Talk:FairTax/Archive 5

message: I'm moving some information to the talk page that requires sources.  Normally, we would just add a cite needed tag but I wanted a clean article for WP:GA. Once sourced, we can move them back into the article. Morphh 14:41, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't have in mind TurboTax (which is from Intuit, which has other products, and can absorb some of their personnel elsewhere), but rather companies like Drake Software (the one that I'm familiar with), which, as far as I know, deals entirely with tax preparers, not consumers, and thus would probably fail completely if FairTax passes.  The numbers of people involved may be relatively small, but they still add towards the disruption. --Scott McNay 05:21, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: True - Intuit's Quickbooks does sales tax stuff, so they would invest their resources there if needed.  The income tax industry described make their living off of the complexity of the tax code.  In that sense, any reform to simplify the tax system is a threat to there business.  This raises the counterpoint - Is anyone arguing for a complex tax system?  While sympathetic to employee transitions, these businesses live off the pain, complexity, and compliance of the system.  Any reform designed to reduce complexity, pain, and compliance is therefor going to effect the income tax industry.  Meaning that while currently productive, their efforts are (respectfully) wasteful use of the country's resources and would be better served elsewhere in the economy.  So whatever we put in this section will need to be offset for POV with such content as just about everyone wants to simplify the system.  The more you simplify, the more people in the current industry will be affected.  These changes and loss of employment are the natural process of competitive business and can be historically shown that resources are reallocated to other productive endeavors.  I do think it is good that we include this section though.  I've heard the criticism from my own Congressmen (though he was probably thinking of his tax lobbyist friends or his job after retirement ;-p).  We didn't stop the creation of the car because we were worried about the buggy makers. haha  Such are valid counter-points that could probably be included if we can find references. Morphh (talk) 14:38, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I view this as a transition effect only.  Realistically, with free preparation of certain types of forms via the internet, and the increasing pervasiveness of the internet, I think the income tax prep business is headed downhill anyway.  No need to reply, just wanted to clarify my point.  --Scott McNay 23:06, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I added the "Income tax industry" section as it was ready to be included in my view.  I had forgoten about it with all the recent activity and was reminded by the anon post.  Removing it from above.  Morphh (talk) 05:19, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sections that need sources 

message: It is also suggested that because new goods would be taxed and used goods not taxed, that consuming trends could shift significantly enough that a cultural shift would occur transforming the U.S. mass consumer culture from desire for disposable everything to re-useable everything; from consumer preference for disposable goods to more durable, re-usable goods. The significant monetary incentive to re-use things, avoid disposable things, and to care much better for the things consumers already own and fix things rather than scrap them for new could shift the U.S. consumer culture from one of a "disposable society" to one of reuse. This would consequently have an impact on environmental consumerism trends, encouraging growth in sustainable living practices.
</DIV>
: I didn't have in mind TurboTax (which is from Intuit, which has other products, and can absorb some of their personnel elsewhere), but rather companies like Drake Software (the one that I'm familiar with), which, as far as I know, deals entirely with tax preparers, not consumers, and thus would probably fail completely if FairTax passes.  The numbers of people involved may be relatively small, but they still add towards the disruption. --Scott McNay 05:21, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: True - Intuit's Quickbooks does sales tax stuff, so they would invest their resources there if needed.  The income tax industry described make their living off of the complexity of the tax code.  In that sense, any reform to simplify the tax system is a threat to there business.  This raises the counterpoint - Is anyone arguing for a complex tax system?  While sympathetic to employee transitions, these businesses live off the pain, complexity, and compliance of the system.  Any reform designed to reduce complexity, pain, and compliance is therefor going to effect the income tax industry.  Meaning that while currently productive, their efforts are (respectfully) wasteful use of the country's resources and would be better served elsewhere in the economy.  So whatever we put in this section will need to be offset for POV with such content as just about everyone wants to simplify the system.  The more you simplify, the more people in the current industry will be affected.  These changes and loss of employment are the natural process of competitive business and can be historically shown that resources are reallocated to other productive endeavors.  I do think it is good that we include this section though.  I've heard the criticism from my own Congressmen (though he was probably thinking of his tax lobbyist friends or his job after retirement ;-p).  We didn't stop the creation of the car because we were worried about the buggy makers. haha  Such are valid counter-points that could probably be included if we can find references. Morphh (talk) 14:38, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I view this as a transition effect only.  Realistically, with free preparation of certain types of forms via the internet, and the increasing pervasiveness of the internet, I think the income tax prep business is headed downhill anyway.  No need to reply, just wanted to clarify my point.  --Scott McNay 23:06, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I added the "Income tax industry" section as it was ready to be included in my view.  I had forgoten about it with all the recent activity and was reminded by the anon post.  Removing it from above.  Morphh (talk) 05:19, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recycling 

message: The FairTax will not "eliminate" the IRS, as economist Laurence Vance correctly points out:  http://www.mises.org/story/1814 The FairTax will still have to be "collected" and the collection of that tax will have to be overseen by someone.  While the proposal would most certainly eliminate some IRS jobs, the notion that the IRS will simply "go away" as a result of the passage of the FairTax is an incorrect one, as is known by anyone who has bothered to read HR 25.  While I believe there are many valid reasons to oppose the FairTax, the elimination of IRS jobs isn't one of them. Ray Ash 10:00, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Mr. Vance and you are incorrect.  During the transition, many or most of the employees of the IRS (105,978 in 2005) would face loss of employment.  The IRS is eliminated and a Sales Tax Bureau is created to federally administer and oversee the state level enforcement.  This is not even close to the same thing, which Mr. Vance implies.  With an 80% reduction in filers and enforcement being handled by an already existing State enforcement agency, you don't even come close to "restructuring" the IRS.  Linking any federal administration tax agency (no mater what the size or shape) to the IRS is nonsensical.  It is almost a funny claim coming from the Libertarian camp.  Under this definition, the size of the government doesn't matter as it is still "the government", which we know their main platform is the size of the government - go figure.  (See Income tax industry for the topic of IRS employment).  Morphh  (talk) 16:29, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So because we're not calling these tax collectors "the IRS" anymore that means the "IRS" has been eliminated?  The chutzpah required to make such a claim is downright admirable.  "Many or most of the employees of the IRS" face "loss of employment?"  Can you qualify that statement further?  "Most" could be interpreted as any number > 50%, and "many" is entirely subjective.  And, yes...the "IRS" will be eliminated as an entity in and of itself...to be replaced by the "STB" with an (obviously) much smaller staff.  Nobody, including Mr. Vance, is disputing this.  Do you not agree that many existing IRS staff members would be logical choices to work for this "new" bureaucracy?  Also, your post above reads like a contradiction.  If "enforcement" is truly to be "handled by an already existing State enforcement agency" then why the need to create the "new" "Sales Tax Bureau (STB)?" (Incidentally, it is just this type of semantical two-step that keeps people like myself from supporting this bill).Ray Ash 21:39, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What definition do you use to define the "IRS"?  Are you debating the semantics of what a federal tax agency is called regardless of the size, function, or impact on liberty?  Obviously the government would make use of existing employees to construct the new agency (why would they fire good employees to hire new unknown ones).  The Beacon Hill Institute estimate is that the federal government would be able to cut $8 billion from the FY 2007 IRS budget of $11.01 billion.  So from strictly a size / budget aspect, this would be a reduction of 73%.  There is no contradiction in my statement.  A federal STB is required to oversee the collection, administration, and enforcement being accomplished by the States and administer other federal taxes which are not repealed (excise).  There obviously has to be some federal entity to accomplish this oversight and administration.  It seems your stance is that since there is something at the federal level that administers taxation for the government - it is the "IRS".  While I guess this point could be argued, I'm not sure I see the relation.  Even the utopian libertarian desire of voluntary taxation would require a government tax agency for administration.  For balanced reading, I suggest Honk if you oppose a Fairer Tax!, which is a response to Vance that follows the ideals of libertarian philosophy. Morphh  (talk) 00:22, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Clearly one of us is "debating semantics," and I am pretty certain that it is not me. :)  If I own a pig farm containing ten pigs, and I kill off seven of the pigs and then subsequently refer to the three remaining pigs as "hogs," I have not "eliminated" my pig population.  Silly analogy, I know, but there is a point contained in it that you continue to miss.  Will the new "STB" be smaller is scale than the existing IRS?  Yes, at least at first.  Will the new "STB" be less intrusive than the IRS?  Most likely, yes.  Again, nobody is debating these points.  My original point still stands, however:  There is no need for handwringing over "massive job losses" by IRS personnel, especially given that 25% of these jobs are set to be eliminated painlessly through attrition (which you correctly pointed out above) AND the fact that the new "STB" will need to pull labor from somewhere...the most logical choice being from the pool of former IRS personnel.Ray Ash 14:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I get your point - there will still be a tax man (and there always will be).  You'll never get rid of all the pigs (as you put it).  However, I don't see that this article states that the FairTax would "eliminate" the IRS.  I debated the point in this talk just as a matter of legal entity, size, function, and intrusiveness but such conversation would probably be better suited for a blog like FairTax Groups.   Morphh  (talk) 15:23, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: IRS

message: I have in mind noting in the introduction that existing tax credits, deductions, and the like, based as they are on the income tax, would go away.  This may be worth a paragraph or two of discussion in the body, maybe an entire section, since this could have some surprising results.  Is there any reference showing all such credits and deductions, and their amounts, and how much they affect the governmental coffers?  I'm sure that examples can be found of some products and/or services which would probably change price very significantly once the embedded taxes and credits are removed. --Scott McNay 03:06, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "...your employer is going to have to make a decision. He will either take some or the entire amount he had been withholding for federal income and payroll taxes and add it to your weekly check, or he will readjust your pay figures so that your entire paycheck will be equal to what you used to call "take home pay" before the FairTax."
...I still think that they didnt't think this through before saying it ("Hmm, looks like the FairTax bill will is going to pass next month; I think I need to go to 0 exemptions"), but it makes me wonder if there would be any real difference between the two after prices have stabilized. --Scott McNay 03:06, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thoughts 

message: My complaint with the second paragraph is that the short terms don't really tell the readers anything concrete; "international business locality" was a biggie for me; I took a stab at what it meant, and either I got it right or you took a stab at agreeing. :)  Some of those terms, you might consider just tossing entirely.  Some of the other items, such as for savings and investment, I added because they could be summarized in a small handful of words.  The second paragraph also tended to read more like it's intended for someone familiar with technical tax/economy terms.  I'd like to have as much of the technical stuff as possible reworded, without losing any info or making any economists throw up.  Some of the terms like "marginal" I had to look up; might want to add "long-term" or something like that in parentheses at the beginning of each main section where it's used.  While it may be the correct technical term in the field, "marginal" just doesn't feel (to me) like a word that means "the effective tax rate over the entire year".  "Marginal" usually tends to have a connotation of "unimportant" for me.  Sounds more like a term that a politician would use in legislation, and create a custom meaning for in the definitions section. :) --Scott McNay 12:35, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand what you're saying - I think we used those terms as they reflected the section headers that use to be in this article but were split to "Predicted effects of the FairTax".  While we could toss the terms, we probably still need to include the idea as it is part of the summarization aspect of the intro. I also agree with "marginal" and have avoided using it - the marginal FairTax rate is 23% with a 0% marginal rate on savings.  Morphh (talk) 15:21, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  2nd para 

message: The compensation for low-income workers is certainly not approved by all economists; see Speenhamland for the reasons (the historical doubts on the Old Poor Law do not affect the theoretical point.) Septentrionalis 21:15, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ? - Sorry, what are you talking about?  Morphh (talk) 22:21, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Speenhamland

message: There is a far greater number of associations supporting the tax listed than associations opposing the tax, in the external links section. A little problem, in my opinion. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 20:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Associations supporting and opposing the FairTax 

message: I think we've improved the article significantly in terms of NPOV, so I'm going to read through the article once more to check for POV issues, and if I find none, I'll remove the tag. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 17:39, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If your at this point, you should probably remove it.  Not having the tag does not mean absence of POV issues.  Articles like this are sure to be in constant debate.  We'll still work on them and I'm sure we'll find some.  The point of the tag is that the entire article is missing significant points of view from reliable sources.  Morphh (talk) 14:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I still see too many issues with POV. There's more work to be done. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 06:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why don't you share so we can work on these together... While I don't think the tag reflects the article state or justification for use, reducing/correcting/removing all POV disputes is certainly a goal of every editor here, which we'll continue to do after the tags removal.  What is your definition of the tags use and criteria for removal?  Please expand on the issues that you're describing.  Thanks  Morphh (talk) 15:55, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Removing POV banner - it has been on the article for over a month and we still do not have any points / examples as to why the article is POV (does not contain significant viewpoints).  While we need to work on balance and will continue to do so as points are brought forward, the entire article does not fall under the intention of this banner.  We've made several changes and added new section that addresses such points.  We may still have POV issues to deal with and we'll address each as such is brought to the attention of the editors.  The banner is not necessary or intended for such disputes.  Morphh (talk) 17:58, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I say it's still POV. The article gives vastly more weight to pro-FairTax arguments than to anti-FairTax ones. For example I see sections about "Predicted benefits" and "Supporting theories", but none relating to opposing theories or predicted negative effects. No, the article doesn't read like it was pulled straight from Bootz's FairTax book, but it's still got too much POV. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.203.209.0 (talk) 08:45, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Supporting theories is not a pro-FairTax section.  It discusses theories involved in the debate.  Support in this instance does not mean FairTax support but theories of economics.  Predicted benefits describe areas that are not really disputed.  There are sections in transition effects and other effects that would be considered "anti-FairTax".  "NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all (by example, the article on the Earth only very briefly refers to the Flat Earth theory, a view of a distinct minority). We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view, and views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties." from  on 3 October 2006. Morphh  (talk) 13:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

text: By the way, in regards to your comparison of opposing views of the FairTax to believers in the Flat Earth, those who oppose the FairTax are easily in the majority. Their viewpoints should be expressed more than proponents, according to WP:NPOV. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 17:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The fix I made is minor and is only a temporary patch. Opponents' views still need to be better represented. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 17:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The flat earth thing was nothing that I compared.  It was a quote from the NPOV page - nothing more, nothing less.  I was not implying such.  As far as those that oppose the FairTax being in the majority, I can only use what is published and the information from the claimed opponents is included.  You can not define opponents as the non-proponents.  Proponents are those for it.  Opponents are those against it.  Then you have everyone else.  Truth is that there is a lot more positive research then negative and the negative research is usually not the FairTax but an alternate RST.  But on to the edits...  I left some of the changes as they were good copyedits.  However, a couple of sentence additions didn't make sense.  The one in the lead has already been discussed and agreed on and you were adding duplication as it states the same thing in the next paragraph.  The lead needs to be concise and not duplicate information.  The second sentence was not supported by the ref.  These two never reviewed purchasing power and their studies were performed prior to the study which it claimed to refute.  I added additional information though from the tax panel to hopefully satisfy your thoughts on balance.   Morphh  (talk) 20:04, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The tone of the article still favors the FairTax. The sentences I added may have already been stated or are to be stated later, but without them the article reads like this: "Proponent argument. Opponent argument. Opponent argument discredited, end of story." I'm fine with leaving the second sentence out, but the first must stay. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 21:30, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This sentence is not supported by the reference.  There is nothing that states that these programs would not be adequately funded (they're mandatory funded programs).  We're not talking about funding at all here.  We're talking about the legislation of these programs.  (See Talk:FairTax#Lead_section_2, where an admin / bureaucrat agrees).  Funding is discussed in the next paragraph - "However, critics argue that it could be difficult to collect, having challenges with tax evasion, and that it may not yield enough money for the government, resulting in cuts to governmental programs, increased deficit, or a higher tax rate."  This is a true statement as it does not define the programs and specifies other methods of dealing with shortfalls.  Morphh  (talk) 21:51, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I realize that you're talking about legislation here, but one of the largest criticisms of the FairTax is that it would not be revenue-neutral, and if it was implemented and taxes were not to be raised, there would be no other option but to cut some governmental programs. This criticism is stated in the Money Magazine article (and probably in the Gale article too), and it needs to appear as soon as it is stated that governmental programs would not be directly affected by the tax. The beaurocrat said that he was satisfied with your revision, but for all we know, he may prefer mine. Regardless, one's status as an administrator/beaurocrat does not bolster one's arguments. An anonymous user has just as much credibility as steward. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 23:44, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There would be other options other then cut government programs.  We could increase the deficit for the shortfall year, we could raise the tax rate to a revenue neutral value, or any combination of these actions.  In addition, you are not stating that it may cut government programs but the sentence implies that it would cut Social Security and Medicare programs.  This is original research and not supported by the reference provided, so it fails verification.  Even the phrase of "government programs" (used generically) may be a problem.  "Government spending" would be more accurate as programs generally imply non-discretionary spending (54% of budget - Social Security, Medicare, federal potion of Medicaid, etc.), which is very unlikely to be decreased in any shortfall situation (hence the name non-discretionary).  Discretionary spending (39% of budget - pork barrel projects, military, etc.) would be the source of government cutbacks. What the article states is that it "wouldn't raise enough money".  It does not mention government programs.  Your added sentence also does not state that critics are making the claim.  There is economic research available (not calculated in the rate) that shows that it would actually be a gain to the government and fully fund these programs for the future (which the current system can not do).  Of course, I did not include this aspect as it is not the intent of the sentence. Let me pose the intent of the sentence to you and perhaps you can reword it without introducing aspects of funding and duplicating the third paragraph that discusses revenue neutrality.  Many people incorrectly think that if you get rid of Social Security and Medicare taxes then you are getting rid of the Social Security and Medicare programs.  Of course, the answer is no.  It is a FAQ that I thought should be addressed in the lead.  Now I understand that you're trying to say... "but there could be shortfalls in funding that could indirectly effect these programs" and you want to say it as soon as government programs are mentioned.  However, it is unsupportable in this context and there are equally valid POV points that are being excluded in the context.  I'd consider removing the SS & Medicare legislation sentence all together but I do think it is an important point to clarify.  Perhaps this can be reorganized to place this sentence closer to the criticism of funding and still provide good prose and flow.  As it is now, the sentence can not stay based on several of the policy problems discussed above.  My point of referencing the bureaucrat was not that he has more weight but that they are generally neutral and fair (and it was another voice in the discussion).  What he was agreeing with was that a follow on statement (of funding) was not needed if we were just discussing legislative changes. Morphh  (talk) 21:39, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright, if you move the "While the FairTax would repeal Social Security..." sentence to the third paragraph, I think I would consider that a satisfactory fix. You must understand my concern, that some readers would see "it would not change...these government programs" as "but there's no way the FairTax would cause social security or medicare to be repealed!" While it would not directly change the programs, it would require either a raised tax rate or decreased spending, if it was not revenue neutral. And what is the first thing that a Republican-controlled would do? Well, they wouldn't raise taxes. As the FairTax would never fly without a Republican majority in Congress, the consequence would be decreased spending. Simple logic, and I'm sure Gale would agree. Anyway, I prefer not to seed any idea, pro- or anti-FairTax, without a counterpoint in close proximity. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 23:35, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I tried to reorganize that sentence into the third paragraph but it just didn't flow well.  This paragraph is a proponent / opponent piece and a statement of what the bill does not do for clarification just didn't provide brilliant prose in this area.  I thought it better to just removed the problem sentence.  If readers are confused on this issue, they will figure it out as they read through the article or they can get clarification at one of the external linked sites.  Perhaps I'll try again later to add it back in and move things around to get a good transition that can put the sentences together well.  Morphh  (talk) 02:01, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I reorganized the lead to try and address this and since our middle paragraph was looking a little thin (due to this and another removal).  I moved the criticism that was in the thrid paragraph to the second paragraph.  I then moved the SS & Medicare statement to the third paragraph.  While they are still not close together, the criticism is before the comment.  I'm not sure if this makes it any better for you but It did not flow well otherwise and I did not want to create bad prose to include the statement.  If this is acceptable, cool... if not, go ahead and remove the sentence again. Morphh  (talk) 15:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I went ahead and deleted it.  The changed didn't seem to address your objection and I'm not sure it fit very well with the lead.  Oh well...  If it did look ok to you, maybe we could reword it to read better but I'm not going to worry about it too much. Morphh  (talk) 15:13, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is ok as it now stands. It's discussed later in the article, anyway. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 23:20, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, we have bits about opposition to the FairTax in the article. But they seem suspiciously cursory compared to the entire sections dedicated to arguments supporting it. If we go into detail about the predicted benefits, we should go into detail about the predicted problems as well. 71.203.209.0 03:58, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That section is no longer titled predicted benefits - poor title choice.  It was only titled that way as most of the economic benefits are not refuted, even by opponents.  However, there is criticism where available in that section.  What predicted problems are not represented in the article that have been published from a reliable source?  Each area addresses a particular topic and includes proponent and opponent views.  Jimbo has stated that criticism should be distributed throughout the article and not grouped into sections of pro / con.  We have done this by addressing topics and providing the views that are available.  Wikipedia can't be blamed if proponents have a better argument, a longer argument, more data, or whatever you profess that makes this article seem to be bias.  NPOV states that all views from a reliable source should be included.  If this article fails to include such a view, please let us know and we will add it.  I'm happy to work on tone if you find something that is discussed in a biased way - please provide specifics.  On a side note.... As a heavy editor and the founder of WikiProject Taxation, I've read and edited my share of taxation articles.  In fact, I'm probably one of the top contributors to taxation articles on english Wikipedia.  I say this as while you may see me as some FairTax supporter nut, I have a large history that shows me to be neutral across the board.  While I prefer the FairTax over the current system in the United States, I do my best to edit them all in a neutral way with the information available.  This article is a focus for me as it is very close to FA nomination and I want to see it promoted.  I find it odd that you're firm here in your POV stance (without providing anything), and yet I don't see you posting on all the other tax articles like income tax (which has tons and tons of public criticism - enough to write an entire article).  As far as taxation articles, I think this article is one of the best at presenting both points of view and available criticism.  IMHO, the information has bias against the FairTax as it includes criticism that is not based on the FairTax, which greatly confuses the issue.  However, this does not translate into a biased Wikipedia article, which requires this information.  Morphh  (talk) 15:36, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing the POV tag 

message: It is possible to create the FairTax and allow privatized Social Security with FairTax. Just create a system of tamper-proof Social Security Investment Account Cards that you either sweep/enter a PIN when you perform a monetary transaction. It would be insignifigant if someone discovered it because the only way they could use it would be to put more money in your account. They could try to use it to withdraw money from the account, but that would fail because you would likely be required to have some sort of biometric scan to withdraw funds for extra protection. This is an extremely viable opportunity and the combination of the two would economically revitalize America for several decades. 
:Interesting thought though I don't think we could put this in the article unless you know of a reliable source for the reference that discusses this concept.  Morphh (talk) 14:37, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Social Security privatization and FairTax 

message: Since adding the section "Income tax industry", the "Transition effects" section is now a decent size.  The thought just occurred to me that we could summary style this and include it into the Predicted effects of the FairTax article.  This may help address Cielomobile's concern with regard to that article not having enough criticism of the FairTax.  Since most of the Transition effects section is criticism and part of the "Other indirect effects" in that article are criticism, this should provide the needed balance that Cielomobile suggests.  The criticisms would still remain in this article, just in a summarized format with reference to the other article.  It would help this article by reducing size.  Thoughts... Morphh (talk) 18:49, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok - I've moved forward with this idea.  At the moment, we still need to summarize this section but I've already placed it in the other article and set up the structure. Morphh (talk) 23:46, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Summary split "Transition effects"

message: :Image:Fairtax-dollars.png
This image shows that the wealthy (top 20%, it looks like) benefit from the sales tax plan described by the table, and everyone else pays more.  This would seem to disagree with the general tone elsewhere in the article indicating that the "lower" 80% would generally benefit.  This should be resolved.  If the diagram is not for the FairTax, then this should be clearly mentioned.  --Scott McNay 05:16, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your correct Scott, this is not of the FairTax but of a Hybrid National Sales Tax presented by the presedential tax panel.  It is noted in the caption but perhaps not plainly that this is not the FairTax plan.  This chart would follow what the critics claim in the article as they base their arguments of burden shift (from high to low) on studies that are not the FairTax.  If you look at the discussion "Thoughts on rewriting introduction", I created a table that shows the difference in what they compare. I'm working on a new graph that is based on a study of the FairTax (using tables shown in Distribution of the FairTax burden).  However, there was debate around changing images for POV reasons (see "Distribution of tax burden" discussion in this talk page).  BTW - Glad to see you off your Wikibreak.  Morphh  (talk) 14:08, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I replaced the image with one that studies the FairTax per the legislation. Morphh  (talk) 20:33, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Apparent discrepancy 

message: I submit that the Grassroots Movement, listing so prominently the links to all the pro-FairTax sites, is really an advertisement for those sites, borderline spam. It's written totally uncritically and with a promotional bent. The rest of the article does a good job of balancing FairTax's description with its criticisms. Why no discussion of the criticism that the "grassroots" movement is primarily AstroTurf? WP is not for lists of links. Jaysbro 18:52, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the sentence that linked two popular grassroots sites and removed another sentence that commented on the Boortz show.  I'm not sure where you get the idea that such is Astroturf. I have watched it grow as a grassroots for many years.  Sounds like OR but if you have a reliable source for this opinion, we can include it.  Morphh  (talk) 21:10, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I was a bit confused about the "all the pro-FairTax sites" you were refering.  I only found two in that section, which I removed.  I'm thinking the list of links that you mentioned are on the Americans For Fair Taxation article, which lists the state sites and popular grassroots sites.  Those links do not fall under the scope of this article but I believe they do fall under the scope of that article.  Morphh  (talk) 21:25, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Grassroots Movement" section is a thinly disguised ad 

message: Source: http://www.geocities.com/kmar86/PensionPoolingPlan.xls
:Image:PensionPoolingPlan.png
Kmarinas86 01:42, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure here is the best place to debate the merits of tax reform proposals.  Some comparisons between a flat tax and national sales tax can be drawn from this article and the flat tax article.  You may want to consider including the EZtax under "Flat tax proposals", if it has been introduced into Congress.  If you have enough content, you could create an EZtax article.  If you do, please post it into new tax articles so the project is aware of its addition.   Morphh  (talk) 14:17, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: EZtax

message: Should taxes (or lack thereof) of online purchases be mentioned, and Fairtax's effect on it? - 71.34.10.45 06:50, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see how Internet shopping is different under the federal system.  Such a business is like any other business currently paying federal income taxes and switching to a sales tax.  Online U.S. businesses will be required to collect the FairTax on their sales.  They are not exempt under the current tax system and they would not be under the FairTax.  I haven't seen any research that discusses the distinction.  I think you may be thinking of State sales taxes.  Please explain what you mean and how you think it should be included.  Morphh  (talk) 15:47, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Internet Shopping

message: I've read the fair-tax book and HR25 and I've yet to come to a clear understanding of how the Fairtax will handle real estate. For example, let's say I own some land (pre-fairtax). I sell that land to a developer for $2mil dollars (post-fairtax). Obviously land is "used" so there is no sales tax. Now let's say the developer builds a 1mil (cost to build) building on the land. He then sells the land and the building for $4million. Would the Fairtax apply to the whole $4 million? This type of scenario is what scares me about the FairTax. I'm afraid it would devolve into a value-added tax. I haven't been able to find any detailed discussion of this on the web or in the book. Can someone enlighten me to how the Fairtax would handle this scenario?
:The entire land value is not taxed, only the portion on which the new home is built when the new home is sold.  There will be no delineation between the actual land value itself and the house.  For example, if you buy a 1 acre lot for $100,000 and you build a house on 0.1 acres of that lot, you will not be subject to a FairTax on $10,000 worth of that land, but just on the cost of the home you purchase from a builder. Morphh  (talk) 01:14, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is that computation listed anywhere in HR25? I think that would be a worth while discussion: How do you compute Fairtax for partly-used items. It seems like to me the developer could assign all of the gain in worth to the land value appreciating and say that the building was only worth $500k and pay it on that. I still don't see all of the steps that would be necessary to sell land along with a development. They would most likely be one-title and be a single sale. I can think of another type of company that might avoid the Fairtax. Let's say you take buy old used computers on the cheap.. refurbish them.. clean them up.. install Linux and resell them. Would no fairtax be assessed due to the Used nature.. or would the services put into the computers render them new according to the Fairtax?75.132.24.225 04:36, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think the FairTax assesses a tax on services rendered, so they'd be untaxed. FCYTravis 06:32, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Glad you have interest in the FairTax but Wikipedia is not the best place to pose questions such as this.  Wikipedia talk is for discussing the article.  Some of the group boards would be a better place to pose your questions.  In fact, here is a thread about the land question. Morphh  (talk) 12:49, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Real Estate 

message: Proponents ought to be honest and forthright in their arguments. All sales taxes in the United States are, and have always been, described in a tax-exclusive form - as a percentage of the price of the goods purchased. No amount of obfuscation can change that fact. The "FairTax" doesn't get a special exception from that just because its supporters realize that a 30 percent sales tax, on top of existing state taxes (up to 9 percent) sounds like (and is) a big number. So, support that big number with arguments - don't try to hide it with rate calculations that are completely opposite those used anywhere else in the world of sales taxation. FCYTravis 02:05, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This isn't a matter of being honest or forthright.  It is not an argument.  The legislation defines the rate at 23%.  We don't know that this tax will not be implemented as an inclusive tax like European sales taxes.  Excise taxes are essentially inclusive sales taxes (albeit hidden from the receipt).  Yes - state sales taxes have been traditionally represented as an "exclusive" rate but the FairTax is not.  This encyclopedia article is about the legislation first and formost before any POV discussion.  The rate defined in H.R.25 is 23% - period.  You may have the POV that it should be 30% based on State history of presentation.  This is fine and the reason that it is in the same sentence as the legislative rate.  It is not a matter of POV - we're presenting both sides.  It is also not necessary to include all this extra information in the lead.  We have very little space to cover a summary of the article - adding terms of inclusive and exclusive is not needed and adds confusion without full explanation (see prior FAC).  Your edits are non-neutral and very clearly have your tone that the rate is dishonest, an obfuscation, and not forthright - which is clearly not the goal (particularly in the lead).  The article first defines what the legislation is and then can state what the perception, criticism, or objections are.  This is how the article was written.  Morphh  (talk) 02:47, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Let me also state that I don't disagree that the 23% rate can be deceptive.  The reason for the presentation is less about the size of the number and much more about the equally (or more) dishonest aspect of comparing sales rates to income tax rates.  I find it can be just as deceptive to present a 30% rate, as most have little reference to compare it to the taxes they are replacing and wrongly determine (based on that comparison) that the FairTax would be a much higher tax burden (which I believe to be the main intent of opponents in using this rate).  I think we have done a good job in the article explaining this difference but such a description is not defined (nor should it be) in the lead.  My point is that both views are valid and deceptive without context.  It is obvious that the defined and highly published rate is 23%, hence the large opponent contention that it is 30%.  I'll work with you on wording but for Wikipedia to be neutral, it must present the legislative and primarily publicized rate first and then specify the other presentation. Morphh  (talk) 14:26, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Obfuscation of reality

message: I wanted to get some comments on having the statement about the 16th Amendment in the lead.  It was just changed again by Anon IP 134.39.61.176 and has been changed by others including myself.  So let me lay out what we have and we can make a decision on if we want to keep the statement.  
Revisions:
# "and could have challenges with the permanent repeal of income taxation."
# "and could have challenges with the permanent repeal of income taxation (Sixteenth Amendment)."
# "Additionally, it may be difficult to permanently eliminate income taxation, as it would require a constitutional amendment to aggressively repeal the Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution."
# "Additionally, it may be difficult to permanently eliminate income taxation, as it would require a constitutional amendment to aggressively repeal the Sixteenth Amendment."
# "Additionally, it may be difficult to permanently eliminate income taxation, as it would require a constitutional amendment."
# "Additionally, it may be difficult to permanently eliminate income taxation, as it would require a constitutional amendment to remove Congress' power to levy income taxes granted by the 16th amendment."
# "Additionally, it may be difficult to permanently eliminate income taxation, as it would require a constitutional amendment."
# "Additionally, it may be difficult to permanently eliminate income taxation, as it would require a constitutional amendment in order to eliminate the 16th Amendment"
I think I'm probably the one that made edits 1,2,3,4,5, & 7.  6 & 8 were made by other users.
We have two problems with including the 16th Amendment in the lead.  First is that the 16th Amendment does not give congress the power to levy income taxes.  Courts have ruled that Congress has this power without the 16th Amendment and thus the FairTax calls for an aggressive repeal, which would also specifiy that no future income taxes could be levied.  The 16th does give certain power on all derived income and the appropriation amoung the States but we certainly don't want to get into all this.   So we're at the issue that editors want to state that the constitutional amendment is to eliminate the 16th, which it is... but not entirely as stated above.  I'm looking at this from a point of accuracy and the sentence as written is not completely accurate when you get into the specifics.  #4 would be the most accurate and including the 16th.  However, there is the second thought.  Do we need to specify the 16th Amendment at all or is #5/7 sufficent?  We had a comment in the last FAC that stated "The reference to "the 16th amendment" will mean nothing to non-Americans, and probably to many Americans, too. A phrase or two explaining it?"  My thought is "That's what the Wikilink is for.." but anyway.  We certainly don't have enough room nor do I think we should explain it in the FairTax lead.  So again my thought is - why have it in the lead as I'm not sure it adds anything and could be confusing.  I'm either for 4 or 5 (probably prefer 5) but I wanted to get some other thoughts.  Thanks Morphh  (talk) 01:31, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My thoughts are that #5/7 are sufficient. However, I would personally write it as "Additionally, it may be difficult to permanently eliminate income taxation, as it would require a constitutional amendment to repeal the Sixteenth Amendment, which grants government the power to collect income taxes." Again, though, it is but a trifle. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 02:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the comments.  This is part of the confusing part.  My understanding is that the 16th does not grant government the power to collect income taxes.  The orignal constitution does according to court rulings.  The current interpretation is that the 16th essentially means that when imposing an income tax, the Congress may impose the tax on income from any source without having to apportion the total dollar amount of tax collected from each state according to each state's population in relation to the total national population.  This would be a legal interpretation, however, there are other Tax protester constitutional arguments that state otherwise.  I figured if we go with 5/7, we can avoid the debate and confusion.  :-)  Morphh  (talk) 02:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 16th Amendment in the Lead

message: For this system to work you would have to track the purchases of everyone to prevent fraud.  Otherwise, in theory, a rich person can have a poor person make purchases for them, allowing them to escape higher tax rates.  This will be the excuse used to make it so our new National ID Cards (Real ID Act) will have to be swiped anytime you buy something.  Then, all your purchases go into a database, and if there are discrepancies between how much you spend and how much you earned the men in black masks with guns will be paying you a visit.
Beyond that what everyone seems to forget is that the income tax doesn't pay for any services people receive.  All it pays is the interest on the national debt, which goes to the international banking elite.  Once you accept that you realize that the income tax is a fraud, and should be eliminated immediately. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jeff419 (talk • contribs) 23:01, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The FairTax works like any other sales tax and does not track any purchases at an individual level.  The FairTax does not care how much you make.  It is a consumption tax.  The rich would pay more as they consume more and the prebate would create an effective rate that would increase as the more you purchase.  The FairTax would remove tax filing for the majority of the population, meaning no men in black.  Tax filing applies to the retail market.  The FairTax also repeals more then the income tax - it repeals all income based taxation.  This article does not address, nor should it, arguments on if the income tax is a fraud (perhaps Tax protester arguments). Morphh  (talk) 23:47, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wouldn't this involve tracking everyone's purchases? 

message: As per the request for comments on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Taxation, here is my 2 pence. Given some of the discussions above, I’ll note that I don’t care either way about FairTax – unless I swap countries, it’ll never affect me.
* Coming to it as a non-American, my first thought was that I wasn’t sure if this was a proposal being campaigned for, or something with a reasonable chance of becoming law within the year, say. “Legislative history” makes this clearer, but it was my first stumble.  I added in the first sentence that the proposal was in the U.S. Congress to try and clarify this.  The second part is harder to address (see third comment).
* “H.R.25/S.25” was meaningless to me – I’m guessing it’s an administrative identifier? Could it have a wikilink to something explaining it?
* Legislative history leaves me wondering how far it still has to go to “be included in a final version of tax legislation” – what support should a bill garner to get that far?  No specific number that I know of - I've heard that 100 cosponsors is a major bill but I don't have anything to source on this.  I'll think about this comment but I'm not sure how to address it yet.
* Effective tax rate - “((income * tax rate) – rebate) / income = effective tax rate” isn’t easy to follow, especially if it wraps. Can it be formula-ed?
* Monthly tax rebate - does “The National Taxpayers Union estimated…” have a cite?
**In addition, my first thought on reading that was “but what’s the overall admin cost?”, which isn’t addressed until later.
** “Proponents point out that income tax deductionss, tax preferences, loopholes, credits, etc. under the current system was estimated at $945 billion by the Joint Committee on Taxation and that the Internal Revenue Service itself sent out $270 billion in refund checks for 2005.” The $270 billion, which I’m assuming is refunds on incorrect assessments, is presumably only half of the corrections to assessments – there will be extra charges after investigations? Anyway, the $945 billion seems a fair comparison to the $489 billion rebate, whereas the $270 billion seems to be a slightly different issue.
* Revenue Neutrality: - "the panel did not score H.R. 25” – I’m confused by this quote – does it mean they did not consider it? In general the section seems very heavy, with much to-ing and fro-ing of claims. I understand that it’s probably one of the major areas of disagreement, and may need heavy coverage.  They did not evaluate the legislation - I changed the term from the one quoted to a more common term.  Correct - it is a major area, though I've considered writing this in summary and creating another sub-article.
** “Americans For Fair Taxation (AFFT) claim that…” seems to tell a strange tale of someone being claimed to say one thing, and then saying another. I was left confused as to what had occurred.
** “If the rate is too high, no matter what the rate, it brings to light the true cost of the federal government and the hidden taxes Congress has imposed on the American taxpayer.” – isn’t comment on “hidden taxes” and “imposed” a bit POV?
* Presentation of tax rate – the whole issue hashed out here seemed pretty simple and obvious to me – presumably the detail is indicative of it being an area of contention?  Correct
* Distribution of tax burden – could open with an explanation of the concept of incidence, or at least a link?
* Transition effects – “focus grassroots efforts on HJR 16” – what’s an HJR?
* Is there an international dimension to consider – if I buy from Amazon.com, what will FairTax do? Or if an American imports a Ferrari?  If it is a US based business selling you the good (like Amazon.com), then they would charge the FairTax (though Amazon.co.uk may be an export and not levied - VAT or UK sales tax would apply).  Imports (like a Ferrari) would get processed though US customs, which would apply the FairTax.
In general terms, it appears to be a very comprehensive view of an issue. I came away well informed. There's clearly been a strong attempt to produce a balanced article. I found it pretty heavy going at times, especially where there was much opponents/proponents back and forth, or it delved into US legislation. It's much more comprehensive than I'd need to get a reasonable idea of the issue; however someone more affected by it might judge it an appropriate length. --Winklethorpe 22:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for taking the time to review the article - I'll try to address the issues you've outlined above.  My comments in bold. Morphh  (talk) 2:37, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  FA Drive comments