Again since you bill yourself as the most brilliant know-it-all in the Universe
dear, it merely appears that way to you because as a liberal you're a near illiterate. I've merely read a book or two on how capitalism works. A liberal will be too illliterate to attempt it so will always seem slow, so very very slow.
you would know that demand is effected by cost for trinkets like jewelry, but people buy medical devices out of need and if they could not afford the device after the small tax they probably could not afford it without the tax.
But you knew that already.
dear a 2.3 % gross receipts tax is not a small tax, and the entire point of BO care was to make health care less expensive , not more expensive because we cant afford it!!!
First, as Hoover Institution fellow Henry I. Miller notes, the tax is especially pernicious because it is assessed on sales, not profits. For instance, if a small firm is developing a new medical device, it is not uncommon for that firm to receive sales revenues of, say, $2 million in the first year of sales, but to have only made an actual profit on those sales of $75,000 after research and development costs are taken into account. Because the medical devices tax is applied to sales, however, it imposes a tax of $46,000 (2.3 percent of $2 million). That means that the tax confiscates more than 60 percent of the net profits on that device. So the companys capital is siphoned off by the federal government and, therefore, cannot be plowed back into more research and development. The Medical Device Manufacturers Association (MDMA) predicts (understandably) that product innovation will be stifled by the tax.
In addition, a PriceWaterhouseCoopers study released last August shows that investors, in anticipation of the burdensome tax, are already diverting investment dollars away from biotechnology and medical devices. As reported by business journalist Elizabeth McDonald, capital funding for the medical device industry during the third quarter of 2012 reached the lowest level since 2004. Investors are looking for profits and growth, both of which are made less likely by the Obamacare tax.
This isnt the end of the story. There are still more negative impacts for medical device manufacturers. Reporter Mary Katherine Ham describes an Indiana-based company that has canceled plant expansion plans in anticipation of the impact of the devices tax. Ms. Ham also points to Abiomed, a Massachusetts-based company producing heart pumps, which will have an amount equal to 15 percent of its research and development monies taken away as a result of the new tax. Medical devices companies are also cutting down on employees. Ohio Republican Rep. Robert E. Latta refers to a Reuters report that shows medical technology companies already have cut 7,000 U.S. jobs. Moreover, a survey by AdvaMed indicates that 62 percent of companies contacted intend to cut jobs as one way to offset the effects of the tax. Even if companies have enough confidence in their markets that they try to pass along the tax to their customers, this will produce a further ballooning of the cost of health care not a reduction, as President Obama promised.
Why was the tax implemented if it has so many drawbacks? Simply put, the tax is necessary to pay for the increased cost of the Obama-devised health care system.
Read more:
SPARKS: Obamacare tax on medical devices hurts jobs and health - Washington Times
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter
