Talk:FairTax

comments on intro section

Morphh,

I haven't looked at this article in a while, but reading over the intro section now, the language I think has gotten very good and balanced and referenced and NPOV. My compliments to you for your role in making it be as such. The one small objection I have though is singling out the AMT as something that would be replaced. I can see mentioning corporation taxes and capital gains taxes because many people might not be familiar with the fact that they are also considered income taxes. I do not think there is much lack of familiarity about the AMT being part of income taxes though. If you are going to mention it, why not also mention that income taxes include dividend taxes, interest taxes, taxes on tips, etc.

Otherwise, though, it looks quite, quite good.

Cheers, HalfDome (talk) 08:15, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Either way is fine with me, but I prefer to include it. There has been a lot of talk regarding the AMT, particularly for tax reform. Most tax reforms considered in congress focus on replacing the AMT. So for that reason, I thought it important to mention that it does replace the AMT, which some people think of as separate from the personal income tax they know. I also often think of the personal income tax and the AMT as two separate things. However, I certainly concede the point that it is part of the same income tax code. I only see that it clarifies what it replaces but it doesn't really bother me if it is removed - I can live without it. Morphh ^(talk) 16:36, 06 May 2008 (UTC)

FairTax name

I don't believe this sentence needs a source: "Since the term "fair" is subjective, the name of the plan has been criticized as deceptive marketing by some while being touted as true to its name by others.". It seems to be common sense that some critics would disagree with the "fair" label and proponents would consider it true. Is this anything disputed...? we don't need a source for every statement, if it is nothing that is questionable. I rather just remove the sentence than include a questionable source to substantiate it. Morphh ^(talk) 23:42, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Many congressional proposals have these kind of marketing ploy names whether truthful or not. I think understandably the people know the tongue and cheek. So even if you removed it, it would not need explanation. .:davumaya:. 19:51, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

More Studies on the FairTax

Morph -- I assume you will update the Wikipedia article with the recent study by Diamond and Zodrow, et.al concluding that even without any tax evasion the FairTax rate would need to be higher than proposed.

I also came across the following from a few years ago stating that the National Retail Federation had commissioned a study which concluded that the FairTax would have a substantial negative effect on retail sales, at least in the short run.

http://retailindustry.about.com/b/2005/03/03/retailers-question-greenspan-on-consumption-tax.htm

Accordingly, I think you might want to rewrite the article a bit to give some more weight to the fact there really is a lot of valid criticism of the FairTax. I would be happy to do so, but you'd probably delete my revision and ban me from Wikipedia.  :) 68.158.142.167 (talk) 11:50, 4 July 2008 (UTC)GeorgiaTex

I've already added the Diamond / Zodrow study on rate in the revenue neutrality section, but plan to add a bit more when I have time, along with the material that was the focus of their study. We also already have the NRF study included, which was done on the Individual Tax Freedom Act, it's in the economic section and the sub-article. I think we've done a decent job of covering both sides and the readers can decide what they think is valid. If there is a valid criticism that is missing, I'd certainly like to work it into the article. I do intend to expand the bit on tax evasion and include some of Gravelle’s research. Morphh ^(talk) 13:46, 04 July 2008 (UTC)

Pros and Cons

Morph -- I happended to click on the Universal Health Care article in Wikipedia. At the end of the article, they have two columns, which Arguments in Favor or and Arguments Against universal health care. If you ever decide to revise the FairTax article (which, I realize, is not exactly high on the list of things a volunteer editor would want to do), that might be a good way to show the pros and cons, and appease some of the naysayers like me.

Just a thought.

64.207.7.114 (talk) 20:21, 11 July 2008 (UTC)GeorgiaTex

Thanks for the thoughts but that type of format is actually discouraged on Wikipedia, and would likely never be implemented on a high quality article. The argument is that this is an encyclopedia and that type of back and forth is a tortured form of writing. We try to maintain the format and quality you would expect from a paper encyclopedia. The opposite to your suggestion will likely happen, where the universal health care article is improved to a point where pro/con type structures are removed. If you noticed, there's a banner on that section to have it integrated into the article under appropriate sections. Morphh ^(talk) 13:57, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I think so far you've done a fabulous job of appropriately incorporating pro and con like statements within each point so the reader can determine for themselves. Again, this is an encyclopedia about the topic of FairTax, it is not a forum or a place to debate it's usefulness, it is simply explaining what it is, its effects and the history of the proposal. .:davumaya:. 19:48, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Rothbard's view

Rothbard, of course, was opposed to this kind of tax, although he referred to it as a "general sales tax."[1] Should that be mentioned here? Aldrich Hanssen (talk) 00:13, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

get it straight

We need to get our facts straight. FairTax, Fair Tax, or what? We are not kids, we need to get the spelling and terms correct. HRCC (talk) 00:26, 15 July 2008 (UTC)