It eliminates defining a necessity. We would probably agree food is a necessity, but does that mean crab legs should be excluded?
Eating certain meals is a luxury, is it fair for one to get a larger tax break because they can afford better food? The prebate eliminates the issue. I wish states that exempt taxes on food would do something similar.
I suppose that makes sense.
What does âfairâ mean? And why do I have to hear that word so much over the past 7+ years?
For the last 7 years âfairâ means âyouâre all screwed!â. Thatâs fair, isnât it?
If only it were as equally extreme to create a new agency out of thin air. Most of the time the prospect of a new alphabet agency brings applause an accolades.
I would assume since education is not mentioned as a role of the federal government in the Constitution you would not be spending federal tax revenue onâŠeducation grants to the states.
Come on, Zeb. The tax plan itself is called the FairTax, if you want to know the definition of fair in the plan, do your own research; but if you think a consumption tax with an exemption for necessities should treat all protein sources the same then good luck to you.
Iâve lived most of my entire adult life being punished for succeeding. Then I hear the left saying that those who have worked their butts off and have done well are not paying their âfair shareâ when in fact the top 10% pays about 70% of all taxes I get just a bit upset. So, sorry for assuming that all protein choices should be equal. If I can afford steak and my neighbor only hotdogs of course I should be punishedâŠ
The plan would give you the exact same prebate, how exactly is that being punished? Poor zeb doesnât get a larger tax exemption than his neighbor by spending more on his food.
Then what is Cruzâs constitutional basis for block granting funds to states for education from the United States treasury?
Thatâs pretty much the same attitude that democrats have.
Nice!
Spending more is not worth a larger deduction?
Think about that.
That in is not an enumerated power of the federal government. Education should be left to the states, that includes funding.
I think we are talking in circles here.
We arenât talking in circles - youâre just not answering the question or addressing Cruzâs position.
Cruz is a âconstitutional conservativeâ but is ok with spending federal monies on education to states through block grants. So, based on your position that there is no constitutional authority to do that, but Cruz disagrees with you.
Is he not a âconstitutional conservativeâ then?
Yes, I would be surprised since he supports spending federal money in education. But the chances of such a bill landing on his desk as President Cruz are about as high as the chances of you reading an unbiased book of non-fiction, so itâs a bit of a stretch.
So Iâll ask you directly, too - Cruz doesnât think spending federal money on education is unconstitutional (obviously) - on what basis do you think he thinks it is permissible? General Welfare clause?
Not how you originally worded it. I thought you were saying he was opposed to federal funding. When you said:
âblockâ grant funding and funding through âblockâ grants are very different sentences. Maybe you were missing a word somewhere?
Which one is it though? He is for funding state education after the Department of Education is gone? Is that a temporary thing to ween the states off federal money? If not, I would agree that it does not align with my view of âConstitutional Conservatism.â
Do you have a link?
Please do explain exactly how a consumption tax with a prebate to remove the regressive aspect is a democrat attitude.
Here is the wording from Cruzâs website, linked above by Cortes:
âDepartment of Education â return education to those who know our students best: parents, teachers, local communities, and states. And block-grant education funding to the states.â
So Cruz is ok with federal funding of education. On what part of the Constitution is this âconstitutional conservativeâ relying to do this?
I think Cruz is highly qualified, but donât know if his best place is that of PotUS. I would rather he be named to the SCotUS.
He explains here. I canât tell if he means convert remaining DoE funds after departmental elimination into block grants, or perpetually offer block grants for education to the states. Hopefully the former.
No, it doesnât sound like pure Constitutional Conservatism. It does sound like a much better move in that direction than what we are doing right now. Iâm not going to nit-pick just as I donât nit-pick with the other candidates.
He doesnât say either way, but itâd be an odd choice to use block-grants to wind down federal funding - states will certainly come to rely on that funding. Block grants are usually considered legitimate funding given to a state to use its own way. My assumption is its perpetual.
The second point Iâd make is that I donât see how Cruz can be forgiven for this apostasy if youâre a CC - heâs (presumably) saying itâs ok to spend money to Promote the General Welfare (under which this kind of block-grant stuff happens is often justified). Ok, well, if a CC says education is ok to generally for the Feds to spend money on, surely thatâs not the only thing? And if someone thinks of something else to spend more on (say, to help alleviate poverty), how is that not just as âconstitutionalâ as Cruzâs spending on education? Hasnât this CC simply opened the door to the endless federal spending and involvement?
All of this would be fine, and simply sorted out through politics, except for the fact that CCs do not allow such exceptions to the âstrict constructionismâ required for the ideology. And we see why - if Cruz can have his spending on education, Elizabeth Warren can have her spending on poverty, and heâs therefore undermined the mission of CC.
CCs should be furious, but instead youâre forgiving, saying âwell, heâs close enough.â But is that actually ok? Doesnât that disqualify him to be a CC based on everything I mentioned?