Talk:Predicted effects of the FairTax

Untitled

This article is part of the FairTax article. Information will be moved into here from the main page to accomidate a WP:SS format. While migrating, information will be duplicated in an effort to switch to the new format. Morphh 00:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Moved information over.. Guess we need to write an intro. Morphh 19:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Dear Lordy...

At first I though I thought this article is a clear violation of WP:NPOV, but now I think it might even fall more under "Wikipedia is not an advertising service". Seems like the idea advertised here has only positive effects, I can't believe it isn't mentioned that it probably cures cancer! I am sorry, but this is absolutely unacceptable, therefore I am failing the GA nomination without a review on other criteria. Bravada, talk - 12:34, 21 September 2006 (UTC) PS. Yes, I can see there are some mentions of other opinions, but the "article" is clearly written so as to promote the idea. It could as well be a promo brochure.

I think your missing the point that this is a WP:SS of the main article. The main article is pretty well balanced. The predicted effects are certainly more in favor of the plan but this was an area that could be split well. Most of the negative aspects are in the main article. Morphh 13:15, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

If there are negative aspects of the plan, then they should be included too. Or are the negative aspects such as that the name sounds stupid or something? Also, economics is not an exact science, and one cannot simply say that something would work that way or another. Every statement on effects of this or that economic policy is either based on experience (i.e. examples of application) or some assumptions and theories. So it has to be presented that way. E.g. keynesists would argue that inreasing public spending would create economic growth (I am oversimplifying here), but stating simply that "Increasing public spending would create economic growth" is unencyclopedic, one needs to give full circumstances as to who argues so and basing on what principles/theories/beliefs.

So, there is quite a bit of work needed here, and I am afraid the main article isn't as well-written as it might seem to you, but I need to have more time to review it. Regards, Bravada, talk - 14:15, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

POV Issues

Just a quick look at this article sent me here to see what discussion there was on its obvious non-neutral POV. This is a disservice to readers since without a critical analysis you cannot properly understand the subject. To me, it seems to be saying that class(1) definitely pays less tax and can aquire money indefinitely without ever paying tax on it. Class(2) might be revenue neutral and class(3) pay zero tax and in extreme cases receives net income. However, I am not at all certain I have understood this. My instinct would be to reject this tax as fundamentally net regressive, but the article does not give me much to go on. Surely somebody somewhere has mentioned that such a radical change to the way taxation is done would require a ton of tinkering after the fact and would be extremely difficult to unwind if it proves unworkable. Real world tax avoidance can be quite complex and is structured over many years. This treatment seems to trivialize this. For the record, I think that current tax systems are horrific and could stand some radical changes. I am not arguing that this should not be here, just that it should be much more balanced and complete. DeepNorth (talk) 14:35, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

There is still no criticism of the tax. This is a serious problem and degrades the quality of this article significantly. Thus, I have tagged it with {{POV}}. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 18:19, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

What if there is little criticism of these points? I can find very little. Just because it is pro to most of the material does not mean the entire thing is POV. Most of the criticism is in the main article and does not necessarily apply to the predicted effects. If you know of any criticism with this regard, please bring them up and we can include them... but just don't add a tag because you think it is slanted. I'm sure there are words here and there that could be corrected but this does not ammount to an entire article being POV. Morphh ^(talk) 18:23, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I assure you, there is plenty of criticism on the tax. The bills HR25 and S25 (the House and Senate fair tax bills) had the support of only 60 out of 535 total members of Congress. 90% of the US legislature opposed it, and I doubt they did it blindly. Do you really think that no criticism of the tax exists? I'm adding back the POV tag. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 18:36, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Sure there is plenty of criticism and it is presented in the aritcle (the main article). This section is on the predicted effects (those not in the main article) and if you know of any criticism, we'll add them. You can't just blindly say that it is POV without presenting one single piece of information as to what is not included in the article. As far as having 60 cosponsors - that is more then any other tax reform. The flat tax only has 6. Having 100 cosponsors of any bill is "Major". There are always most that support a legislation but do not cosponsor it. Morphh ^(talk) 18:46, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Cielomobile, I suspect that the biggest showstopper is that the changes would be so significant. The bill would kill or drastically downsize one of the more visible government agencies, and have a significant effect on how businesses and individuals handle financial matters; I'd say that 60 is quite impressive in light of that. Only a fool wouldn't be a bit nervous about such a big change to the status quo. Before declaiming "only 60", one should also consider that some of the non-supporters have their own pet bills or are "owned" by those who stand to lose from it, such as tax lobbyists.

It is in everyone's interest to be aware of any potential negative effects of the bill before it comes to pass, in case such effects are significantly detrimental; if you can find any, they should be included in the article. The biggest negative that I can see so far is the uncertainty about the size of the gray market that may develop as a result. --Scott McNay 21:52, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Here's a criticism I've heard - it leaves out the working class and primarily benefits those of higher economic status. There is much more detailed criticism, but I'm no economist, so I can't say I know a lot about it. Search a scholarly journal database such as JSTOR for a start, or search the New York Times (I know for a fact that there has been a fair amount of criticism in the Times). -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 05:47, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

It is not very common but we could do a reverse summary style on certain effects. For example, do a summary style of the underground economy in this article pointing back to the main article for more details. I'm not sure this is appropriate but perhaps needed if you take this article as a stand alone. It does present in a positive manner, however, if I knew opposing views of these topics that were not OR, I would include them. This article seems POV as we have most of the criticism in the main article. While there is overall criticism in many areas, there is little published WP:NOR criticism in regard to these topics. The topic just happen to split well. It was actually recommended by an opponent editor. It may even be considered a POV fork where a bunch of positive stuff was removed from the main article but it worked for the summary style. I'd be happy to put it all back into the main article to make it less POV (on its own), however, that would defeat the purpose of splitting it (the main article was getting too long). I personally believe the article is POV toward the opponent view as much of the criticism is not even of the FairTax but of other made up National Retail Sales tax plans that do not conform to the legislation. However, to be NPOV, we include studies, rates, and tax burdens that do not even conform to the legislation. Like I said earlier, if you have a section that you feel does not present a published criticism - post and we'll review and include. I expect if you read the entire main article, you'll see there is criticism in most sections. Some sections are that of criticism with rebuttal. We've had very knowledgeable editors on both sides of this plan. I personally known some very experienced opponents that have reviewed the article and said that it is well balanced. We've also had experienced proponents review the article. I'm not trying to say that there is no room for improvement, expansion, and wording changes. The statement that you removed was actually worded differently (did not have "fact" and specified it was proponents making the statement) but was changed on 3 Nov - I thought I had reverted it but I guess it slipped through. Before tagging for POV - provide what POV you think is not presented on the section under discussion, allow the editors to respond and include such content if appropriate. You are doing nothing constructive if you add the tag but offer nothing in regard to what POV is not present - we won't know what to add or change. Particularly in this summary style format where most of the criticism is in the main article - should we move that to a this sub-article - would that be POV? I think it is better to have those in the main article - few people get to this sub-article. Like I said - perhaps that's POV against the plan. Point is.. if there is valid criticism, we'll include it - the rest is Wikipedia formating to achieving FA. Morphh ^(talk) 01:44, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

The whole article lacks critcism of the tax. It's that simple. There isn't one specific section which is in need of rebuttals to the proponents' viewpoints because there aren't any rebuttals in the entire article. I have read it all, and like I said, I found no criticism. If you can show me some, please copy and paste it on the talk page, because it is possible, albeit unlikely, that I just missed it.

You really can't argue that criticism of the FairTax doesn't exist. Like I mentioned earlier, the FairTax bills failed by very wide margins in the US Senate and House, conjuring up a total of only 60 supporters out of a total of 535 members of Congress. If so many politicians are opposed to the idea (90%), there is obviously some criticism. I'm sure if you searched scholarly economist journals (start with JSTOR, perhaps), you could find plenty of criticism. There might not be a whole book on it, but you don't need a whole book.

By the way, it's fine to have sources that are OR, as long as they are published and reliable sources. Everyone comes from OR at some point (I imagine most of the sources cited here are OR). -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 05:41, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

"Higher economic status": realistically, there's not much which will NOT benefit the upper-class folks. Do you want to stomp the upper-class folks, or do you want to give the poverty-level folks a better chance at improving their condition and being less of a (potential) burden? I don't think it really matters how little or much it benefits the upper-class folks as long as the lower and middle classes are, at worst, not made worse. There is some discussion of this in the article (perhaps the main article, not this one), as I recall.

"OR": The WP:OR policy basically specifies that anything which you write in an article must have a reputable source, preferably in a book, magazine, or a site online, and must not come from your own thoughts or knowledge (even if you are the top world expert in the field). Morphh is basically saying that "1+1=2", but he hasn't come across a source for it (and some people, not referring to you, are sufficiently anal to actually expect a reference for "1+1=2" or "the sky is blue"), someone who's willing to be put on the record.

Are you saying that you think this article might be acceptable if the tone were changed?

If you'll look over some of the talk, you'll see that I've had concerns about various items myself, and Morphh has been able to find answers to most of them. --Scott McNay 06:58, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Cielomobile, The criticism in regard to the middle class and higher income is in the section Distribution of the FairTax burden and in the main article (in summary) under the title "Distribution of tax burden". It seems like you're only reading "Predicted effects" which is essentially the section that describes the "Predicted benefits" (section title). This article is going to be positive for the FairTax as these are the benefits that have little criticism. It is a WP:SS split from the main article where the "predicted benefits" and "other effects" were split from the main article for size concerns. The current system is not perfect and there are expected positive aspects of tax reform that are not criticized. This section describes some of those areas. This does not mean the plan is not criticized - it is criticized and those criticisms are included in the areas where criticism has been voiced. Such a tax proposal change has many aspects - some are criticized and some are not.

As for the idea that 90% oppose the bill, nobody has voted on the bill - so the statement is unfounded and completely inaccurate. It is not 60 supporters - it is 60 cosponsors (a huge difference - meaning these are people put their rep on the line and actually sponsored the bill). Like I said, getting 100 cosponsors of any bill is "Major". This means that if it were to go for a vote - it would probably have a good amount of support. In addition, it is a radical change - it does not have to have a ton of criticism for people not to be on board. In this regard, support or lack of support does not equate into criticism. Just the fact that it is different is enough to put politicians on edge. Lack of criticism does not mean it is POV if there is no criticism to add. You have show no "other significant views" which is required for the tag. If you find criticism, then we'll add it. You have no basis for adding the tag. Even if you did have a criticism for a section, it does not mean the entire article is POV.

Let me also point out that there is criticism in this article - The National Retail Federation states their finding even though it was not of the FairTax plan. The first paragraph in "Home mortgage interest deduction" contains criticism that the deduction would be lost, same with "Charitable giving". The deduction points are nonsense and easily refuted but it is there as this is published criticism. The sections on "State and local government debt" and "Effect on law enforcement and crime" are also criticism. So again - this "there is not criticism in this article" is not true, even in this Summary Style split of the predicted benefits. The main article has criticism in most sections. The one criticism you did bring up is included in the main article and another more detailed sub-article. If there is a published criticism by a reliable source, then we'll include it. See other post on FairTax talk for additional comments. Morphh ^(talk) 03:58, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Review of article

Due to the statements made by Cielomobile, I've looked over this article section by section:

Introduction: This needs to be synchronized with the changes made to the main article. See overall comment below.

1.1 Tax burden visibility: The first paragraph appears to be a "the sky is blue" paragraph; taxes are taken out of our income (automatically, so that we don't see it unless we look) and are added to the prices of the products that we buy, and FairTax aims to consolidate this into a single tax on sales. The first three sentences of the second para could be tossed as POV and unnecessary for this article.

1.2 Effect on tax compliance costs: Another blue-sky statement, for the most part. I'm surprised that ONLY 90 percent would be saved, especially considering the built-in 0.25% processing fee. Do the references mention the $250-300B amount and the ditto amount for tax planning?

1.3 Promotion of economic growth: First reference link is broken. Suggest updating text to indicate how many signed the letter. Well-sourced with conclusions from a number of different, apparently-unrelated organizations, and has a statements from opponents, and rebuttal from proponents.

1.4 Effect on international business locality: Statements are sourced. Doesn't look like something that anyone could disagree with, unless there are claims of methodology problems.

1.5 Border adjustability: Statements are sourced. There is a proponent statement but no rebuttal by opponents; based on the subject, I suspect that no rebuttal has been made.

1.6 Repatriation of offshore accounts: Recommend finding more direct reference(s) for this section.

2.1 Home mortgage interest deduction: Unsourced. Also, I seem to recall seeing some complaint about this subject.

2.2 Charitable giving: Do the three references cover the entire section?

2.3 State and local government debt: Statements are sourced

2.4 Effect on law enforcement and crime: Seems to be a blue-sky section.

2.5 Illegal immigration: Partially-sourced; unsourced part appears to be blue-sky.

4 Notes: Check links and replace dead ones. May be able to use The Internet Archive (there are at least 4 other caches which may have the material) for sources that are hard to find replacements for.

Overall: A number of sentences and paragraphs are identical or very similar between this article and the main article; might want to add comments at relevant sections in both articles to notify editors to make the same changes to both articles where overlap occurs. Also suggest replacing as many proponent references (section 4) as possible (such as The FairTax Book) with third-party references.

--Scott McNay 05:25, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

1.1 I would be fine with the removal of the third sentence as this is a charged statement that I don't think adds any value - as you said. The second sentence is at the core of the argument and I think it should stay. The first sentence could go but it sets up the second sentence well and I think is a vaild quote to the subject. I'll agree to removing it though...

I'll work on the other comments as well. Morphh ^(talk) 14:34, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I might suggest the creation of a new section, something along the lines of "predicted problems," which better addresses the criticism. If you look at the article on the Distribution_of_the_FairTax_burden, it is quite obvious that there is a significant amount of criticism, so if some of that article could be incorporated into this one, that might solve some of the problems that I have brought to attention. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 17:36, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

This goes along the line of the reverse summary style that I mentioned. However, they are not predicted problems - they are a point of view by opponents (not based on the plan I might add and not supported by research). The predicted benifits on the other hand do not have the same problem. I am fine with include sections on these issues though.. a summary style that points to the other article.. though this would be duplication of the main article. Morphh ^(talk) 18:12, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Predicted problems are no more the opinions of opponents than predicted benefits are the opinions of the proponents. It is all speculation (and if you would read the report by the President's Advisory Panel for Federal Tax Reform, viewable in this article, you would see that there is research supporting the opponents allogations), and which is more grounded in "research" is truly in the eye of the beholder. Please, I'm really getting tired of the POV nonsense. This is not a forum to debate the FairTax. Maintaining the neutrality of Wikipedia is more important than pushing one's own political agenda. The opponents' viewpoints need to be acknowledged as just as legitimate as the propenents. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 00:28, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

There are two different kinds of problems. First are REAL problems, and second are problems which are PERCEIVED but do not actually exist because someone is conflating another plan with the FairTax plan. It mght be better to indicate which is wihch in the article.

Cielomobile, perhaps you should quote specific sentences and phrases that you have trouble with, and what wording you suggest to fix them. Or better yet, simply make the changes yourself. That's what I typically do, and Morphh seems to have no trouble understanding what I'm saying and making the indicated changes. In this case, I tend to agree with him; you're pointing fingers, but not quoting any specific phrases that you think could be improved. --Scott McNay 01:18, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

You are incorrect when you say "problems are no more the opinions of opponents than predicted benefits are the opinions of the proponents". Again - not everything has a criticism. Opponents can dislike a plan and criticize it but still formulate that it has positive aspects. You seem to think that a critic must criticize everything and thus their must be criticism for every aspect of a plan. That's the difference here - these are predicted benefits (generally predicted by both opponents and proponents). What you suggest on the other hand is not. I included some of the research that you quote - I've read the panel report several times in great detail. The panel did not score the FairTax (as stated by the chairman himself). Fact is they could not score the FairTax - it was beyond what they were allowed to do (remove payroll taxes which is the largest burden the poor and middle class). However, such is irrelvent to this discussion - the criticism is included in the other article. I'm fine with directing people via summary style (that includes both views) to the other discussion points (not sure it is appropriate but I'm ok with it). I am not ok with including a list of criticism with no other information - this would be POV. Morphh ^(talk) 01:38, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I know that there are certain benefits that may not have documented criticism, but it still remains that there is a lot of documented criticism which is not included in this article. As for a section on predicted problems, why is that a problem? Plenty of other Wikipedia articles contain criticism sections (for example, see Communism or Socialism), and in order to truly have both sides balanced, there needs to be equal weight put on both benefits and problems. I can assure, there are some big problems with the fair tax, such as a regressive shift away from the burden being placed on the rich, as I've mentioned before, and as found by the President's Advisory Panel. But I digress, we're just going around in circles now. It's clear that we are all very biased (you two are contributors to the article and are in favor of the tax, and I am strongly opposed to the tax), so we should just let the third party review the article and see where that takes us. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 05:15, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

The problem with you abiding by the decision of the third party is that you may still be unhappy with the article, which does not really solve anything. If you continue to feel that the article is biased, then others likely will also. If you can, as I suggested above, quote specific items that concern you, then we can see about resolving those concerns. The only time it would be ok for you to belive that the article is biased in favor of the FairTax is if those in favor of it believe that the article is biased against to the tax (so that both sides have equal and opposite complaints with the article). --Scott McNay 12:49, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

The problems with the article that I've found aren't so much specefic statements, so it would be hard to pinpoint specific items that concern me. I'll see if I can pinpoint some sections which lack viewpoints from opponents, but the real solution, in my opinion, is to have a "predicted problems" section. It's a common practice at Wikipedia to have a criticism section, so in all honesty, I don't see the problem here. There are plenty of sources for it, as I've mentioned before, so it's not an issue of lack of sources. Can you tell me, without sidestepping the question, why this is a problem? The article presents the FairTax in a very fair light, and this is a serious problem if Wikipedia is to remain neutral. If I read this article and knew nothing about the FairTax, I'd probably think that it's a great idea. Regardless of whether or not you support the tax, the article needs to present both arguments equally. If there is consensus, perhaps I will try to start another section, but I'm sure that I'd be missing a lot of information, seeing as I know very little about economics. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 15:25, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I already believe the article to be biased against the FairTax as it includes much information that is not a study or based on the legislation. Such as the tax panel, I find it bias to include tax burden information that is not based on the legislation we're discussing. I agree with Cielomobile - I also do not support the National Sales Tax plan the tax panel presented - it would do just as he stated. Only problem is... that is not the FairTax. However, this is what opponents use to criticize the FairTax, so we have to include it. I think supporters are failing to show the difference if readers believe the tax panel's hybrid study to be close to the HR 25. legislation when discussing tax burden. So to Scott's point - maybe we're already achieved this goal. However, I not sure ones personal bias either way is a good indicator of article quality. Not describing anyone here, but we've had some "nuts" on both sides enter this article and I certainly wouldn't gage POV on that. We can present what's available providing the point of view from both and try to do so in neutral tone. Since there are many criticism of the FairTax, it made sense to base the article on topics and not pro / con. I took a look at those examples and they use a good deal of summary style and may borderline on a POV Fork. There takes a certain amount of description to lay the basis for these topics and argument / rebuttal. Providing such together in a section gives the reader the most information, creates less POV, and is more encyclopedic then a he said / she said list. We also do not want to duplicate data in the article. I guess we're getting into the weeds on what should be presented in "this" article with regard to criticism. The main article has broken topics up into relevant sections. What is presented in this article is not highly criticized (predicted benefits) or the opposite and not highly rebutted (law enforcement & local / state debt). Perhaps we need to rename this article (I guess we choose "predicted effects" as they were generally predicted by both). My problem is that I don't see this article as its own article. I see it as part of the main article - It is only split because to include everything in one article would make it too long. So for me, it is just a matter of formatting of one large article. So the argument that this article doesn't have specific criticism on a topic but the other does.. doesn't make sense to me as it's one big article in my mind. However, I do see this as perhaps my problem with looking at the articles and I'm fine with appropriate cross-linking to make sure people know there is more information in other articles. I do not agree with creating a list or paragraph of criticism without the other POV included (this would by definition be POV). I'd be ok with a summary style of the other article with a main or details link. However, at that point, you have to question duplication of data from the main article. Morphh ^(talk) 15:55, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

This distinction you are drawing between information "based on studies" and not based on studies doesn't exist. Back in tobacco's hayday, there were think tanks employed by the tobacco industry to come up with studies to support the claim that tobacco is not hazardous to your health. I looked at some information about some of the "studies" that support the FairTax, and many of the professors (for example, that one from Boston University) are actually funded by a group in support of the FairTax. The absurdity of this distinction you are drawing does not cease to pique me, and I think my brain may explode from the vexation this is causing me.

There are plenty of articles with criticism sections, some in summary style (see George W. Bush), others not. While there should definitely be rebuttals to the criticism, it still needs to exist. Some duplication of the information from the main article is fine, in my opinion — if that removed the bias this article contains, that's great.

By the way, how do you figure that this article is slanted against the tax? It has absolutely no criticism of it. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 00:29, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I was speaking of the entire FairTax article (as I see it as one big article) when I said I thought it was slanted against it. I gave the example of the tax panel which is not in this section. While the studies were financed by AFFT, they were performed by leading professors, economists and research institutes with reputations that published their findings and details. I find it odd you criticize them but choose to accept Washington bureaucrats and their lobbyist buddies that do not publish their methodology, figures, or any details for others to review and critique. They've specificly been asked to publish these details and they refuse. Hmmm However, this is not about who funded what, the distinction that I draw is about what the findings are based on (the legislation). The tax panel’s tax burden measurement did not include the fact that the FairTax also repeals all payroll taxes – the most regressive taxes – with three out of four taxpayers paying more payroll taxes than income taxes. This slants the chart quite a bit wouldn't you say? If the poor and middle class pay more in payroll taxes and they do not remove this burden, What does this do to the tax burden chart - it obviously makes the burden on the low and middle income class higher. So here you have a study that is not based on the legislation at all (I mean payroll taxes are half the base - quite a big thing to change), but it is passed off as a study of the "FairTax". This is just part of the problem but I digress. Again, my point is the criticism does exist - it just doesn't exist greatly in this article as the topic of this article does not include information that is criticised. You could add a topic.. but which one.. you going to add a topic in this article for each criticism? Would we have a summary pointing back to the main article for each one and then a one off to the tax burden article? This is the purpose of the main article - it is the pointer, it provides the details and summaries. Morphh ^(talk) 01:29, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Review of article, continued

Cielomobile, you are talking about a "Predicted problems of the FairTax" sub-article, yet THIS article is NOT named "Predicted benefits...", but rather is named "Predicted effects...", nor is there, as Morphh suggests, any real reason that it cannot be renamed. Is there any reason not to simply modify this one? Or, better yet, copy it to a subpage of your user page and edit it there, so as to not give Morphh a heart attack from looking at the partial changes? --Scott McNay 06:21, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting creating a new sub-article, but just a section in the predicted effects article about predited problems (since there's a section for predicted benefits). -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 00:13, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, gotcha. So go for it. --Scott McNay 06:28, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

What would be a predicted problem that is predicted by both (having little rebuttal) that is not already covered in the "other effects"? I guess that goes to problem of the term "predicted". We're using it as generally predicted by both and Cielomobile is saying predicted by one side or the other. In which case would cover most of the material as a "prediction". Not sure how best to word it. Morphh ^(talk) 11:01, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Expanded article

In an effort to address Cielomobile's concerns, I've moved the "Transition effects" section into this article, which is mainly criticism. I've also added a section for "Distribution of tax burden" with a short summary of the dispute and a link to the main article. Morphh ^(talk) 23:34, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Main article

One problem that I see with sub-articles is that some people people may never look at the main artcle for some reason. Perhaps the article should be modified to take this into account, maybe by modifying the header comment ("This article describes the predicted effects of the FairTax. For the main article, see FairTax") to describe what biases may occur due to not reading the main article. --Scott McNay 06:12, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I think this is a good idea. Morphh ^(talk) 16:07, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I made the change suggested. Morphh ^(talk) 21:21, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Foreign spending of domestically earned dollars

If money earned in the U.S. is only taxed when it is spent in the U.S., won't that encourage American tourists to vacation outside of the U.S.? Let's say you want to buy a $2,000 vacation somewhere. You can spend $2,000 in Las Vegas and pay $460 in Federal taxes on it (23%), or you can fly to Mexico for $300, spend your $2,000 in Mazatlan, and have $160 left over to pay 8% sales taxes in Mexico. Same for immigrant laborers. They work here and spend at or below the poverty level, and then send the rest of their income, which has never been taxed, back to their home country. Sure, you can tax wire transfers, but I'd think there'd be a whole lot of money smuggling going on. — Jonathan Kovaciny (talk|contribs) 14:08, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure to what level it will encourage personal behavior but what you describe is correct. You also have the other half where tourists and income spent in the U.S. from abroad will be paying into the tax system. This is one small point regarding a much larger economic effect when comparing destination and origin principle taxation, which destinational has been shown to be superior for economic growth and government revenue. Morphh ^(talk) 17:16, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

With respect to immigrant laborers, I believe if they're not citizens, they won't be able to collect on the prebates. So while you are correct in that any money they've sent home being untaxed, their other spending in this country would be taxed at a full 23/30% rate. That would be a fairly large disincentive for them to come and work here illegally in my opinion. Drierp (talk) 23:02, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Please rename this as "Predicted Benefits of the Fair Tax"

This article has no real discussion of the drawbacks of the Fair Tax. When anything that might be a drawback is mentioned (such as Mortgage Tax Relief issues) there is a statistic provided to rebut it ("it is estimated that interest rates will fall by 25%"). However, those statistics are always estimates or opinions and the assumptions used are never stated.

Frankly, the article is extremely biased and could benefit from having most of the statistics removed. Irrespective of whether the Fair Tax is worthwhile or not, the use of fantasy numbers to manipulate the facts has no place in an encyclopedia.

Other drawbacks include the certain huge jump in product smuggling or of evasion, the taxation of medical services (which vary dramatically in cost), the huge loophole that will lead to almost every business being bankrupted by competition from 'non-profits' since they can charge 30% less than any for profit business, the fact that many retirees will emigrate so that they can spend their pensions without paying taxes on everything and will suck a huge amount of money from the economy, returning only when they need medical care and can get it through Medicare.

Of course, calling this the 'Fair Tax' without any quotes to indicate that it is a marketing name is just one example of the bias of this and the related articles. It is a Sales Tax.SimonHolzman (talk) 00:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Most of the transition effects section and other indirect effects are criticism of the plan. Perhaps you should read the entire article before you make such charges. Certainly adding quotes implies bias - that is the name of the bill and the plan. Also adding comments such as "so called" before it. Many of the criticism you stated are listed in the main article, others may be original research. As for statistics, we need to provide rebuttal of published material from reliable sources if it meets weight to comply with the NPOV policy of Wikipedia. Morphh ^(talk) 13:56, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

1. Statistics used to rebut claimed drawbacks should be removed. There are no similar statistics used to rebut claimed benefits. This may be partly because advocates of the plan are more willing and able to generate 'academic' articles on the subject than opponents since there is not any organized opposition to this plan. However, the result is that the article is not representative of a reasoned debate.

2. I have included smuggling, competition from non-profits and emigrating retirees as potential drawbacks in the article.SimonHolzman (talk) 00:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry but policy requires that we include sourced arguments, which includes the statistics to rebut claimed drawbacks. If you have any sourced arguments to rebut claimed benefits, then we can include them. Advocates may be more willing to do research and we will present what information is available. It is against our policy to suppress these arguments so that the debate is "reasoned" in your view. It is left to the reader to decide what is reasoned based on the information available. Looking at the material you entered, it appears to be unsourced. It is also added to sections that miss the topic. Smuggling is tax evasion and sourced information should go under that section in the main article. The prebate is not part of business compliance costs - the section is not talking about government. In addition, any cost of the prebate is included in rate studies and that is discussed under the Monthly rebate section. Much of your addition is original research. Morphh ^(talk) 18:56, 09 January 2008 (UTC)

I do not want to suppress any information, but an article that is one-sided does not serve any reasonable purpose. I suggested removing rebuttals of arguments against the Fair Tax because there are few if any rebuttals of arguments in favor of it. Those rebuttals can, and should, be included as arguments in favor of the Fair Tax. In your introduction you have included only positive effects (including the taxation of illegal activity) with no mention of any negative effects other than the removal of tax deductions and 'concern' over a few other issues. No mention of a likely increase in smuggling. My comments on the cost of the administration of the prebate was included in the section titled "Effect on tax compliance costs". It's a tax compliance cost (for the Government). Where do you suggest that it go since this is likely to counterbalance much of the savings from eliminating the IRS, especially since the IRS only needs to handle Tax forms once a year, while the new system will need to send out payments 12 times a year as well as tracking every single legal resident of America.SimonHolzman (talk) 00:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I have added a Government Administration Costs section, a Law Enforcement section and amended the Civil Liberties section. I do not have time to find sources and am flaky on how to include them, but they should be easy enough for you to find. Is this a reasonable compromise ?SimonHolzman (talk) 00:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

In the State and local government debt section, it says that "...Issuers may have to offer higher interest rates to attract investors." However, in the Home mortgage interest deduction section it suggests that mortgage interest rates could decline by 25%. The first citation supporting this argues that interest rates MIGHT decline to bond rate levels but it is a quote from a speech which does not itself cite its sources. The second citation was written before the Fair Tax was proposed and does not directly address it. If Bond rates increase as a result of the loss of State and Government debt tax deductions, this will not be a 25% decrease. In addition, the risk of mortgage-based debt is higher than of Government debt and so is unlikely to ever fall to that level. Please review this or find a better source, because otherwise I think the predicted interest rate reduction should be removed.SimonHolzman (talk) 00:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I know you're acting in good faith and I'm sorry I keep reverting your changes. However... What do you have that states that federal government compliance will increase? The states handle most of it (of which they are paid .25% of collection - built into the plan, not an external cost) and the rebates are sent out (electronicly in most cases) by the Social Security administration, which does quite a bit of this already. Beacon Hill estimates a reduction of 73%, so you'll have to provide something that backs up your statement, otherwise it is original research. The government would start recieving income the first month, not the first year. Revenue neutrality would not be compareable until the year end after which you would have other factors to consider (such as any economic growth). So again, where do you get that the rate would have to be 5% higher? This is not shown in any rate study or macroeconomic analysis that I have seen. I wouldn't call this compliance either, it is administration costs. It don't even think it would fall under a predicted effect. Your law enforcement point is already discussed on the main FairTax article. Stating that prices will increase by 30% is a point of view (see Theories of retail pricing in the main article). Smuggling is a form of evasion and is discussed under that broad topic. I understand your points, but do we have any data specific to smuggling under the FairTax? Likewise with the addition of civil liberties. With regard to the lead, I made some changes yesterday to better summarize the article. I think part of the issue with this may be that some of the general benefits are agree on by both proponents and opponents. Consumption taxes have some well known positive effects. The other points that are criticised are often disputed by proponents with regard to the effects. This is reflective of the debate on such effects. Keep in mind that this is a sub-article. Most of the main points of criticism (like evasion) are made in the main article. It makes no sense to duplicate this information.

With regard to the interest rate, perhaps it needs clarification. These are two different things. The state loosing the deduction is not effected by the base rate of issue. Right now they have a competitive advantage over private bonds. They would loose this advantage and would have to be a little more competitive. The base of the rate does not change this. Higher interest rates for the states is relative to the base of issue (higher than what it would have been under the same base of issue in the current system), not a comparision to what the rate is today (which is what is argued in the mortgage interest deduction section). Morphh ^(talk) 20:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I was just reading a new BHI study regarding Government Administration costs Tax Administration and Collection Costs: The FairTax vs. the Existing Federal Tax System. They conclude that the FairTax would be a much more efficient taxation system from the point of view of the administration, collection, and filing costs. Morphh ^(talk) 4:19, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Home mortgage interest deduction

Cost of purchasing a $230,000 new home (wages that must be earned to buy the home)
Component of housing cost	Current law	FairTax
Home purchase price	$230,000	$230,000
Mortgage interest rate	6.6%	4.95%
Interest at rate above for 30 years	$298,806	$211,962[note]
Federal taxes	$104,854 (28%)	$69,000[note] (30%)
Income taxes on principal	$64,000[note]	$0
Payroll taxes on principal	$17,595 (7.65%)	$0
Income taxes on interest	$0	$0
Payroll taxes on interest	$22,859	$0
FairTax on home purchase price	$0	$69,000
Total housing cost including taxes	$633,660	$510,962
Difference in total housing costs		-19.4%
Note: Example uses a full accommodation model, where prices and wages increase by 30%. Estimation does not factor the FairTax as part of the loan amount nor does it include any tax offsets from the rebate. Figures derived from source; income tax rates are stated to be based on wages that must be earned to buy the home.

The math illustrated in this section is completely incorrect. The table on the right side of the article is pulled directly from "Promoting home ownership: How the FairTax’s benefits for homeowners exceed the mortgage interest deduction," and I'm sorry to say that whoever did their math was smoking some serious crack. I question whether or not the person who wrote the source has even purchased a house.

The biggest logical fallacy with the article is it doesn't explain where people purchasing homes are supposed to come up with this $69,000 "flat" tax that is due at the time of the home purchase. This is far more cash than most people would have on hand, so this cost would have to be folded into the loan amount. So the loan is no longer $230k. The loan is $299k, because the average person does not have $69k sitting around. With our current tax scheme, the "taxes" are paid over the life of the loan, which means that no adjustment to the loan amount is necessary.

This also means that the interest paid on the loan jumps from ~$212k to ~$275k, which increases the total cost of the fair-tax scenario to ~574k. This is still a net savings, but seriously: an oversight of $63k (and an obvious one at that) makes me seriously question how accurate this "source" really is. If the interest rate stays constant at 6.6%, that completely erases the fair-tax advantage, making our current tax scheme $54k _cheaper_.

A counter-argument to this section is desperately needed. The math here is simply unacceptable to me; can someone from fairtax tell me where people are supposed to magically conjure up $69k to pay the tax at the time of purchase? Jnoring (talk) 22:02, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Just now seeing your post... I don't know about the crack smoking or the home ownership status, but I can try to explain some of the figures. As far as magically conjuring up $69k, let me lay out some changes. For one, this example uses a full accommodation model (prices and wages go up by 30%), meaning you would have a 30% pay raise (wages are increased to gross pay + employer payroll + a % of corporate taxes). Savings would not be taxed, thus you could build up a down payment much faster than today. You are correct that the $69,000 might likely be rolled into the loan and paid over 30 years. This actually allows lower income families to finance the taxes (borrowing on future and often increased earnings), an option which they do not have today. You have the option to pay down the principle in coming years if you so choose, negating the future interest. The taxes also suffer devaluation through inflation - $69,000 in taxes being paid 20 years from now may be much less of a burden. Also note that the example does not factor the FairTax rebate that is meant to offset tax burden and cover necessities (like housing), yet the comparable income tax side includes such offsets by its nature. For a couple (two person household), using a full accommodation model, the rebates would equate to $186,576 in tax offsets over 30 years, and that doesn't account for increases due to yearly inflation which would increase that figure. As far as the interest rate, the material is source and researched. Boston University and Rice University suggests the FairTax will bring long-term interest rates down by as much as one third. I hope this clarifies things a bit. Morphh ^(talk) 18:16, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure why the tag keeps being added. The material is sourced and derived from the sources provided in that publication. You can of course disagree with the pov and source, that's the readers choice. If you have a source that disputes that publication, then we can consider including it. I'll put a note at the bottom of the chart regarding the interest. Morphh ^(talk) 12:51, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I am not the one adding the tags. Check the history on the page if you're interested in who's doing that. I'd rather hash out the issues on the talk page and then update the article as necessary.

Being required to finance taxes up front is not a benefit to low income families. This greatly increases the up-front costs of home ownership and makes it much more difficult for someone to put a sizable down-payment on a home which means there are additional costs (i.e. mortgage insurance) that are unavoidable. This will greatly increase monthly payments, which in turn limits someone's purchasing power on the market. There are all sorts of costs that are much more difficult to avoid with the more sizable loan. Furthermore, the issue is that by lumping the cost of fair-tax into the mortgage, people who take out loans are going to end up paying substantially more interest on the loan than this sample lets on. Furthermore, the fairtax is a tax on all consumption, is it not? Why would interest for a mortgage not be taxed as well? And why does the source completely ignore this detail? This was pointed out in factcheck.org's article on the fairtax. I might amend this article to include their findings and present a counterpoint.

My choice of words was harsh, and I apologize; that said, I simply don't buy these figures or the source. Surely there must be counterpoints to these arguments. Jnoring (talk) 19:39, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

As I stated in my last post, wages are increased by 30% in this example. So the ability to afford the same home, including taxes in the loan, should not be an issue. You're moving the taxes from one place to another... it doesn't really change anything. You're payments are higher but so is your income. It's a wash. Example: $100,000 home - you make $20,000 net and payments are $277 a month (no interest for simplicity). FairTax - $100,000 home plus $30,000 tax - $130,000, wages go up $26,000 - payment is $311. So for the year, you paid only $408 dollars more in home payments but your income was $6,000 more. You could also add the prebate to that income, which for a single person using full accommodation would be $3,109, bringing income up to 29,109. I'd factor the interest on this as well, but I'm running out the door. There is also no tax on savings, so you can build those down payments easier. Interest is not tax under the FairTax up to the federal issue amount. The factcheck article had several incorrect statements. Like I also said, the example also does not take into account any tax reduction based on rebates. We can't just go changing the figures to meet our pov. I actually agree with some of your points, but there are other factors not included as well. The material is sourced and those are the figures presented. Morphh ^(talk) 20:09, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Fine, so you assert that "the factcheck article had several incorrect statements," but clearly so does this source (let's be honest: it's numbers are _extremely_ dependent on a number of rather substantial conditions, and it was dead wrong on several things), so why is it being included but the factcheck article's findings are being completely excluded? This article seems completely biased to me, and I would strongly support having it flagged for POV. Jnoring (talk) 02:27, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Jnoring, the table no longer exists in the article (removed back in April 2008 by me). Morphh ^(talk) 13:14, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Morph, my reference to POV was for the _entire_ article--not just the table. You cannot simply pick and choose sources based on your assessment of how "correct" they are. I think regardless of your personal opinions of the FactCheck article, it is disputing a "predicted effect" of FairTax. You can include alternate sources that dispute the FairTax numbers, but you cannot simply omit a source (and, IMO, a very good one) because it has something you personally deem to be incorrect.

I think this entire article is incredibly biased, and again, I support flagging the entire thing for POV. Either that, or it should be renamed "arguments in favor of FairTax," because it completely lacks any criticism whatsoever that I can see, and certainly _someone_ out there has predicted some negative effects? Certainly _someone_ disagrees with this legislation? It needs serious review, renaming or something, but as is, it reads like a bad infomercial. Jnoring (talk) 02:47, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Jnoring, the FactCheck article is used in the FairTax articles. It is a good source and within our policies as a reliable source. You'll see that if you read my comments below. However, not every article is perfect, people make errors and we should not reprint those errors if we can easily verify that it is a factual error. That was the point here, it is not an opinion statement or point of view - they made a verifiable factual error in that one particular statement. The FairTax does not charge the tax on all interest. This is not me adding my personal opionon about the Factcheck article and excluding their statement because of their viewpoint. It is verifably false from an overwhelming number of sources. The FairTax does not tax all interest, it taxes the financial intermediation services (HR25 Chapter 8), which includes interest above the basic fed borrow rate, which is what we state in the article. I don't think they intended the error, it was a simple mistake - one which we will not reprint unless we're trying to discredit them, which I don't want to do.

There is a good amount of criticism in this article, the transition effects section and a good portion of the other effects section is criticism. Much of the economics effects section is positive as consumption taxes are found to be more economically efficient forms of taxation. Not everything has criticism, but if we're missing some, let us know. If you have a particular charge of a statement that violates NPOV policy, then point it out and we'll work to address it. The banner should not be used as a blanket for someones perceived bias - Per the banner, it must address the issues on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies. Everyone perceives bias in one way or another based on their own view - that's why we have the policy.

Start with a discussion on the particular issues, if escalated - add a sentence or section tag, and if there are numerous, documented, unaddressed and supported violations of the NPOV policy throughout the article, than we should add a banner. But at this point, you have not shown that anything is being presented without presenting the other point of view in reference to a policy violation. You have not shown where we have excluded a verifiable viewpoint from reliable sources. Obviously there are many people that disagree with this legislation, and we've tried to include all significant criticism. Keep in mind that this is a sub-article and the main areas of criticism are address in the primary article, but if there are arguments here that are missing verifiable criticism, than please provide the sources and we can look at including them. Morphh ^(talk) 18:14, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

For the IP that is making the changes, the 30% is the tax exclusive increase. This is not the same exact 30% price reduction that Linder is talking about. Read any of the rate papers regarding no accommodation, partial accommodation, and full accommodation. Morphh ^(talk) 20:16, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I moved the table to the talk page until this is discussed a litter further. One option that we do not have is modifying the data in the chart to fit what we think is best - that would be original research. We can however, try to explain what the chart is including or not including in a neutral way. I have no problem identifying exactly what they did. I agree with some of Jnoring's points regarding paying interest on the tax amount, and then paying a very small amount of tax on the interest (which are two different things). I also see there is no adjustment for the rebate, which using a full accommodation model would be 30% higher then what is listed in the prebate table (due to indexing). I'm sure we could create a much more accurate table, but this is unacceptable per policy. I'd like to try to clarify some of the points tonight and address some of the comments. We'll see where it goes from there, perhaps we leave it out... Morphh ^(talk) 22:45, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Jnoring, as seen below in my reply to the IP, I don't think we're talking about low income. I don't know if it's our place to say this is how it should be. I agree with you regarding including the taxes into the loan. The interest on this would be an addition, but I guess the point of dispute may be that this results in an increased burden. I'd suggest this is offset by increased wages and the rebate. Since we're dealing with changes in price and wages, it adds an extra level of confusion to the example and discussion. The talk page on Wikipedia is not the place to debate or discuss the merits of the tax. There are plenty of places for that but I'll try to lay out some of figures as I would factor them. Adding in the $69,000 into the loan would bring it up to $574,549. Adding tax on interest above the basic level would add an additional $8,350 for a total of $582,899. That's how I would have factored it but I would have also included some form of tax offset (some portion of the $186,576). If 28% of income is used for a home, than I would likewise apply 28% of the rebate to the home. So I would reduce $582,899 by $52,241 to $530,657. This is close to the financed amount under the current system, but you're working from more income. It's all well and good, but changing any of the sourced figures would be original research. I don't have an issue with describing what they're doing in a neutral way. If doing so does not reduce the confusion or still implies bias in the chart, then I'd just suggest we remove it. Morphh ^(talk) 1:48, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Inflation is also something to consider, calculating 3% inflation a year would result in a prebate (since it's indexed) of $266,292 over the 30 years, instead of the $186,576 I calculated above. Morphh ^(talk) 15:10, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

If we're going to remove the factcheck source because it is "factually inaccurate" (I disagree, although I don't know on what grounds you consider it to be inaccurate), then I say this entire source should be removed. It is clearly inaccurate and misleading. At best, I would cosider it a crude analysis of what the FairTax changes mean to homeowners. At the very least, I agree with your final statement: the chart should be removed in perpetuity. It is simply not a reliable source of information. Jnoring (talk) 02:07, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think I said that we should remove or exclude the source. We use that source on several articles. I believe both meet wikipedia requirements. However, it just so happens on this particular point, there was an inaccurate statement in the article. Joe Miller (the author) stated the FairTax is paid on the interest for mortgages. However, the FairTax would be tax free on mortgage interest up to the basic interest rate as determined by the Federal Reserve. The interest above the basic rate applied by the lender is a financial intermediation service and is subject to the FairTax (on a typical home mortgage only about one-half of one percent of interest would be subject to tax). Morphh ^(talk) 0:13, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

IP 68.53.247.186, you stated "Assuming an average wage increase of 30% from implementation of this tax is blatantly incorrect because the average effective total federal rate is much lower than 30%". This 30% figure is an exclusive figure and not comparable to the income tax system - it is equal to a 23% income tax rate. It also includes not only personal income taxes but gains from corporate taxes - see below.

IP 68.53.247.186, you stated "The cited source of the 30% number is basically "because the congressman backing the bill says so"-- about as dubious as it can get" The 30% figure is not the tax inclusive number that Linder is quoting, which is based on Jorgenson's research (average was 23% but it ranged up to 30% - I believe construction like homes was 25%). What the 30% is referring to is the exclusive value regarding those taxes passed to employees in the form of higher wages. This goes beyond gross pay. Gross pay would be you keeping all income taxes and your half of payroll taxes - full accommodation states you get this plus the other half of payroll taxes (employer portion) plus the distribution of corporate income taxes. For prices to increase by 30%, which is the case in this home example, requires the Federal Reserve to increase the money supply by 30% and employees gaining the windfall of the current tax system. The more likely accommodation model is partial accommodation, where employees get gross pay, and production costs drop by 10%, prices rise by about 17%. No accommodation would suggest you get net pay, and prices stay the same, production cost decrease by the full amount (23% on average). So, it is completely accurate to state that an example using a 30% increase in prices is using a full accommodation model and thus wages would also increase by a similar amount on average.

IP 68.53.247.186, you stated "These numbers are blatantly wrong high estimates taken to make the reult end up the way the author wants, not averages from real data. Might as well put in the countering-chart at farirtaxfraud.com". FairTaxFraud.com, you mean the guy that thinks that the mortgage interest deduction (in the chart that you reference) prevents you from paying any interest whatsoever? I'm trying not to laugh. I would not rely on any data from that site, and it is certainly not considered a reliable source for Wikipedia. The mortgage interest deduction allows you to deduct interest from taxable income (does nothing for payroll taxes and most do not itemize). Someone paying a 25% income tax rate would receive $250 back from the government for $1,000 expended in home mortgage interest. You are still responsible for the $1000, but now instead of having to earn $1250 to pay the $1,000, you can just earn $1,000 after payroll taxes are removed (7.5%). The chart above does not include any taxes on home mortgage interest for the income tax side - they were generous. Let's take a look at the figures. The Income tax rate used appears to be 27.8% and payroll tax used 7.65%. So we're looking at someone that makes at least $75,000 a year to have a 28% tax rate. Most lenders will finance buyers whose monthly house payment (including loan payment, property taxes, and insurance) will not exceed 28 percent of their gross monthly income assuming low debt. So we should consider that. I don't know if the right thing is to try to take the absolute lowest income tax rate possible and still be able to afford the home, or if is some average was more appropriate. I can't say if the rate is high or low... we don't know the income level. We can identify the rate used and let the reader decide, I have no issue with that. Also consider that the FairTax 30% includes no tax offsets whatsover (no factoring for the $186,576 in tax rebates - $266,292 after indexation) so we're assuming millionaire money to pay an effective 30% exclusive rate (23% inclusive when compared with income taxes) or $69,000. Morphh ^(talk) 0:19, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

References

Issue with quote

This quote really bothers me.

"Bill Archer, former head of the House Ways and Means Committee, asked Princeton University econometricists to survey 500 European and Asian companies regarding the impact on their business decisions if the United States enacted the FairTax. Of these companies, 400 responded that they would build their next plant in the United States while the remaining 100 companies said they would move their corporate headquarters to the United States.[24]"

The quote that it cited from says this:

"A recent survey was done, in Europe and Japan, of the major corporations and I was astounded at the results. They were asked, 'If the US abolished its income tax and went to a sales tax, would that have any impact on your decisions?' Eighty percent of the corporations said they would build their factories in the United States of America. Twenty percent said they would move their international headquarters to the United States of America!"

It doesn't mention what survey he is talking about. He could've pullen those facts out of the air for all I know. He didn't mention that the survey was done by Princeton so how did the author who wrote that know it came from Princeton?

This article is definately not neutral and usually distorted quotes does not belong on Wikipedia. I'm removing that whole paragraph.

This article is nothing but a bunch of tripe by fair tax supporters. There's nothing academic about this article at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.243.210.180 (talk) 04:52, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I added another reference that supports some of the additional information presented. At one time we had several sources for it, but we trimmed it down. It has been stated in congress, in books, and in several web articles. Hope this address the concern. Morphh ^(talk) 15:23, 06 April 2009 (UTC)

Still horribly POV

Where are the criticisms? There's like one blurb about the Gale study, which is then overrun with lengthy discussion of some subsequent research. There are PLENTY of predicted effects which dispute what's currently in the article about the FairTax, and nearly none of it is in this article. IT nearly reads like it was a copy-paste of the FairTax website's FAQ... BigK HeX (talk) 03:55, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Most of the criticism of the plan is in the primary article. If there is a particular argument that is not present for these topic areas, please provide details as to what is missing. There is only one blurb on Gale as his studies relate to the tax rate and distribution, not the predicted effects covered in this article. Please provide the sources for the criticism that is missing and we can work to correct it. Morphh ^(talk) 12:38, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Welfare

What will happen to welfare programs if FairTax exists? Does the monthly payment to everyone eliminate the need for the welfare department? I'd like to see a section on this. — Timneu22 · talk 12:58, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think I've seen any sources on this topic point. Certainly from a legislative perspective, the bill does nothing to change welfare laws. Payments of the prebate are handled by the SS department, where welfare is usually a local / state mater. Morphh ^(talk) 14:58, 04 May 2010 (UTC)

Well speaking of welfare, there are indeed a number of sources that think FairTax would create the largest welfare state in US history. It seems this type of inclusion would make the article a little more neutral. — Timneu22 · talk 15:58, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I think that form of welfare would be spending, not revenue, but I understand the point. I have read in reliable sources where they describe the prebate system as the largest entitlement program in American history, if this is what you're talking about. We cover this in the main article. There is also the camp that states that this would help decrease the size of government by making the tax system transparent and removing class warfare. It would also eliminate what many describe as corporate welfare. So I guess there could be a few topic points to consider there. Morphh ^(talk) 17:16, 04 May 2010 (UTC)

In adopting the fairtax society will have determined that it does not want to tax any families poverty level spending. The rebate is society saying this is what you over payed. Shomas (talk) 17:04, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, talking about largest entitlement program. Some of these POV-type issues may be worth discussing in the sub articles as well as the main article; you're less likely to be dinged on POV issues. I'm interested in the FairTax topic, and mostly support it, but the POV complainers on this talk page have serious valid points. — Timneu22 · talk 17:46, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

It's tough to find that balance and not duplicate the argument, since presenting requires you present both sides. Maybe a reverse summary style. This article does need work.. it's been on the back burner since it's a sub-article. We placed most of the criticism in the main article, so some of these offshoots were ways to reduce the content size in the main article, which in most cases downsized the proponent viewpoint. If we have opponent content on these topics that is missing, than we should definitely include it. Get's a little fuzzier when we're duplicating, but I'd be fine with a section on welfare if we have enough content. Morphh ^(talk) 18:47, 04 May 2010 (UTC)

Thinking out loud... One thing we'd have to determine is how it is a predicted effect, rather than just a statement about the prebate size. The description itself would require balance, which suggests such tax base adjustments, tax refunds, tax grants are entitlements or welfare. It would imply that the large entitlement program is a new or additional cost above the current tax system, making the government larger, but being revenue neutral, it wouldn't. So I this would need some explanation. Morphh ^(talk) 19:16, 04 May 2010 (UTC)

Tourism

I'm surprised nobody has commented on the effects of the FairTax on tourism. Essentially it would provide a huge reduction in motivation for foreign people to visit the US, where they would have to pay the FairTax from money that they already suffered income tax on at home. Meanwhile, Americans would have increased spending power abroad. Stifle (talk) 11:35, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I haven't seen any sources on that topic point. The change in prices will depend on the accommodation model. It's possible that no change in prices would occur after the tax is applied if employees don't receive the windfall of gross pay. In that case, there would be no impact. Since Europeans are the biggest tourism to the U.S., it may also be relevant that they pay a sales tax at home (VAT) on top of their income taxes. So it wouldn't be much different from what they are accustom to seeing. It's possible other aspects may offset potential losses, such as international business relocating to take advantage of no corporate income taxes. However, to the point, if prices did increase, than it makes sense that it would decrease certain tourism. If you find something on it, post a link. Morphh ^(talk) 15:05, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

The question weather the fairtax effects tourism is dependent on purchasing power. If in eliminating production taxes and replacing that revenue with a consumption tax prices remain the same, then you would expect little effect on tourism, but tourist would be able to file an export claim and recover taxes payed, which effectively increases purchasing power and should attract more tourist. Shomas (talk) 17:15, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

POV

This article is absolutely absurd in its POV. It is essentially an advertisement, indistinguishable from any white paper put out by Heritage or AEI. There is ample criticism out there outside of a few head-fakes in the direction of objectivity included here. If it is not flagged by Wiki as in violation, then Wiki has no business being in business. Quigonpaj (talk) 12:41, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Predicted effects of the FairTax/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

This article should go through the peer-review process before submitting to GA. Prior POV disputes - could benefit from an outside editor. Morphh (talk) 18:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 18:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 03:21, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Predicted effects of the FairTax. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101127050245/http://www.treasury.gov/education/fact-sheets/taxes/ustax.shtml to http://www.ustreas.gov/education/fact-sheets/taxes/ustax.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:11, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Predicted effects of the FairTax. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.fairtax.org/pdfs/Why_retailers.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ombwatch.org/article/articleview/3530/1/454
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060409130443/http://bonds.yahoo.com/sm_bd5.html to http://bonds.yahoo.com/sm_bd5.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ajc.com/business/content/business/stories/2007/07/27/taxes0727.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bearstearns.com/bscportal/pdfs/underground.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:24, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Predicted effects of the FairTax. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060614173135/http://people.bu.edu/kotlikoff/WSJ%20Op%20Ed%203-7-05.pdf to http://people.bu.edu/kotlikoff/WSJ%20Op%20Ed%203-7-05.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061015083330/http://fairtax.org/PDF/Open_Letter.pdf to http://www.fairtax.org/PDF/Open_Letter.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071110010854/http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=31824 to http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=31824
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.webcastgroup.com/client/start.asp?wid=0840929073673
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061015083330/http://fairtax.org/PDF/Open_Letter.pdf to http://www.fairtax.org/PDF/Open_Letter.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140307011817/http://www.fairtax.org/PDF/Excerpts_from_response_to_tax_panel-103006.pdf to http://www.fairtax.org/PDF/Excerpts_from_response_to_tax_panel-103006.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061108065724/http://www.fairtax.org/PDF/MacroeconomicAnalysisofFairTax.pdf to http://www.fairtax.org/PDF/MacroeconomicAnalysisofFairTax.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070614190647/http://people.bu.edu/kotlikoff/Comparing%20Average%20and%20Marginal%20Tax%20Rates%2010-17-06.pdf to http://people.bu.edu/kotlikoff/Comparing%20Average%20and%20Marginal%20Tax%20Rates%2010-17-06.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090219031947/http://people.bu.edu/kotlikoff/Simulating%20the%20Dynamic%20Macroeconomic%2C%20October%204%2C%202006.pdf to http://people.bu.edu/kotlikoff/Simulating%20the%20Dynamic%20Macroeconomic%2C%20October%204%2C%202006.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060614173135/http://people.bu.edu/kotlikoff/WSJ%20Op%20Ed%203-7-05.pdf to http://people.bu.edu/kotlikoff/WSJ%20Op%20Ed%203-7-05.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:39, 19 September 2017 (UTC)