The dictionary hasn't altered the definition, the political class has.
You said they redefined it, but with the implication that it's been redefined to mean something it shouldn't.
Except....what it's been redefined to, is in the dictionary.
So, not really.
Are you just not reading my posts? Or are you just being purposely obtuse?
The Fair Tax would be MUCH better for the poor! Because of the pre-bate and the fact that the Fair Tax is NOT levied on used goods, lower income Americans could EASILY survive without ever paying taxes.
The poorest already pay no taxes, as you are continually reminding us. As far as whether they are 'surviving,' I don't know.
But in the past you've seemed angered by this, and now you're advertising this aspect of this plan?
But there is far more in the Fair Tax that favors lower income Americans. Just consider the number of American companies and their jobs that would come flooding back to our shores because of a ZERO PERCENT corporate tax rate! And how many multi-national and foreign companies do you suppose a 0% corporate tax rate would attract to our country?
The corporate tax rate aside, given that our system attempts to be progressive (though the comparison fails as you become richer), and that your Fair Tax involves replacing income taxes with sales taxes, why should a regressive tax be used over a progressive one?
You say that it will be better with the prebate. Certainly for the poor a Fair Tax with the prebate will be better than one without, and the tax being placed on new items only is better for them than not, but how does the sales tax of the plan, in whatever specific form it be in, compare with what is (for all save the richest, at least) a progressive income tax, with regards to the poor? This is as opposed to comparing the plan with other versions of itself.