Talk:Moshav

message: Theoretically, because all moshav farmers would pay the same tax (amount, not rate), those earning larger profits pay a smaller portion of those profits on the tax.  You earn $1,000 you pay $100 in tax, so you keep $900.  But if you only earn $500 and pay the same $100 in tax, you only keep $400;  that $100 is a bigger bite.  It is in your best interest, then, to get that $100 tax paid-off as quickly in the agricultural season as possible.  Theoretically, this gives incentive to the "bad ones" (sic) to work harder so the tax is not such a large % burden upon their profits.
Theoretically.
In reality, G-d did not make every hectare of soil perfectly equal to every other hectare.  So I am afraid I must take disagreement with this particular statement (3rd last sentence, of 2nd para).  It is not "good" or "bad" farmers -- it lucky or unlucky ones.  You are given a farm of equal size to everybody else, but what if it is poor quality soil, compared to your neighbour?  What if it appears good, but when you plough it many rocks are just under the surface?  What if the drainage is poor?  What if there are alkali deposits that you can't see?
Yet you still have to pay the same $100 tax as the next farmer with rich soil, who also pays only $100 tax.  Thus, instead of being more fair than a kibbutz, the moshav is unfair.  It penalises those who are unfortunate to not have the best soil.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Atikokan (talk • contribs) 03:56, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Implication that moshavim "flat tax" is better than kibbutzim 

message: If the the word aliyah is hyperlinked to the article for aliyah, does the explanation in parentheses really need to be there?71.175.124.222 (talk) 12:29, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  distracting redundancy in the main article 

message: Since there aren't any references, there is no indication this is a notable word in English. There a millions of words in different languages for different phenomena, but only the notable ones in English belong here. The article should be ref'd from English sources or deleted. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:45, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no requirement for english language sources. Nor does notability depend on being discussed in english language sources (though there'd be lot less work to do if it did...)--Misarxist 17:01, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This is second time I've run into the problem. The second only used non-English sources even though just as good English sources were available. Guess will look for discussions at WP:V. But I did breakdown and do a books.google search and see the topic is discussed in English language books. So someone just needs to ref it before someone comes along and AfD's it. CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:39, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

text: I added text to this article from the public domain Library of Congress Country Study on Israel. At some point I think my reference was removed.  There is at least one English language ref for this topic.  I added the reference at the bottom of the page.--Bkwillwm (talk) 04:25, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Notability in English?

message: The article states "practiced by the more radical communal kibbutz", where "practiced by the communal kibbutz" would do just fine and avoids qualification. Rauh (talk) 17:43, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I made this update. Rauh (talk) 16:55, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unnecessary qualification of Kibbutz 

message: Is there a good reason why the lead section begins in the present tense, and then switches to the past almost as soon as it enters its second paragraph? Harfarhs (talk) 22:22, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Happy to se somebody tried to start a discussion (not that it led to anything for more than a year). Very annoying, can't figure out if it indicates pre-privatisation and by now mostly abandoned rules, or just lazy translation (Google?). Who can address it please? Thanks, Arminden (talk) 15:40, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Strange change of tense 

message: The lead says moshavim were pioneered between 1904 and 1914, while the history section says the first moshav was established in 1921. Which is true? IrishStephen (talk) 21:02, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Must be a confusion between the even older moshava and moshav. Not the same. Arminden (talk) 15:42, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradiction between lead and body