of essentially specially penalizing pharma companies for advertising, I suppose because it's unnecessary (they are generally prescribed by doctors not chosen by patients) and to keep drug costs down.

My concern is that he won't raise much revenue. Once an expense becomes undeductible, companies just stop doing it. I'm fine with that -- ie they won't advertise. I suppose if they stop advertising, profits will be higher and hence taxes, but it would be better to make drug costs lower. But I don't expect them to raise much revenue.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ixion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-16-09 06:07 AM
Response to Original message
4. holy crap... they get a special discount for advertising?
:wtf:

And who says our Congress isn't in the pocket of Big Pharma.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mopinko Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-16-09 08:28 AM
Response to Reply #4
9. no, they get the same discount that any other company gets.
see reply #5.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jtrockville Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-16-09 06:29 AM
Response to Original message
6. Makes you wonder what other giveaways we're not aware of.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eShirl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-16-09 07:23 AM
Response to Original message
7. "ould make it more expensive and inevitably would reduce the amount of this advertising"
GOOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Catshrink Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-16-09 07:28 AM
Response to Original message
8. I'd love to see those creepy Cialis ads go away...
"What happens after they get out of those tubs" is the latest.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Apr 24th 2014, 05:27 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC