Talk:FairTax/Archive 3

message: I'm trying to do research on the costs vs. benefits on the fair tax, and I'm finding that in this case Wikipedia isn't as helpful. Certainly the facts are here, but I think (this just might be my impression) that the article is presented in a pro-fair tax view. For example, although critics and opponents of the proposal are mentioned, there is an entire section on benefits and none on costs. The only major harm that is presented in this article is the emergence of a pervasive black market. Maybe some broad changes? - simon, charlottesville/va/usa
:We didn't create a section that just had the costs as each section usually addresses the pros and cons for that topic.  Please see the 'cirticism and controversy' section? in the archive. Morphh 04:19, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: maclean25 (the person that did the peer review of the article) has, at my request, left another, less formal peer review on my talk page. It's helpful, but I can't imagine there being anything to add to the to do list at the top of the page. So if you're interested, head over to my talk page. --Trevdna 19:12, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Informal Peer Review 

message: What does everyone think of the math in this section (toward the bottom - indented area)?  I think it may be a little much and have considered deleting it.  Should we delete this or create a stub for this type of thing or leave it alone?  Perhaps an external reference.  Thoughts Morphh 02:47, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good post on the Law Enforcement.  I reverted your post on the rate as it is calculated as discussed in the article.  Here is a link to the FairTax site that discusses this.  When added like a sales tax it is a 30% rate.  This is also discussed pretty good in the books and tends to be the rate that opponents like to use.  The terms usually used to describe them are Inclusive (23%) and Exclusive (30%) though we don't use them here as it's sort of a neologism. Morphh 17:47, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Math in FairTax and status quo tax burden comparison 

message: I do not believe it is correct to characterize the “prebate” as a monthly entitlement check no more than it is to characterize a taxpayer’s refund of taxes paid on their annual tax return.  It is their money.  
The purpose of the rebate is to replace the standard deduction and personal exemptions under the income tax.  They insured that persons could earn a certain amount before having to pay taxes.  Similarly the rebate ensures that a person can purchase basic necessities before having to pay taxes to Uncle Sam.  
Entitlements are guaranteed benefits because of rights.  The FairTax is the rebate of taxes paid (albeit in advance).  The only case where it could be considered an entitlement is where the person spends less than the poverty level for their family size.   Then they would be receiving a rebate larger than the taxes they paid. 
So the prebate is more properly viewed as a refund of taxes paid done in advance rather than after the fact.  However, "Prebate" is a term coined by AFFT.  Demogrant is another term used to describe it but is not commonly understood.  Subsidy is a term we use often to describe it but I'm not sure it is completely accurate and has negative connotations.  Perhaps "Advanced Rebate" or just call it a monthly rebate and then state in the description that it is in advance.  I'll make some changes to the "Monthly entitlement checks" section and if the terminology looks ok then we can apply it to the rest of the article.  Morphh 17:54, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your changes look great! --Trevdna 16:16, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Entitlement Terminology 

message: To me, the list of associations looks pointless and cluttered. Proposal: Make a List of associations for and against FairTax, and link to it from the main article. Please respond with support, objection, or comment. Thank you. --Trevdna 16:16, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds ok to me.  In that same section, I think the Articles should go completely.  I could add a new article every day if desired - why keep them.  If they want articles, they should search the web.  It is not providing anything of value.  Funny - you just archived a post from Scott Ritchie titled "Way way WAY too many external links".  So that's three votes.  Morphh 18:59, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Or even better yet: what about List of media relating to FairTax, so those entire sections could be moved, and people could add as much as they want! --Trevdna 22:03, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure Wikipedia is the place for that.  Is it normal to just have pages that have tons of external links to a particular topic?  I'm asking as I really don't know - I'm not that wikified yet.  Article links, like these, seem to me to be outside the normal scope of an encyclopedia unless they are used as reference, which these are not.  I'd like to hear Feco's thoughts as he has a much better understanding of Wikipedia policy and practice then I.  Morphh 03:15, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm... this topic is more controversial/debated than most topics generally found on Wikipedia, so I don't think it would be a bad idea. What do you think, Feco? --Trevdna 03:43, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I edited the "For FairTax" list of external links and removed those I could not find actually supported the FairTax or a NRST. It appears someone along the way mistook membership in the "Coalition for Fundamental Tax Reform" as meaning they are for the FairTax. Unless an organization has expressed specific support for a FairTax or a NRST I don't think it can be assumed they are "for" the FairTax or a NRST. Supporting fundamental tax reform is not implicit nor explicit support of a NRST or the FairTax. I also looked at the "against" links and they all linked to organizations or articles that have specifically been "against" a NRST or the FairTax. Tom Joad 2k 18:05, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe these were documented in the book "FairTax: America's Best Kept Secret".  Morphh 14:18, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That book only lists them as members of The Coalition for Fundamental Tax Reform (you can do a search of the book on Amazon), not as "for" the FairTax. Tom Joad 2k 15:28, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I haven't looked at the links yet.  But here are the guidelines for external links.--Wynler | Talk 02:44, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I think the original idea was to put a list of organizations that were for / against a NRST like the FairTax.  Some will not come out and specifically endorse one bill like "HR25" as politicians could modify it into something they did not intend or agree with before passage.  The original associations that were listed were documented.  Morphh 14:18, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I stated above, FairTax: America's Best Kept Secret doesn't show them as "for" the FairTax, only as members of The Coalition for Fundamental Tax Reform. I did a search on each individual organization and removed the ones I could not find any evidence that supported the FairTax or a NRST in general. If you have other information, let me know. Tom Joad 2k 15:28, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not disagreeing with you.  I was just stating the original idea and the source that I believe was used.  I think your changes are fine.  Morphh 01:39, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of Associations? 

message: :To vote, please use the format: #~~~~ - <comments>
#Morphh 16:30, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Support deletion

message: Trevdna, I noticed you added back in the section on "Real interest rates".  The section "Promotion of economic growth" has similar information about interest rates in this sentence "Further, studies of the FairTax at Boston University and Rice University suggest the FairTax will bring long-term interest rates down by as much as one third."  It is more specific, recent, respected and says about the same thing.  Do you feel the additional section on real interest rates adds further value?  Morphh 03:27, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops - my bad. I didn't notice that one. Go ahead and redelete my readdition. However, I would be more easy about it if you could find a reference for the fact you are talking about (but I know that mine didn't have a ref either, so whatever). --Trevdna 03:40, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Will do - The reference for the above information is #12 in the article.  Additional information in this section was also pulled from that source, so the reference # is a sentence or two down from the above statement in the article.  Morphh 04:10, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

text: The text says "Further studies of the FairTax." Was it specifically the FairTax that was studied or was it a generic NRST? I believe at least the Rice University study was a generic NRST. If it was a generic NRST, the details would have been different than the FairTax which could change the results. I don't think it's fair to attach these results specifically to the FairTax. Tom Joad 2k 22:08, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure what you mean.  I read it as stating "In addition".  "In addition to the other FairTax studies above, studies of the FairTax at Rice University..."  Even if it were a generic NRST study, it would still apply as this is a commonality.  The FairTax is the leading NRST. Not everything has to specifically call out the FairTax by name to be relevant.  The source is quoted.  Do you have anything that suggests that this study would not apply to the FairTax?  Morphh 19:47, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Lots of things could have been different in those studies. Specific results are being attributed to the FairTax when the NRST studied could have varied dramatic in rate, base, rebate, etc. These variations would change the results quoted. If it wasn't the FairTax specifically that was studied you can't say that it was. It's just not accurate. Tom Joad 2k 00:40, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are many sources that utilize these figures for FairTax including Linder.  These Universities were part of the research team that worked on the FairTax: Harvard University, Stanford University, Rice University, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), the National Bureau of Economic Research, the CATO Institute, the Heritage Foundation, and the Argus Group.  I have not seen anything that would suggest that these studies do not apply.  If you did find such a source that states that these studies would not apply, add a sentence below the paragraph stating such and quote the source. Morphh 13:58, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Real interest rates 

message: One thing that I don't understand is what will happen to the debt markets?  How will the changing the rules affect companies who have optimized their capital srtuctures.  If you have a company financed primarily with debt vs one that is financed by equity.  Since interest payments are currently tax advantaged, what will happen to the companies financials, would it be enough to put some companies under? Would issuing equity become the preferred way to raise capital??
:FairTax would have significant effects on capital markets. Some are obvious and can be predicted; there are certainly other unintended consequences that would occur as capital markets rationalized to the new tax environment. Debt is favored over equity in the current system... all else equal, FT removes the benefit of debt, so companies should lean more towards equity. Greater equity supply would tend to push equity values down (dilution). Lesser debt supply would tend to push debt prices up (thus yields down). However, equity values would fluctuate among different firms depending on the amount of expected future tax deductions that would be lost. It gets pretty complicated very quickly. Feco 00:55, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Debt markets 

message: Revenue Neutral implies that re The Fair Tax vis-à-vis the Graduated Income Tax, currently in force, the rate under The Fair Tax is set at a level to insure the Federal Government will receive the same tax amount under either Law.  Since wealthy people spend a smaller percentage of their disposable income than middle income Americans, the wealthy will, in effect, not be paying any tax on large portions of their income.  Wealthy people will pay less tax.  Therefore middle income Americans must pay more in tax under The Fair Tax.  It is an irrefutable law of mathematics in a “Revenue Neutral” scheme. Read entire Article at: http://tabacco.blog-city.com/illogical_national_sales_tax_proponents_think_middle_america.htm
:I'm sorry but that is the most non-sensical thing I have read in a while (that goes for both your comment and the article you linked).  The problem is that you are totally ignoring that all expenditures up to the poverty level are not taxed (by way of a "pre-bate").  Basically, every tax payer gets a check for $460 at the beginning of the month under the plan (or $5520 per year).  Now, refiguring the numbers in the article, Mr. Have More's tax looks like $132,480.00/ $1,000,000.00 = 13.25%, and Mr. Average Joe's looks like $3,795.00/$30,000.00 = 12.65%.  So even under the ridiculous assumption that he spent 33% more than he made, his tax burden is still less than Mr. Have More's.  Please, stop spreading FUD. El Cubano 20:48, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I posted a reply to the blog with my thoughts.  It seems more like a debate question for www.fairtaxgroups.com then Wikipedia.  I did not see any new information presented or any sourced data in the link.  The section "Distribution of tax burden" covers this topic from both points of view.  Morphh 23:27, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revenue neutral / regressive 

message: A recent change was made to this sentence by 66.161.74.251.  I don't understand the change or its intended meaning.  Could someone clarify?  It seemed to be much clearer to me in the first instance.  Morphh 23:02, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since I haven't gotten a response here, I'm going to revert this change.  Morphh 16:05, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change to Home mortgage interest deduction 

message: This article takes a one-sided view in favor of consumption. It seems to suggest that consumption is always good for the economy. But in fact consumption is usually bad for the economy of the country that does it, while production is good.
Consumption reduces future productivity by consuming capital. Capital is the ability to start a new venture. New ventures must consume more than they produce for a short period of time. To replace lost capital, somebody (the saver) has to consume less than he produces. The less consumption, the better.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.196.244.178 (talk) 16:49, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Absent Advocacy 

message: The sentences you mention above probably refer to the bill provisions defining what interest payments are taxable.  The way I interpret proposed Sec. 805, interest is subject to the tax only to the extent it exceeds the Applicable Federal Rate (AFR).  This taxability appears to apply to all new and existing consumer debt, including home mortgages and personal use credit cards.
The bill has several places that are as hard to interpret as the article.  My favorite is: Sec. 2(a)(14)(B), defining "service", which is taxable:
:(B) SERVICE.—For purposes of subparagraph (A), the term ‘service’—
::(i) shall include any service per formed by an employee for which the employee is paid wages or a salary by a taxable employer, and
::(ii) shall not include any service performed by an employee for which the employee is paid wages or a salary—
:::(I) by an employer in the regular course of the employer’s trade or business,
:::(II) by an employer that is a not-for-profit organization (as defined in section 706), H25 wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS
:::(III) by an employer that is a government enterprise (as defined in section 704), and 
:::(IV) by taxable employers to employees directly providing education and training.
This bill provision seems to contradict itself.  Did they really mean "or" instead of "and"??  Such is the stuff of lawsuits.  The bill's rules on legislative construction (very unusual) only muddy the water.
The article has a lot of deficiencies.  It's long on the politics involved and short on details of the proposal.  With any tax, the definition of what is taxable is the most important question.  Nearly half the bill discusses this in detail.  In the entire 99k Fair Tax article, it says only this about what is taxable:
:"The tax would be levied once at the final retail sale for personal consumption on new goods and services. A good would be considered "used" and not taxable if a consumer already owns it before the FairTax takes effect or if the FairTax has been paid previously on the good, which may be different than the item being sold previously. Exports and intermediate business transactions would not be taxed, nor would savings, investments, or education tuition expenses as they would be considered an investment (rather than final consumption). Personal services such as health care, legal services, financial services, and auto repairs would be subject to the FairTax, as would renting apartments and other real property. ... The FairTax would apply to Internet purchases and would tax retail international purchases (such as a boat or car) that are imported to the United States"
Hardly an adequate summary.  The bill appears to exempt from taxability goods and services used in a trade or business or for investment.  The article implies this in stating that the tax applies to goods and services "for personal consumption."  Further, businesses have a choice of varied mutually exclusive credits, one of which is a credit for trade or business.  Together, the provisions likely will have the effect of removing all Federal tax burden from corporations.  These major points are not covered in the article beyond the three words in quotes above.
The introduction implies that the "prebate" is automatic, but the text of the article mentions the annual registration process.  The rebate is sent only to "duly registered qualified families".  The bill would establish more bureaucracy within Social Security Administration to administer the rebate, including determining the amount for each family and tracking reported changes in family status.  The article fails to explicitly mention that the onus for getting any rebate falls on the family, not SSA.  The article also states that the rebate is determined annually and then paid monthly, with inflation adjustment.  I can't find anything in the bill to support such statements.  Further, the bill (prop. sec. 301) states the rebate amount is determined based on the "monthly poverty rate" and is paid monthly.  This seems to contradict the article.
The tax rates for other than 2011 are to have 3 components, a fixed general rate, and variable OASDI and HI rates.  The latter are to be determined by the Social Security Administration based on "that sales tax rate which is necessary to raise the same amount of revenue that would have been raised by imposing a 12.4 percent tax on the Social Security wage base".  The bill clearly contemplates variable rates, and provides procedures for publishing the rate changes and when they take effect.  The article says nothing about this
The Fair Tax article is a fairly good discussion of policy issues and politics, but it is woefully short on information about the tax proposal itself.  It also omits any discussion of the impact on corporations, which would almost all cease to be taxable in any manner.  This is a major shift in incidence of taxation that to the non-economist is very important, yet it is completely ignored in the article.  This is a major omission.  If the article were titled "Policy and politics of the Fair Tax", it might be considered a Good Article, but for the major omission.  It is titled in a way that implies it will tell you something about the tax itself, and it does not even get to start class on that count.  As it stands, it is little more than a highly political debate disguised as a NPOV article.  The article needs massive work, or retitling to something that reflects what it does cover.  I note that the article is so highly policed that changes, no matter how accurate or relevant, are almost impossible to sustain.
====Notes otg====
Respectfully, Oldtaxguy (talk) 22:34, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with Brianyoumans.  The article does cover business in the section Effects on tax code compliance and primarily in Personal versus business purchases, so maybe we need a little clarification, redirection, or restructure to make it clearer in the other area discussing what is taxed.  As far as the overall content, the sources cover more politics than actual bill content, like most bills under debate.  We certainly want the technical details to be as accurate as possible and I'm certainly open to corrections. Oldtaxguy, seems like you're starting off with a strong lack of good faith though, which is not what I've seen of you on the other articles we've worked on (and I don't think I've been unreasonable to work with).  There is no cabal here.  Of any of the tax articles I work on, this one has probably had the most debate and give/take that I've seen (and I watch hundreds of tax articles).  It's honestly been quite stressful sometimes, so be cool and make suggestions / discuss - we're all here to make the encyclopedia better.  Morphh  (talk) 17:10, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Vagueness in article as well as bill

message: Respectfully, Oldtaxguy (talk) 22:34, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with Brianyoumans.  The article does cover business in the section Effects on tax code compliance and primarily in Personal versus business purchases, so maybe we need a little clarification, redirection, or restructure to make it clearer in the other area discussing what is taxed.  As far as the overall content, the sources cover more politics than actual bill content, like most bills under debate.  We certainly want the technical details to be as accurate as possible and I'm certainly open to corrections. Oldtaxguy, seems like you're starting off with a strong lack of good faith though, which is not what I've seen of you on the other articles we've worked on (and I don't think I've been unreasonable to work with).  There is no cabal here.  Of any of the tax articles I work on, this one has probably had the most debate and give/take that I've seen (and I watch hundreds of tax articles).  It's honestly been quite stressful sometimes, so be cool and make suggestions / discuss - we're all here to make the encyclopedia better.  Morphh  (talk) 17:10, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Notes otg

message: I updated a sentence I noticed that anachronistically claimed that the Democrats controlled Congress. Has the Republican leadership of the House made any pronouncements on whether they might advance the FairTax? If so, that should probably be noted. Actually, that whole section needs to be redone. Brianyoumans (talk) 04:10, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't heard the republican leadership in the House make any pronouncements on it.  John Boehner never let the FairTax out of committee when he was House Majority Leader in 2006. Current House Majority Leader Eric Cantor is a staunch supporter of Paul Ryan’s Roadmap for America.  But there has been a push due to the Tea Party movement, which should probably be mentioned - it's popular with this group. ‘Fair Tax’ seen as wedge issue to push split between Republicans, Tea Party  Morphh  (talk) 14:51, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I'm not convinced that the FlatTax will get any farther in this Congress than in previous ones. But clearly the political situation has changed and at some point that paragraph needs to be updated. Brianyoumans (talk) 21:02, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Democrats still controlling Congress? 

message: If you read this article, and had not been following the issue on your own, this article would lead you to believe that the fair tax is almost without any economic risks, or major critics among economists.  This is simply not the case, there are many well trained economists who would refute any or all claims made by this article. Do you really think nobel prize winnering economist Paul Krugman or one of the many  Keynesian economists  would not point out that the Fair Tax may shift more of the tax burden from the wealthy to the poor (for a short period or even permanently), and thus may have negative economic and moral implications? 
Do not all economic changes or policies have winners and losers?M4bwav (talk) 19:58, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Criticism sections are discouraged, particularly with high quality articles.  The criticism is spread throughout the article where appropriate.  Morphh  (talk) 14:29, 04 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It's going to be a long time before this is a high-quality article, maybe it needs a criticism to balance it correctly.M4bwav (talk) 16:12, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

text: I've added some citations in the See also section to at least provide a hint of balance.  Maybe they'll survive at least a few hours amid the policing by proponents of this bill that has never made it to even a committee hearing. Oldtaxguy (talk) 00:20, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Oldtaxguy, one of these articles already exist as a reference (we could add the others as references for critical content if needed).  The See also section is not for external links, it's for other Wikipedia articles that relate to the subject that are not covered in the article itself.  These news links also wouldn't apply to the External links section per WP:EL.  The article is not lacking in criticism based on reliable sources.  This article has been heavily edited and debated by both pro and con editors for years and is relatively stable.  If you know of specific criticism due weight that is not included, then please bring it up and we can review it for inclusion.  Morphh  (talk) 16:27, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article appears to be written entirely by fair tax proponents with a libertarian persepective 

message: This is an important distinction. The title itself is propaganda, like "Death Panels" or "Repeal of the Job-Killing Health Care Bill". As such, it should always be cited as a title -- either with quotation marks or italics, whichever is appropriate in a Wikipedia article. For now, as a minimum, I propose changing the introductory sentence 
:The FairTax is a proposed change to the federal government tax laws ...
to the revised sentence
:"FairTax" is a title used by proponents to refer to a proposed change to the federal government tax laws ...
I believe this is an accurate and npov description of the term. I will make this edit later, after a reasonable amount of time for discussion.
Aftermath (talk) 19:34, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The term is used by proponents and opponents alike to refer to this specific plan.  It's the name of the plan as used by reliable sources, which is also the name of the bill.  It is not used here as a description of a "fair tax".  The article states in the Legislative overview that such a description is subjective and debated depending on pov.  So while it is a title, I'm not sure it makes any sense for succinct prose in the lead to say "is a title to refer to" - the capitalization does this as a proper noun. The current sentence accurately reflects reliable sources and should remain unchanged - it has been vetted through years of debate, compromise, peer reviews, and holds the weight of consensus.  Morphh  (talk) 21:55, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

text: I can't speak to your experience, but opponents don't always begin a discussion of the plan with such a caveat and I don't see such a clarification of a title used in reliable sources.  Looking at the sources (focusing on opponents), it seems rarely if ever stated in this way.  Some sources do put quotes around the first use of the term, but in these cases it most often treats it as two words "Fair Tax", not as one word FairTax (commonly used to refer to the title).  When the words are separated in the article, we do add italics or quotes depending on use.  We also have to be aware of the use to employ scare quotes to signify disapproval of a term, which would be inappropriate here.  The title refers to the same thing for opponents and proponents - a specific national retail sales tax plan.  Our first sentence based on context defines it as a proper noun, not a adjective.  Readers need not be familiar with the conventions to understand it's a title - it's obvious in the first sentence.  Morphh  (talk) 14:30, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

text: I don't want to demotivate you and I'm certainly open to adjustment, but I do have some problems with the changes.  I don't think it follows our standards on WP:LEAD and WP:FACR.  It's become too large and unstructured, adding too much detail for the lead, which runs into WP:WEIGHT issues for certain areas.  It makes self references and questionable statements.  "The term FairTax is used to denote a set of ideas, a political movement supporting those ideas, as well as specific bills to implement those ideas..."  Where do you get this?  I think it may be pushing WP:OR.  Why should we give weight to breaking this up as denoting three things?  Do the sources break this up as three things?  Where do we have a majority of sources that says the FairTax is a movement?  Not that there is a movement around the FairTax, that seems different.. you're saying that the term denotes a movement.  Where is the sources to support this?  Why give it first sentence weight - is it really that distinguishable?  Later in the lead we state that a movement has formed around the plan.  Keep it simple, succinct, and easily supported by reliable sources - "The FairTax is a proposed change to the federal government tax laws..."  The lead has been heavily and fiercely debated and gone through years of compromise and struggle to get where it is.. it's now been stable for a couple years.  Can we just let it be... WikiProject Taxation has over 1000 articles that need our attention way more than this one.   Morphh  (talk) 13:35, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

text: The self reference links in the lead are footnotes, which where placed based on discussions of including too much detail in the lead.  As for structure, we went from three even paragraphs to five greatly uneven paragraphs.  The length causes issues with WP:LEAD.  Paragraphs are now 1 sentence, 3 sentences, 5 sentences, 8 sentences, 2 sentences.  While the topics are structured, it looks horrible.  I'm fine with putting some reference to the time spent in congress, but the length currently gives it undue weight.  You're giving it 1 of the 5 paragraphs of the lead.  Most reliable sources don't even mention the introduction of the bill or the time spent in congress.  I understand your expanded definition of the term, just not sure it's proper here.  It's long, broad, unreferenced, and includes duplication.  What are the set of ideas?  I understand the concepts, but we don't discuss a specific set of ideas that make up the proposal.  Where do we get that it has three meanings?  It's a tax reform plan... keep it simple.  As for prose, "The term".. does "term" add anything, does "used to denote" add anything, or "those ideas"?  Does "The FairTax is a set of ideas, a supporting political movement" convey the same thing with less words.  I point this out as there has been a lot of work and discussion that has been put into the current lead.  We're open to changes, but we should discuss them out and get some agreement on it.  We may be able to make some small changes that satisfy your concerns.  For example, you stated that "a proposed change" was insufficient to convey the amount of change.. so perhaps something as simple as changing "is a proposed change" to "is a major tax reform proposal to change the" or "is a significant change proposed to the federal government tax laws".  Morphh  (talk) 13:35, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

text: I didn't say the legislative history wasn't important.  In fact, I had put it in there a while ago myself and it was removed as unnecessary detail.  What I said was that it was too long, but would agree to some form of inclusion to indicate the time-frame and hoped that we could come to some sort of compromise on it.  I don't disagree that the term is a brand, but to use your examples, we don't say "the term iPod denotes a media device", or "the term YouTube denotes a video sharing website" - we just say an "iPod is a media device" and "YouTube is a video sharing website" - the "FairTax is a tax reform proposal".  I haven't seen where anyone is confused that this is a branding.  It seems we're trying to solve a problem where none exists.  The impact of the plan and how it would change, influence, or affect government and the economy would be a matter of opinion, so we need to be careful of introducing such into the first sentence as a statement of fact.  Morphh  (talk) 20:37, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

text: I tried to revise it based on our discussion.  Looking back at the past version, the legislative history was present in the third paragraph.  So I guess the purpose was to move it into the first paragraph where the bill is first mentioned.  I tried to do this and pulled in the information from the third paragraph regarding the movement, as that's the balance for that section.  It was first introduced in 1999, but only started gaining momentum after 2005.  From there, I tweaked a few things to provide the proper flow to maintain three evenly sized paragraphs.  It keeps the opinion together, but breaks it up so it's not one huge back and forth.  Morphh  (talk) 01:09, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

text: One thing I noticed when rewriting this was the statement of fact regarding it being a federal proposal.  I'm not sure it's due weight, since almost all sources reference the Federal plan, but there also State level bills.  SC for example just introduce a state level plan (H3993) with 64 representatives as co-sponsor.  This may go toward your various meanings, since the plan can reference different bills, depending on if your talking about federal or state tax reform. Morphh  (talk) 01:35, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Fair Tax" is a title, not a description 

message: The 'effects' section contains this line "Opponents offer a study commissioned by the National Retail Federation in 2000 that found a national sales tax bill filed by Billy Tauzin, the Individual Tax Freedom Act (H.R. 2717), would bring a three-year decline in the economy, a four-year decline in employment and an eight-year decline in consumer spending." Tauzin's ITFA was very different from the FairTax proposal. Is it really NPOV and accurate to use criticisms based on a different , but similar sounding proposal?  I've removed it for now, if you put it back in, please explain why you think it is appropriate. 131.111.185.34 (talk) 07:44, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that it's not particularly accurate to use one tax plan to criticize another as if they were the same, but that's to suggest that criticism is always fair or that advocacy is likewise always presented without deception.  Fact is, opponents use this to criticize the plan and we should report their criticism.  It may be a poor argument and a supporter would rebut it as you describe, but it's an argument they make, so we should report it without bias.  A good many criticisms are not based on the plan as it is written.  What we can do for NPOV is to be clear on what it is being compared and let the reader decide if such a comparison is accurate.  If you have a source that states how the plans differ, or how such a comparison is inaccurate, then we can look at including it.  Morphh  (talk) 18:26, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  NRF study on the Tauzin act 

message: Brianyoumans objects to the location of the comment; however as I note and as in true in life key omissions can be tantamount to dishonesty - and this I believe constitutes a key omission (even though it is spelled out later, a casual reader might have already formed an inaccurate opinion before they reach that section - if in fact they ever read that far).  He also objects, saying that he would not "propose that as the motive."  Here I would agree with him partially - certainly no one promoting the FairTax wants to try to promote it by saying, "Hey, let's replace a 23% income tax with a 30% sales tax!"  Both are true; however given full context people are more likely to accept the reasoning behind it.  The chart does help, by the way...
Proposal:  Include FULL disclosure (that the 23% rate is the only way to achieve an apples-to-apples comparison, which is true, and that it undoubtedly was also meant to make the idea more marketable - which everyone expects anyway).  Do it where the rates are first introduced (where I had placed it), and also make it explicit that the 30% rate is shown because that is what people are used to seeing at the cash register.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Breister (talk • contribs) 22:23, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Breister's comments 

message: This site has a reasonably intelligent piece on the Fair Tax and some intelligent comments and discussion. It may not be reference-worthy, but it makes interesting reading, and we might be able to get some ideas there on how to discuss the tax. Brianyoumans (talk) 00:01, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Couple mistakes, but not bad - decent opinion piece. Morphh  (talk) 01:50, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good page 

message: Perhaps more accurate would be to say that the article has been heavily edited and debated by 1) a single pro editor who seems to be devoting her/his life to maintaining a pro-fair-tax-bias to this article, seemingly as much as s/he can get away with (namely Morphh) and 2) a larger number of more occasional and more reasonable editors who would like to see the article have a more balanced inclusion of the con perspective. 71.84.176.53 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 08:21, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:NPA - Rather then discuss the issue, you attack me?  Nice... If you have a dispute then discuss it. I am not here to add bias and have in fact added a great deal of criticism to the article and been praised by some of the most vocal FairTax opponents.  So keep your snide "toolbag" comments to yourself.  I stick around because I don't want to see the quality of the article degrade into partisan misrepresentations and biases from either side.  Your recent edit makes more sense in the total context but it's confusing either way.  Your recent comment suggests round numbers only apply to the sales tax presentation, but the primary figure is the one as written in the legislation.  The 30% is a comparison - a conversion so as not to mislead readers to the equivalent tax rate common with sales taxes.  Either the figures as presented as the tax is written is confusing, or the conversion to it as a sales tax is confusing.  Having it both ways as your prior edit makes it even more confusing.  Perhaps you misunderstand how the tax is to be applied? It's not a common sales tax.  Since we're describing the tax as written, then we should use the round figures as the plan would be implemented, which is similar to an income tax.  We wouldn't present an income tax as you have $130 of income and a 23% tax, would tax you at $30.  We round it to $100 total to make the percentage meet the dollar amount.  Likewise your reasoning with the sales tax figures.  It's the basis of inclusive and exclusive math and the very point of confusion between conversion.  So what is proper?  The way the tax is written and implemented is the focus and should be presented in the least confusing way.  We have an entire section discussing the conversion if the reader is confused.  I would rather remove the figures entirely than present it in this backwards and even more confusing way.  If your goal is less confusion, then the way it was written prior to your edits is the least confusing, as it has stood with the weight of years of discussion and consensus.  Morphh  (talk) 13:15, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I basically agree with User:Morphh here. I think that the Flat Tax sales tax is done the way it is for two reasons: to make a (false) comparison with income tax, and to confuse people who are used to the traditional American "purchase price plus tax" way of quoting it. But, that is the way it is written, and the way that proponents talk about it. The best we can do is make clear what the conversion to "traditional American sales tax" is. I don't feel strongly either way about the specific edit that Morphh reverted; as he says, it is confusing either way. I would blame the Flat Tax authors, but there isn't much we can do about it here.Brianyoumans (talk) 13:33, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

text: To the recent changes, I think they make it perhaps clearer as suggested, but less correct and may introduce a point of view.  If it was just a matter of definition, it might be fine, but that is not the case - it's also a matter of application.  We can make assumptions about the motives, but it is constructed as an inclusive tax, similar to foreign national VAT and GST taxes.  The tax is applied on the receipt as 23% of the total.  It is fine to present the comparison as a point of clarification for people familiar with a state sales tax and unfamiliar with many VAT/GST taxes, but the FairTax is not applied, implemented, defined like a state sales tax.  It's not our place to make this appear as deceptive marketing, though it may be.  Let's not confuse the reader - the rate is 23%.  It is applied to the tax base like this xxx.  If you apply it to the tax base like yyyy (like a US sales tax), then the percentage would be equivalent to 30%.  This is the lead - we need to keep it succinct and not go into detail regarding what might or might not confuse the reader.  They can read the body (an entire section) to explain the method of calculation if they're confused.  I rather have something that is accurate, yet slightly confusing, then the reverse. Morphh  (talk) 17:51, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know, Morphh; I don't find the Fair Tax that much different from a traditional state sales tax; it just has fewer exemptions. And I don't think it is written like a VAT at all - it doesn't have the whole complex mechanism of the tax being applied at various levels and credited back, etc. Basically, I DO find the supposed reasons for saying the rate is 23% phony. But... as I have said in other comments, that is the way it is talked about, and we are stuck with it, and it isn't our job to chastise the authors for their marketing tactics. And, concerning the language that is in dispute here... I think that the old language is in fact clearer than the proposed change - although the new language shows some thought and I appreciate the effort that has been put into it. If we end up using the proposed change, I would replace the first example with "$23 out of each $100 spent" or something like that - I think that would actually make the comparison between the two methods of describing the tax clearer. Brianyoumans (talk) 18:56, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the mechanisms of various levels do not mirror a VAT.  I should have clarified that I was talking about the inclusive / exclusive application.  Many VAT and GST taxes are applied inclusive to the price, not exclusively.  I didn't mean to imply that the FairTax was more like a VAT in regard to how it is applied to business.  I also liked some of the changes suggested, but I'm thinking through how to apply them where it is clear and accurate. Morphh  (talk) 19:02, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

text: I made some changes - does that look any better or worse? haha Morphh  (talk) 19:29, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

text:  We have one on the tax rate article, which presents a 25%/33% example.  I could upload one that would reflect the 23%/30% comparison and place it in the section "Presentation of tax rate" if the image makes the comparision clearer. Morphh  (talk) 22:20, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

text: I made the changes and included the graph.  I used the method presented in the book as discussed earlier in the section, which reflects how the tax is applied and written.  Morphh  (talk) 20:44, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

text: The article includes this opinion prior to the criticism "Linder states the FairTax is presented as a 23% tax rate for easy comparison to income and employment tax rates (the taxes it would be replacing)." and includes rebuttal to the criticism "Proponents believe it is both inaccurate and misleading to say that an income tax is 23% and the FairTax is 30% as it implies that the sales tax burden is higher."  So please clarify why this does not fairly represent the debate.  I don't see that it omits the content that you describe.  Morphh  (talk) 12:44, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rate comparison 

message: I believe that the amounts shown in the table for monthly rebate check are incorrect because they are based on 23% of the poverty level for the various family sizes. Instead, I believe the intent of the bill H.R. 25 Sec 301 and ref. to section 101(a)(1) the 23% would be added to make the GROSS payment = 100%Taking from the table that is shown in the article - taking the "two adult household with 4 children:"the table shows poverty level ( consumption allowance ) $37060 with annual prebate $8524. In my opinion, the calculation should be as follows: $37060 / 0.77 = $48,130, then $48130 - $37060 = $11070 annual prebate; finally 11070 / 12 = $922 monthly rebate check.  MelvilleS (talk) 21:32, October 14, 2012 (UTC)
:In this example, I'm pretty sure $37,060 represents gross payment and the calculation uses a non-accommodation model, which assumes consistent after tax prices.  You are correct that given price changes, the prebate would increase as it is adjusted for inflation.  See Theories of retail pricing for a better understanding of the possible accommodation scenarios.  The material is sourced to the group that designed the plan.  I've updated it for the 2012 figures. Morphh  (talk) 13:47, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The prebate is not based on family income.  It is based on family size.  These figures are sourced from the group that actually wrote the legislation.  You can read the material in this publication The FairTax Prebate Explained.  The annual consumption allowance is based on the 2012 DHHS Poverty Guidelines, which represents the net income level for poverty level spending.  The figure represents gross spending.  For nominal income and spending to remain consistent, it assumes a non-accommodation model - FairTax replaces income taxes, net income and after tax prices stay the same.  $37,060 total spending, includes $8,523 in taxes, offset by $8,524 prebate, meaning the family of four can spend up to $37,060 tax free.  $37,060 is the gross (post tax) consumption, not pre tax.   $48,130 in consumption that you describe ($37,060 * 30%) would represent a 30% rise in prices, if the FairTax was added on top off existing price levels - so no reduction of cost due to the removal of the income tax system (a full accommodation model).  In such a scenario, this would increase the poverty level income / consumption as it adjusts for the inflation, increasing the consumption allowance (prebate value).  Hope that helps explain it.  Morphh  (talk) 19:11, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

text: This may be digressing into WP:NOTFORUM since it falls into WP:OR, but here are my thoughts.  While the consumption allowance may be based on measures of income (and the CPI), it is inappropriate to use the term income to describe what is applied to consumption in this case.  Regardless of the income level (rich or poor), the family size determines how much that family can spend tax free - your income plays no part in your prebate. It is an allowance of consumption based on family size, intended to make such consumption tax free based on an estimation of poverty level spending for that family size.  I think your mistaken calculation can be addressed in this statement "So the dollar amounts in wikipedia table, being income, are not the gross payments that a family would spend, they are 77% of the gross payments that the family would spend (if they spent it all)."  The dollar amounts in the table is based on income and is also the gross payments, 100% of what the family would spend, not 77%.  It is inclusive, meaning the total spending includes the tax (income, gross spending, is 100% of which 23% is tax).  For your net income to remain consistent, which you assume here, then the cost of products decrease by removal of the income tax system, leaving after tax prices essentially the same.  So spending $10,000 post income tax, is equivalent to spending $10,000 post FairTax.  Gross income = Gross spending, taxes are 23% of total spending covered by the prebate. Morphh  (talk) 14:02, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

text: Thinking on a new train of thought... Are you adding the prebate itself as gross spending for the year in calculating the value of that prebate itself?  The prebate is not part of the CPI calculation, so I don't see that as accurate in determining the figure.  If you did add the prebate in, then the CPI itself would adjust to cover that, meaning 23% of that 23%, or just factoring 30% of the original. Morphh  (talk) 14:40, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

text: The sign your posts on talk pages (this page) means to use the four Tilda at the end of your post, which you have done.  Morphh  (talk) 14:02, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Monthly tax rebate 

message: I made a few edits on the name before I realized that in the article, it's spelled "Fair Tax" and "FairTax" in numerous places. So, now I'm not sure whether "FairTax" is incorrect or is just an alternative "acceptable" spelling. Does anyone know why it's spelled both ways in the article? Famspear (talk) 02:52, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It is primarily referred to as the "FairTax" in sources, which includes the plan, movement, etc.  It even has a service mark.  The legislation uses the name '"Fair Tax Act".  So we only separate the name if we're specifically describing the bill and in any other case we use the single word. Morphh  (talk) 16:41, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I figured it was something like that. I was too hasty when I made the edit, and then after looking at the article more carefully (including the name of the article), I realized there was probably a good reason for spelling it both ways. Thanks.... Famspear (talk) 16:51, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fair Tax or FairTax? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on FairTax. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added  tag to http://www.e-aer.org/archive/9103/91030574.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071223203746/http://www.taxfoundation.org:80/blog/show/22815.html to http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/22815.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080910052019/http://www.smithmoorelaw.com/files/Publication/5d712df6-89c8-44fe-9210-0f4a2d957270/Presentation/PublicationAttachment/cbd77110-f7e3-49ed-a5a0-084910a883cf/20080125-dtr-buckley.pdf to http://www.smithmoorelaw.com/files/Publication/5d712df6-89c8-44fe-9210-0f4a2d957270/Presentation/PublicationAttachment/cbd77110-f7e3-49ed-a5a0-084910a883cf/20080125-dtr-buckley.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121217213814/http://www.chp.ca/better-solutions/economy/ to http://www.chp.ca/better-solutions/economy/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090725070137/http://linderfairtax.house.gov:80/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=18 to http://linderfairtax.house.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=18
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070614190654/http://people.bu.edu/kotlikoff/FairTax%20NTJ%20Final%20Version,%20April%2024,%202007.pdf to http://people.bu.edu/kotlikoff/FairTax%20NTJ%20Final%20Version,%20April%2024,%202007.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060901205044/http://people.bu.edu/kotlikoff/w11831.pdf to http://people.bu.edu/kotlikoff/w11831.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080705153552/http://people.bu.edu/kotlikoff/New%20Kotlikoff%20Web%20Page/Revised%20Kotlikoff%20on%20Barlett%201-15-08.pdf to http://people.bu.edu/kotlikoff/New%20Kotlikoff%20Web%20Page/Revised%20Kotlikoff%20on%20Barlett%201-15-08.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080625211525/http://linderfairtax.house.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=Letters.View&ContentRecord_id=313 to http://linderfairtax.house.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=Letters.View&ContentRecord_id=313
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150316210530/http://fairtax-psyclone.netdna-ssl.com/media/attachments/549999512017a86464000320.pdf?1422935460 to http://fairtax-psyclone.netdna-ssl.com/media/attachments/549999512017a86464000320.pdf?1422935460
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:17, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on FairTax. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061108065724/http://www.fairtax.org/PDF/MacroeconomicAnalysisofFairTax.pdf to http://www.fairtax.org/PDF/MacroeconomicAnalysisofFairTax.pdf
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/22815.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://linderfairtax.house.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=18
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://people.bu.edu/kotlikoff/FairTax%20NTJ%20Final%20Version%2C%20April%2024%2C%202007.pdf
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://waysandmeans.house.gov/hearings.asp?formmode=view&id=4429
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.fairtax.org/PDF/Excerpts_from_response_to_tax_panel-103006.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:01, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 10 external links on FairTax. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150205000339/http://woodall.house.gov/issue/fairtax to http://woodall.house.gov/issue/fairtax
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061015083330/http://fairtax.org/PDF/Open_Letter.pdf to http://www.fairtax.org/PDF/Open_Letter.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070614190649/http://www.beaconhill.org/FairTax2006/TaxingSalesundertheFairTaxWhatRateWorks061005.pdf to http://www.beaconhill.org/FairTax2006/TaxingSalesundertheFairTaxWhatRateWorks061005.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070614190708/http://www.fairtax.org/PDF/GaleRebuttal.pdf to http://www.fairtax.org/PDF/GaleRebuttal.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070614190659/http://www.fairtax.org/PDF/JCTRebuttal.pdf to http://www.fairtax.org/PDF/JCTRebuttal.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080702215915/http://www.bakerinstitute.org/publications/ImpactofHR25-TEPP.pdf to http://www.bakerinstitute.org/publications/ImpactofHR25-TEPP.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071102141450/http://www3.brookings.edu/papers/1998/03taxes_gale.aspx to http://www.brookings.edu/papers/1998/03taxes_gale.aspx
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050613180711/http://www.brookings.edu/views/articles/gale/20050516.pdf to http://www.brookings.edu/views/articles/gale/20050516.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071110010854/http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=31824 to http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=31824
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150205000339/http://woodall.house.gov/issue/fairtax to http://woodall.house.gov/issue/fairtax
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:56, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on FairTax. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060831050128/http://boortz.com/nuze/200509/09202005.html to http://boortz.com/nuze/200509/09202005.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:03, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on FairTax. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060826180702/http://boortz.com/nuze/200509/09152005.html to http://boortz.com/nuze/200509/09152005.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070203173646/http://boortz.com/nuze/200605/05252006.html to http://boortz.com/nuze/200605/05252006.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:10, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: It may be time to rewrite parts of this article in, well, past tense. Public interest in and support for the plan appears to be dropping off, perhaps with the decline of the Tea Party movement.Brianyoumans (talk) 19:18, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably so - things like "In recent years" could give the wrong impression to the reader where a year would be clear. Morphh  (talk) 12:12, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Rewrite?

message: Various tags were recently added to the article and I'd like to discuss placement / removal.  It is usually better to address such issues on the talk page before we jump to the last resort of tagging in article space, particularly for one that's been heavily debated, reviewed and stable for years.  I haven't followed this topic for quite some time, so maybe there is new information or studies that I'm unaware of that should be reflected in the article.  If so, let's discuss it. Currently though, I don't see a new consensus on these issues or discussion with examples of each problem area.  If nothing significant is discussed, we should consider it a well intentioned drive-by and remove it.  We can continue to address issues on the talk.  A decent review should also be done when sources are removed for attributed material.  One recent source removed wasn't an op-ed as described in the summary - it was a debate hosted by the think tank that included economists that studied the plan.  It was neither pro nor con and sourced both proponent and opponent viewpoints.   I don't think the content or source material was reviewed - the removal appeared to be solely on the basis of being a free market source.  Morphh  (talk) 20:10, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Seriously? This article reads like tea party erotic fan fiction. Do feel free to clean it up by removing the far-right think tanks and adding robust discussion in independent (i.e. not libertarian fundamentalist house journal) scholarly sources. Guy (Help!) 22:39, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Seriously is also what I'm thinking.  The tea party wasn't even around when this article was written and Von Mises called it a fraud.  Look, I get it - I help clean up the economics project when it was being overrun with Austrian economics and nonsensical information.  So I'm well aware of the ref-spamming and am not opposed to your cause, but not every article needs the machete approach.  Happy to remove think tank sources if they're used improperly or there are better sources that represent the viewpoint within the scope of the article.  But removal needs to be consistent with policy - the sources included likely represent significant topic viewpoints or research done on the plan.  I'm not aware of any new research or the robust discussion you're referring, so if you could please provide links to the independent scholarly sources are you speaking of and provide some specific examples and evidence, we can discuss it properly.  If we can't come to agreement, we can hold an RFC on the topic or FAR of the article.  Morphh  (talk) 14:33, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

text: Having had this article on my watch list for many years, I am reluctantly forced to agree with Morphh. Most of the research on this has been done by conservative economists who are favorable to the idea. Others have basically ignored it. I think we have as much balance here as we can get. Improvements are welcome. Brianyoumans (talk) 00:11, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi. Sorry I'm a drive by editor who looked this up because I was trying to figure out what it was (this is how I edit wikipedia, sorry) and the fairtax.org website isn't very straightforward and I came here and was disappointed to find that this is basically a bunch of historical cut and paste from similar sources. So, I tried to clean up the first paragraph a bit and I think it helped some but it really could use a better overview. It read like the Ancient wikipedia of the early 2000s with the: "proponents say this..." "opponents say this..." (which was a style I use to enjoy when it was done well... but I am old and wikipedia isn't supposed to read like that kind of advocacy anymore) and the "opponents" sections were pretty thin. I tried to just tamp down some of the promotional language in the proponent section. I don't really have enough of a stake in this to do more research and edit the rest of the article. So I put the UNBALANCED tag at the top. I agree with most of the above discussion, probably most of the info is from proponents of this cause so mostly it should be their own words but leave out the adcopy and have a little perspective with links to relevant context aka flat tax issues and the kind of political movement that the advocates are part of. And I don't think Stable should be conflated with Overlooked. It does need improvement, not just for bias but also update ---a lot of it reads like it's promoting a contemporary movement when it seems most of the action petered off 10 years ago. Thank you muchly to whomever finds it and continue the work. Rusl (talk) 09:35, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Tagging

message: This article has an  tag, and also much uncited text. Does it really meet the Featured Article criteria? -- Politicsfan4 (talk) 17:15, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  FA criteria not met