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.
Um... yes really. I said that in the popular lexicon, particularly with the political class (not in the written dictionary), fair has come to mean the exact opposite of its dictionary definition; particularly when one calls our current progressive tax system “fair.”
There is NOTHING equitable, nondiscriminatory, unbiased or impartial, in other words FAIR, about our current tax system... NOTHING!
One could argue that it is “appropriate” that the higher income brackets pay a higher percentage tax rate, and that would be the proper use of the word. But to say it is “fair” is just not true by any definition of that word.
Words mean things for a reason.
The poorest already pay no taxes, as you are continually reminding us. As far as whether they are ‘surviving,’ I don’t know.
The so-called “poor” in this country have a better standard of living that much the middle class in Europe and by the standards of third-world nations, our poor are downright wealthy!
That you would make the underlined statement above just proves you are being disingenuous in this debate.
I am about as poor as a person gets currently, and I am surviving quite nicely – and that’s without any government handouts. I’d be living like a king if I availed myself of all the federal and state benefits a person of my income has access to.
But in the past you’ve seemed angered by this, and now you’re advertising this aspect of this plan?
And I explained exactly why I’m advertising this aspect of the Fair Tax! Honestly, do you just not read my posts, or are you arguing just for the sake of arguing???
I am quite willing to sacrifice fairness by making the Fair Tax progressive with the pre-bate if that means I can end the government’s ability to practice crony capitalism.
The corporate tax rate aside,
No, you cannot just dismiss one of the most beneficial aspects of the Fair Tax out of hand like that! A 0% corporate tax rate would be a BOON to this country! It would effectively end unemployment in this country almost overnight and make it THE destination for corporations the world over!
Just blowing off what a 0% corporate tax would do for this county as you have shows that you are not even seriously considering the merits of the Fair Tax.
given that our system attempts to be progressive (though the comparison fails as you become richer),
Again, you are completely off base here. The IRS’s own statistics prove you wrong as the top 1% of income earners pay 40% of all income taxes while the bottom 50% of income earners pay none at all after rebates and tax credits. Just because the wealthy are still wealthy despite carrying the lion’s share of the tax burden doesn’t mean that our tax system isn’t “progressive enough.”
and that your Fair Tax involves replacing income taxes with sales taxes, why should a regressive tax be use over a progressive one?
WTF, over??? Now I KNOW you are not reading my posts.
I have already answered this question in my previous post! And there were multiple reasons cited for why I advocate the Fair Tax, not the least of which was ending the use of the tax code for crony capitalism!!!
And with the pre-bate, the Fair Tax is no longer a regressive tax system, but a progressive one!
And while I’m the subject, why is it that leftists never object to the regressive nature of taxes on things like fuel, liquor, cigarettes, and other so-called “sin” taxes? These taxes hurt the poor far more than the wealthy.
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 but the richest, at least) a progressive income tax? This is as opposed to comparing the plan with other versions of itself.
I don’t understand your question here. How does it compare in what aspects?
Honestly, I don’t think there’s any aspect of the Fair Tax that isn’t far superior to our current income tax code. One, we had to pass a freaking constitutional amendment just to make it legal. In their wisdom, our founders realized such a tax system would ultimately be perverted to serve big government at the sacrifice of personal freedoms.
With the Fair Tax compliance costs would be the tiniest fraction of what it costs our private sector to comply with the income tax and we already have the means of implementing it in just about every state because just about every state collects sales taxes. And even in those states that don’t collect sales taxes, the POS software used by all retail outlets already have the programming needed to add a sales tax.
More importantly, the Fair Tax permanently TERMINATES the ability of the federal government to use the tax code for crony capitalist ends!
As for revenue, based on static modeling, the Fair Tax would raise the exact same revenue our current tax system raises, but as we know that the real world is not static but dynamic. Dynamic modeling shows that the Fair Tax would create TREMENDOUS growth in our economy as businesses would no longer have a massively complicated tax code to deal with and a ZERO percent tax rate! We would see a renaissance in manufacturing, industry, and in all those businesses that have fled our shores over the years. The Fair Tax would, in fact, bring in substantially more money to the federal government than we are currently seeing. Unemployment would plummet, incomes would rise, prosperity would reach more and more people and the middle class would expand.
All-in-all, the Fair Tax is so clearly superior to our current tax system that the only reason one could possibly object to it is the loss of power it represents to the political class. And funnily enough, the single largest base of objection to this tax comes from the government and politicians (and their apologists in the private sector) who realize just how much power is at stake.