Talk:FairTax: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 00:51, 18 July 2006 editMorphh (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers18,366 editsm →Featured Article checklist: added other for speedy deletion← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 14:38, 23 November 2024 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk \| contribs)Bots, Template editors2,293,095 editsm Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Talk:FairTax/Archive 3) (bot
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{ga}}		{{Talk header}}
			{{Article history
	{{WPCD}}
			\|action1=PR
	{{talkheader}}
			\|action1date=00:15, 27 November 2005
	{{oldpeerreview}}
			\|action1link=Misplaced Pages:Peer review/FairTax/archive1
			\|action1result=reviewed
			\|action1oldid=29322731

			\|action2=GAN
	{\| class="infobox" width="315px"
			\|action2date=16:08, July 7, 2006
	\|-
			\|action2result=listed
	! align="center" \| ]<br />]
			\|action2oldid=62443033
	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.
	----
	\|-
	\|
	# ]
	# ]
	# ]
	#
	\|}<!--Template:Archivebox-->

			\|action3=PR
	==Distinction between Fair Tax & National Sales Tax==
			\|action3date=22:01, July 19, 2006
			\|action3link=Misplaced Pages:Peer review/FairTax/archive2
			\|action3result=reviewed
			\|action3oldid=64522896

			\|action4=FAC
	:It should be noted that the ] should not redirect to the ] as the "Fair Tax" is just one very specific proposal created by a specific group of people and is only a type of ]. ] 09:30, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
			\|action4date=02:45, 17 August 2006
			\|action4link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/FairTax/archive1
			\|action4result=not promoted
			\|action4oldid=69706142

			\|action5=PR
	::I agree. It should be a ] page. I'll try to find a description and look to see if we have any other National sales tax plans on wikipedia. ] 13:08, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
			\|action5date=20:55, March 17, 2007
			\|action5link=Misplaced Pages:Peer review/FairTax/archive3
			\|action5result=reviewed
			\|action5oldid=115876241

			\|action6=FAC
	::For the moment, I've redirected this to the ] page as it was more appropriate. This page lightly discusses a National sales tax and includes information about the FairTax in the last paragraph. ] 18:39, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
			\|action6date=04:34, 30 March 2007
			\|action6link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/FairTax
			\|action6result=promoted
			\|action6oldid=118258186

			\|action7=FAR
	== Other Effects Not Yet Discussed ==
			\|action7date=10:02, 17 August 2007
	How about the effect on the accounting and tax advisory industries? (From individual CPAs up through the big four firms) They would obviously be affected by a dramatic simplification of the tax structure. ] 13:45, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
			\|action7link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article review/FairTax/archive1
			\|action7result=kept
			\|action7oldid=151676573

			\|action8 = FAR
	:True - they would also be impacted by the additional savings and investment business. I'll see what I can dig up. Some may just be looking for new positions - highly educated people like them should be able do well though. We'll have to put tax lobbyists on suicide watch. ] 13:59, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
			\|action8date = 2021-05-01
			\|action8link = Misplaced Pages:Featured article review/FairTax/archive2
			\|action8result = demoted
			\|action8oldid = 1020616303

			\|currentstatus=FFA
	== Grassroots stub ==
			\|maindate=July 15, 2008
	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? ] 12:48, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
			}}
			{{WikiProject banner shell\|collapsed=yes\|class=B\|
			{{WikiProject Business \|importance=Mid \|accountancy=yes}}
			{{WikiProject Economics \|importance= Low}}
			{{WikiProject Politics \|importance=Low \|American=y \|American-importance=High}}
			{{WikiProject Taxation }}
			{{WikiProject United States \|importance= Low}}
			}}
			{{User:MiszaBot/config
			\| algo=old(90d)
			\| archive=Talk:FairTax/Archive %(counter)d
			\| counter=3
			\| maxarchivesize=150K
			\| archiveheader={{tan}}
			\| minthreadsleft=3
			\| minthreadstoarchive=1
			}}

			==Past tense==
	I just created a new article for ]. 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? ] 03:29, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
			We should really figure out how to swap much of this article to past tense. The idea of "flat taxes" hasn't gone away, but I think the political landscape has changed a lot and this particular movement for them is over. Boortz retired years ago and Cain is dead, and they were some of the main proponents.] (]) 15:59, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
			*Actually, it ''does'' continue to get introduced as a bill into each Congress, but the number of co-sponsors keeps going down. It's hard to say whether this is actually sort of a zombie bill that keeps getting proposed just to keep a few faithful happy or whether there is still actual efforts going on to pass it.] (]) 16:50, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

			== Understanding the types of taxation in order to understand what is being said in the article ==
	==Book cover==

			Tax types based one what is taxed or when the tax is assessed: income tax (on income), consumption tax (on expenditures) or use tax (taxed when the item in a transaction is used).
	Posting this from Tabacco's talk page:

			There is personal taxation as opposed to corporate (or other entity) taxation.
	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. ]

			There are direct (the entity affected by the taxes pays them) and indirect (not direct) taxes.
	http://tabacco.blog-city.com/the_fair_tax_morphh_advocates_in_the_affirmative__tabacco_re.htm ]

			Direct taxes are also defined as those that are paid by the same entity that is impacted by the taxes.
	::Note: I sent a post addressing many of the inaccurate statements but it was never posted by Tabacco. ] 00:32, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

			Indirect taxes are also defined as those paid by an entity other than the one impacted by the taxes.
	: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. ] 00:32, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

			There are transactional (involving more than one party other than the tax tax collecting entity) and non-transactional (not transactional) taxes.

			Taxes are can be regressive or fixed (the amount paid is fixed so all entities pay the same amount of tax), proportional (the proportion of the total amount taxed that is collected is fixed), progressive (the proportion of the total tax collected varies directly with the amount being taxed), and degressive (the proportion of the total tax collected varies inversely with the amount being taxed).
	<b>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.</b>
			-----

			I would like to either use this knowledge to rewrite some of the portions of the fair tax entry, likely changing occurrences of "tax" to "income" tax, as that is what I believe is actually being discussed. Alternatively, I would like to put this information somewhere--perhaps in the entry for ]--and reference it from the ] entry.
	===Support book cover===
	:''To vote, please use the format: <nowiki>#~~~~ - <comments></nowiki>''
	#] 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.
	#] - Added the image to the article on 7 November 2005. <sup>(support entry added by morphh)</sup>
	#] 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.
	#] 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.

			Does anyone have any comments before I do one or the other?
	===Oppose book cover===
			] (]) 03:59, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
	:''To vote, please use the format: <nowiki>#~~~~ - <comments></nowiki>''
	#] - 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.

			== Opening Section of the Article ==

			The opening section of this article should focus on facts and avoid opinions. I made an edit that did that, but it has already been reverted to the previous content. One wonders why. ] (]) 18:40, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
	Note: I have submitted ] for violation of the ]. On his talk page, I've been charged with turning Misplaced Pages 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. ] 18:51, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

	== 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. ] 02:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

	: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. ] 02:37, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

	: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. ] 02:49, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

	== 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. ] 17:31, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

	== 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. ] 02:39, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

	== Pros/Cons Section? ==

	There are criticisms littered throughout the article. I say they should get their own section. I don't know what to make of the whole thing (good/bad?) but being able to see pros/cons easily would be nice.] 23:04, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
	:This was discussed in . I understand what your saying. It would be nice to look at a simple good/bad, however, the topics require enough explanation on each side to do justice. This is why each topic is broken down into sections where both pro and con are provided. For example, one side may say a con is that it is regressive with the other side saying a pro is that it is progressive. Pros and cons are dependent on the point of view and without any context or explanation it makes little sense. I think this format is better suited for this article. It provides each topic in a complete format with the debated points / effects. ] 00:46, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

	== Sections that need sources ==

	I'm moving some information to the talk page that requires sources. Normally, we would just add a cite needed tag but I wanted a clean article for ]. Once sourced, we can move them back into the article. ] 14:41, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

	===Financial markets===
	In general, FairTax would exert upward pressure on the value of most financial securities. Since a security's present value is based on all future cash flows adjusted for time, falling interest rates raise the present value of future cash flows. The effect on specific securities is indeterminate, however, because FairTax represents sweeping changes to the economy. The current pricing of financial securities includes assumptions that the basic rules of the tax code will remain largely unchanged. For example, FairTax will end corporate taxation. This eliminates the tax benefit which partially offsets many corporate expenses. In the case of non-cash expenses, they will reduce corporate earnings by their full amount rather than by the ~70% of their amount under the current tax regime. In another example, FairTax will cause investors to favor certain types of securities over others. Such cases illustrate that it is difficult to predict how the FairTax will affect the value of a single security or an asset class.

	===Effect on law enforcement and crime===
	Additionally, under the FairTax the relative profitability of collecting illicit income through illegal means such as ] would decrease significantly, as doing so would no longer carry a tax advantage when illicit income is spent on most consumption goods.<!--insert cite here--> This effect could reduce the incentive to violate the law in these ways and reduce the rate of certain kinds of ].

	===Implementation===
	The ability for the state to collect these heretofore-uncollected taxes would be a major incentive for states to conform their sales tax to the federal sales tax base. Retailers suffering from tax-free direct mail competition or from tax-free sales from out-of-state retailers would see a major competitive disadvantage removed. However, this would have the effect of discouraging consumers from purchasing items through the thriving mail-order and online industry, potentially hurting a multi-billion-dollar segment of the American economy.

	== GA Review ==
	Note to GA reviewer: Most of the recent edits were cosmetic - copyedits, references, moving sections for better article flow, etc. We did have a slight problem with the book cover (reverts), however, I think we resolved this through the wiki process. ] 15:57, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

	== Money Magazine Article==
	first, my apologies if im not posting this talk topic correctly, im new. I think a critical turning point in the FairTax debate has been overlooked byt his article, and ask for it's inclusion. an article in Money Magazine's October 2005 issue http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/country_profiles/1229345.stm
	pointed out a logistical flaw in the plan, the double-counting of the benefit of removing embedded taxes towards both results of 1. lowering prices of goods and 2. allowing workers to recieve their entire paycheck (gross pay). This flaw has been exposed to the point that Boortz even addressed it in his Nealz Nuze on Sept. 15th 2005. http://boortz.com/nuze/200509/09152005.html i think this really needs to be addressed, as many supporters of the plan are falsly claiming that prices will remain the same AND they will receive all of their pay (Dr. Dale Jorgenson, the Harvard professor who did the mebedded tax study, is mentioned in the article stating this is not the case)

	since i am unfamliar with the editing process i'd ask for someone else to create the section or mention. thanks ] 20:08, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

	:You are posting correctly in the talk and I offer my welcome to Misplaced Pages. I don't believe this point is overlooked in this article. It is covered in the section ]. The only reference to embedded cost figures is in this section and whenever embedded taxes are discussed, this section is referenced. So this article does not reproduce that misconception and accurately discusses the topic that you presented. ] 21:19, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

	==GA passed==
	This article is a nice one to read and is fully detailed with a bit of math here and there, well-balanced and has a nice prose. I would suggest working on the Lead section just to match every aspect of the article's content. ] 03:28, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

	:I'd also like to try and redo the sources to utilize the ] templates. Once we get these two things completed, I think we should try and nominate for FA. ] 13:12, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

	==Distribution of tax burden==
	It appears to me that the Tax Pannel only compared Income Tax rates when using this comparison. It does not appear that they calculated in payroll taxes. 3/4 of Americans pay more in payroll taxes then income taxes. ] 02:58, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
	:According to the panel's report, the Treasury Department concluded that a 25-percent FairTax rate would not produce enough revenue to be revenue-neutral if all federal taxes were abolished. Thus, the panel considered only the effects of abolishing the income tax. If the payroll tax was included, the FairTax rate would have to be increased commensurately. It's all in the report. ] 06:23, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
	Since this article is getting ] (55k), using ] should be a consideration. Until now, I didn't think we had any good sections that would fit this well. However, with the new additions to this section, we may be able to split this into its own article. Thoughts ] 03:32, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
	:I think it would make sense too to split the details of the "predicted benefits" and "indirect effects" sections into a separate article about "Predicted effects of the ]." ] 06:27, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
	AFFT have said that their definitive study on the FairTax base and rate calculation by Beacon Hill Institute will be completed by July 31st, 2006. It addresses all the issues that have been raised about the FairTax rate and whether it is revenue neutral. In addition, Dr Laurence Kotlokoff did two studies; they will be published by the National Bureau of economic research. One is on the marginal and average tax rate under the FairTax compared to other alternatives. The overall effect on the economy is studied in much more depth than in prior studies. There were three macro studies done by 3 different economic research groups: Dr Kotlikoff's, Beacon Hill Institute (using a general equilibrium model) and Arduan, Lapher & Moore (using a supply side equilibrium model). IOW, three different economic models were used in order to diffuse criticisms that the results achieved were driven by the model. Beacon Hill also did a detailed study of the FT revenue base. That study indicated that the FT had the broadest base (which means it can have the lowest rate). That study also shows the tax distribution across all income groups. Another study is being done on evasion and enforcement. It is being done by Young & Associates (Dr. Nancy Young). It identifies certain key variables which influence the level of compliance (marginal tax rates, likelihood of audit, severity of penalties, etc) and concludes the FairTax is superior on most/all of these and would therefore have lower rates of evasion than alternatives. Should be interesting... Guess we'll be busy in August. ] 14:39, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

	==Featured Article checklist==
	It exemplifies our very best work.

	It is well written, comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral, and stable. In this respect:
	:(a) "well written" means that the prose is compelling, even brilliant;
	:(b) "comprehensive" means that an article covers the topic in its entirety, and does not neglect any major facts or details;
	:(c) "factually accurate" includes supporting of facts with specific evidence and external citations (see Misplaced Pages:Verifiability); these include a "References" section where the references are set out, complemented where appropriate by inline citations (see Misplaced Pages:Citing sources). For articles with footnotes or endnotes, the meta:cite format is strongly encouraged;
	:(d) "neutral" means that an article is uncontroversial in its neutrality and factual accuracy (see Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view); and
	:(e) "stable" means that an article does not change significantly from day to day and is not the subject of ongoing edit wars.

	It complies with the standards set out in the style manual and relevant WikiProjects. These include having:
	:(a) a concise lead section that summarizes the entire topic and prepares the reader for the higher level of detail in the subsequent sections;
	:(b) a proper system of hierarchical headings; and
	:(c) a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents (see Misplaced Pages:Section).

	It has images where appropriate, with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status; however, including images is not a prerequisite for a featured article.

	It is of appropriate length, staying tightly focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail; it uses summary style to cover sub-topics that are treated in greater detail in any 'daughter' articles.

	Here's my thoughts: Once we get this little POV point-counterpoint hashed out, this article is not far away from FA. We need a good photo of a rally, or something, to illustrate the popular/political support section, I think it would make strong secondary art. We should consolidate some of the "effects" sections into a daughter article, ''']''' or something - which will help us get the length and table of contents under control. Perhaps create a (doesn't have to be huge) section on the online groundswell of support for the proposal - how it's spread through the ], etc. Other than that, it looks good to go. ] 23:58, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

	:I created an article ]. I figured we would call the headline here "Predicted effects". I also created the one you specified above but I thought this one might fit better. I put Potential impacts of the FairTax in for speedy deletion as I was the only one that did anything. ] 00:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

	==Inclusive/Exclusive terms==
	This was a debated point in the early history of the article (]). I think I was for Inclusive / Exclusive but I was overruled. The main point was that the terms are a neologism. It was agreed to use common terms. I've now come to think it explains it better. ] 01:05, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
	:Well, we have to have something that quickly explains the difference in layman's terms, and I think "inclusive" vs. "exclusive" comes the closest. What else would you call each system? I'm open to ideas... ] 01:10, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
	::Those terms seem the easiest to me, however, I'm familar with the material. If I ask someone else what they ment, they would probably be clueless. At one point, we had a section that described inclusive and exclusive (I think this became Comparison of tax rates section). Even if we don't use those terms to describe the rate, I think we should have something in the Comparison of tax rates section that states these terms are often used to explain the concepts. ..., often called an "inclusive" rate, ... I'm not sure how to best explain it in layman's terms - perhaps we need to grab someone that is unfamilar with the concepts. I'll try to think of some ideas this weekend. ] 18:19, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

	==Photos==
	Does anyone have any photos of a book signing, a pro-FairTax rally, etc.? I think they would be highly helpful in illustrating the groundswell of grassroots support for the proposal. ] 21:51, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
	:I know some websites that have some. I'll make a request for copyright release. ] 12:07, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 14:38, 23 November 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the FairTax article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10Auto-archiving period: 3 months

FairTax is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.

This article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page as Today's featured article on July 15, 2008.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
November 27, 2005	Peer review	Reviewed
July 7, 2006	Good article nominee	Listed
July 19, 2006	Peer review	Reviewed
August 17, 2006	Featured article candidate	Not promoted
March 17, 2007	Peer review	Reviewed
March 30, 2007	Featured article candidate	Promoted
August 17, 2007	Featured article review	Kept
May 1, 2021	Featured article review	Demoted
Current status: Former featured article

This article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Business: Accounting Mid‑importance

	Business portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Accounting task force.

Economics Low‑importance

	Business and economics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics: American Low‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as High-importance).

Taxation (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Taxation, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.TaxationWikipedia:WikiProject TaxationTemplate:WikiProject TaxationTaxation

United States Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.

United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Past tense

We should really figure out how to swap much of this article to past tense. The idea of "flat taxes" hasn't gone away, but I think the political landscape has changed a lot and this particular movement for them is over. Boortz retired years ago and Cain is dead, and they were some of the main proponents.Brianyoumans (talk) 15:59, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Actually, it does continue to get introduced as a bill into each Congress, but the number of co-sponsors keeps going down. It's hard to say whether this is actually sort of a zombie bill that keeps getting proposed just to keep a few faithful happy or whether there is still actual efforts going on to pass it.Brianyoumans (talk) 16:50, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Understanding the types of taxation in order to understand what is being said in the article

Tax types based one what is taxed or when the tax is assessed: income tax (on income), consumption tax (on expenditures) or use tax (taxed when the item in a transaction is used).

There is personal taxation as opposed to corporate (or other entity) taxation.

There are direct (the entity affected by the taxes pays them) and indirect (not direct) taxes.

Direct taxes are also defined as those that are paid by the same entity that is impacted by the taxes.

Indirect taxes are also defined as those paid by an entity other than the one impacted by the taxes.

There are transactional (involving more than one party other than the tax tax collecting entity) and non-transactional (not transactional) taxes.

Taxes are can be regressive or fixed (the amount paid is fixed so all entities pay the same amount of tax), proportional (the proportion of the total amount taxed that is collected is fixed), progressive (the proportion of the total tax collected varies directly with the amount being taxed), and degressive (the proportion of the total tax collected varies inversely with the amount being taxed).

I would like to either use this knowledge to rewrite some of the portions of the fair tax entry, likely changing occurrences of "tax" to "income" tax, as that is what I believe is actually being discussed. Alternatively, I would like to put this information somewhere--perhaps in the entry for tax--and reference it from the fair tax entry.

Does anyone have any comments before I do one or the other? Todd Bezenek (talk) 03:59, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Opening Section of the Article

The opening section of this article should focus on facts and avoid opinions. I made an edit that did that, but it has already been reverted to the previous content. One wonders why. DLK2024 (talk) 18:40, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Categories: