No criticism?
why is the criticism of this radical tax shift SO minutely covered in the article, when it is NOT minute in the world of economics and politics?
This article is one long, very clear, very biased, yet intelligently argued, argument for the "fair tax". It is not an article discussing the argument for fair tax, and its counter arguments. it is, essentially, a partisan article.
This needs to be fixed.
I agree as well. Although there is criticism listed throughout the article (less than I think there should be), there is not the ubiquitous "criticism" section which we find throughout the rest of wikipedia. I think it would be beneficial to include one, if only for ease of reading. 148.85.199.30 (talk) 09:16, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
This article reeks of POV. The criticism is minimal and the rest of the article is highly biased in favor of FairTax, treating it as if it is something that is obviously and universally better than other systems. This is in no way a balanced or reasonable article. --Adelesse (talk) 19:20, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Scientology
The FairTax was not created by scientologists. Bartlett was wrong in his opinion piece. He confused the group Citizens for an Alternative Tax System with the group Americans For Fair Taxation They are not the same, and the FairTax was created with AFFT not CATS (which created a different NRST).--Wynler | Talk 13:49, 27 August 2007 (UTC) Oops forgot to sign.
reference, from one of the architects of the FairTax. --Wynler | Talk 13:50, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Economic Effects
I have never been so disappointed in Wikipedia or its peer review process. To award "featured article" status to this piece is to overlook, and implicitly sanction, its many biases, as well as its intellectual deficiencies (for one, as others have pointed out, there are far too many bold claims with citations to op-ed pieces). I made a few small corrections in the introductory section in order to try to introduce a little more balance in the language of the article. (E.g.: the tax proposals defenders included "many mainstream economists and tax experts"--alert, weasel words!--whereas the opponents were nothing more than "critics.")
I would very much like to point to one salient deficiency that I was not able to correct, short of deleting an entire passage. The problem is this: at the end of the second paragraph, broad arguments in favor of consumption taxes in general are introduced, while the rebuttal is only addressed to certain operational limitations in collecting this particular tax. Of course the argument between consumption and income taxes is broad and far-ranging, and in not recognizing the breadth of this argument, particularly from the point of view of the critics of consumption taxes, this article gives short shrift to the intellectual weight of the opponents of this tax.
Finally I would like to see a heading on controversy over the very name of this tax, which was obviously a PR move from the start. This may be what the tax is called from the point of view of its supporters, but its hardly a title worthy of entering into serious intellectual debate. Good grief indeed.Right honorable dr. zombie (talk) 20:58, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Good grief! I hate to keep sounding like a broken record, but there are still WAY too many bogus cites in this article -- all of which conveniently support the FairTax. But when anyone says there should be more balance, the lead editor of this article says that the critic needs to come up with legitimate citations to support the criticism. It seems that what constitutes a legitimate citation lies in the eye of the beholder (or the editor).
In particular, I'm looking at the citations to the alleged studies about all the great economic effects of the FairTax (see, e.g., footnotes 41 and 43), and it turns out there aren't any citations to the actual studies, but rather citations to STATEMENTS made by FairTax proponents, including John Linder, the primary sponsor of the FairTax legislation, and Christopher Trowell (who the hell is he?) Those are NOT legitimate citations, because the claims being made cannot be examined, challenged or verified because there are no citations to the actual studies themselves, just people's CLAIMS or OPINIONS as to what the studies say. And the people making the claims or giving their opinions just happen to be proponents of the FairTax.
Thus, it seems to me that if you need citations for criticism of the FairTax, just cite some of the negative reviews of The FairTax Book on Amazon.com. They have as much legitimacy as some of the citations contained in the article that allegedly support the FairTax.
I am not merely trying to beat a dead horse. I am constantly doing research on the FairTax and try to use Wikipedia to understand some of the issues and examine some of the claims (made by both sides.) Presumably, an enclycopedia would contain relevant, legitimate citations from which one could use as a basis for researching on issue. Sadly, time and again I find that the citations in the FairTax article are beyond useless.
Sorry for the rant. I know you put in a lot of time and effort into this, but I guess some folks out there don't get quite as hung up on footnotes and citations as I do.
P.S. I have not tried to fix the section on Economic Effects because I know you are fair enough to take care of it and would probably not agree with my propose revisions.
64.94.224.248 22:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)GeorgiaTex
Morph -- I tried to link to a Bruce Bartlett article that the Church of Scientology is pushing the FairTax. Surely Bruce Bartlett is more credible than Chris Trowell or some of those anti-tax nutso websites that are currently being cited in the article. If the Scientologists are supporting the FairTax, I think that's an important point to show its broad support. I've got a legitimate citation. So far, I haven't seen any citations to articles that claim the Scientologist are NOT supporting the FairTax. So, how 'bout it?
64.94.224.248 15:50, 17 July 2007 (UTC)GeorgiaTex
Revenue Neutral
I revised this section for a number of reasons.
First, I put in tax-inclusive and tax-exclusive rates to make the various studies easier to understand. (In my opinion, using only tax-inclusive rates is artificially confusing.)
Second, I reorganized the section to put the studies that supported the FairTax first, then the studies that opposed the FairTax second. I think that makes more sense and is easier to follow.
Third, I got rid of some of the alleged studies that really didn't exist. Such as the Jorgenson study, the Poterba study and the earlier Kotlikoff study. I don't think AFFT even refers to these "studies" anymore and the purported authors of those studies have all renounced them. In any event, there are far more recent, detailed, published studies that are discussed in the article, so those older, so-called studies really aren't relevant. (I left in some other "studies" that probably should have been deleted for the same reason, but I didn't want to appear to be hacking away too much.)
Fourth, I tried to high-light some key parts of the main studies. For example, the Beacon Hill study only looked at tax year 2007, and assumed that the deficit for that year would be $476 billion. I think those points are pretty relevant. Merely saying that a 23.8% tax-inclusive rate would be "revenue neutral" without explaining a bit more is misleading. Similarly, I pointed out that Gale's study took a ten-year projection. In order to be fair, I put in what Gale's study showed would happen with 10% tax evasion, but also pointed out that Gale's study did not take into consideration either economic growth or decline under the FairTax.
Fifth, I eliminated a lot of the criticisms of the studies, that was really POV and really didn't add anything. I think its better to just say "proponents say X" and "opponents say Y" without going on and on.
Anyway, hope this helps, although I'm sure Morph is going to throw a fit.
Regards, GeorgiaTex
eliminated some of thecorrected some POV editorializing about the studies
Morph --
Of course it's me. I didn't want you to think it was some hack messing with your article!
The rate increases in the Gale analysis over time because the Bush tax cuts are expected to expire over time. Hence the projected deficit would decline (under our current tax system) because there would be increased future tax revenues as the tax cuts expire. Gale tried to make his analysis revenue neutral, in that it would track the projected tax receipts. That's why the FairTax rate would need to go up over time. Eventually, I believe the deficit gets eliminated, but you need the higher rate.
The Beacon Hill study, on the other hand, is a one-year study (2007) in which the projected deficit was higher than in any time in history ($473 billion). The actual deficit, of course, is much lower -- something lik $200 billion. It seems to me to be misleading to imply that the Beacon Hill study showed the FairTax to be close to revenue-neutral without pointing out that it would leave the federal government with a larger deficit that it had ever had in history (which, of course, could only be reduced by higher tax rates.)
Regarding the earlier "studies" of Jorgenson, Poterba and Kotlikoff. In the first place, if you simply email the purported authors (which I have done), they will tell you either that they did not conduct studies of the FairTax rate or, alternative
Mortgage Lead Generation and Real Estate Leads | Business.com
Quickly find mortgage lead generation solutions from our ... want to save some money and find free or cheap leads? Think about your options: 1. Consider purchasing exclusive mortgage ...
Exclusive Mortgage Leads
Setup Your Exclusive Mortgage Lead campaign to focus On: FHA leads; reverse mortgage lead Prospects; New home buyer leads; Virtually Every Type of Mortgage Lead
Lead Management, Mortgage Lead System, Lead Management System, Buy ...
Get Mortgage Leads at eLeadz. Specializing in selling leads, leads to purchase, cheap mortgage leads and lead management on the ... NON-EXCLUSIVE LEADS = $25 per lead) Select your ...
Mortgage Leads, Cheap Mortgage Leads, Lead Prices, $8.00 Mortgage ...
Hot Mortgage Leads at eLeadz. Specializing in cherry picking mortgage leads, mortgage leads, lead pricing and mortgage leads for less ... NON-EXCLUSIVE ...
Mortgage Lead Generation Insurance Appointment Setting
Outsourcing your mortgage lead generation process to The Lead Tree, LLC will not ... Exclusive Mortgage Leads; Cheap Mortgage Leads; Free Mortgage Leads; Get Mortgage Leads
Mortgage Lead Vault - FHA Leads, Buy Cheap Mortgage Leads, FHA Leads
Mortgage Lead Company offers cheap mortgage leads in 50 states online for FHA ... The best leads are usually exclusive mortgage leads from a direct lead generator, meaning you ...
Exclusive Telemarketing Leads Cheap Mortgage Leads Telemarketed
Call Center Lead Generation. With the changing trends in today's economy we have responded by offering a diverse line of call center outsourcing and lead generation services ...
Internet Mortgage Lead Generation: How to Generate Your Own Exclusive ...
... cheap, generic, or tacky web site that is a dead end for mortgage lead generation. If your site offers a Full 1003 Application, flash intro or music, you are losing exclusive ...
`1-cheap-debt-settlement-aged-credit-repair-fha-mortgage-payday-loan ...
4 all aged fha refinance leads cheap credit repair data payday loan leads live transfer exclusive qualified leads cheap debt settlement list.
Cheap exclusive lead mortgage
Underpayments or cheap exclusive lead mortgage below in ex payer of cheap exclusive lead mortgage. Longer to investors got from ihas or cheap exclusive lead mortgage ordering.