Flat or Sales tax instead of current system...agree or disagree?

[Tom]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: Dead Parrot Sketch
Sales taxes are just as subject to cheating, and the incentive to cheat would increase at the high rate that would be necessary to replace the income tax.

Have any facts or data to support that statement or are you just making this up as you go along?

I used logical deduction..

1. the net amount of tax would be the same so sales tax rate would be pretty high. probably 15-20% at least. (on top of already existent sales tax)
2. the net amount of scummy tax cheats would be the same.
3. the same people who pay people under the table are the people who would collect the sales tax.
4. the same people who sell stuff in the underground income tax-free economy aren't likely to start collecting sales tax.


If you want to discuss tax reduction, that doesn't require changing the method. If you want to discuss simplification that doesn't require a different method either, just requires doing away with loopholes.

No tax system is completely fair, but sales tax is particularly unfair to the poor. And sales tax rates imposed by states already are pushing the limits of what people will pay, somewhere between 5-10% people will go out of there way to avoid paying sales tax already.

I think we have a pretty good compromise the way things are, with the exception of using property taxes to fund too much of school needs.

And of course it would be great if taxes could be lower, but one of the BEST ways to do that is to reduce the DEBT, which is the opposite of what we are doing under Pres. Bush.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Orsorum
LunarRay - Did you go to college?

Hehehehe,
If you don't agree with the point, fine. If you agree with some but not all, fine. If you cannot follow the point I'm making, fine too.
It is a sound argument in favor of the justification for progressive taxation. It is actually one of few that can really hold water. But, to, two or too answer your question... I can't remember now.. I think I did.. Must have.. yeah.. now that I look I can see my name ... yup.. I wented to skule. I remember learnink how to bravely state positions I don't favor or was that favor positions I don't remember.. what ever..

 

[Orsorum]

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: Orsorum
LunarRay - Did you go to college?

Hehehehe,
If you don't agree with the point, fine. If you agree with some but not all, fine. If you cannot follow the point I'm making, fine too.
It is a sound argument in favor of the justification for progressive taxation. It is actually one of few that can really hold water. But, to, two or too answer your question... I can't remember now.. I think I did.. Must have.. yeah.. now that I look I can see my name ... yup.. I wented to skule. I remember learnink how to bravely state positions I don't favor or was that favor positions I don't remember.. what ever..

Did you do well? Dean's List, perhaps?

 

[sxr7171]

Originally posted by: Dman877
If income < 30k, you pay no taxes

You then pay 20% on anything between 30k and 60k

You then pay 30% on anything between 60k and 90k

You then pay 40% on anything between 90k and 120k

You then pay 50% on anything between 120k and 150k

You then pay 70% on anything between 150k and 200k

You then pay 90% on anything between 200k and 500k

You then pay 95% on anything over 500k

IE if you earned 1 mil gross, your net would be 30k + 24K + 20K + 18K + 15K + 15K + 30K + 25K = 177K

This would create a bell-curve promoting a widespread middle class as opposed to the increasing gap we have now between the super-rich and impoverished.

People are not going to go to Med school working their a$$es off for 6-12 years and take on $300k+ in loans in order for 177k to be the absolute cap on take home pay. We have a market system that rewards people appropriately for pursuing certain careers that are valued by society.

 

[Spencer278]

Originally posted by: sxr7171

Originally posted by: Dman877
If income < 30k, you pay no taxes

You then pay 20% on anything between 30k and 60k

You then pay 30% on anything between 60k and 90k

You then pay 40% on anything between 90k and 120k

You then pay 50% on anything between 120k and 150k

You then pay 70% on anything between 150k and 200k

You then pay 90% on anything between 200k and 500k

You then pay 95% on anything over 500k

IE if you earned 1 mil gross, your net would be 30k + 24K + 20K + 18K + 15K + 15K + 30K + 25K = 177K

This would create a bell-curve promoting a widespread middle class as opposed to the increasing gap we have now between the super-rich and impoverished.

People are not going to go to Med school working their a$$es off for 6-12 years and take on $300k+ in loans in order for 177k to be the absolute cap on take home pay. We have a market system that rewards people appropriately for pursuing certain careers that are valued by society.

How is there a cap on the doctor take home pay? Do you understand precentages?

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Spencer278

Originally posted by: sxr7171

Originally posted by: Dman877
If income < 30k, you pay no taxes

You then pay 20% on anything between 30k and 60k

You then pay 30% on anything between 60k and 90k

You then pay 40% on anything between 90k and 120k

You then pay 50% on anything between 120k and 150k

You then pay 70% on anything between 150k and 200k

You then pay 90% on anything between 200k and 500k

You then pay 95% on anything over 500k

IE if you earned 1 mil gross, your net would be 30k + 24K + 20K + 18K + 15K + 15K + 30K + 25K = 177K

This would create a bell-curve promoting a widespread middle class as opposed to the increasing gap we have now between the super-rich and impoverished.

People are not going to go to Med school working their a$$es off for 6-12 years and take on $300k+ in loans in order for 177k to be the absolute cap on take home pay. We have a market system that rewards people appropriately for pursuing certain careers that are valued by society.

How is there a cap on the doctor take home pay? Do you understand precentages?

A doctor making $250,000/year would only have a take home pay of 107,000 under your plan.
Hard for this doc to pay his school loans, a house and car.

Just for grins, lets say he makes 500k/year, his take home pay is now 132,000/year.

Maybe if he made a million a year, still he only has a take home 157,000 year.

Under your plan, medical costs would get really expensive.

 

[Spencer278]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Spencer278

Originally posted by: sxr7171

Originally posted by: Dman877
If income < 30k, you pay no taxes

You then pay 20% on anything between 30k and 60k

You then pay 30% on anything between 60k and 90k

You then pay 40% on anything between 90k and 120k

You then pay 50% on anything between 120k and 150k

You then pay 70% on anything between 150k and 200k

You then pay 90% on anything between 200k and 500k

You then pay 95% on anything over 500k

IE if you earned 1 mil gross, your net would be 30k + 24K + 20K + 18K + 15K + 15K + 30K + 25K = 177K

This would create a bell-curve promoting a widespread middle class as opposed to the increasing gap we have now between the super-rich and impoverished.

People are not going to go to Med school working their a$$es off for 6-12 years and take on $300k+ in loans in order for 177k to be the absolute cap on take home pay. We have a market system that rewards people appropriately for pursuing certain careers that are valued by society.

How is there a cap on the doctor take home pay? Do you understand precentages?

A doctor making $250,000/year would only have a take home pay of 107,000 under your plan.
Hard for this doc to pay his school loans, a house and car.

Just for grins, lets say he makes 500k/year, his take home pay is now 132,000/year.

Maybe if he made a million a year, still he only has a take home 157,000 year.

Under your plan, medical costs would get really expensive.

Poor guy only making 157k dollars a year. Oh and it is not my plan I was just saying the person I qouted doesn't understand precentages. Health care would be free because of all the extra tax money we could have free health care.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Spencer278

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Spencer278

Originally posted by: sxr7171

Originally posted by: Dman877
If income < 30k, you pay no taxes

You then pay 20% on anything between 30k and 60k

You then pay 30% on anything between 60k and 90k

You then pay 40% on anything between 90k and 120k

You then pay 50% on anything between 120k and 150k

You then pay 70% on anything between 150k and 200k

You then pay 90% on anything between 200k and 500k

You then pay 95% on anything over 500k

IE if you earned 1 mil gross, your net would be 30k + 24K + 20K + 18K + 15K + 15K + 30K + 25K = 177K

This would create a bell-curve promoting a widespread middle class as opposed to the increasing gap we have now between the super-rich and impoverished.

People are not going to go to Med school working their a$$es off for 6-12 years and take on $300k+ in loans in order for 177k to be the absolute cap on take home pay. We have a market system that rewards people appropriately for pursuing certain careers that are valued by society.

How is there a cap on the doctor take home pay? Do you understand precentages?

A doctor making $250,000/year would only have a take home pay of 107,000 under your plan.
Hard for this doc to pay his school loans, a house and car.

Just for grins, lets say he makes 500k/year, his take home pay is now 132,000/year.

Maybe if he made a million a year, still he only has a take home 157,000 year.

Under your plan, medical costs would get really expensive.

Poor guy only making 157k dollars a year. Oh and it is not my plan I was just saying the person I qouted doesn't understand precentages. Health care would be free because of all the extra tax money we could have free health care.

I dont know anyone who could afford it at this price.

lets assume he makes 250k/year
that is 8900/month

lets assume a 250,000 student loan finance at 20 years
2900/month
a modest house of 150,000l
1500/month
we can he needs medical insurance for his own family
1000/month (just a guess)
He will also need malpractice insurance
2000/month (just a guess)
a modest car 20,000 at 5 years
600/month with insurance

That leaves him less than 1000/month for gas, grocery, utilities.


Why would anyone endure all this just so they can get by.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Orsorum

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: Orsorum
LunarRay - Did you go to college?

Hehehehe,
If you don't agree with the point, fine. If you agree with some but not all, fine. If you cannot follow the point I'm making, fine too.
It is a sound argument in favor of the justification for progressive taxation. It is actually one of few that can really hold water. But, to, two or too answer your question... I can't remember now.. I think I did.. Must have.. yeah.. now that I look I can see my name ... yup.. I wented to skule. I remember learnink how to bravely state positions I don't favor or was that favor positions I don't remember.. what ever..

Did you do well? Dean's List, perhaps?

Dean... Dean who.. ??? Let's play this way.. you pick the topic (within the business sphere) and you pick the side and I'll defend the other. Nah.. I'm too tired to play.. You win.. See how easy it is..

 

[Orsorum]

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: Orsorum

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: Orsorum
LunarRay - Did you go to college?

Hehehehe,
If you don't agree with the point, fine. If you agree with some but not all, fine. If you cannot follow the point I'm making, fine too.
It is a sound argument in favor of the justification for progressive taxation. It is actually one of few that can really hold water. But, to, two or too answer your question... I can't remember now.. I think I did.. Must have.. yeah.. now that I look I can see my name ... yup.. I wented to skule. I remember learnink how to bravely state positions I don't favor or was that favor positions I don't remember.. what ever..

Did you do well? Dean's List, perhaps?

Dean... Dean who.. ??? Let's play this way.. you pick the topic (within the business sphere) and you pick the side and I'll defend the other. Nah.. I'm too tired to play.. You win.. See how easy it is..

Way to go, champ.

 

[SuperTool]

Disagree. It's a dumb idea to tax the driving force behind our economy, which is consumer and business spending. An enrepreneur who buys $1M of business equipment and pays say 30% sales tax, is going to pay $300K to the government even if he never makes a profit. That means that in order for him to break even, he has to make a 30% profit margin, which is hard to do when you are just starting up. It's a crazy idea.
All those Mail In Rebate hot deals won't looks so hat if you gotta pay 30% tax on the purchase price either.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: SuperTool
Disagree. It's a dumb idea to tax the driving force behind our economy, which is consumer and business spending. An enrepreneur who buys $1M of business equipment and pays say 30% sales tax, is going to pay $300K to the government even if he never makes a profit. That means that in order for him to break even, he has to make a 30% profit margin, which is hard to do when you are just starting up. It's a crazy idea.
All those Mail In Rebate hot deals won't looks so hat if you gotta pay 30% tax on the purchase price either.

Businesses are already taxed at 30+%.

 

[Spencer278]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: SuperTool
Disagree. It's a dumb idea to tax the driving force behind our economy, which is consumer and business spending. An enrepreneur who buys $1M of business equipment and pays say 30% sales tax, is going to pay $300K to the government even if he never makes a profit. That means that in order for him to break even, he has to make a 30% profit margin, which is hard to do when you are just starting up. It's a crazy idea.
All those Mail In Rebate hot deals won't looks so hat if you gotta pay 30% tax on the purchase price either.

Businesses are already taxed at 30+%.

But they are taxed after they make a profit not before. If tax was based on sales tax then a lot of taxes will be front loaded.

Another thing that isn't fair about a sales tax is if a person buys lots of serivices they will pay no sales tax.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Spencer278

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: SuperTool
Disagree. It's a dumb idea to tax the driving force behind our economy, which is consumer and business spending. An enrepreneur who buys $1M of business equipment and pays say 30% sales tax, is going to pay $300K to the government even if he never makes a profit. That means that in order for him to break even, he has to make a 30% profit margin, which is hard to do when you are just starting up. It's a crazy idea.
All those Mail In Rebate hot deals won't looks so hat if you gotta pay 30% tax on the purchase price either.

Businesses are already taxed at 30+%.

But they are taxed after they make a profit not before. If tax was based on sales tax then a lot of taxes will be front loaded.

Another thing that isn't fair about a sales tax is if a person buys lots of serivices they will pay no sales tax.

Taxes already are front loaded. THey already pays sales tax, prop tax and other up front taxes. Why not keep the system simple.

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: SuperTool
Disagree. It's a dumb idea to tax the driving force behind our economy, which is consumer and business spending. An enrepreneur who buys $1M of business equipment and pays say 30% sales tax, is going to pay $300K to the government even if he never makes a profit. That means that in order for him to break even, he has to make a 30% profit margin, which is hard to do when you are just starting up. It's a crazy idea.
All those Mail In Rebate hot deals won't looks so hat if you gotta pay 30% tax on the purchase price either.

Businesses are already taxed at 30+%.

30% of profit, not expenditures. If you bought $100 of stuff and sold it for $110, if you pay 30% of profit, you paid $3, if you pay 30% of expenditures, you paid $30 in taxes.
See the difference?

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: SuperTool
Disagree. It's a dumb idea to tax the driving force behind our economy, which is consumer and business spending. An enrepreneur who buys $1M of business equipment and pays say 30% sales tax, is going to pay $300K to the government even if he never makes a profit. That means that in order for him to break even, he has to make a 30% profit margin, which is hard to do when you are just starting up. It's a crazy idea.
All those Mail In Rebate hot deals won't looks so hat if you gotta pay 30% tax on the purchase price either.

Businesses are already taxed at 30+%.

30% of profit, not expenditures. If you bought $100 of stuff and sold it for $110, if you pay 30% of profit, you paid $3, if you pay 30% of expenditures, you paid $30 in taxes.
See the difference?

Yes there is a difference. But there is also a huge cost in doing federal income taxes in the way they are currenty structured.

 

[Spencer278]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Spencer278

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: SuperTool
Disagree. It's a dumb idea to tax the driving force behind our economy, which is consumer and business spending. An enrepreneur who buys $1M of business equipment and pays say 30% sales tax, is going to pay $300K to the government even if he never makes a profit. That means that in order for him to break even, he has to make a 30% profit margin, which is hard to do when you are just starting up. It's a crazy idea.
All those Mail In Rebate hot deals won't looks so hat if you gotta pay 30% tax on the purchase price either.

Businesses are already taxed at 30+%.

But they are taxed after they make a profit not before. If tax was based on sales tax then a lot of taxes will be front loaded.

Another thing that isn't fair about a sales tax is if a person buys lots of serivices they will pay no sales tax.

Taxes already are front loaded. THey already pays sales tax, prop tax and other up front taxes. Why not keep the system simple.

Property taxes are yearly and sales, uses, tax is still releatively low adding another 30% or so would make investment almost impossible.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Spencer278

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Spencer278

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: SuperTool
Disagree. It's a dumb idea to tax the driving force behind our economy, which is consumer and business spending. An enrepreneur who buys $1M of business equipment and pays say 30% sales tax, is going to pay $300K to the government even if he never makes a profit. That means that in order for him to break even, he has to make a 30% profit margin, which is hard to do when you are just starting up. It's a crazy idea.
All those Mail In Rebate hot deals won't looks so hat if you gotta pay 30% tax on the purchase price either.

Businesses are already taxed at 30+%.

But they are taxed after they make a profit not before. If tax was based on sales tax then a lot of taxes will be front loaded.

Another thing that isn't fair about a sales tax is if a person buys lots of serivices they will pay no sales tax.

Taxes already are front loaded. THey already pays sales tax, prop tax and other up front taxes. Why not keep the system simple.

Property taxes are yearly and sales, uses, tax is still releatively low adding another 30% or so would make investment almost impossible.

there would not be a need to add 30% tax. Revenue neutral would be much lower than that(15-20%).
ANd maybe if the real cost of goverment was exposed to the people, maybe they would not be spending so much.

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Spencer278

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Spencer278

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: SuperTool
Disagree. It's a dumb idea to tax the driving force behind our economy, which is consumer and business spending. An enrepreneur who buys $1M of business equipment and pays say 30% sales tax, is going to pay $300K to the government even if he never makes a profit. That means that in order for him to break even, he has to make a 30% profit margin, which is hard to do when you are just starting up. It's a crazy idea.
All those Mail In Rebate hot deals won't looks so hat if you gotta pay 30% tax on the purchase price either.

Businesses are already taxed at 30+%.

But they are taxed after they make a profit not before. If tax was based on sales tax then a lot of taxes will be front loaded.

Another thing that isn't fair about a sales tax is if a person buys lots of serivices they will pay no sales tax.

Taxes already are front loaded. THey already pays sales tax, prop tax and other up front taxes. Why not keep the system simple.

Property taxes are yearly and sales, uses, tax is still releatively low adding another 30% or so would make investment almost impossible.

there would not be a need to add 30% tax. Revenue neutral would be much lower than that(15-20%).
ANd maybe if the real cost of goverment was exposed to the people, maybe they would not be spending so much.

30% is if you include state/local/payroll all in sales tax. And people spending less is not what you want to see.

 

[sxr7171]

Originally posted by: Spencer278

Originally posted by: sxr7171

Originally posted by: Dman877
If income < 30k, you pay no taxes

You then pay 20% on anything between 30k and 60k

You then pay 30% on anything between 60k and 90k

You then pay 40% on anything between 90k and 120k

You then pay 50% on anything between 120k and 150k

You then pay 70% on anything between 150k and 200k

You then pay 90% on anything between 200k and 500k

You then pay 95% on anything over 500k

IE if you earned 1 mil gross, your net would be 30k + 24K + 20K + 18K + 15K + 15K + 30K + 25K = 177K

This would create a bell-curve promoting a widespread middle class as opposed to the increasing gap we have now between the super-rich and impoverished.

People are not going to go to Med school working their a$$es off for 6-12 years and take on $300k+ in loans in order for 177k to be the absolute cap on take home pay. We have a market system that rewards people appropriately for pursuing certain careers that are valued by society.

How is there a cap on the doctor take home pay? Do you understand precentages?

What are you trying to be all smart for? You don't think a 95% tax on marginal income is effectively a cap? If the guy made $100,000 more he would net an extra $5,000. Where is the incentive for a skull base surgeon (probably the only kind of surgeon that can regularly gross $1 million - there are maybe 35-40 in the entire US), to see the extra patients needed to make an extra $100k? These people work 100+ hour weeks as it is. With your scheme nobody will ever pursue this field and people that need this sort of neurosurgery will likely never get treated. The unfortunate people who are already trained skull-base surgeons will simply cut their patient load to a third of what they currently do or less. Do you have any concept of marginal income or the whole concept or opportunity cost? What you are suggesting is effectively a cap on productivity and income. There isn't a person out there will work 120 hour weeks instead of a 40 hour week just to make a measly extra $45,000. Do you really think someone would? Try to get back in a real world involving real people and the decisions they face. Economics is not engineering.

 

[sxr7171]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Spencer278

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Spencer278

Originally posted by: sxr7171

Originally posted by: Dman877
If income < 30k, you pay no taxes

You then pay 20% on anything between 30k and 60k

You then pay 30% on anything between 60k and 90k

You then pay 40% on anything between 90k and 120k

You then pay 50% on anything between 120k and 150k

You then pay 70% on anything between 150k and 200k

You then pay 90% on anything between 200k and 500k

You then pay 95% on anything over 500k

IE if you earned 1 mil gross, your net would be 30k + 24K + 20K + 18K + 15K + 15K + 30K + 25K = 177K

This would create a bell-curve promoting a widespread middle class as opposed to the increasing gap we have now between the super-rich and impoverished.

People are not going to go to Med school working their a$$es off for 6-12 years and take on $300k+ in loans in order for 177k to be the absolute cap on take home pay. We have a market system that rewards people appropriately for pursuing certain careers that are valued by society.

How is there a cap on the doctor take home pay? Do you understand precentages?

A doctor making $250,000/year would only have a take home pay of 107,000 under your plan.
Hard for this doc to pay his school loans, a house and car.

Just for grins, lets say he makes 500k/year, his take home pay is now 132,000/year.

Maybe if he made a million a year, still he only has a take home 157,000 year.

Under your plan, medical costs would get really expensive.

Poor guy only making 157k dollars a year. Oh and it is not my plan I was just saying the person I qouted doesn't understand precentages. Health care would be free because of all the extra tax money we could have free health care.

I dont know anyone who could afford it at this price.

lets assume he makes 250k/year
that is 8900/month

lets assume a 250,000 student loan finance at 20 years
2900/month
a modest house of 150,000l
1500/month
we can he needs medical insurance for his own family
1000/month (just a guess)
He will also need malpractice insurance
2000/month (just a guess)
a modest car 20,000 at 5 years
600/month with insurance

That leaves him less than 1000/month for gas, grocery, utilities.


Why would anyone endure all this just so they can get by.

Exactly. I guarantee that at least 75% of physicians would just retire. People would drop out of medical school right now.
After that happens who is going to be paying those high taxes that this Dman877 proposes will pay for everything fro medical care to food stamps.

You will see a shortage of physicians so severe that salaries would need to go up by several hundred percent just to have a fraction of current practitioners we have today. If this guy Dman877 has ever drawn a supply-demand curve in his life he would see that the increase in salary would have to be several hundred percent to counter the 95% of marginal income going to the government in terms creating an incentive for physicians to return to work.

If retired physicians were forced to work, then this would no better than communist Russia on its worst day.

This guy needs to take Econ 101 wherever the heck he goes to school.

 

[Spencer278]

Originally posted by: sxr7171

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Spencer278

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Spencer278

Originally posted by: sxr7171

Originally posted by: Dman877
If income < 30k, you pay no taxes

You then pay 20% on anything between 30k and 60k

You then pay 30% on anything between 60k and 90k

You then pay 40% on anything between 90k and 120k

You then pay 50% on anything between 120k and 150k

You then pay 70% on anything between 150k and 200k

You then pay 90% on anything between 200k and 500k

You then pay 95% on anything over 500k

IE if you earned 1 mil gross, your net would be 30k + 24K + 20K + 18K + 15K + 15K + 30K + 25K = 177K

This would create a bell-curve promoting a widespread middle class as opposed to the increasing gap we have now between the super-rich and impoverished.

People are not going to go to Med school working their a$$es off for 6-12 years and take on $300k+ in loans in order for 177k to be the absolute cap on take home pay. We have a market system that rewards people appropriately for pursuing certain careers that are valued by society.

How is there a cap on the doctor take home pay? Do you understand precentages?

A doctor making $250,000/year would only have a take home pay of 107,000 under your plan.
Hard for this doc to pay his school loans, a house and car.

Just for grins, lets say he makes 500k/year, his take home pay is now 132,000/year.

Maybe if he made a million a year, still he only has a take home 157,000 year.

Under your plan, medical costs would get really expensive.

Poor guy only making 157k dollars a year. Oh and it is not my plan I was just saying the person I qouted doesn't understand precentages. Health care would be free because of all the extra tax money we could have free health care.

I dont know anyone who could afford it at this price.

lets assume he makes 250k/year
that is 8900/month

lets assume a 250,000 student loan finance at 20 years
2900/month
a modest house of 150,000l
1500/month
we can he needs medical insurance for his own family
1000/month (just a guess)
He will also need malpractice insurance
2000/month (just a guess)
a modest car 20,000 at 5 years
600/month with insurance

That leaves him less than 1000/month for gas, grocery, utilities.


Why would anyone endure all this just so they can get by.

Exactly. I guarantee that at least 75% of physicians would just retire. People would drop out of medical school right now.
After that happens who is going to be paying those high taxes that this charrison proposes will pay for everything fro medical care to food stamps.

You will see a shortage of physicians so severe that salaries would need to go up by several hundred percent just to have a fraction of current practitioners we have today. If this guy charrison has ever drawn a supply-demand curve in his life he would see that the increase in salary would have to be several hundred percent to counter the 95% of marginal income going to the government in terms creating an incentive for physicians to return to work.

If retired physicians were forced to work, then this would no better than communist Russia on its worst day.

This guy needs to take Econ 101 wherever the heck he goes to school.

Do you understand how to read qoutes?

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: SuperTool
Disagree. It's a dumb idea to tax the driving force behind our economy, which is consumer and business spending. An enrepreneur who buys $1M of business equipment and pays say 30% sales tax, is going to pay $300K to the government even if he never makes a profit. That means that in order for him to break even, he has to make a 30% profit margin, which is hard to do when you are just starting up. It's a crazy idea.
All those Mail In Rebate hot deals won't looks so hat if you gotta pay 30% tax on the purchase price either.

Read the web site. Business to business purchases would not be taxed.

 

[Spencer278]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: SuperTool
Disagree. It's a dumb idea to tax the driving force behind our economy, which is consumer and business spending. An enrepreneur who buys $1M of business equipment and pays say 30% sales tax, is going to pay $300K to the government even if he never makes a profit. That means that in order for him to break even, he has to make a 30% profit margin, which is hard to do when you are just starting up. It's a crazy idea.
All those Mail In Rebate hot deals won't looks so hat if you gotta pay 30% tax on the purchase price either.

Read the web site. Business to business purchases would not be taxed.

I think your wrong about that general with a sales tax you don't need to pay sales tax if you resell the item but if you use it then a business is required to pay sales tax. Otherwise it would be way to big of a loop hole.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: Spencer278

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: SuperTool
Disagree. It's a dumb idea to tax the driving force behind our economy, which is consumer and business spending. An enrepreneur who buys $1M of business equipment and pays say 30% sales tax, is going to pay $300K to the government even if he never makes a profit. That means that in order for him to break even, he has to make a 30% profit margin, which is hard to do when you are just starting up. It's a crazy idea.
All those Mail In Rebate hot deals won't looks so hat if you gotta pay 30% tax on the purchase price either.

Businesses are already taxed at 30+%.

But they are taxed after they make a profit not before. If tax was based on sales tax then a lot of taxes will be front loaded.

Another thing that isn't fair about a sales tax is if a person buys lots of serivices they will pay no sales tax.

Services would be taxed too. Its a consumption tax, if you consume goods OR services you pay the tax.