Talk:FairTax/Archive 4

message: :It should be noted that the national sales tax should not redirect to the Fair Tax as the "Fair Tax" is just one very specific proposal  created by a specific group of people and is only a type of national sales tax.  Stevenmitchell 09:30, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  It should be a disambiguation page.  I'll try to find a description and look to see if we have any other National sales tax plans on wikipedia.  Morphh 13:08, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For the moment, I've redirected this to the Sales tax page as it was more appropriate.  This page lightly discusses a National sales tax and includes information about the FairTax in the last paragraph. Morphh 18:39, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Distinction between Fair Tax & National Sales Tax 

message: How about the effect on the accounting and tax advisory industries?  (From individual CPAs up through the big four firms)  They would obviously be affected by a dramatic simplification of the tax structure.  GRBerry 13:45, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: True - they would also be impacted by the additional savings and investment business.  I'll see what I can dig up.  Some may just be looking for new positions - highly educated people like them should be able do well though.  We'll have to put tax lobbyists on suicide watch.  Morphh 13:59, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Also - I know many CPAs, current and future, and they all tell me that they would gladly welcome a simplification of the tax code. A true CPA is not someone who enjoys spending his/her time doing tedious tax returns. True accounting comes in when one can apply advanced statistics and managerial techniques to improve the chances of success and wealth for the business to which he/she is responsible. CPAs are not just calculators, but highly trained experts on how to improve the financial situations of a business. Without the burden of a crippling tax system on their shoulders, they will be free to invest their company's cash in other, more productive, ventures... A much more fun and exciting career choice for the accounting-minded individual. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.101.74.28 (talk) 05:08, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other Effects Not Yet Discussed 

message: In the past, I've been removing links to Grassroots sites such as "Hoosiers for the FairTax" and "FairTax Foundation".  While they provide good information and applicable, it might be seen as POV.  Some links that I've left are discussion groups which post questions for and against the FairTax in order to gain knowledge.  The other links are NPOV as they link to the bill, author's site, scorecards, etc.  I started thinking that perhaps we could create a FairTax Grassroots stub that discusses the history of AFFT, links to Grassroot sites, and large FairTax initiatives.  Thoughts? Morphh 12:48, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was initially created and funded and organized by the group who each pledged $1.5 million as seed money to hire tax experts to identify what they perceived as faults with the current system, to determine what American citizens would like to see in tax reform, and then to design the best system of taxation.  The three went on to raise an additional $17 million to fund focus groups with citizens around the country and tax policy studies.  This is not the Grassroots part.  The Grassroots is what has become of AFFT when 600,000+ people get on board and provide donations to make the $100 mil for promoting, lobbying, and the salary of the people in Houston.  The Grassroots is that driven by the constituents of a community getting together to contact their representatives and promote the plan to other citizens.  The Grassroots movement is 10,000 people showing up to a rally in Orlando.  BTW - do you have a source we can use for the $100 million number? - I can't find anything on it. Also, I couldn't find anything on patents.  If you have a reference for this, we can include it in the AFFT article. Morphh 14:20, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grassroots stub 

message: Posting this from Tabacco's talk page:
Your alleged "Fairness" is disingenuous.  The "Fair Tax" is the 3rd generation of "The Flat Tax" and "The National Sales Tax".  The "Fair Tax" is a distinction without a difference.  It has been dressed up to appear to be something it is not!  It is a complete falsity, intended to dupe the public.  Publicizing Neal Boortz is tantamount to extolling the virtues of Scientology.  Both are merely for personal aggrandizement and profiteering of the facilitators. I take extreme umbrage at the promotion of Boortz's book here.  This is nothing more than crass commercialism and disinformation. Tabacco 
http://tabacco.blog-city.com/the_fair_tax_morphh_advocates_in_the_affirmative__tabacco_re.htm Tabacco 
::Note: I sent a post addressing many of the inaccurate statements but it was never posted by Tabacco. Morphh 00:32, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Certainly "Fairness" is relative, however, the plan was named by the people and not politicians.  Most consider it much more "fair" then the current system.  However, I don't believe you'll find anything in the article that claims it to be "fair".  It is just the name of the bill.  I'd like to see you defend the current system.  The FairTax is the most transparent plan out there.  I think your duping yourself making it some plot / conspiracy theory.  Our current system is built on hiding the burden and deceiving the people.  The FairTax is an alternative.  It's not trying to dupe anyone - it is what it is.  As for Boortz's book - what picture would you suggest for the article?  The book doesn't need any promotion - it's a NYT bestseller.  It is the most known media "image" of the FairTax plan.  Nothing more nothing less.  I've copied this to the aricle talk page in case others share your opinion or care to disagree.  Morphh 00:32, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

text: To vote, please use the format: #~~~~ - <comments>
#Morphh 12:55, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

text: To vote, please use the format: #~~~~ - <comments>
#Tabacco - Publicizing Neal Boortz is tantamount to extolling the virtues of Scientology.  Both are merely for personal aggrandizement and profiteering of the facilitators. I take extreme umbrage at the promotion of Boortz's book here.  This is nothing more than crass commercialism and disinformation.
#63.25.9.50 13:25, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Yep - Good point Morphh 04:26, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't think we have implied anything.  All that is said in the article is that he said that he is donating all procedes to charity to help promote the book.  People can take what they want from it...  The can beleive his statement or like you, consider it nothing.  The statement is varifiable and is relavent to the movement in how he presented it.  The references is there if people choose to investigate further.  He initially said that he would keep the profits but his wife convinced him to donate it.  The comment on expenses were related to costs with the book tour so he was not out of pocket.  Someone might be able to verify via the charity organization.  He has stated that he would give it to his wifes charity.  However, we're getting to far into this.  We're just stating a fact here.  I think to describe it any further would be to add a point of view to it.  It does not say that this shows his motives or anything.  It also should not bash him for possibly not donating being that we have no evidence of such.  Morphh 20:38, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Book cover 

message: :To vote, please use the format: #~~~~ - <comments>
#Morphh 12:55, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Support book cover 

message: :To vote, please use the format: #~~~~ - <comments>
#Tabacco - Publicizing Neal Boortz is tantamount to extolling the virtues of Scientology.  Both are merely for personal aggrandizement and profiteering of the facilitators. I take extreme umbrage at the promotion of Boortz's book here.  This is nothing more than crass commercialism and disinformation.
#63.25.9.50 13:25, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep - Good point Morphh 04:26, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't think we have implied anything.  All that is said in the article is that he said that he is donating all procedes to charity to help promote the book.  People can take what they want from it...  The can beleive his statement or like you, consider it nothing.  The statement is varifiable and is relavent to the movement in how he presented it.  The references is there if people choose to investigate further.  He initially said that he would keep the profits but his wife convinced him to donate it.  The comment on expenses were related to costs with the book tour so he was not out of pocket.  Someone might be able to verify via the charity organization.  He has stated that he would give it to his wifes charity.  However, we're getting to far into this.  We're just stating a fact here.  I think to describe it any further would be to add a point of view to it.  It does not say that this shows his motives or anything.  It also should not bash him for possibly not donating being that we have no evidence of such.  Morphh 20:38, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oppose book cover 

message: I would like some evidence of a non-monopoly market where prices did not approach the cost of production.  Sorry, but instances of price fixing and government "regulation" don't count.  I am talking about markets like the consumer PC market, the automobile market, etc.  El Cubano 02:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree and have deleted the sentence.  Such logic doesn't even make sense.  I'd like to see a serious economist that makes such a claim.  This is the basics of a capitalistic economy.  Morphh 02:37, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Even if prices were a certain level higher then the cost of production, the markets of supply and demand would drive the price to maximize profit.  Price maximization is not profit maximization.  Profit margins should be maintained as they are set for profit maximization.  Morphh 02:49, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Price drops 

message: Modified recent entry to this section - The addition that AFFT has not released the studies is a good edit.  However, much of the other information was POV and not applicable.  The economists were members of the research team that studied the FairTax and the rate.  The rates are presented in a number of publications.  I have never heard of any of the economists refuting the figures.  I've read several articles where some of these economists discuss the FairTax and they have not said anything about their rate being incorrect.  In fact I just read a message from Laurence Kotlikoff that said a new study was going to be released and published that will show the bill rate to be more or less the correct figure.  It is said to be a really well done study that should satisfy most critics.  In the other section, the 1995 tax reform panel did not review the FairTax.  The FairTax wasn't even a bill until 4 years later.  Their review was far from the FairTax plan and is not an accurate or appropriate comparison.  Morphh 17:31, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The 23% statements and claims (and Jorgenson's and Poterba) are listed with verifiable sources that make these statements.  This does not need to be a source to the work itself, just a good quality source that verifies the statement.  If you have a statement from Poterba stateing that he disputes these studies then please provide the source and we'll include it.  The article clearly states that these studies have not been published.  However, part of the study can be seen in the JCT rebuttal paper (40 pages by the Argus Group). Dr. Karen Walaby is the person reviewing the new studies and has stated that she would release them soon.  As far as the President's tax pannel - you are correct that they did not exempt food, medicine, and housing but they did exempt all government purchases - 18% of the FairTax base.  They also did not review Payroll taxes as they were not allowed too - this greatly changes the tax burden effect as payroll taxes are the most regressive and largest tax burden to low income families.  So how can you make the statement that this conforms to the legislation.  It is very far from the legislation.  The JCT rebuttal discusses the JCT tax base.  We can look at wording this better.  Morphh 15:29, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revenue-neutral rate studies 

message: For economists, the FairTax proposal is explicitly the opposite - it is a regressive tax, which is also called an unfair tax (while progressive taxes are called fair taxes). Can this misnomer be reflected in the article?
:The name FairTax is the name of the bill HR25.  The article does not address "fairness" as this is a relative term.  However, the plan itself was named by the people before it became a bill.  As far as regressive / progressive, it is addressed in the section "Distribution of tax burden".  The FairTax is regressive on income but progressive on consumption due to the rebate which is provided to all citizens.  This creates a progressive effective tax rate the more you consume.  We let the reader determine what they think is fair or unfair.  Both points of view are presented.  Morphh 02:39, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naming problems 

message: Morph -- I knew I'd get your gander up by pointing out that the latest Beacon Hill study assumes a deficit of $476 billion in 2007.  The point is that this is NOT truly revenue neutral, as the current deficit is only $248 billion.  Thus, unless we are to assume that the deficit will nearly double next year, the 23.85% rate is grossly misleading.   GeorgiaTex 14:49, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I expect the numbers were accurate at the time the study was done.  You're picking out one number and saying... look, this has decreased from the time you did the study so now your numbers are off.  What about all the other metrics that go into figuring the rate?  You would have to refactored using the latest consumption, GDP and economic growth numbers. I expect that since the deficit has decreased from projections, it is because of economic growth which is the base for the consumption tax.  Revenue neutral is compared to income collected under the current income tax system.  Budget and deficit is irrelevent as it should be applied evenly to both the income tax and FairTax.  Since they generally both rise and fall together (income and consumption), the rate would hold for revenue neutraility.  Unless you can show that income has increased at a much greater rate then consumption, your point is baseless. Morphh (talk) 15:30, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

text: In fact, the opposite seems to be true - With today's negative savings rates, recent studies have shown that in 2005 average spending outpaced earnings.  Even earlier we've seen this trend - “Negative Saving: In July, Spending Outpaced Earning,” The Wall Street Journal, September 2, 2004, pg. A2.  Your examination might actually show the oposite of what you claim - the rate would decrease from the projected 23.85% as consumption outpaces earning.  Morphh (talk) 01:11, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deficit 

message: There are criticisms littered throughout the article. I say they should get their own section. I don't know what to make of the whole thing (good/bad?) but being able to see pros/cons easily would be nice.Angrynight 23:04, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This was discussed in Talk Archive2.  I understand what your saying.  It would be nice to look at a simple good/bad, however, the topics require enough explanation on each side to do justice.  This is why each topic is broken down into sections where both pro and con are provided.  For example, one side may say a con is that it is regressive with the other side saying a pro is that it is progressive.  Pros and cons are dependent on the point of view and without any context or explanation it makes little sense.  I think this format is better suited for this article.  It provides each topic in a complete format with the debated points / effects.  Morphh 00:46, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pros/Cons Section? 

message: Note to GA reviewer: Most of the recent edits were cosmetic - copyedits, references, moving sections for better article flow, etc.  We did have a slight problem with the book cover (reverts), however, I think we resolved this through the wiki process. Morphh 15:57, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA Review 

message: first, my apologies if im not posting this talk topic correctly, im new.  I think a critical turning point in the FairTax debate has been overlooked byt his article, and ask for it's inclusion.  an article in Money Magazine's October 2005 issue http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/country_profiles/1229345.stm
pointed out a logistical flaw in the plan, the double-counting of the benefit of removing embedded taxes towards both results of 1. lowering prices of goods and 2. allowing workers to recieve their entire paycheck (gross pay).  This flaw has been exposed to the point that Boortz even addressed it in his Nealz Nuze on Sept. 15th 2005.  http://boortz.com/nuze/200509/09152005.html  i think this really needs to be addressed, as many supporters of the plan are falsly claiming that prices will remain the same AND they will receive all of their pay (Dr. Dale Jorgenson, the Harvard professor who did the mebedded tax study, is mentioned in the article stating this is not the case)
since i am unfamliar with the editing process i'd ask for someone else to create the section or mention.  thanks JamieDangerously 20:08, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are posting correctly in the talk and I offer my welcome to Wikipedia.  I don't believe this point is overlooked in this article.  It is covered in the section Supporting theories of effect.  The only reference to embedded cost figures is in this section and whenever embedded taxes are discussed, this section is referenced.  So this article does not reproduce that misconception and accurately discusses the topic that you presented.  Morphh 21:19, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Money Magazine Article

message: This article is a nice one to read and is fully detailed with a bit of math here and there, well-balanced and has a nice prose. I would suggest working on the Lead section just to match every aspect of the article's content. Lincher 03:28, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd also like to try and redo the sources to utilize the WP:CITET templates. Once we get these two things completed, I think we should try and nominate for FA.  Morphh 13:12, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I expanded the lead section to try and match the articles content.  It may be a bit long and probably requires further refinement. Morphh 01:54, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA passed 

message: It appears to me that the Tax Pannel only compared Income Tax rates when using this comparison.  It does not appear that they calculated in payroll taxes.  3/4 of Americans pay more in payroll taxes then income taxes.  Morphh 02:58, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: According to the panel's report, the Treasury Department concluded that a 25-percent FairTax rate would not produce enough revenue to be revenue-neutral if all federal taxes were abolished. Thus, the panel considered only the effects of abolishing the income tax. If the payroll tax was included, the FairTax rate would have to be increased commensurately. It's all in the report. FCYTravis 06:23, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I think it would make sense too to split the details of the "predicted benefits" and "indirect effects" sections into a separate article about "Predicted effects of the FairTax." FCYTravis 06:27, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Distribution of tax burden 

message: It exemplifies our very best work.
It is well written, comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral, and stable. In this respect:
:(a) "well written" means that the prose is compelling, even brilliant;
:(b) "comprehensive" means that an article covers the topic in its entirety, and does not neglect any major facts or details;
:(c) "factually accurate" includes supporting of facts with specific evidence and external citations (see Wikipedia:Verifiability); these include a "References" section where the references are set out, complemented where appropriate by inline citations (see Wikipedia:Citing sources). For articles with footnotes or endnotes, the meta:cite format is strongly encouraged;
:(d) "neutral" means that an article is uncontroversial in its neutrality and factual accuracy (see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view); and
:(e) "stable" means that an article does not change significantly from day to day and is not the subject of ongoing edit wars.
It complies with the standards set out in the style manual and relevant WikiProjects. These include having:
:(a) a concise lead section that summarizes the entire topic and prepares the reader for the higher level of detail in the subsequent sections;
:(b) a proper system of hierarchical headings; and
:(c) a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents (see Wikipedia:Section).
It has images where appropriate, with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status; however, including images is not a prerequisite for a featured article.
It is of appropriate length, staying tightly focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail; it uses summary style to cover sub-topics that are treated in greater detail in any 'daughter' articles.
Here's my thoughts: Once we get this little POV point-counterpoint hashed out, this article is not far away from FA. We need a good photo of a rally, or something, to illustrate the popular/political support section, I think it would make strong secondary art. We should consolidate some of the "effects" sections into a daughter article, Potential impacts of the FairTax or something - which will help us get the length and table of contents under control. Perhaps create a (doesn't have to be huge) section on the online groundswell of support for the proposal - how it's spread through the blogosphere, etc. Other than that, it looks good to go. FCYTravis 23:58, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I created an article Predicted effects of the FairTax.  I figured we would call the headline here "Predicted effects". I also created the one you specified above but I thought this one might fit better.  I put Potential impacts of the FairTax in for speedy deletion as I was the only one that did anything. Morphh 00:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok - I moved all the Predicted benefits and Other indirect effects into the new article.  I then created a rough draft summary of the contents, renamed the headline, added the summary and removed the main body.  So, we have some clean up work to do but most of the heavy lifting is done. Morphh 19:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added a Grassroots section per your suggestion and added a picture of a rally.  I'll try to clean it up a bit this week.  I think we've completed just about everything on our list.  We're getting pretty close to FA nomination. :-)  Morphh 03:36, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured Article checklist 

message: This was a debated point in the early history of the article (Talk:FairTax/Archive#.2811-August-05.29Tax_Exclusive.2FTax_Inclusive).  I think I was for Inclusive / Exclusive but I was overruled.  The main point was that the terms are a neologism.  It was agreed to use common terms. I've now come to think it explains it better.  Morphh 01:05, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, we have to have something that quickly explains the difference in layman's terms, and I think "inclusive" vs. "exclusive" comes the closest. What else would you call each system? I'm open to ideas... FCYTravis 01:10, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Those terms seem the easiest to me, however, I'm familar with the material.  If I ask someone else what they ment, they would probably be clueless.  At one point, we had a section that described inclusive and exclusive (I think this became Comparison of tax rates section).  Even if we don't use those terms to describe the rate, I think we should have something in the Comparison of tax rates section that states these terms are often used to explain the concepts.  ..., often called an "inclusive" rate, ... I'm not sure how to best explain it in layman's terms - perhaps we need to grab someone that is unfamilar with the concepts. I'll try to think of some ideas this weekend.  Morphh 18:19, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inclusive/Exclusive terms 

message: Does anyone have any photos of a book signing, a pro-FairTax rally, etc.? I think they would be highly helpful in illustrating the groundswell of grassroots support for the proposal. FCYTravis 21:51, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I know some websites that have some.  I'll make a request for copyright release.  Morphh 12:07, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've received permission from the photographer to use any of the pictures on this site. Morphh 20:28, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photos 

message: There should be some mention of how to handle goods made during the income tax era but sold during the FairTax era.  There will be many goods at intermediate stages of manufacture, and actually tracking each and every part of each item, to determine its' tax/nontaxed status would be massive overkill.  I presume that the proposed legislation covers this?  The easiest thing to do would be to have a one-week or one-month "neutral zone", between dropping the old federal taxes and beginnging to charge the new FairTax.  Otherwise, the changeover period would be a tremendous burden for many people.  --Scott McNay 05:29, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Most states already have a sales tax and do much of what the FairTax requires.  The legislation states that current inventory is not taxable under the FairTax.  So while the sale of the retail item will contain the FairTax, the company does not have to remit the tax to the government if the good was already in inventory before the FairTax went into affect (since taxes were already paid on it under the current system).  This allows for the transistion and a quick reduction in production prices.  All a company needs to know is what the current inventory cost.  If I have $1,000,000 worth of widgets in inventory, then I don't have to remit taxes on the sale of $1,000,000 worth of widgets.  States already require companies to keep track of their sales for the state taxes so this is not a big issue. Morphh (talk) 13:53, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changeover -- new goods carried over 

message: I was hoping that the article could go into more detail about the effects on the FairTax proposal and investments.  In particular in the "Effect on Savers" section, it suggests savers would experience a double-taxation, I would suggest to rewrite to "..FairTax would result in unfair double taxation for savers since it it does not address the transition effect..."  The article states that it would end the "double taxation on savings that is currently part of estate taxes".  While true - I think a link to Estate tax (United States) would be appropriate - since the statement doesn't reflect exceptions due to tax-deferred (401k) savings and the lifetime deduction.  Furthermore, it may mislead some readers to think that the current estate taxes represents a double-taxation on capital-gains, which it is not.  Also, as I read it - under the FairTax, all investment gains would be tax free, and estates could be passed without hindrance, and current incentives for charitable giving in estate planning would be eliminated.  So - why even mention double taxation - maybe "end all taxation on assets passed through estates?" - it's much more succinct. (Also, how would purchases of foreign property be handled?  Quite cynically, I am thinking that under this plan rich CEOs could cash-out assets and live offshore to avoid all taxes paid to the US Government, e.g. capital flight)
Zipf 22:29, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the suggestions.  I'll look over this and see how we can expand and reword it.  I'll add the wikilink right now.  Since they were wikilinked in a prior section, I guess it didn't get done here but it sounds like a good idea.  I believe your first suggestion may be considered POV as proponents would dispute this.  I think it reads better as having the critics suggest that it does not address transition effects then stating it as a fact.  A new study by Kotlikoff should help expand this section.  He stated that low and medium income retirees make out really well (tax cuts) under the FairTax model and wealthy retirees get a tax increase.  As far as capital flight, I don't know of anything in the FairTax that would restrict this.  If you wish to spend all your money offshore, then you would be subject to their tax laws.  If you purchased something overseas and brought it back, then you would be subject to the FairTax. Morphh (talk) 02:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  FairTax and Capital Gains/Estate Tax 

message: This legislation would do nothing to eliminate the income tax in the 16th amendment,
 so the impact would be debilitating to virtually all citizens. While fairtax.org
 acknowledges the need to repeal the 16th, there has been no action to make it happen.
Misleading: implies that FairTax does not include provision to eliminate current income tax laws and the IRS. --Scott McNay 05:00, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  24.167.219.211 #1 

message: While it would make sence to repeal the 16th before inacting a new tax, anti-IRS
 fever has over taken common sence.
Can't be done; you'd then be in the position of having NO revenue for the US Gov't until a new tax law is voted in.  I know that there's been mention that income tax is legal even without the 16th (so why was the 16th needed???), but the court cases would presumably be filed as soon as the 16th went away and the income tax didn't; an unnecessary waste of money. --Scott McNay 05:00, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  24.167.219.211 #2 

message: If there is sufficient disagreement about it being progressive, might want to reword this...
:Due to the rebate, the effective tax rate is progressive and could result in a tax burden of zero or a negative value.
...maybe to something like this:
:Due to the rebate, the effective tax rate meets the definition of a progressive tax and could result in a tax burden of zero or a negative value.
...the problem there is that it doesn't sound quite right, and someone is likely to "fix" it.  How about this?
:The rebate causes the FairTax to meet the definition of a progressive tax and could result in an effective tax rate of zero or a negative value.
...by wording it that way, instead of merely claiming that it is progressive, we're explcitly stating that it IS progressive. --Scott McNay 04:30, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section 28 

message: Morphh, can you clarify this?  "Since government is taxed today...".  It seems to disagree with the rest of the paragraph.  --Scott McNay 04:15, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is trying to refer to the sentence prior.  Will do on the clarification. Morphh (talk) 04:39, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarify? 

message: I created a new article called Distribution of the FairTax burden.  I thought that the new information in the Kotlikoff articles in the todo would require expantion of this section and a summary split. So I went ahead and set it all up so everyone can get to it.  :-)  Morphh (talk) 05:01, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Distribution of the FairTax burden

message: Someone wrote "The Argus Group and Arduin, Laffer & Moore Econometrics both published an analysis"; if this is two different reports, then "analysis" should be plural to make this clear.  --Scott McNay 03:44, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They are separate studies.  Changed to plural - However, please double check that I used the correct grammar / spelling for this.  This one sounded a little tricky.  Morphh (talk) 14:05, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks ok to me.  --Scott McNay 01:27, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification 

message: Please review my change; the text may not longer be correct. --Scott McNay 05:30, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I took a poke to clarify :-)  Morphh (talk) 15:39, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please review 

message: How can this not be classed as a current event?  Unless there is more specific tag? Robert A.West (Talk) 01:56, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Legislation can sit in congress for years and years with little or no change.  With your deffintion of a current event, everything that is not dead or historical would be classified as such.  That is not the intent of the tag - the tag is for something that is on the news today, that is undergoing many changes as the event unfolds.  Nothing of the FairTax is live or happening in the moment to be changed so often.  We may get a new study here and there but this is not the idea of a "current event".  Look at the Current events portal and see the types of articles.  They classify them by "Headlines", "November 26", "November 25"... this is the idea of a current event.  Morphh (talk) 02:16, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, no legislation can sit in Congress for years -- all pending legislation expires at the end of each annual session.  If reintroduced, it is nearly certain to get a new number.  There is accordingly a 100% likelihood that the status will change within the next few weeks.  That is a lot more than merely "not dead or historical."  Robert A.West (Talk) 02:33, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We'll I'm sure we'll see that on the evening news and the Current events web portal.  Just because something is current does not make it appropriate for the current event tag. Morphh (talk) 03:23, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Point taken.  We'll probably hear about some star's latest affair instead. Robert A.West (Talk) 03:27, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The article discusses pending legislation