Apparently 13% of Walgreen's value is from tax dodging opportunity.

[Genx87]

I thought this was absolutely beautiful. For once I can say fuck the shareholders.

Honestly, this is one of the VERY few things I approve of with our president. Hell, just bringing up the subject of tax dodging is VERY useful. He doesn't even have to pass a fuckin' bill, just make it known to the public that their local drug store is planning on doing it. However, there is one fault - the only reason Walgreens is doing this is because they have a reputation with the consumer public.

Picture this: The merger was between 2 drug companies (which is currently going on as well). Most people don't (and can't) choose who provides their medication - they don't even know. All they know is they hand the pharmacy a prescription paper and they hand them a bottle saying "This is X drug from Walgreens". This is simply a case of a merger that included a public image for consumers.


For those tax oblivious though (90% of this forum). M&A tax dodging has been going on for.... forever, it's nothing new, it's just being brought out to light recently.

Are you really comparing an ER visit to picking a pharmacy? Yes people can and do easily pick a pharmacy. The doctor or nurse asks where to send the prescription. They dont pick one out of thin air.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

He is saying they dropped 13% in market cap on the news that they would not do a tax inversion.

So... the public opinion on the companies net worth dropped 13% because they didn't dodge a bunch of taxes. Must've yanked their money and stuffed it into GE or something.

No that is not what I'm referring to. This is it.

Yeah, "too bad" they will pay taxes in the country where they make 25% of their profits from taxpayer paying for prescriptions through Medicare and Medicaid.

I want to see credible links which back this up. I want you to do the math on this one. If a pharmacy is reimbursed a total of about 35 dollars for a product which costs 150 dollars to acquire, how many units do you have to sell to make a profit? Yes that happens with test strips, but somehow Obama and the others and the OP and just about anyone else ignore or are ignorant of the facts. Reimbursements have been slashed to the point that overall Walgreens and other pharmacies are barely covering costs and perhaps losing money. All the OP can or will tell you is how much Walgreens takes in, but not how much they actually profit. He's either remarkably ignorant or lying. There is no third choice. People who invest in pharmacy know that on one had the government is squeezing blood from a stone then taxing the stone. That's why stock prices have fallen, because Walgreens caved.

 

[child of wonder]

All the more reason we should eliminate the corporate tax rate altogether. They're going to do whatever they can, legal or illegal, to avoid taxes anyway and the cost of the taxes simply get passed on to the consumer.

 

[Pr0d1gy]

The "small government" politicians

This is a logical fallacy. This creature went extinct at some point during the 20th century.

 

[Genx87]

No that is not what I'm referring to. This is it.


I want to see credible links which back this up. I want you to do the math on this one. If a pharmacy is reimbursed a total of about 35 dollars for a product which costs 150 dollars to acquire, how many units do you have to sell to make a profit? Yes that happens with test strips, but somehow Obama and the others and the OP and just about anyone else ignore or are ignorant of the facts. Reimbursements have been slashed to the point that overall Walgreens and other pharmacies are barely covering costs and perhaps losing money. All the OP can or will tell you is how much Walgreens takes in, but not how much they actually profit. He's either remarkably ignorant or lying. There is no third choice. People who invest in pharmacy know that on one had the government is squeezing blood from a stone then taxing the stone. That's why stock prices have fallen, because Walgreens caved.

My managers father was a pharmacist in WI. 30-40 years ago they were paying a flat rate. So he sells a bottle of something that costs 35 bucks and as a % the flat rate was pretty good. Sell a bottle that costs 500 bucks and the % of sale from the flat rate didn't even cover the cost of credit to purchase the bottle as it took weeks or months for the reimbursement to come back from the govt.

I have no idea if this is how it works today. Maybe you can shed some light on that.

 

[AyashiKaibutsu]

This is a logical fallacy. This creature went extinct at some point during the 20th century.

Ronald Reagan killed them with a ray-gun.