Talk:FairTax

FairTax received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Archive 1: June through about August 2005, plus some added later

Archive 2: August 2005 through early January 2006

If there are unfinished discussions or suggestions haven't been implemented that have been accidentally archived, feel free to move them back to the talk page.

NPOV

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)[reply]

Informal Peer Review

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)[reply]

Math in FairTax and status quo tax burden comparison

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)[reply]

Hmm... I would say it should probably be converted to math syntax, and leave it alone. --Trevdna 18:35, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The math described here does not seem to jive with the FairTax web site itself, which claims a 23% tax *added to* the purchase price (i.e., like a sales), not a 23% tax *exacted from* a purchase (i.e., like a profit margin). I made an edit to this effect higher in the article, then noticed this entire section suggesting otherwise. Can someone check into this (say, in the text of the latest bill) and adjust as necessary? User:RichardTallent RichardTallent

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)[reply]

Entitlement Terminology

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)[reply]

On page 33 of the bill, it is called a family consumption allowance and then the bill says that each family shall get a monthly rebate. Morphh 19:21, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your changes look great! --Trevdna 16:16, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Associations?

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I believe these were documented in the book "FairTax: America's Best Kept Secret". Morphh 14:18, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

So, should the list of associations be a list of any association that has any connection with the FairTax or a website that actually has pertinent information. I notice this Buzzbrockway added his own site that isn’t anything more than a page trying to set up a FairTax webring. I don’t see how that adds anything to the understanding of the FairTax. Should something like that be on the list? Tom Joad 2k 23:53, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Vote to remove articles

Ok, I took a bold step and deleted the Articles and a couple of state specific external links. This was a debatable move, even for myself. I think it works out better though for an Encyclopedia. Morphh 00:54, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you replace some of the articles that you removed? Many of them are very informative (pro & con) and contain information not listed in the main article. I haven't looked through all the external articles that were linked, but many fell within the guidelines for external links. Earthsound 22:51, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your thoughts. Here are the reasons it was removed: Many have stated that we have too many external links. While they may comply with policy, the articles were pushing us to 50 external links (not including references). Deleting the articles dropped it down to around 30. The FairTax article is also getting very long - pushing 50k and close to the "Probably should be divided" size defined in Wikipedia:Article size. While I think we fall under a topic scope that can justify the added reading time, we need to be aware of the size. I do think the articles add value for those looking for more information (some are very good), however, this could be easily found by searching. If there is information listed in these articles that is not listed in the main article, we should consider adding such content if it makes sense and/or using it as a reference. The articles also tend to be one extreme or the other. While POV is permitted and encouraged in external links, I'm not sure we've had time to verify the factual accuracy of the material and the articles don't fall under an official site discussing the topic but a single article. Maybe we should put it for a vote and see what the consensus is. Morphh 16:30, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For FairTax Articles

Against FairTax Articles

Don't Buy the Sales Tax by William G. Gale, March, 1998 retrieved May 19, 2005
Fair Tax Isn't Fair by the NESARA Institute
Against the Fair Tax Proposal
There is No Such Thing as a Fair Tax by Laurence Vance
The Fair Tax Fraud by Laurence Vance
Fair Tax Summary
The Case Against the National Sales Tax
Free Republic posts for and against the Fair Tax
Exposing the "Fair Tax" Hoax by John William Kurowski
The Fairtax: A Trojan Horse For America? by Claire Wolfe & Aaron Zelman

Support deletion

To vote, please use the format: #~~~~ - <comments>

Morphh 16:30, 2 May 2006 (UTC) - See description above.[reply]
Tom Joad 2k 20:52, 2 May 2006 (UTC) I don't see that the articles really add to the understanding of the FairTax and if anyone is interested they can search for them. I don't think Wikipedia is trying to be the Open Directory Project.[reply]

Oppose deletion

To vote, please use the format: #~~~~ - <comments>

Predicted benefits

I changed "Many respected economists, including former U.S. Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, have stated that a national retail sales tax would boost the United States economy" to say "A number of economists have stated that a national retail sales tax would boost the United States economy." I don't think we can say "many" when the reference has 75 economists listed. Seventy-five is not a large number given the BLS puts the number of economists in the U.S. at 13,000. Also, I am almost positive that Greenspan has never stated publically that a NRST would boost the United States economy (I have looked specifically for his ideas on a NRST. He has made several statements about a "consumption tax" but that could be many things besides a NRST. If someone can provide the source for this statement, I feel the text could be put back. Tom Joad 2k 22:40, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with this change. Here is an article on Greenspan - CBS News. It is obvious that his statements refer to a NRST and VAT type collection system and all major press releases reflect such. If it wasn't, he would have been more specific as that's what a consumption tax implies. His statements are perfectly relevant and accurate for the statement. The statement of "Many Economists" is that of Greenspan himself. "As you know, many economists believe that a consumption tax would be best from the perspective of promoting economic growth — particularly if one were designing a tax system from scratch — because a consumption tax is likely to encourage saving and capital formation," Greenspan said Fox News. A NRST and VAT are just the type of consumption taxes he is speaking about for the reasons specified by the second sentence. What is the list of Economists that have come out against the idea that a NRST would promote economic growth? While I'm sure there are some, statistics would indicate that "many" do in fact suggest that it would boost economic growth. We're not saying "most" or anything that indicates majority favor. Morphh 19:32, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CBS's headline is misleading and represents a common misunderstanding of what a consumption tax is. Economists consider consumption to equal income minus savings. So any income tax that exempted savings would be a consumption tax. The flat tax is a consumption tax. A "consumed income tax" is a consumption tax. When lay people (including headline writers) hear "consumption tax," they think sales tax. This isn't what an economist thinks (Here is a good explaination).

In fact, Greenspan considers our system to be a mix between a income tax and a consumption tax. From the very testimony CBS was reporting on: "Senator, we actually at the moment have a somewhat mixed system because remember, we do have a number of provisions in the tax code which lower the rate on savings and obviously, to the extent that you're lowering the rate on savings, you're essentially placing it on consumption. So in that regard, we do have a mixed system. I would suspect that probably that may be the best route to go."

So when Greenspan, or any economist, makes a statement about a generic consumption tax, you can't apply that to specifically to a NRST. Some economist favor a consumption tax but don't favor a NRST. You should also note that in the testimony, Greenspan didn't say he thought a consumption tax would boost the economy - he said "many economists believe" that. Tom Joad 2k 00:08, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps "A number of respected economists, including former U.S. Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, have stated that a national retail sales tax would boost the United States economy" Less POV than some or many. --Wynler | Talk 21:34, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Respect" is also POV. We have no idea if the 75 economists listed are "respected," just that they signed the letter (one has won a Nobel prize - so we can probably assume he is respected). The endorsement letter is referenced. Individuals can determine for themselves if those economists are "respected." Tom Joad 2k 00:08, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what your saying here and based on this information, Greenspans statements may have had broader indications. So, I'll concede and agree with you here. However, the statement doesn't say that they agree with a National Retail Sales tax. It just says that a National Retail Sales tax, a consumption tax, would promote economic growth as it would encourage saving and capital formation. Such a sentence may be deceiving though in context as support for the FairTax. Based on your argument, I remove my objection. As far as "respected", it went with that sentence as a consumption tax promoting economic growth. The 75 economists endorsed the FairTax, which is not what this sentence is about. It is an additional source as these economists also feel that a NRST would boost the economy. This is also where the "many" is not limited to the 75. The sentence is broader then support for the FairTax - it makes a statement about the type of tax and how it would effect economic growth. Morphh 02:45, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Real interest rates

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Debt markets

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)[reply]

Sale of stock shares not taxed?

I see no mention of whether or not the proposal taxes the sale of stock and other investment instruments. Can a knowledgeable person provide an answer?

I'm guessing the answer is "the sale stocks and investment instruments is not taxed". I infer from the rule about not taxing the sale of used goods. Funkyj 21:31, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. No investments are taxed under the FairTax.http://linder.house.gov/_pdfs/FairTaxFrequentlyAskedQuestions.pdf --Wynler | Talk 23:08, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The return on an investment wouldn't be taxed as a capital gain, but any fees incurred with the transaction (e.g., brokerage fees, mutual fund manangement fees, etc.) would be taxed as they are considered a payment for a service. Also, money in "any underlying interest-bearing investment or account" would be taxed but only the amount of interest paid that is over the "basic interest rate." The interest received that is over the basic interest rate is considered payment for financial intermediation services. Tom Joad 2k 06:08, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the pointer to the FAQ. Here is the FAQs answer to my question:

33. WHAT WILL HAPPEN TO TAX-FREE BONDS?

Tax-free bonds will continue to be tax-free. On the other hand, 'all stocks, bonds, and other investments will be tax-free as well'.

Funkyj 22:14, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Other Effects Not Yet Discussed

- Illegal immigration: have any "official" arguments been made that the FairTax would create a strong incentive (the rebate program) for residents to have legal status? It also seems to me that the FairTax would make moot the argument that illegal residents pay no taxes. RichardTallent 05:55, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This would be a good addition. I'm sure it is discussed in the books. A google turns up several articles. Go for it! Morphh 18:26, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I took a stab at this. Morphh 00:59, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- How would the FairTax be applied to goods and services purchased from other countries? (outsourced contract labor, imported finished goods)? RichardTallent 05:55, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It would only tax goods and services sold in the United States. Outsourced contract labor would be tax according to the laws of the other country. Goods imported to the U.S. would have the FairTax applied when sold. Goods exported to other countries would not have a FairTax component but would be tax by the other country (VAT or otherwise). Morphh 18:26, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Speaking of contract labor, it seems that consulting services would be double-taxed compared to direct employment. RichardTallent 05:55, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There might be a consulting fee that might be taxed but the salary of the consultant would not be. Their labor / cost would be considered as a service that is tax free or used to build the final good / service of the buisness. Since they are used to buid a final good or service, the FairTax would be applied at that point. So no double taxation would occur. (see incorporating question) Morphh 18:26, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- How would the FairTax be applied to education services? It seems from my reading that everything from public college tuition to medical continuing education courses would be taxed, which seems out of whack with other American values. RichardTallent 05:55, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe these would be taxed. Education is considered an investment and is tax free. Morphh 18:26, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- How would the FairTax be applied to purchases made to replace items lost in disaster or theft? I recently went through an expensive hurricane and the thought of a 23% effective cut in insurance coverage is unpleasant. RichardTallent 05:55, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since the tax is included in the cost of the good, it would make sense that insurance would cover it. A $100 dollar camera is $100 and it includes the tax. Morphh 18:26, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- What will stop people from "incorporating" their families (as some farm families do), or executives from unfairly enjoying the benefits of corporate-owned homes, airplanes, etc.? RichardTallent 05:55, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In order for any person to purchase items tax-free for business purposes, the business has to be a registered seller with the state sales tax authority who will collect the FairTax along with the state sales tax. The state will issue the business a registered sellers certificate. This will enable the business to purchase tax free from wholesale vendors, but they must give a copy of their registration certificate to the vendor to leave an audit trail.

When they purchase items for business use from a retail vendor, they will have to pay the tax on the purchase and apply for a refund. They will be required to keep documentation. Also, they will be required to submit monthly reports of taxable sales and sales tax collected on their retail sales to the state sales tax authority. All of this will subject the business to being audited by the state.

During such an audit they will have to produce the invoices for all the "business purchases" that they did not pay sales tax on, and will have to be able to show that they were bona fide business expenses. (Since 132 million individuals will no longer be filing tax returns, there will only be about 16 million businesses who have to be audited. This will greatly increase the likelihood of getting audited, making the type of tax evasion behavior mentioned much riskier. Additionally, we would have stronger taxpayer rights than the current tax system, the FairTax legislation has a number of fines and penalties for non-compliance and authorizes a mechanism for reporting tax cheats and obtaining a reward.)

In order to prevent businesses from buying everything for their employees (in a family business, for example), things bought by the business on behalf of the employees that aren’t strictly for business use will be taxable. Health insurance and/or medical expenses would be an example. The business would have to pay sales taxes on these purchases. Morphh 18:26, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Grassroots stub

In the past, I've been removing links to Grassroots sites such as "Hoosiers for the FairTax" and "FairTax Foundation". While they provide good information and applicable, it might be seen as POV. Some links that I've left are discussion groups which post questions for and against the FairTax in order to gain knowledge. The other links are NPOV as they link to the bill, author's site, scorecards, etc. I started thinking that perhaps we could create a FairTax Grassroots stub that discusses the history of AFFT, links to Grassroot sites, and large FairTax initiatives. Thoughts? Morphh 12:48, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just created a new article for Americans for Fair Taxation. Have a look and update as needed. Perhaps we can remove some of the links the FairTax article if this AFFT article looks ok. Thoughts? Morphh 03:29, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Revenue neutral / regressive

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Book cover

Posting this from Tabacco's talk page:

Your alleged "Fairness" is disingenuous. The "Fair Tax" is the 3rd generation of "The Flat Tax" and "The National Sales Tax". The "Fair Tax" is a distinction without a difference. It has been dressed up to appear to be something it is not! It is a complete falsity, intended to dupe the public. Publicizing Neal Boortz is tantamount to extolling the virtues of Scientology. Both are merely for personal aggrandizement and profiteering of the facilitators. I take extreme umbrage at the promotion of Boortz's book here. This is nothing more than crass commercialism and disinformation. Tabacco

http://tabacco.blog-city.com/the_fair_tax_morphh_advocates_in_the_affirmative__tabacco_re.htm Tabacco

Note: I sent a post addressing many of the inaccurate statements but it was never posted by Tabacco. Morphh 00:32, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly "Fairness" is relative, however, the plan was named by the people and not politicians. Most consider it much more "fair" then the current system. However, I don't believe you'll find anything in the article that claims it to be "fair". It is just the name of the bill. I'd like to see you defend the current system. The FairTax is the most transparent plan out there. I think your duping yourself making it some plot / conspiracy theory. Our current system is built on hiding the burden and deceiving the people. The FairTax is an alternative. It's not trying to dupe anyone - it is what it is. As for Boortz's book - what picture would you suggest for the article? The book doesn't need any promotion - it's a NYT bestseller. It is the most known media "image" of the FairTax plan. Nothing more nothing less. I've copied this to the aricle talk page in case others share your opinion or care to disagree. Morphh 00:32, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This has escalated into an edit war over the inclusion of the book cover as the primary picture for the article. Please voice your thoughts on the issue for consensus.

Support book cover

To vote, please use the format: #~~~~ - <comments>

Morphh 12:55, 11 June 2006 (UTC) - The book was a NYT bestseller for several weeks and still in the top 15 of Non-fiction paperback. The book is co-authored by the bill author, Congressmen John Linder. It is the most known image of the FairTax plan and appropriate for the article.[reply]
Trevdna - Added the image to the article on 7 November 2005. ^{(support entry added by morphh)}
El Cubano 04:05, 12 June 2006 (UTC) - Tabacco's argument seems to be based on: 1) the idea that the Fair Tax is a deception; and 2) an ad hominem attack on Boortz. At best, that makes his argument very weak.[reply]
skeeJay 21:33, 12 June 2006 (UTC) - As an NYT bestseller, the cover of the book is easily associated with the legislation in popular culture, at least more than placing a photograph of H.R. 25 would be. I think it makes sense to consider the book to be representative of the movement at this point in time. If not in the summary, the picture should be somewhere on the page.[reply]

Oppose book cover

To vote, please use the format: #~~~~ - <comments>

Tabacco - Publicizing Neal Boortz is tantamount to extolling the virtues of Scientology. Both are merely for personal aggrandizement and profiteering of the facilitators. I take extreme umbrage at the promotion of Boortz's book here. This is nothing more than crass commercialism and disinformation.

Note: I have submitted Tabacco for violation of the 3RR. On his talk page, I've been charged with turning Wikipedia into a Propagandist website and that this entire Post is complete and utter disinformation. Interesting since he claimed on his blog that only the poor got the rebate and we would need receipts to collect it yearly. Talk about disinformation. Morphh 18:51, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Change to Home mortgage interest deduction

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)[reply]

However, since there are several areas that are considered tax free under the FairTax plan, it may decrease the incentive to spend more on homes in favor of savings, education, or other investments.

Changed to

However, since there are several investment products that are considered tax free under the FairTax plan, it may decrease the incentive (if a family took a mortgage interest deduction before the FairTax) to spend more on homes in favor of savings, education, or other investments.

Since I haven't gotten a response here, I'm going to revert this change. Morphh 16:05, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Price drops

I would like some evidence of a non-monopoly market where prices did not approach the cost of production. Sorry, but instances of price fixing and government "regulation" don't count. I am talking about markets like the consumer PC market, the automobile market, etc. El Cubano 02:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree and have deleted the sentence. Such logic doesn't even make sense. I'd like to see a serious economist that makes such a claim. This is the basics of a capitalistic economy. Morphh 02:37, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Revenue-neutral rate studies

Modified recent entry to this section - The addition that AFFT has not released the studies is a good edit. However, much of the other information was POV and not applicable. The economists were members of the research team that studied the FairTax and the rate. The rates are presented in a number of publications. I have never heard of any of the economists refuting the figures. I've read several articles where some of these economists discuss the FairTax and they have not said anything about their rate being incorrect. In fact I just read a message from Laurence Kotlikoff that said a new study was going to be released and published that will show the bill rate to be more or less the correct figure. It is said to be a really well done study that should satisfy most critics. In the other section, the 1995 tax reform panel did not review the FairTax. The FairTax wasn't even a bill until 4 years later. Their review was far from the FairTax plan and is not an accurate or appropriate comparison. Morphh 17:31, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Naming problems

For economists, the FairTax proposal is explicitly the opposite - it is a regressive tax, which is also called an unfair tax (while progressive taxes are called fair taxes). Can this misnomer be reflected in the article?

The name FairTax is the name of the bill HR25. The article does not address "fairness" as this is a relative term. However, the plan itself was named by the people before it became a bill. As far as regressive / progressive, it is addressed in the section "Distribution of tax burden". The FairTax is regressive on income but progressive on consumption due to the rebate which is provided to all citizens. This creates a progressive effective tax rate the more you consume. We let the reader determine what they think is fair or unfair. Both points of view are presented. Morphh 02:39, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]