Talk:Predicted effects of the FairTax

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Taxation, an effort to create, expand, organize, and improve Tax related articles to a feature-quality standard.
Assessment ratings and other indicators given below are used by the Project in prioritizing and managing its workload.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as Low-priority on the Project's priority scale.
After rating the article, please provide a short summary on the article's comments page to explain your ratings and/or identify the strengths and weaknesses.
Predicted effects of the FairTax was a good article candidate, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. Once the objections listed below are addressed, the article can be renominated. You may also seek a review of the decision if you feel there was a mistake.

Date of review: 21 September 2006
To-do list for Predicted effects of the FairTax: edit  · history  · watch  · refresh

Please discuss the to do tasks on the article talk page

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)

Contents

[edit] 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)

[edit] POV Issues

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../p/r/e/Talk%7EPredicted_effects_of_the_FairTax_3058.html"