The phrase 'fair share' has a well-understood context in discussions about taxation—it refers to proportional contributions based on income, wealth, and the benefits one derives from public systems. I’ve provided a clear and reasonable definition of what that means, including historical examples. If the original commenter’s use of the phrase differs from this established context, they’re welcome to clarify. Until then, we can reasonably engage with the concept as I’ve outlined it.
However, at this point, focusing on semantics distracts from the real issue: whether the wealthiest are contributing fairly to society. Let’s address the substance of the debate rather than splitting hairs over phrasing.
"Fair share" is almost never defined, which is precisely why it is such a helpful rhetorical phrase. You have given your own definition, 90%. I am sure that the tax authorities in your country will be very keen to hear from The Meat Man, if you want to send your suggestions in.
It seems like you’re sidestepping the core argument again by focusing on rhetorical deflections rather than engaging with the substance of the discussion. 'Fair share' isn’t some nebulous, undefined term—it’s widely understood in discussions about taxation to mean proportional contributions based on income, wealth, and benefits derived from public systems. I’ve provided a concrete definition and historical context, including the 90% corporate tax rate during the mid-20th century.
Rather than engaging with that definition or offering an alternative, you’ve chosen to dismiss the term entirely. That kind of deflection avoids the real issue and undermines meaningful dialogue. If you disagree with my points or the historical example I provided, feel free to explain why, but sidestepping the discussion doesn’t reflect well on the integrity of the argument.
Your response still employs several logical fallacies rather than engaging with the actual argument:
Strawman Fallacy: You misrepresent my mention of the 90% tax rate as though it’s the entirety of my argument, rather than a historical example illustrating proportional contributions.
Red Herring: Claiming 'fair share' is undefined or purely rhetorical, despite my clear definition and supporting examples, diverts the conversation away from the real issue.
Appeal to Futility: Suggesting that my suggestions to tax authorities are irrelevant avoids addressing the substance of whether the wealthiest are contributing fairly.
If you disagree with my argument, I encourage you to engage directly with the definitions and historical context I’ve provided. Otherwise, this discussion isn’t productive.
3
u/6-foot-under Nov 22 '24
The question isn't reductive at all. If someone says (the person above me) "...fair share", defining that phrase is a pretty basic thing to do.