Talk:FairTax/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Plan to remove pro bias

The most glaring issue with the article is the use of multiple pro references to support a single statement. Most of these are unnecessary and appear to be intended to make a point. I'm going to trim out as many of those as possible with the additional goal of reducing the total number of references. In many places the pro side is given and then the con response appears followed by a pro rebuttal. It makes for dense biased text. A rewrite to present both the pro and con sides without the rebuttal except where absolutely necessary should make several sections both more readable and less overtly biased. The number of congressional sponsors for every version of the bill is unnecessary and appears to be trying to make the point that the bill is gaining momentum. No other facts support this. The Tax Rate section repeats the same information several times and buries the serious issue of what the rate actually would be several subsections into the section. A reorganization and edit for length is called for. The prebate chart is unnecessary. If the bill ever passes then an actual chart might be appropriate. The formula for comparing an inclusive tax rate to an exclusive one is appopriate for the tax rate article but is unnecessary here. The Predicted Effects section presents very little beyond speculation. Bare assertions referencing bare assertions somewhere else will be edited or removed. Kbs666 (talk) 00:01, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

This has been discussed already between you and several other editors. You are asserting arguments that have already been countered my most of those other editors. Reasserting them again at the bottom of the talk page does not reinvigorate them. EECavazos (talk) 00:12, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I've already been down this road. There are multiple editors saying the article lacks NPOV and multiple editors saying it doesn't. Therefore the neutrality of this article is in dispute. Placing this new section at the bottom of the page is per wikipedia policy. Removing the disclaimer is a violation of wikipedia policy. Kbs666 (talk) 03:13, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Please read WP:NPOV. There are far more editors who think this article has a neutral point of view than there are those who think it is not neutral. The editors who think it is neutral are able to articlulate that it is neutral. I disagree with the underlying topic, FairTax, but the article itself is neutral. A few minor changes may be possible but they remain minor and do not affect the neutrality of the article. An editor above in this talk page on the ongoing issue of the article's neutrality said that s/he thought the topic was a bad tax but s/he that the article itself is neutral. Gamekeepr, I believe said that. Other editors agree. Your complaints on the article's neutrality revolve around disagreements over specific sentences (that are sourced) and their assertions. If you disagree with such statements, then you need to disprove them with sourced statements. Arguing that some statements have too many sources only weaken your arguments. Please, if you disagree then disprove with sourced content. If you disagree because you don't like it, then please wait until you have sourced information and then add it in. If editors do not allow you to add in the sourced information, then you have a case to add an NPOV tag. Until then, you have no case for a WP:NPOV tag. EECavazos (talk) 04:15, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

As is obvious to the many editors who have complained about this article it violates undue weight, impartial tone, article structure of WP:NPOV. Tag is replaced and article editing continues.Kbs666 (talk) 15:07, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

If a dispute was all that was needed for a tag, than every controversial article would have one (as well as half the articles on Wikipedia). On such an article and on Wikipedia in general, it doesn't really matter if you have several vocal editors making general statements. This is not a vote. Particularly on an article that has had significant review by many experienced editors (pro and con) who have found otherwise (some even from outside the U.S.). Just because some editor thinks the term "smartcard" is too futuristic, doesn't make it a valid argument for bias content or NPOV. Likewise, your unsubstantiated claim regarding "most" and "many" (which I choose to accept only to reduce conflict on an insignificant point, not because of any evidence you provided to make your argument). You may never agree to a point, but the dispute is over if you can not present evidence and arguments to convince editors that change would improve the article. Nothing has been provided that the article violates the policies of NPOV. No point of view has been presented that is missing from the article. No significant argument has been presented for undue weight, impartial tone, or article structure (or such has been dismissed based on discussion and arguments). Per the NPOV dispute "The editor who adds the tag must address the issues on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies, namely Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Simply being of the opinion that a page is not neutral is not sufficient to justify the addition of the tag. Tags should be added as a last resort." There is a discussion taking place - the only purpose of adding the tag at this point is to present a negative bias on the article (which is not the purpose of the tag).

Regarding references, I have a difficult time removing references unless there is a clear amount that unnecessarily overwhelms the statement, which gives the appearance of making a point (the very reason I reduced references regarding your argument above from 8 to 5). At that point, we have to choose which references are the most relevant. Many users like multiple sources when possible and some sources may support different points in the sentence. With that said, I'm not overly opposed to removing sources if it both results in no loss of source material and assists in reducing unnecessary reference overload for a statement. I'd also be fine with reducing references in the lead (or other top level summaries) if it does not create a sourcing dispute.

Regarding the back and forth, I'm fine with grouping the pro and then grouping the con in the context of the section provided we have good prose flow for the topic, but would be against removing rebuttal points (meaning they need to be included in the pro argument). To remove the argument would be a violation of NPOV policy of presenting one point of view and not the other. Presenting both may not result in a 50/50 coverage (based on proponents or opponents having more research or arguments to present on the topic). Any attempt to provide criticism significantly more weight (simply because it's criticism) by removing proponent arguments or research, will likely be an issue.

The tax rate section is a summary of the sections under this topic header. You shouldn't have a title without something under it - a summary in this case, which was required as part of the FA for improving quality. I agree that this duplicates information but that's the purpose. Perhaps a tighter summary is appropriate - I don't have an issue with that. As far as the what the rate would actually be, there should be little dispute - it is 23%/30% per the legislation. Until this changes, the argument is if that rate is sufficient to raise the same amount of revenue, which would result in raising the rate, reduced spending, or an increased deficit. Cosponsor information is important to show the status of the bill over its lifetime (one would expect this type of information) - I think it is presented in a neutral way. The prebate table helps understand the structure and amounts proposed. Removing sourced content that others see as relevant data to the topic points will likely not be seen as improving the article. Morphh ^(talk) 15:53, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to examine one sentence here that demonstrates that this article is biased. The sentence: "The bill is cosponsored by former Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert but has not received support from the Democratic leadership, which now controls Congress." Which is supported by 3 references. However the sentence is not factual, Dennis Hastert is not a cosponsor according to any of the references provided. All that can be said based on the provided references is that he expressed support for a national sales tax in a book. Now whoever wrote that sentence and applied those references knew the statement was untrue since he presumably read those references before attaching them to that sentence. A clear violation of WP:V.

Moving on to another sentence in this same section: "The legislation has been discussed with President George W. Bush and Secretary of the Treasury Henry M. Paulson." followed by a single reference. The problem here is the link doesn't point to what the description claims, it isn't even the right file type. Now I know for a fact that someone looked at this link in the last week since I reported it to be broken and it was supposedly fixed. Once again this gives an indication that someone is trying to bury the casual reader in references to make a point. Another clear violation of WP:V.

Now I had deleted both these sentences along with a lot of fluff trying to make it look like support for this bill is growing but the edits were reverted with a claim that these falsehoods were somehow relevant to the article. Kbs666 (talk) 21:50, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I checked the just one of the refs [1] which lists 'Rep Hastert, J. Dennis' as a supporter. I think you must have made a mistake here. GameKeeper (talk) 22:39, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I just checked the ref by hand and he is listed as a cosponsor. Previously I had just searched the page for hastert. My mistake. Kbs666 (talk) 22:50, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

The next sentence you complain about, the reference is not currently available at the webarchive which is linked. This does not mean it has never existed. Maybe someone can relocate it again but webarchives can be a bit flaky, it may well work tomorrow when you check. A reference does not have to be online to be valid! GameKeeper (talk) 22:39, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

A reference to a website does need to be available online to be valid! If it was published somewhere give the print ref! I'll reiterate, I've checked this ref every time I've looked at this page in the last week. It has never pointed to what it claims.Kbs666 (talk) 22:50, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Dead link. Yes, this is a deadlink however "The legislation has been discussed with President George W. Bush and Secretary of the Treasury Henry M. Paulson" does not impugne the neutrality of an entire article and besides is not in itself POV. In this instance, an appropriate action would be to show that a citation is needed with . EECavazos (talk) 23:03, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I added a tag to the reference. EECavazos (talk) 23:14, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Update: Had to change the "/pdf/" to "/PDF/" in the link. I updated the link and was able to download the document. Morphh ^(talk) 15:40, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I know the source was valid a while back, and I can confirm that it did support the statement. This is not any attempt to mislead anyone or bury anything - that is why access dates are provided with every ref. The web archive showed three dates with the sourced PDF, but I guess it's not working. Linder met with Bush for an hour on the FairTax. He also met with Paulson. He has stated both on many occasions. Here is a quick link, perhaps another to a similar statement, though I think we can do better. I believe Linder made the statement in his latest book as well as in the online video at American Solutions, but it will take some time to review the materials to verify. But to the above point, this is not anything that violates NPOV. Morphh ^(talk) 0:23, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

But why is the fact that Linder discussed it with Bush and Paulson even relevant enough to mention in this article? What was the outcome of the discussion? Did Bush or Paulson support or reject the legislation afterwards? I don't believe the discussion had any effect on the status of the legislation or the "movement." I don't see any reason this should even be in this article, especially since it's obvious that Bush will not be pushing any tax reform legislation before he leaves office. Tom Joad 2k (talk) 13:14, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I did get to quickly look at book The Truth and verified that as a source for the Bush statement, although I didn't have time to find Paulson. The Bush conversation was suppose to last 15min, but according to Linder, Bush was so interested that he pushed off his other meetings to discuss the plan. Linder often talks about this regarding his belief that the plan would "spreed freedom around the globe", which Bush supposedly liked. Note that this "freedom" argument of pro material (one of many) is not present in the article. The Paulson discussion took place after the Tax Reform panel and was interesting because Paulson stated, according to Linder, that he would use resources outside of the Treasury to score the plan. Paulson seemed open to the plan according to Linder. As to why the sentence is mentioned, we're discussing the bill in which we outline noteable events, the status with leadership of the political parties (including Bush, the leader of the Republican party) and Secertary of Treasury (extremely important for looking at tax plans). Certainly both were big news in the movement and Linder continues to discuss them. Bush being a lame duck doesn't negate that the FairTax has been discussed at these levels of government. It shouldn't simply be dismissed as having no political interest or action. They were meaningfull events in the bill's history. Morphh ^(talk) 14:07, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

How can you say they were meaningful to the bill when nothing resulted from the discussions? Did Bush push for any legislative action? Not that I'm aware of. Did the status of the bill change in any way? No. This discussion seems to be a very insignificant event in the the bill's history. Tom Joad 2k (talk) 14:31, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Nothing has resulted from any sponsorship or discussion with any politician on the bill. It sits in the same place as it did on day one. Does that make the entire section irrelavant for an article on the bill? How can a discussion with the Presendent for an hour on this particular tax reform plan be insignificant? This is not normal practice. It's not like we put it in the lead. It's one sentence in the legislative history section. Morphh ^(talk) 15:02, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

When you say 'these falsehoods' what do you mean. The information showed more cosponsors were appearing. YOU are making the assumption that that means support is growing, the falsehood there is your assumption and is not in the article. GameKeeper (talk) 22:39, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Cosponsors on a bill means nothing. It isn't a commitment to vote for the bill. It is propoganda. Propoganda has no place in an ecyclopedia. Kbs666 (talk) 22:50, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

You claim at the end that the purpose of the statements did make a claim for some POV by implying the support for the bill is growing. This is also incorrect. The whole paragraph says that the legislation is dead. The very statement you claim is POV says that the Democrat-controlled Congress has stopped the bill. EECavazos (talk) 23:03, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Do you realize that you just said that when a Congressperson supports a bill that it is propaganda? You are arguing about the topic. Let's stick with arguing over the article. A person of Congress co-sponsoring a bill is notable because it shows at Congressperson's support. Just as notable is the mention in the paragraph that the legislation itself is dead despite support from some Congresspersons.EECavazos (talk) 23:06, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

If you want an example of verifiability and NPOV, why is Christopher Trowell's "Clean out America’s Economic Arteries" used as a source for supposed economic benefits? The link goes to what appears to be nothing more than a submission from the public to a Ways and Means hearing. Unless it can be shown that Christopher Trowell (I've never heard of him) is reliable, I can't see how someone making a submission for the record to a Congressional hearing (anyone can submit something have have it be part of the "record") can, by itself, be considered a "reliable source." All claims sourced to him should have a reliable source attached to them or they should be removed. And Christopher Trowell's statement should be removed as a source completely.

I see this type of stuff throughout this article. In the "Economic" section, there is this sentence "According to the National Bureau of Economic Research and Americans For Fair Taxation, GDP would increase almost 10.5 percent in the year after the FairTax goes into effect." which reference's Linder's website - but that site has nothing about NBER making this claim. If NBER studied the FairTax (I'm not aware that they have) and made this claim, why not link to the original source? Tom Joad 2k (talk) 14:19, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I think in both cases we're playing chase the reference as people try to find new sources when old links go bad or change. NBER is listed in several research documents (Kotlikoff was part of this group). I'm pretty certain both of these statements are made in the Al Ose book (which is where Trowell likely got the data) and in multiple AFFT documents. In some cases, an attempt was made to use an online references rather than a books, so that verifying the data would be easier for readers, but it seems this might have been a mistake. I'll verify the statements in the book and replace the reference. Morphh ^(talk) 15:02, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Is Al Ose a reliable source? It appears his book was self-published (Authorhouse, is a self-publishing service) and the Wikipedia page on Verifiability specifically states "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, forum postings, and similar sources are largely not acceptable." It seems to me his book should be removed from the references and any item using his book as reference should be resourced or removed. This, again, is evidence of a lack of neutral point of view. Tom Joad 2k (talk) 15:33, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Good catch - I will start looking into this. This material is available in other books, research, or AFFT publications. I will note, however, that I'm getting tired of everything you question being charged as NPOV. This is not productive or accurate. You're at the point of accusing editors of bad faith by using one source vs. another. It was a simple unintentional error in data reference that can be corrected. Morphh ^(talk) 16:24, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Wait a minute. I don't think in any of my other specific points - let alone "everything I question" - I claimed POV. And it wasn't addressed at anyone in particular (I don't know who added those Ose references).

You yourself quoted the language from the NPOV dispute article that stated that people should be "...pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies, namely Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons." So I'm pointing out specific issues relating to verifiability. I'm not adding the NPOV label or any other label to the article or changing the content - I'm addressing these issues on the discussion page and allowing someone to find other sources or remove the content. Tom Joad 2k (talk) 19:17, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I must have some discussions mixed (they all seem to blur) and it just seems like that term is getting loosely tossed around for any type of issue or dispute. The last couple statements must have pushed a stressed wikibutton. Morphh ^(talk) 20:06, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Morphh, you've obviously put in a lot of work on this article and I respect that. I get a strong feeling that you sincerely want to have an unbiased article that accurately portrays the FairTax - but doing that in an "open editing" situation like Wikipedia is a bit like herding cats. I'm afraid if you put too much stock into this process you will always be frustrated. Tom Joad 2k (talk) 20:50, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I removed the reference. It did not source anything that would be considered questionable or under dispute. It sourced random statements that can be found in a dozen sources if need be. Some already had secondary references. Morphh ^(talk) 16:38, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if the House testimony of Trowell would fall under a reliable source or not, but I removed it and replaced as needed. I also removed the attribution that was not verifiable in the new sources. Morphh ^(talk) 17:30, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify, he didn't testify - he submitted a statement for the record. Anyone can do this for any Ways and Means hearing and have it put in the official record. Tom Joad 2k (talk) 19:41, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I want to reiterate that you should not remove sources. Multiple sources are not intended to mean that a certain fact is 'better' or more important than another, if someone thinks that when reading an article the fault is with them, not the article. The article should therefore not be changed because of this. GameKeeper (talk) 19:43, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Here's a sentence where a pro point is made deceptively by the quoted person. "According to proponents, many predict revenues to Social Security and Medicare would double as the size of the economy doubles within 15 years after passage of the Fair" The economy doubling in 15 years sounds mighty impressive but it actually only requires an average growth rate of 4 2/3%/year approximately. Which is only slightly below what we see during periods of good economic growth, the 1960's averaged 4.4% growth (measured by GDP). An explanation of the deceptiveness of the statement or its simple removal would seem in order. Kbs666 (talk) 21:04, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Certainly the pro side and the con side use spin to try and make their points stronger. It is not our job as editors to inject our opinion regarding the deceptiveness of a proponent or opponent position. Your examination, while likely correct, would probably be considered original research if included. We could use sourced data to clarify their position on yearly growth rates. Perhaps something like "According to Arduin, Laffer & Moore Econometrics, the economy as measured by GDP would be 2.4 percent higher in the first year and 11.3 percent higher by the 10th year than it would otherwise be, which many predict would lead to the doubling of revenues for Social Security and Medicare as the size of the economy doubles within 15 years after passage..." This perhaps clarifies the growth claimed for doubling revenue. Here are some sources.[2][3][4] Morphh ^(talk) 15:39, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

You're misunderstanding my point. This is spin, very obvious spin to any mathematician or economist. As a biased statement it should not be included or a counter point explaining the deception is needed. The 2.4 percent claim is a flat out lie since the economy grows at a better than 3% rate in all but the worst recessions and the economy would simply be unable to grow at a 6+% rate without massive price inflation. As to your sources the first is actually to a book by the Heritage foundation, libertarians writing about taxes is always suspect but I'll have to read it to see. The other two are actually a single reference since one simply quotes and references the other. That sort of reference should never be used. Point to the primary source. After reading the actual primary source I find the reference is to what is an unsourced bare assertion. It claims growth rates of 5+% for the first two years and then a leveling off to a steady state of 3%, IOW a deep recession with growth insufficient to maintain job growth to account for the expansion of the working population. To start with they appear to be implicitly blaming business cycles on on the income tax, the business cycle long predates the sixteenth ammendment. Then they reference clasical models as their justification without naming which classical model or what the underlying assumptions are beyond an unjustified low average growth rate which makes their calculation unreproducable if anyone (for example me) wanted to check their claim. They try some sleight of hand in footnote 45 where they use two periods to justify their 3% number. One is 1948 to 1973, a period of long term growth bookended by two deep recessions that serve to skew the average. The second is a short period, 89 to 95 which was a recession period with very low growth rates. A more reasonable average growth rate is 3.5% or 3.75% as can be seen by taking the period from 1946 to 2007 as a whole. While this deconstruction is unincludable in the article as original research it does show that the sources you are deriving your data from are severely biased. If the FairTax bill actually had any chance of becoming law these studies would come under serious scrutiny and these sorts of problems would get published widely. Until then as a claim that is in and of itself clearly mathematically wrong and biased the claim should be removed and all other references to the Arduin et al paper should be closely examined for other cases of this sort of bias. Kbs666 (talk) 21:17, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I understand they could be considered bias, which is why we attribute and source the data. A neutral point of view does not mean excluding biased arguments and sources. Almost all sources are biased one way or another and it is not our job to explain deception or otherwise inject our opinion. We present their point of view in a neutral way, attributing if needed, with a source(s). If there is another point of view on the issue, we do the same. We are not to suggest that one view is the correct view or that either view is wrong, deceptive, spin, etc. We can only add material that some one else states that it is wrong, deceptive, spin, etc. This is NPOV policy. If no alternate pov exists, than none is included and the information goes unchallenged. The other position is not removed due to lack of criticism. Such would be against policy by removing their viewpoint. This is why in some cases the article can be perceived to have a pro-FairTax lean, because the research and arguments on the proponent side can outweigh opponents. AFFT spent 20+ million on research, papers, etc., Boortz/Linder published two books. The couple of research papers and many opinion pieces on the opponent side do not have sufficient rebuttal to the topics in some cases. As you stated, "If the FairTax bill actually had any chance of becoming law these studies would come under serious scrutiny and these sorts of problems would get published widely." When and if this occurs, we will include this scrutiny, but until then, the research remains unchallenged. A closer examination of the research may show a common 3% baseline for economic growth (not a comparing prediction) - so we're seeing growth above the baseline. Increase baseline growth (3.5% or otherwise) may not change anything except increasing the FairTax growth line respectively. It's not our place to make this assessment. With regard to the references, they were only there to give you quick access to the material under discussion for the example. Pages 27-32 seem to discuss the data where 11.3% is discussed (2.4% possibly calculated from Appendix math by AFFT). Morphh ^(talk) 20:46, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Then I think the matter falls to the WP:FRINGE standard and all of the supposed research by AFFT and Linder should be removed as sources and all the material sourcing them deleted. As you point out by trying to argue for the inclusion of obvious falsehoods because no serious economist has bothered publishing a challenge to these claims. Quoting WP:FRINGE "A fringe theory can be considered notable if it has been referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major publication, or by a notable group or individual that is independent of the theory." Since that does not exist this article should be trimmed down to a bare discussion of the facts of the bill and the movement. All the economic claims are fringe science and as such do not belong on wikipedia. Kbs666 (talk) 21:42, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

This theory has been referenced extensively by major publications in a serious manner. See further reading section, several of the books there are from sources independent of the theory. There are multiple references in the article to independent sources. This article does not fall under WP:FRINGE. GameKeeper (talk) 22:22, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

The further reading section is two books by a dentist and a speechwriter, 2 self published tomes and 3 pro books. None fall into the category of "a notable group or individual that is independent of the theory." Anyway if self published sources are suspect as references should they be in the further reading section either?

As I've shown the article uses a deceptive claim simply because no one has ever bothered to counter it in print. If the subject was mainstream that paper would have drawn a response as has been admitted. Looking over the references the pro side is overwhelmingly by Linder, Boortz, Kotlikoff or hosted on fairtax.org. The con sides presented include a radio host's blog and both sides mostly seem to draw from libertarians, a fringe group if ever there was one. Ultimately much of the article's economics claims are presented with hard numbers but when I go looking at the referenced sources I find unsupported assertions. Kotlikoff seems to be the only actual economist to ever publish a peer reviewed article on the subject, 1 paper. Which is cited 4 times, 3 times in other papers by Kotlikoff, none of which seem to have been peer reviewed or published anywhere but the web, and one in Chinese which I can't read. So I'm still looking for for some evidence that the economics claims in this article don't fall under WP:FRINGE.Kbs666 (talk) 04:23, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

A dentist and a speechwriter... why not go all the way back - perhaps a bag boy at Kmart. Boortz is a nationally-syndicated talk show host and Linder is a Congressman on the Ways and Means Committee. Their two FairTax books are NYT bestsellers. Boortz and Linder are both considered experts in the topic. WP:FRINGE is for an article as a whole, which this does not fall into. I have not admitted that the paper would have drawn a response, just that it could receive more scrutiny if the topic becomes more mainstream. I'm not even going to comment on your assertion of "obvious falsehoods" or the "no serious economist" remark. The topic certainly has been criticized and gained some mainstream attention due to the popular books and the 2008 election (Huckabee and Gravel being the most notable). As new research becomes available, we'll include it. Morphh ^(talk) 15:29, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

That's what the two men are most qualified for by training and experience. Neither has an economics background nor is either a CPA or tax attorney. I very carefully looked into Boortz's background since he is an attorney and I found nothing indicating he ever studied or practiced in the tax law discipline. Huckabee is a creationist but you're not going to see a change in wikipedias creationism articles based on Huckabee being a public champion of such. Every official Scientology book ever printed, for example, has been on the NYT bestseller list yet I doubt the editors over at the psychology pages will be rewriting those articles based on Dianetics. You're claiming a self proclaimed expert is a valid source. I'm saying it is at best on the edge of what isn't allowed and IMO it is over the line. The house.gov website does definitely fall into the realm of self published material so we need a definition of reliable that allows you to include Linder here but doesn't require Hubbard be included in the Psychology articles. I simply don't see how you can split that hair. WP:FRINGE is a reasonable point here, the movement, political social whatever, is noteworthy and should have an article. The "science" presented by AFFT et al as referenced by this article is again skating very close to the line of the fringe science rule. This rule clearly exists to keep biased articles with no contrary opinions to speak of from being presented as factual simply because the mainstream researchers have ignored the idea. FairTax pretty clearly has been ignored by all the researchers but Kotlikoff who is a strong supporter. Therefore the hard numbers presented by various FairTax proponents with zero evidence for how they were arrived at and no way to reproduce those numbers independently should be removed since there is simply no way to know if they were arrived at by any sort of acceptable methodology. As it stands the article is a propoganda piece for AFFT which is unacceptable. A shorter article with a direct link to fairtax.org will let the interested go there and read the claims directly. Kbs666 (talk) 22:03, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

If you think this article is WP:FRINGE then you should post this article on the noticeboard for fringe, Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard and see what other people have to say rather than argue whether this article WP:FRINGE on its talk page. That would be more productive for you in achieving your goals. EECavazos (talk) 00:21, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Just to inform everyone, Kbs666 has posted to the Fringe noticeboard - Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#FairTax. Morphh ^(talk) 1:21, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

With no response on the self published books in the Further Reading section can I assume agreement on deleting them? Kbs666 (talk) 22:03, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

No one is suggesting that Boortz and Linder are doing the economics themselves. Just as the NYT, WSJ, etc, don't do the academic research themselves when they report on a particular topic, but they are considered a reliable source for data they publish. You may find a minor amount about Dianetics in the Scientology article, but you'll certainly find the book and Hubbard as a major source in the Dianetics article itself. Hubbard and his website / articles can similarly be source in that article as he is an expert on Dianetics. He could also be sourced on points in other articles that discuss Dianetics. Similarly, you likely won't find Boortz and Linder sourced in the Taxation in the United States, Income tax in the United States, FICA, Corporate tax in the United States, etc; however, on the topic of the FairTax, they are considered an authority and experts on the plan. Just as you would source Dick Army's statements in an article on his Flat tax. With regard to the self published books, I'd like to hear opinion from other editors. They're not used as references so I don't think they're subject to the same verifiability policy. One is pro and one is con. I think they provide additional reading in the specific topic area and don't really see an issue with it. I'll research this a little more. Morphh ^(talk) 0:31, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

You're misstating my point. Dianetics makes specific claims about Psychology. Dianetics and a host of other scientology books have been on the NYT bestseller list, as you argue for the Linder and Boortz books. By your argument those claims should be included on the Psychology and related articles based simply on having been on the NYT list. That is clearly inappropriate and I'm simply saying that using the fact that a book or books has been on the NYT bestseller list does not make it a reliable source on the subject it purports to discuss. Kbs666 (talk) 02:16, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

As you state, Dianetics makes specific claims about Psychology (a much larger topic). The FairTax Book is about the FairTax (it is the topic). It is a reliable source per the policy of Wikipedia as are the other studies from economic institutions. While it seems your trying to make this point for the sake of stripping proponent research, I expect you understand that your arguments, if acted on, would apply to both sides and would result in the removal of opponent positions as well (likely more so since they have little research on the actual plan). These actions would not follow policy and would greatly decrease the usefulness of the article. Morphh ^(talk) 2:28, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Let me also respond to the "Kotlikoff as the only economist" statement, since you seem to be making these false statements elsewhere. Some other economists: Tuerck, David G.; Haughton, Jonathan; Bachman, Paul; Sanchez-Penalver, Alfonso; Viet Ngo, Phuong; Jokisch, Sabine; Rapson, David; Auerbach, Alan J, Burton, David; Mastromarco, Dan; Walby, Karen; Altig, David; Smetters, Kent A. ; Walliser, Jan; Bhattarai, Keshab; Jacob, Sylvia; Dinwoodie, Sara; and a group at Arduin, Laffer & Moore Econometrics. Morphh ^(talk) 1:04, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

The Beacon Hill Institute authors to start with. This group is used as a reference repeatedly so I looked quite expectently for the journals these "studies" were published on or at least the note indicating that they were submitted for review. I didn't find them. Then I looked at the lead author's, Dr. Tuerck, CV, which would definitely say what journal they were all published in, and I find not one of them on his CV. So maybe his CV isn't up to date. Jonathon Haughton is the next actual PhD on the list of authors and eureka his CV does list an article in a refereed journal, Tax Notes. So I go looking for Tax Notes and I find a weekly publication with no indication it is actually refereed. I would be quite shocked to find a weekly that was rigorously peer reviewed. I'll just conclude this by saying that if they don't publish in peer reviewed journals their studies are hard to take seriously. Sabine is co author of the one paper by Kotlikoff that's actually been published. So I guess that makes two although still just the one published article. Rapson is one of Kotlikoff's students. Auerbach is another coauthor with Kotlikoff and is otherwise referenced for a WSJ op ed. The op-ed never mentions FairTax by name and neither does the article summary. In summary as I've now said many times I've gone over the references provided and only the Kotlikoff paper referenced as endnote #7 in the article is to a verifiably peer reviewed article published in a journal on economics that is actually about the FairTax bill. Unfortunately it is only referenced twice. Although if memory serves several of the AFFT web pages do eventually reference that article in part. Kbs666 (talk) 02:16, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Paul; Haughton, Jonathan; Kotlikoff, Laurence J.; Sanchez-Penalver, Alfonso; Tuerck, David G. were all published in Tax notes. However, such is irrelavant, since the Beacon Hill Institute itself is considered a reliable source. The results of those studies are reprinted in many third party publications as well, like the FairTax books. Morphh ^(talk) 2:28, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Another sentence and another questionable reference: "As falling tax compliance costs lower production costs, exports would increase by 26% initially and remain more than 13 percent above present levels." with a ref pointing to Congressman Linder's website. The claim made on that page is unsourced, yet another bare assertion, and makes no statement that any increase in exports would be tied to any change in tax compliance. Congressman Linder is a dentist and has never been published in anything resembling a reliable third party publication on economics so this reference is very close, if not over the line, as a self published source. Looking over the other 4 uses there is one other use by itself which is at least stated that it is a claim made by Mr. Linder. However the page is still functionally self published and should get removed from the article's references.Kbs666 (talk) 19:34, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

After more carefully looking into some things it also appears that the sentence above is also taken nearly verbatim from Linder's website "exports would increase by 26% initially and remain more than 13 percent above present levels." here versus "Exports would increase by 26 percent initially and would remain more than 13 percent above the level under the current tax system." which is pretty blatant plagarism. Linder should be quoted directly or this statement should be paraphrased. Although at this point I'm wholly in favor of removing it due to the self published nature of the source. Kbs666 (talk) 19:57, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Not only is he the bill's primary sponsor, Linder has written two books on the FairTax and is considered an established expert on the topic whose work in the field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. In addition, as a Congressman, his data (at the U.S. House gov website) has a certain degree of review and fact checking consistent with a reliable source. As far as plagerism, I don't know what percentage or context would make it fall under that. I'll look at rewording it but there is only so many ways you can state the same thing - we don't want to alter the meaning or view. One thing with government sources, they usually fall into public domain which removes those concerns. Morphh ^(talk) 20:55, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Name the reliable third party publications. I've searched and found none. He has definitely published no peer reviewed articles on economics or taxation. His site is not subject to any fact checking, this is easily verifiable by his many unsourced assertions on the page in question. How would you go about fact checking such? Take a look at the house.gov sites of other fringe congressmen and you'll see quite quickly that no fact checking is going on. As to the plagarism, it is definitely plagarism and would certainly get you in trouble in any sort of academic setting. Kbs666 (talk) 21:42, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

The third party that published their books were Regan Books and HarperCollins. For Wikipedia's purpose, the information is verifiable to Congressman John Linder. If you want to know where Linder got his data, call his office. Per Wikipedia:Plagiarism "Material from public domain and free sources can be copied into Wikipedia and used in articles verbatim. Even though a source is labeled as "free", you cannot copy it and pass it off as your own work. You should indicate the source of the copied material. Wikipedia policy requires that you must provide sources for material which might be challenged." This information, published by the U.S. Federal Government, falls into the public domain and is sourced. As I stated, I will look at rewording it slightly but such is not required from this source. Morphh ^(talk) 14:39, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Regan is HarperCollins BTW. I think our definitions of reliable are different. Further response is included at the above comment.Kbs666 (talk) 22:03, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Reworded the sentence. Morphh ^(talk) 19:00, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Changes to Revenue Neutrality Section

I tried to explain my changes to the Revenue Neutrality section, but my comments did not get posted. So, here I go again:

1. I tried to clarify that the U.S. government will only realize a "capital gain" on its debt if the dollar is substantially devalued. The previous version did not make that point. 2. The reason that the Gale 10-year study requires a higher tax rate than the one-year study is that the 10-year study assumed that the Bush tax cuts expire as specified under current law (which would result in a lower projected deficit). Thus, since the average deficit over ten years is projected to be lower than the one-year deficit, the FairTax rate would need to be higher to be revenue neutral. In addition, the 10-year study assumed that Congress would not contuinally extend the Alternative Minimum Tax "patch." Finally, saying the Alternative Minimum Tax negatively affects the middle class is POV, at best, and certainly depends on your definition of what constitutes "middle class." 3. Not really fair to say that Gale believes there will be increased economic growth under the FairTax. He's made it clear that he believes any such increased growth would be minimal, and would require everything to "fall into place" just exactly right. 4. Not fair to include two sentences critizing the President's tax panel's conclusions, when all of the studies done on the FairTax are subject to criticism. It seems to me that it was clearly POV trying to discredit their report. At least cut the criticism down to one sentence, which is what I did. 68.218.125.81 (talk) 03:53, 22 July 2008 (UTC) GeorgiaTex

Lets add content to explain, distinguish, or contradict rather than remove content. Then add references to the added content. Doing so will improve the article. Taking out sourced content does not always help. EECavazos (talk) 03:58, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I do want to add that if you find sources for your issues above, 1 through 4, then by all means add that content and reference them to the sources you find. If you do so you will add value to this article. But please reference/footnote it. Taking out sourced content removes value from the article while providing sourced content that disagrees or distinguishes with established content adds value. EECavazos (talk) 04:30, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

EECavazos -- I understand your points. Two quick comments. The portions I deleted were either not sourced or seemed redundant. The revisions I made were to clarify what I thought was awkward wording or not quite accurate descriptions. Also, I think some of the portions of the article are already too long, so I'm not sure adding additional contect would necessarily provde value. I am friends with Morph, and certainly respect all the editors' hard work on a controversial topic, so I tried to be careful in my revisions. 64.207.7.114 (talk) 16:19, 22 July 2008 (UTC)GeorgiaTex

I had some minor prose tweaks and I'll review the Gale study to make sure we're all looking at the same thing. The tax panel study is a little different than the other studies, which is why it received its own comment, but I'm fine with one sentence conveying the view. Since this is a summary section, the more detailed points can be presented in the sub-article. Morphh ^(talk) 17:13, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

GeorgiaTex is correct. The government would only achieve this real capital gain on outstanding debt if consumer prices were to rise - which isn't a given. So I'm not sure if or how this should be addressed in the article. It also needs to be remembered that if the government is realizing a real $1 trillion capital gain, the owners of the debt are realizing a real $1 trillion capital loss. They might have something to say about that. Tom Joad 2k (talk) 21:29, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

The more complex and controversial an article the longer it should be in order to express and explain where reasonable minds would differ. Limiting content in more complex and controversial topics would limit the quality and success of the article in conveying the topic. Adding content (sourced) that disagrees with the basic assumptions of the topic or which disagrees with other sources makes the article more well rounded and ultimately more understandable because the purpose is to understand the topic, both pros and cons. Less content whether pro or con will not help this purpose but hinder it. If certain sections get "too long" then it maybe it be moved to a sub-article rather than actually removing the content outright. In such a case then, removal of content from the this article could have an edit summary saying it is not vital to the section and that it alreasy exists in a sub-article. Since I didn't see in the edit summary that the content was in the sub-article, I thought it was just being removed outright. I suppose then, I'll just have to memorize the references in the sub-article. EECavazos (talk) 23:42, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Business use: per item or aggregate?

How is the following interpreted?

`(a) In General- For purposes of section 201, a person's business use conversion credit for any month is the aggregate of the amounts determined under subsection (b) with respect to taxable property and services--

`(1) on which tax was imposed by section 101 (and actually paid), and

`(2) which commenced to be 95 percent or more used during such month for business purposes (within the meaning of section 102(b))."

For example, suppose I owned a car dealership and bought 30 nice cars, and designated one of them as my personal "company car". Since that is worth less than 5% of the total purchase, I can do that without paying tax and without disqualifying my conversion credit... right? Wnt (talk) 14:18, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

In the future, this should be answered by someplace like FairTax groups or the FairTaxBlog. But perhaps this will help. If a person paid FairTax on the purchase of an item for personal consumption, then later began to use that item at least 95 percent for business purposes, he/she can get back a portion of the sales tax paid. The credit amount is the lesser of (a) the FairTax paid or (b) the FairTax that would have to be paid to purchase the item at fair market value at the time when it was converted from personal use to business use. Example: Using a home computer as equipment in a new business. If the price of the computer was $2000 in 2005 when it was purchased for personal use, and then it was converted to business use in 2007, the business person could apply for a credit based on the amount of tax that would be due on a two-year-old computer valued at $1000. Morphh ^(talk) 15:11, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Economists Letter to the President

Not to open up a whole new can of worms here, but does anyone know when the Open Letter to the President was actually written? I am curious, because the Letter is not dated. I suspect it was written well before any of the serious research done on the FairTax over the last few years and I've got real doubts how many of them would sign such a letter today. When I emailed a number of the signators in 2005 (after the FairTax book came out), none of the economists who replied were aware of any research on the FairTax and, in particular, they pointed out that the Letter specfically did NOT refer to a 23% rate. (For that matter, it seemed to me that half of the economists who responded to me thought they were signing a letter in support of the Flat Tax, which has more academic support than the FairTax.)

Also, has anybody seen anything that Vernon S. Smith actually has written about the FairTax? He's listed in the article as a Nobel Prize winning economist who apparently supports the FairTax, but as far as I can tell he's never written anything on the FairTax and I don't know where to reach him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.218.124.82 (talk) 02:55, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

GeorgiaTex, This is a better discussion for the blogs or groups but the letter mentions the 109th Congress, so this dates it between 2005 - 2007, unless the letter was updated to reflect the new congress. We have the letter identified as being retrieved on July 2006, so it would have to be before this point. I don't recall seeing it before 2005 and I remember it being published (just can't remember when). Supposedly a university economist worked with AFFT to circulate the letter among his peers. I remember Karen Walby (perhaps on Phil's show) stating that they were working an updated copy with more economists, but I've never seen it. Morphh ^(talk) 14:48, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Suggested examples for clarification

I'm thinking that the FairTax is very different from what we currently experience as a "sales tax." Could someone give the answer to these questions as examples in the main page. 1) I buy House A for investment and rental. I buy House B for investment and personal habitation. Do I pay a FairTax on each purchase? 2) I presume that I collect and remit to the feds the FairTax on the rent I collect on House A. I live in House B. Do a remit a FairTax for the service I received by living in House B? Pgduffyjr (talk) 17:44, 25 July 2008 (UTC)pgduffyjr

I think such detailed examples would fall outside the general coverage this article. I think AFFT has documents that discuss this in more detail or you could post to one of the groups. You would also need a little more detail - is the house new or used. Morphh ^(talk) 18:50, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Flat Tax article needs work

The associated article on Flat Tax is in a much worse condition than this article. It would be great if some of the effort expended on this article were directed there as well. lk (talk) 15:32, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I would love to focus on it. I had even nominated it as tax collaboration of the month. It needs a major rework. The structure is horrible for an encyclopedia (For / Against), Fairness, Proposals, etc. It violates NPOV article structure and probably half a dozen other policies. Unfortunately, the attempts here for a major rewrite have taken my attention away from improving other articles. One of the editors recently used the Flat tax article as an example of how this article should be written (suggesting it was "more acceptable").[5] Morphh ^(talk) 13:00, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Tax Panel Report

In order to make this article more clearly indicate mainstream views, I have added a short paragraph to the intro summarizing the findings of the 2005 Tax Reform Panel report. I intend to go on to add a longer section describing their findings in more detail. See [6] for more information.Looie496 (talk) 16:57, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

The lead is a brief summary of the entire article (WP:LEAD), which we're trying to shorten. It does not include detailed information and it certainly doesn't include a report of something that wasn't even the FairTax and is never claimed to be the FairTax. The main critical points of the study are included in the lead (rate, eveasion, tax distribution). The material for the study should be in the body of the article under the particular areas where the crticism is noted. Morphh ^(talk) 12:54, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the lead should be shortened. However, I insist that the material I added belongs there, as the clearest statement of mainstream views on this topic; and I insist that Chapter 9 of the Tax Panel Report was specifically aimed at the FairTax proposal, although it considered many variants at the same time.Looie496 (talk) 16:31, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

What evidence do you have that it is "the clearest statement of mainstream views". Have you read the mid-term report,[7] which is very contrary to their final report? Which is more mainstream, since the midterm was after they heard from the people. We're talking government players, in which some became tax lobbyists soon after. Was their report mainstream or lobbiest pandering? But aside from those issues, which don't really matter, this would be a major violation of undue weight and lead policies. Sure they wanted to address a sales tax, but they were not allowed to evaluate the FairTax. Speaking of laying on the floor, where is that tax reform panel report? Laying on the floor - not one action on it - shelved to the circular file.[8] Yet the FairTax has a good amount of sponsorship... what is mainstream? This is your opinion and original research to state it as anything other than what they write. It does not follow policy and a particular study should not be given vast undue weight over all the other research. Morphh ^(talk) 16:47, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Hold on there. You've been arguing that the lack of anti research was reason for all the pro bias in the article. Chapter 9 of this report is definitely about the FairTax, it discusses a prebated national sales tax with a rate of 34% and repeatedly references calculations made based on the 2006 version. The report specifically discusses FairTax on at least pages 209, 211 and 217. You further can't argue bias in this report if you continue to accept the obviously biased reports you have included. I see no problem with WP:Lead or undue weight. As a matter of fact WP:FRINGE requires that the mainstream view be presented and the fringe stuff not be presented as fact. Kbs666 (talk) 17:13, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

The Tax Panel study is included in the article Kbs666, and referenced 10 times. I said it was not a study of the actual FairTax plan, not that there are not similarities which we can and have included. As I stated before, it refers the FairTax with regard to the tax rate and the expanded base, but the plan they scored did not include the replacement of the payroll tax (1/3rd of the FairTax). This obviously has an effect on things such as tax distribution, but we include it in the article anyway. What the debate is about here is placing an entire paragraph in the lead specifically about this one study, which was not even a study of the plan but a hybrid plan. As I stated in the past, if there is anti-research, I'm happy to include it but we're not going to make a show of it as the be all and put it in the lead as the supposed "mainstream" view. It will be given the attention that any other study or research is given, in fact, I believe it has already been given more coverage than any other study in the article. Morphh ^(talk) 17:18, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

It is quite obvious that those references are short and as minor as you could make them. You made sure to post weasel worded rebuttals to several. This is the closest thing to a mainstream report and I will note the outrageous bias of including a whine from the pro FairTax crowd about this report not showing its calculations, which it does, when the AFFT and Beacon Hill studies are nothing but unsupported assertions. You'll of course argue that since you can source it you're allowed to include it. I would say that as authors of an encyclopedia we are required to show some judgement in what goes in the article and clearly a 'pot calling the kettle black' statement is best left out or an appearance of bias and POV pushing arises in the knowledgeable reader. Personally I'd argue for removing all the economic claims, pro and con. Tell what the bill, says talk about the mocvement and dump all this economic fortune telling based on numbers pulled out of orifices. The article links to AFFT let interested readers go there if they want the pro propaganda. Kbs666 (talk) 17:43, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Both the BHI/Kotlikoff and Gale studies detail their methodology for determining the tax rate, see their studies. The tax panel offered no such information, and requests for that information have gone unanswered. Kotlikoff filed against the Freedom of Information Act to have the methodology of the study published for peer-review. Morphh ^(talk) 17:47, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

It seems the main purpose claimed for a consumption tax is economic growth.[9][10] The push of the argument is to create enough growth that it covers future obligations, since we're $60 trillion in the hole. So it would seem that economic claims are extremely important to the topic. Morphh ^(talk) 18:06, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Reference format

Just a note that I've begun converting this article away from inline references. Separating the references from the text makes both of them much easier to read and maintain, especially when there are a lot of references. This change is completely neutral content-wise, and ought not to be controversial. I am going to do this is several steps, because it involves a few hours of work, and any conflicting edits that happen in the meantime can be difficult to reconcile.Looie496 (talk) 17:18, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Could you double check the anchors. They don't seem to be working for me. It jumps down to the footnote, but when the footnote is clicked on, it doesn't jump to the reference. Thanks Morphh ^(talk) 17:29, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

The issue looks to be the #ref being added before the name. If this is removed, it works for me. You might want to consider using the template. {{harv|Gale|2005}} Morphh ^(talk) 17:32, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

It's working now, thanks for pointing out the problem. I'll look at the template, but want to get the article processed before something goes stale.Looie496 (talk) 20:32, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, this should work pretty well. I think it will allow us to easily add page numbers to a reference in the future. Morphh ^(talk) 20:35, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

FairTax name

I don't believe this sentence needs a source: "Since the term "fair" is subjective, the name of the plan has been criticized as deceptive marketing by some while being touted as true to its name by others.". It seems to be common sense that some critics would disagree with the "fair" label and proponents would consider it true. Is this anything disputed...? we don't need a source for every statement, if it is nothing that is questionable. I rather just remove the sentence than include a questionable source to substantiate it. Morphh ^(talk) 23:42, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Many congressional proposals have these kind of marketing ploy names whether truthful or not. I think understandably the people know the tongue and cheek. So even if you removed it, it would not need explanation. .:davumaya:. 19:51, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

"Fair Tax" is more of a marketing brand name than an accurate, or "fair", description of the tax itself. It is salesmanship, not analysis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hanksummers (talk • contribs)

If a rose were called by any other name, would it not smell as sweet? JIMp _talk·cont 03:52, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Possibly, though that's not relevant, since "rose" isn't a name invented by an advocacy group. If Chilean sea bass were sold in restaurants as Patagonian toothfish, would as many people order it? OtherDave (talk) 15:56, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I think that is the point of having the sentence, to state that the term is subjective. Some consider it true and some don't. Most bill names are sales terms, this isn't anything new. We describe how it got the name and then the subjectivity of it. Morphh ^(talk) 16:07, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

It's almost traditional for political ideals/movements to have euphemistic names. Hence "Pro-life" and "Pro-choice" instead of "Pro-abortion" and "Anti-abortion". This isn't any different. -- Atama^chat 19:06, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you have read the book, but there is a clear description by the author of his exact political aims, ends, and the very means by which he hopes to achieve them. One of these is indeed the name of it. Nicklink483 (talk) 22:53, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Pros and Cons

Morph -- I happended to click on the Universal Health Care article in Wikipedia. At the end of the article, they have two columns, which Arguments in Favor or and Arguments Against universal health care. If you ever decide to revise the FairTax article (which, I realize, is not exactly high on the list of things a volunteer editor would want to do), that might be a good way to show the pros and cons, and appease some of the naysayers like me.

Just a thought.

64.207.7.114 (talk) 20:21, 11 July 2008 (UTC)GeorgiaTex

Thanks for the thoughts but that type of format is actually discouraged on Wikipedia, and would likely never be implemented on a high quality article. The argument is that this is an encyclopedia and that type of back and forth is a tortured form of writing. We try to maintain the format and quality you would expect from a paper encyclopedia. The opposite to your suggestion will likely happen, where the universal health care article is improved to a point where pro/con type structures are removed. If you noticed, there's a banner on that section to have it integrated into the article under appropriate sections. Morphh ^(talk) 13:57, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I think so far you've done a fabulous job of appropriately incorporating pro and con like statements within each point so the reader can determine for themselves. Again, this is an encyclopedia about the topic of FairTax, it is not a forum or a place to debate it's usefulness, it is simply explaining what it is, its effects and the history of the proposal. .:davumaya:. 19:48, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

However, the article does seem to be heavy on the Pro and light on the Con, and that is intellectually worrisome, considering how controversial the topic is. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 00:37, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Is it worth mentioning in the article that it will never, ever become law because it is a ridiculous concept and completely unfair to low-wage earners? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.192.179.231 (talk) 00:47, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Just stating that something is ridiculous does not make it so. If you are troubled by the concept that a higher proportion of income goes to the necessities of shelter, food, clothing, and transportation for low-income earners vs. that for high income earners, then just say so. That is a valid point to make. However, if 90% of a low-income families total income goes to these areas, which would be taxable, but only 5% of a high-income families earnings do so, then so what? Yes, that high-income family is not paying any tax on the 95% left over, but again, so what? You are missing the concept that money does not provide any benefit to you until you purchase something with it. As soon as the high-income family spends that money, then bang, they are paying the consumption tax. Where the real problem with this type of system emerges is that the cost of living for those basic needs is not equal across the country. Even now, someone in California has to pay much more in total dollars for food, mortgage/rent than does someone in (for example), Mississippi. So, do you adjust the rate by state? Then what happens when people drive into the next state to make their purchases? This is the problem that such a system would create. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.7.112.56 (talk) 02:17, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

This article does not deserve featured status for its overly biased nature.

Why should the low income brackets then face say 5% on 90% of their income while the wealthy face 5% on 0.5% of their income? That is the inequality of such a misnamed ideas as FairTax; it results in less money for government programs. The 99.5% of the wealth of the wealthy not taxed here would need to be taxed at much higher rates to make up for that gap. Why anyone either rich or poor supports this idea is incomprehensible to me. Neither side is better off afterward. Why does this all come across as an ideological, almost religious point for the libertarian party? 72.146.181.16 (talk) 05:43, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

For those who think our progressive income tax is somehow "fair" while a consumption tax is "unfair", I ask why are you fixated on taxing income. Wouldn't it be better to tax wealth? Income is a poor proxy for wealth. Consider three taxpayers. First is a young couple with a couple of children. Their combined income is $75,000 and they pay $15,000 in taxes. They have little savings as they are just starting out in life. A second is a middle aged couple saving for college and retirement. Combined income is $100,000. They pay $20,000 in taxes. They have $500,000 in savings. Final is a retired couple with $5 mm in savings. Most is invested in index funds. They get about $150,000 per year in dividends and pay $22,000 in taxes. Think about the taxes they pay, not as a percentage of their income, but as a percentage of their wealth. It is more than 100% in the first case, 4% in the second case and 0.4% in the third. What is so fair about that? No wonder it is hard for young people to get ahead. They government takes away more than their total wealth every year. But, for the wealth retired person, the tax is insignificant as a percent of their wealth. We tax income because it is easy for the IRS to collect. A consumption tax would allow us to better tax wealth, and to collect from people at a more appropriate time in their life.

If we either exempted basic necessities from consumption tax, or provided a rebate for what a poor person might spend on basic necessities, the tax is progressive. All income is eventually either spent, given to charity or given to heirs. If we assume that we don't want to tax gifts to charity, then we can tax wealthy people when they spend their money, or through an estate tax. Either way the government gets their cut, and wealth people are not "getting away" with anything. That is why is is appropriate to call this a "fair" tax. Is is much more fair in its application that our current income tax.

To return to our young family with children (what politician doesn't blab on about how they try to help these people), lets say that they spend much of their money on necessities, that are exempt, and are saving money for college tuition. We don't impose a consumption tax on the necessities, we don't tax any investment income on their savings, and we don't tax tuition payments. They pay almost no tax. If the second spouse works, today that pushes them into a higher bracket and much of the additional income is taxed away. Not so with the consumption tax, assuming the additional income is saved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.47.208.34 (talk) 20:11, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks but this is not the place to debate the merits of the tax. The talk page is for discussing the article content. Morphh ^(talk) 20:13, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

---

The last commentator before Morph raises a point about taxing wealth that the Fair Tax addresses. On a first-in first-out basis, all wealth eventually is spent. It is merely a question of how quickly the newly-acquired wealth is reached for consumption. Under today's income tax, the wealth escapes taxation until the owner passes on, at which time there is the estate, gift and generaltion-skipping tax. Under the Fair Tax wealth is taxed as it is spent, and wealthy people are more prone to spend. Thus wealth under the Fair Tax is reached sooner and in a more predictable manner.

~~Jim Bennett —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbennettatty (talk • contribs) 15:40, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Wisdom follows, pay attention!

Hello, here is some info from Hungary, where we have 20% VAT and previously had 25% VAT until two years ago. The system cannot work, period. There will be massive fraud in the rebate system, especially since the US has no reliable ID card system, therefore checking the number of people per household is nigh impossible. The coloureds will milk the system like crazy. If you do not know the origin of nickname "el choro", you have no idea. He "the fouintain" was a talented spanish gipsy fraudster, who got rebates from the state after some 540 (!) kids and built three villas with the money.

There will be a huge market of under-counter commerce, to avoid paying the tax. That is the repairman offers to work without invoice for less and the govt gets no cents at all. You will buy shoes or TV without paperwork for 10% less, pocket to pocket and voila no taxes paid. The importeur will declare receiving 50 microwave ovens from China but stuff the container with 500, of course the difference goes underground market. It is impossible to check, the major ports handle many thousands of double-lenght containers every shift.

It is estimated that some 40% to 60% of hungarian economic activity is in the grey or dark segment due to the high VAT level and the country is stagnating, even deteriorating because of high taxation. You have to understand that people due not condemn white-collar crime when it's done for one's self-interest.

I hope USA, protector of the free world is not that stupid to introduce a 23% tax, as the union would soon collapse to the greatest joy of chinese communists and islamic fanatics. 82.131.210.162 (talk) 17:00, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinions, but you should know that Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Brutannica (talk) 22:10, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

The article is indeed lame on fraud control and chasing one-man-businesses - simply stating that the states have infrastructure is not enough. NVO (talk) 22:25, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

---

Üdvüszlöm (Hungarian for "hello"), The article presents a balanced presentation on fraud. There are four major strengths of the Fair Tax on that point, some of which may not have been covered in the article. First, collection points under the Fair Tax drop from 155 million to 20 million, making the administration easier to oversee. Second, the system is simpler and more transparent. Russia's experience with the flat tax, that shares transparency and simplicity as common characteristics with the Fair Tax, is that compliance jumped 46% following introduction. Third, the Fair Tax, in theory, requires two willing parties in order to under-report sales: a willing seller and a willing buyer. The income tax, particularly for cash sales, requires in many cases, only one party. Finally, a disproportionate portion of retail sales in this country are from large retailers. Contrary to assertions by some critics, the tax gap under the Fair Tax would narrow significantly.

Vizontlátásra! ~~Jim Bennett —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbennettatty (talk • contribs) 15:57, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Repetition

Is it really necessary to explain the concept of tax-inclusive/-exclusive three times? Thehotelambush (talk) 18:53, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I've thought about that myself but wasn't sure how best to address it. The tax rate section is a summary, but it is again discussed in Sales tax rate, and then again in its own section. Morphh ^(talk) 19:03, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's explained clearly enough. When the average American looks at his spending, he thinks, "This thing costs $100, and on top of that I pay X% sales tax." That's tax-exclusive. FairTax calls the proposal a sales tax, but adopts the "tax-inclusive" approach used by no current sales tax in the U.S. This might well be wonkish cluelessness, rather than an effort to avoid explaining a 30% sales tax, but it isn't straightforward except when you're preaching to the choir. And even then -- FactCheck.Org, which opposes the Fair Tax, says that 15% of the Fair Tax supports who have contacted them do not understand the 23% figure to be tax inclusive. OtherDave (talk) 19:27, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

On the other coin, 85% do understand it and for any policy issue - that's not too bad. haha OtherDave, are you saying that it's not explained clearly enough in the article or clearly enough to the public by proponents? Thanks Morphh ^(talk) 19:31, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Not only is it explained in three different sections, but the section devoted to explaining the difference between inclusive/exclusive is extremely repetitive. walkie (talk) 20:07, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I was offering my opinion as a general reader. Un-wikipedic of me; I should have just edited, giving people more to revert do. I understand the difference between disagreeing with this tax idea (I do) and trying to describe it without excessive bias. I believe you're acting in good faith, Morphh; however, from where I sit, the way you bat down most differing opinions makes it pointless for someone not already in the article's club to try and change the text in a meaningful way. Explaining an allegedly simple sales tax with algebraic formulas is not helpful. I understand why the proponents don't want a direct comparison with a real-word retail sales tax: 30% is 30% higher than 23%, everywhere except the offices of FairTax. Insisting on calling it a sales tax, in this context, is POV because it's the proponent's party line. If I start a group calling a tail a leg, can I get an article on how dogs and cows have five legs? 21:24, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

That was me in the previous comment; I forgot the tildes. OtherDave (talk) 21:46, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you feel that I'm trying to bat down differing opinions. I'm drawing from a long history of discussion, debate, and consensus on the article and perhaps my discussion of those opinions appears to new editors as aggressive. If you've worked on controversial articles, I'm sure you can understand the type of effort and discussion that goes into them. I've read more FairTax research than I've ever cared too and frankly I'm about sick of the topic but I don't want to see the article degrade in quality. There are many other tax and economics articles that need a lot more work than this one and I much rather spend my time there. With the amount of attention and changes this article received over the main page time-frame (most very constructive and agreeable), it shouldn't be a surprise that some of the changes or suggestions are disputed. I hope this doesn't reflect poorly but as proper discussion for significant content changes. As for the 23%/30% thing, most supporters that I've chatted with want the comparison - they want understanding of the difference. Morphh ^(talk) 15:06, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I question the neutrality of describing the FairTax in exclusive rate terms at all. The FairTax is not a replacement for any existing sales tax. It is a replacement for many taxes the bulk of which are the income tax and other payroll withholdings which in every context is expressed in inclusive tax rate terms. An inclusive income tax rate of 25% is 33% if calculated as exclusive. An inclusive income tax rate of 33% is 50% if calculated as exclusive. I suggest that we change the Income Tax wikipedia entry describing that tax in exclusive terms and see how long it takes for Wikipedia to have congressional oversight. If the 30% exclusive tax figure must be used then the following elements would need to be presented with that figure to paint an accurate picture of the FairTax: 1. That under the FairTax the working citizen would receive their entire paycheck - gross amount - with no withholdings. 2. The average cost of compliance with the current tax code is 22% of the cost of goods and services and that 22% will go away under the FairTax. 3. That a lamp that costs $100 plus state sales tax under the current tax code will still cost roughly $100 plus state sales tax under the FairTax. Mrhymer (talk) 02:18, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

This isn't about neutrality, it's about being correctly understood by readers. In most states and cities that charge sales tax, the price shown to a buyer does not include the tax. In California, for example, the state sales tax is called 7% (I think), and if the price tag says $1.00, the price a buyer pays is $1.07. It doesn't need to work that way, and in fact European tourists (as I've been told) tend to be confused and annoyed by it, because in Europe prices are always shown with VAT included. But because Americans are mostly used to seeing sales tax rates that are additive to the price on the tag, it is confusing to them to express rates in a different way. Looie496 (talk) 02:51, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Mrhymer, you may be a bit confused regarding #1 & #2/3. It is an either or situation there, they can't both be true at the same time. I agree that the tax is intended to be implemented inclusively like Europe (per John Linder). It is an inclusive tax but many will not understand that so we need to make it clear and present both methods to reduce confusion. Morphh ^(talk) 5:24, 04 August 2008 (UTC)

Income footnote in lead

I was just thinking of the footnote in the lead that specifies the taxes under "all federal income taxes". I'm not sure if we want to be overly technically here but the first sentence could be seen as inaccurate. Personal income taxes, corporate income taxes and capital gains taxes are correctly an "income tax". However, FICA taxes, gift taxes, and estate taxes are technically not income taxes. The FICA tax is actually an "employment tax" imposed under Subtitle C of the Internal Revenue Code. By contrast, "income" taxes (individual, corporate, etc.) are imposed under Subtitle A. The estate and gift taxes are "transfer" taxes (taxes on some, but not all, transfers of ownership of property), and are imposed under Subtitle B. I think most people just see them as income taxes so I don't see a big problem with it, but I wanted to put it out here for discussion so everyone is aware. Morphh ^(talk) 14:34, 04 August 2008 (UTC)