Time: Sun Nov 03 06:58:14 1996
To: Nancy Lord <defense@macon.mindspring.com>
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: Recently Asked Questions
Cc: 
Bcc: 

Thanks, Nancy.
Erin is one of Us.

/s/ Paul Mitchell


At 08:46 AM 11/3/96 -0500, you wrote:
>At 10:13 PM 11/2/96 -0700, you wrote:
>>Nancy,
>>
>>Can you please help Erin with
>>answers to some, if not all,
>>of these questions?
>>
>>Thanks.
>>
>>/s/ Paul Mitchell
>>
>>
>>>
>>>================[ Distributed Message ]================
>>>         ListServer: TAB (Take America Back Mail List)
>>>               Type: Not Moderated
>>>     Distributed on: 02-NOV-96, 21:50:00
>>>Original Written by: IN:donelle@snowcrest.net.
>>>=======================================================
>>>
>>>
>>>RAQ's:(Recently Asked Questions:)
>>>
>>>I often get asked questions I don't
>>>readily have answers for.  Here are
>>>three:
>>>
>>>#1:
>>>Is it true that physicians are rewarded
>>>50% of the money spent on perscriptions
>>>written by them, from the pharmecutical
>>>companies?
>
>        NO.  They get:  free samples (dangerous,
>a friend recently was given a new diuretic when
>she had asked for a pain killer!), pens, pads &
>other office junk, and, if they publish in an area
>they get "junkets" - - trips to the Caribean, Vegas,
>etc., to discuss publications about clinical trials
>they are performing for the companies.
>        But these are not every doctor, just the ones
>who do work for the companies.
>
>>>
>>>
>>>#2:
>>>Is it true that pharmecutical companies
>>>don't pay income tax?
>>
>>This one is a new one on me.
>>Since most of them are corporations,
>>and corporations are generally taxed
>>on their "limited liability" privilege,
>>as a creature of the state, I would
>>look for an explicit exemption, of which
>>I am not aware within the Internal Revenue
>>Code.  I do know that the Federal Reserve
>>Banks are exempt from income tax, even
>>though they are private corporations.
>>See Lewis v. United States, 9th Circuit,
>>1982 (I believe).
>
>        No specific exemption, to my knowledge.
>BUT, with the money they spend on R & D, that
>is not recovered for 10 years or so, it would
>not surprise me in the least.
>        Also, the company itself does not make that
>much money.   The money goes to salaries at
>all levels.  The real honchos make high six figures,
>and even the research associates are paid a lot
>more than they would get doing something else.
>        That's why people work for corporations.
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>#3:
>>>Is it true that in 1954 the Eisenhower 
>>>administration made a deal with Mexico,
>>>Central and South America to bring in
>>>a certain amount of cocaine to help those
>>>country's economies?
>>
>>There might be an answer to this
>>question in John Coleman's book,
>>"The Committee of 300," which 
>>spends a lot of time discussing
>>the Far East India Company and
>>its successors in interest.
>>Far East India dates back to
>>the opium wars and the Boxer
>>Rebellion (not Barbara Boxer, 
>>mind you).
>
>
>        I have no idea on this one.
>
>Nancy
>>
>>/s/ Paul Mitchell
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>If anyone has answers, or leads, it would
>>>be appreciated. 
>>>
>>>In Liberty Only,
>>>Erin
>>>
>>>donelle@snowcrest.net
>>
>>===========================================================
>>Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S.:  pmitch@primenet.com                  
>>ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776, Tucson, Arizona state
>>===========================================================
>>
>>
>
>
      

Return to Table of Contents for

Supreme Law School:   E-mail