User talk:Morphh/Archive4

RE: Warning
Therefore civility prevents me from telling you where you can put your 'warning' -- other than to suggest that in future you make a new section for them, rather than force users to search through the debris of old conflicts for them. Hrafn42 04:41, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Pointing out a basic error in logic is neither incivility, nor an assumption of bad faith.
 * Repeated and explicit refusal to substantiate assertions (as rtc did) is both incivil and acting in bad faith, and fully warrants an accusation of trolling (one made by a number of others besides myself).

Hrafn42 14:19, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * "My so-called flawed logic was a matter of opinion, of which I of course disagree." No, it is not a matter of opinion, it is a matter of basic logic. It is logically incorrect to infer from 'A implies B' that 'B implies A.' Examples of this can be found everywhere: e.g. the (correct) inference that "if it is a shark implies that it is a fish" does not lead to the inference that "if it is a fish implies that it is a shark." If you make a basic logical error, I reserve the right to inform you of the fact in a blunt manner. Either learn the rules of logic, or live with being corrected.
 * As far as rtc goes, he has a long-standing reputation for disruptive behaviour, and his 'contribution' to the article was little more than baldly stating his opinions and expecting them to be accepted without source or substantiation. This is not "working in good faith to make the article better," and it is not "incivility" to pointedly call an editor on their repeated failure to provide these sources or substantiation, which are after all the only possible basis for altering an article, and thus essential for any useful discussion on potential alterations.

Featured Article Review: Intelligent design
Intelligent design has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. --FOo 09:03, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

hey
Say, hey, who are you? I'm in Cleveland. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.230.29.104 (talk • contribs)


 * I choose to keep my real life identity private. Morphh   (talk) 23:01, 07 July 2007 (UTC)

???
Hey, Im really EOlsonTrevor. What hAppened? Eric Olson —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.230.29.104 (talk • contribs)


 * ??? - Sorry, I don't understand your question. Morphh   (talk) 23:02, 07 July 2007 (UTC)

Heads up
Those ethnicity categories are about to be deleted and when they are the persons ethnicity will go with them. I am just trying to retain the information on Wikipedia. --Anthropocentrism 14:31, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Spellcheck
RE YOUR POST ''Noted your comment. Just thought I would offer that I use http://www.iespell.com (free) when using IE based browsers. Firefox has a nice feature that will underline misspelled words. Morphh (talk) 15:29, 12 July 2007 (UTC)''


 * Appreciate it, thanks. I've jettisoned Firefox for now as it's been getting beaten up by the scripts lately, and have moved to Safari because, though it's a bit slower, it's turned out to be significantly more stable. Thanks for the info!  ... Kenosis 15:35, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * If you have Firefox/2.0.0.6, it will probably be OK. There other browsers that are probably faster than Safari. Opera is one. Brian Pearson 02:19, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Taxation history of the United States
Hey Morphh, I went ahead and created the article per your suggestion. It needs a lot of work due to the huge endeavor. I think your idea of the taxes imposed on the states when they were colonies is a brilliant idea. I thought to added to that idea with the taxes imposed by Spain and France, such as the taxes to be paid with the right to deposit in New Orleans, but that needs a lot more research beyond my recollections from high school AP US History.EECavazos 23:42, 14 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Beautiful work on the article! I'll try to work on it here and there, but I'll be taking my bar exam in a couple of weeks, so I devote sporadic amounts of time in between my final review for the exam. EECavazos 02:12, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the barnstar!.EECavazos 21:15, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

FAIRTAX 2.0++
I've seen you on Fairtaxblog.com... I have something that I strongly believe you will find of interest to talk about over there. I call it FAIRTAX 2.0.

Under FAIRTAX 2.0:
 * Retailers MUST only collect FairTax on paper/coin money!
 * ONLY US Banks should charge FairTax when an individual makes an electronic payment, because it is cheaper for THEM to do so than RETAILERS-THEY ARE ALSO A THIRD PARTY TO BOTH BUYER AND SELLER SO THEY WON'T CHEAT.
 * Foreign card holders should be able to buy US products without FairTax!
 * US banks should charge US consumers FairTax for spending in foreign countries!
 * The gov't should NOT tax its own spending!

The underlying virtue is to...
 * Give BANKS the job!

This will make far easier to implement the FairTax plan with just as much improvement over the current FairTax plan as the FairTax plan has improvement over the current system! Godspeed with your efforts on Fairtaxblog.com!◙◙◙  I M Kmarinas86 U O 2¢  ◙◙◙ 03:25, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I've heard of something similar to this in another tax plan. I have concern with a couple things with this idea.  I can bank with anyone I choose, so how would it control FairTax if I used Foreign banks or credit cards.  Or even some online bank, or other payment method like web money / e-gold.  I also have a problem with not taxing the Government (unless it can be shown to not provide the Government with a tax advantage over private industry).  The cost of business for these need to be the same IMO so private industry doesn't slip into public utility.  Interesting idea though... I'll give it more thought - perhaps these points can be easily addressed.   Morphh   (talk) 3:41, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * There's a lesser-known idea about about taxing the movement of money. Brian Pearson 01:47, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

UK Template, being away, etc
Hey Morphh, sorry for the late reply. Basicly I had a hard-drive death, which was followed by The Worst Tech Support Ever making the task of getting reconnected about 10 times worse than it needed to be (they sent me the wrong stuff about four times!). At which point I'd run into some work stuff, and holidays, so I decided to take a few weeks and catch up on other things. Anyway, hoping to be a bit more active again now. On the template, thanks for setting it up. It's still a bit rough (the central and local headings direct to the same place!).

Also wanted to ask your advice on something: I reckon I need to split Business rates up into two articles, one for England and Wales, and one for Scotland. I didn't know much about the Scottish system, other than that it ran a bit differently from the England/Wales one, but now that I've taken time to research it I've found that it's fundamentally different at its core (based on completely separate legislation/case law), although there's an administrative veneer over the top giving it the same name and some similar features. Is the appropriate thing to do to create Business rates in England and Wales and Business rates in Scotland, and make Business rates a disambiguation page?

Thanks, J.W inklethorpe talk 10:25, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, thanks for reminding me about the otheruses tag. That's probably the best solution, in the short term. J.W inklethorpe talk 19:58, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

So FairTax is finally featured, huh?
Sweet. --Trevdna 03:29, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

States as agents of its citizens
It occurred to me that individual states should be able to serve as agents for its citizens. If Texas decided to collect the taxes and send them to Washington, why not? What difference would it make to them, so long as the obligations were met? Hypothetically, lets say that $X billion were collected under the old system. If the federal government received $X billion under the new system, then they should be happy. Other states would probably follow suit. Once at least two/thirds (the 'threshold of acceptance') of the states went to this, then the rest would have to follow. Brian Pearson 04:16, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * If you're referring to the FairTax, the state will do the collection, enforcement, and administration of the tax (getting paid .25% to do so - the business also gets .25%). The Fed will be oversight.  If you mean that the state should limit what they give the fed to what is obligated, then you would have to define obligation on a state by state basis (California would provide more then Ohio).  What would happen if one state (through poor policy decisions) did not meet its obligations, sending business to the neighboring state?  Interesting idea though..   Morphh   (talk) 14:40, 06 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I was thinking that instead of going for the whole enchilada, we could maybe pass a bill letting each individual state go ahead and do the FairTax thing, on their own. I think other states would follow suite, and if it is set up so that two-thirds of the states do it, then the rest would have to follow.
 * BTW as a side point, I saw part of the GOP debates last night. Only one or two of them knew what the FairTax was about. I wish I knew how to get them to learn more about it. Brian Pearson 00:40, 7 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Well it is certainly a hope of proponents that the states would convert to the FairTax model. Many states are already working on it and have bills of their own in state congress.  In the election, I know Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani don't know much about it, but many of the others do.  Five of the eight major GOP candidates support the FairTax.  In addition, some of the minor candidates have expressed support - John H. Cox was probably the most vocal and continues to promote the plan, though the media has excluded him from debates and such.  Sort of a chicken and the egg, as they wouldn't let him in the debate as he didn't rate on their poll, but they didn't include him as an option in the poll for people to vote.   Morphh   (talk) 1:20, 07 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Some, like McCain, certainly do want simplification, but I'm equally sure he doesn't know the difference. I do wish the news would pay more attention to what others say, instead of quoting those at the top of the polls. Brian Pearson 01:41, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

President's report from Treasury
I was wondering if Bush had gotten the straight dope about FT from anyone besides government nonsense? I's sure like to know. Brian Pearson 00:06, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Linder has spoken with Bush and I believe Bush has read the FairTax book. Here is a pic of Bush with the FairTax book on Air Force One.  Linder had met to speak with Bush for something like 30 min and once they got talking he pushed his other appointments out and he talked to Linder for over an hour.  Linder has also met with the Secretary of the Treasury Henry M. Paulson.  He stated that he would investigate the FairTax in a very comprehensive way using resources outside the Treasury.  Morphh   (talk) 1:22, 08 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I appreciate knowing that. Brian Pearson 02:59, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Objectors to Fair Tax
I was reading one of my boards, when someone had suggested reading www.mises.org and www.fee.org   I did go to both of these sites, taking a special interest in their view of the Fair Tax. Both sites (supposedly libertarian in nature) took an opposing view which seemed to me did not show an in-depth understanding of it. In fact one article suggested we work to get rid of the income tax, altogether! I'm not quite sure how to combat this attitude, other than just hoping that such sites aren't well-read. Brian Pearson 00:37, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Honk if you Oppose a Fairer Tax - here is a paper that was written in responce to the Mises article written by Vance. It argues how the FairTax plan is least destructive of the goals of Austrian economics and libertarian ideals.  Others at Mises support the idea - David Burton of the Argus Group, one of the authors of the FairTax bill (the other being Dan Mastromarco who wrote the "honk" article), is a Mises faculty member.  The blog on the article is full of dispute at Mises.  There are a couple different aspects that come up in the libertarian party.  One is that tax reform is not worth their political effort as they don't want to distract from reducing taxes.  The other is a philisophical ideal that any non-volentary taxation is wrong and they will not compromise.  In their minds, any federal tax agency no matter what size or form is "the IRS" by another name.  As far as the FEE article, I actually get The Freemen and when I read this piece I wrote to them immediately.  It was a blatant misrepresentation of the plan with many incorrect facts.  FEE is usually very good at doing research and understanding a topic they write about and I though it was a very poor reflection of FEE and not up to their standards.  I heard back from them and exchanged several emails with Gene Callahan (the author of the article) in which I professionaly and politely destroyed each one of his incorrect misrepresentations of the plan.  By the end of the e-mail exchange.. he could not defend any of the points I raised.  He greatly misrepresented the plan and I think anyone reading it will get a very distored and incorrect view - stick with Wikipedia.  They printed some reader rebuttals in the print March issue (the reader comments are not published on the web).  Note that neither of them will defend the current system and they despise income taxation... the FairTax doesn't do enough to reduce the size of goverment (since it is intended to be revenue neutral) and still maintains some aspects of a tax agency (which is legal robbery at the point of a gun in their view - a violation of individual right to property).  No doubt there are areas of contention and criticism and everyone has a point of view.   Morphh   (talk) 2:25, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Morph, I appreciate it. Brian Pearson 02:58, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair Tax
Hi Morphh. I noticed the beginnings of that yesterday - it's moved on pretty swiftly. I'll be along this evening (my time) to add my tuppence. The FAR is disappointing - I would like to see the FAR process recognising vexatious nominations, and treating them accordingly. J.W inklethorpe talk 07:29, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Morphh, I added my own talk comment but maybe not to the best advantage. A more personal one is on Taxman's page, in response to your comments there. Brian Pearson 15:28, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I've made some comments. I'm glad to see that there's been some recognition at the FAR that the move there may have been hasty. In general, I'd say that I have every confidence that you can take any legitimate, specific points made and incorporate them in the article - you've been doing a sterling job on the article, and recognition of that is due. I'll help out as necessary, but obviously I lack the background knowledge for major changes (although, I don't see much need for major work!) If there's some scutwork that needs doing (but SandyGeorgia seems to have fixed her own concerns), feel free to call on me. Beyond that, I'll try to stay active on the talk page; hopefully changes will be discussed and I can add my tuppence to them. J.W inklethorpe talk 21:46, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I began a survey of duplicate links, as I'd seen Sandy had mentioned them. From Distibution to Predicted effects:economic, I got these which have multiple links within the article (ignoring the lead): Laurence Kotlikoff; Consumption tax; Economic growth; Government Accountability Office; Vernon L. Smith (and 2 different links of nobel Laureate preceding him); Americans for Free taxation; Interest rate; Export; National Retail Foundation. Do you want to check them out and see if any want to be delinked? I'll carry on this evening if it would be helpful. J.W inklethorpe talk 07:40, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I'll will try to go through them soon. Please do continue to help.  Since it looks like we're going to go through an NPOV debate, it may be very helpful to have someone that doesn't particularly care one way or another about American tax reform or our partisan politics.  You can look objectivily at the content where I or those disputing may have blinders.  Sometimes you just need an extra voice to move things along. Thanks again.   Morphh   (talk) 18:45, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Happy to be the extra voice. I'm actually quietly encouraged by Marskel's post on the FAR - he was very fair minded on the UK Corporation tax FAR - and hopefully there should be either some answerable points, or an end to the FAR soon. I'll continue with the housekeeping for now. If you'd prefer me to simply delink all duplicates, I can, but I thought I'd give you the opportunity to review them first. J.W inklethorpe talk 18:50, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * From (hopefully) the full article:
 * Hybrid (not multiple, but doesn’t seem a useful link?); Value Added Tax (3 or four links); Americans For Fair Taxation; Estate tax in the United States; Effect of taxes and subsidies on price; production cost(s) (both  redirect to same page); underground economy; Government Accountability Office; Alternative Minimum Tax; tax reform; advocacy group; John Linder (several links); Sales taxes in the United States; Export; progressive tax; Beacon Hill Institute; President's Advisory Panel for Federal Tax Reform (several links); tax avoidance (redirects to tax avoidance and tax evasion, which is linked later, as is tax evasion); Income tax in the United States; Federal Insurance Contributions Act tax; tax incidence; progressive tax; Tax incidence (linked from tax burden a paragraph later); corporate tax linked at one point, corporate tax in the United States linked at another.
 * Some multiples arising from the picture captions, but I reckon that’s okay? The see also section has multiples in it; on the UK Corporation Tax FAR Sandy objected to that, although I wasn't quite sure of the rationale behind it. Anyway, hope it helps. I'll try to have a read through and look for unnecessary links, later. Let me know if anything else needs targeting. J.W inklethorpe talk 21:11, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks, feel free to correct them. It is ok for an article to have multiple links so long as they're in different sections and still benefit the context.  But have at it.  My time at the moment is unfortunately limited.  I think the see also's should be ok.  Thanks again :-)   Morphh   (talk) 14:13, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I've just stumbled across Words_to_avoid, which I'm rather hoping will be reasonably conclusive on the criticism section issue. The MOS is so darn big, I keep on finding odd stuff by accident! I'm going away for a few days, so I'm unlikely to work on the links issue, although I'll hopefully be able to check into the FAR if necessary.J.W inklethorpe  talk 19:43, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, that's good. I notice that Cherlin has been inactive for several days; I wonder if it would be appropriate to revert his changes to the lead and then try to discuss them on the talk page, to see if either he or anyone else wishes to support the changes? Or would that be unnecessarily antagonistic? J.W inklethorpe talk 21:51, 17 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I had moved all of his changes (minus one that I thought was good) to the talk page earlier this week (section called "lead"). I'm pretty sure you even commented on it under that section (that we should move it until changes are reviewed and discussed). :-) I had added a couple paragraphs of thoughts on why I thought his changes were inappropriate.  There has been no defense to the changes.  I thought they added POV and polarization, disrupted prose, unsource and inaccurate statements, and definitions that are not needed in the lead.  Thanks again for your help watching the article.    Morphh   (talk) 12:26, 18 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Aha, I wondered why the idea seemed familiar - I'd had it already! J.W inklethorpe talk 22:26, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

More gloom and doom: Brookings
This writer suggests that under the FairTax, rates could go as high as 77%! Brian Pearson 03:25, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes - note the date (1998). William Gale has changed his rate over the years.  Some of his earlier sales tax studies were not based on the FairTax legislation - just a generic national sales tax with his assumptions.  Gale's most recent study in 2005, which does model the FairTax is presented in the FairTax article under "Revenue neutrality" and referenced in other parts.   28.2% (39.3% tax-exclusive) for 2007 assuming full taxpayer compliance and an average rate of 31% (44% tax-exclusive) from 2006–2015 (an increase that accounts for the replacement of an additional $3 trillion in revenue collected through the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) impacting the middle class over the 10 year period).  Morphh   (talk) 13:21, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Morphh, I'll have to study it some more (IOW, read it two or three times). Brian Pearson 16:00, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

More template issues
You resolved some template issues brought to VPT a few days ago. I left a comment but I fear it may have gone unnoticed. If you have time, can you please take a look at my comment here. Thanks.↔NMajdan &bull;talk 17:20, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Fred Thompson
I was very glad to hear that he had come out supporting the FairTax. BTW, I've been wondering if part of his problems money is partly because he hasn't thrown his hat into the ring. Brian Pearson 01:16, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

FairTax
Thanks for the note; I just got back from vacation. I'll check it out later this evening, probably, or at least tomorrow. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 02:10, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Well Cielomobile's comments in the FAR are about the best praise you can get for an article considering his stance on the proposal, so again, nice work, and keep it up. There are lots more tax articles that need you. :) - Taxman Talk 14:13, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Supply-side economics
I saw a link on a talk page posted by SandyGeorgia that I thought was interesting. I've mostly heard opposing views. Brian Pearson 02:32, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

The FairTax Book
I just bought and read The Fair Tax Book, not realizing it was an earlier issue. I was very happy with it, though. One point they made about taxing government was that there were government entities -- gas or electric suppliers, for example -- sometimes competing with private companies. Otherwise it would be a wash. Brian Pearson 01:04, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, one of the reason to tax government is so that it does not have a tax advantage over private industry. At the federal level it would be a wash.  Although some problems come up when opponents want to remove this tax base (as a wash) but not change the revenue neutral figure to be collected (without removing the wash from the current system).  The new book might still be worth getting, even if you've read the earlier one.  It has an additional chapter in the back; although, this may be covered in their new book which is suppose to be focused around answering the critics.  The only thing I didn't care for in the first addition was that he implied that you would recieve your entire paycheck (gross) and prices would fall by 22%, which is incorrect.  He clarified this in the paperback release.  There were a couple of other things.. but it was pretty good.  Since you just read it, consider taking a look at The FairTax Book and seeing if there is any additional information that should be added.   Morphh   (talk) 13:42, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll be getting the newer issue, then. BTW, it seems to me that the FairTax would be very easy to tweak after a short period of time after passage. I believe a lot of time is wasted trying to get the figures exactly right, the first time around. Brian Pearson 23:43, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

FAR
FairTax has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.

CATS
I'm sure you are way ahead of me, since I 'just got off the evening bus'. I was reading the CATS site, where they were talking about the FairTax. For some odd reason they were talking about how high the FT percentage was. They didn't mention what their percentage was. Brian Pearson 00:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Their plan would only replace the income tax and corporate tax, which is about 60% of the taxes the FairTax replaces (payroll taxes being the other 40%). So you could guess their rate would be around 14%.  This would hit lower incomes families harder then the FairTax as it keeps the regressive payroll tax in place (since 85% of Americans pay more in payroll taxes then income taxes).  Thier plan is close to what the president's tax panel studied.  It would also not give the SS plan the expanded base of consumption and would not fully remove the embedded cost structure that hurts global competitiveness.  Not to knock it... I'd be fine with either, though I think the FairTax is better.  The FairTax acutally got its start and grew out of CATS.  Problem with their plan, and many others that you see out there... where's the bill?, where's the research?, where are the cosponsors?, where is the grassroots?.  It's nice to talk about all these other ideas but there are only a few that actaully have any traction.   Morphh   (talk) 13:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * where's the bill?, where's the research?, where are the cosponsors?, where is the grassroots?. Yep, I noticed! I was thinking that site was a little 'sparse'. I also noticed that SS wasn't included, and so people would still be having that taken out. I couldn't see why they would say any other was better than the FairTax unless they are just plain stubborn. Brian Pearson 14:49, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Looking for a name
I seem to remember you or Taxman praising someone for his help on the FairTax article, though he opposed it. There's a blank spot in my brain where the name should be. Brian Pearson 02:38, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It was probably Cielomobile, who left a great comment in the FAR. GeorgiaTex, who is also against the plan, has also said some very nice things about the article in other forums.   Morphh   (talk) 12:16, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks! BTW, I came across a speech that was listed as source for the Reagan article. It made me think he would have tried to sell it:

"...The Founding Fathers knew a government can't control the economy without controlling people. And they knew when a government sets out to do that, it must use force and coercion to achieve its purpose. So we have come to a time for choosing..."
 * Brian Pearson 01:00, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

How about this one... "“We need true tax reform that will at least make a start toward restoring for our children the American Dream that wealth is denied to no one, that each individual has the right to fly as his strength and ability will take him…. But we cannot have such reform while our tax policy is engineered by people who view the tax as a means of achieving changes in our social structure.” —October 27, 1964. Reagan" Morphh  (talk) 12:11, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Excellent stuff. I suspect he made several speeches with those same or very similar thoughts. Brian Pearson 23:10, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Quick look
Hi Morphh, if you've got a moment in the next few days, could you have a read of the example given in the first paragraph of the Alterations and proposals section in Business rates in England and Wales? I've been rejigging it slightly for clarity, but I want to check that someone unfamiliar with it can follow it. Thanks, J.W inklethorpe talk 10:10, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I took a quick look and had no problems understanding your example. I did a quick copyedit so that it read a little easier for me... feel free to reject or accept them.  :-)  Morphh   (talk) 20:19, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Good changes, though I changed a couple again :) J.W inklethorpe talk 20:12, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Note
Hi Morphh. Just to let you know about Articles for deletion/X tax. --  GarbageCollection   - !Collect 06:13, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Links to some good "give and take"on FT
FairTax: Too Good To Be True?  Fair Tax Plan Prt 2 Brian Pearson 01:36, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I read through them when I have a chance. Morphh   (talk) 13:02, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Your "picture of the day"
There's an interesting 'rim' beginning at about 9:30 and going to what would be about 4:30, if not for the crater. It looks a little as if the two halves of the moon were "put together". BTW, do you happened to remember the name of the old stone building that was about 55 feet high? Brian Pearson 00:48, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikimania in Atlanta!
Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 22:40, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

FairTax - Environmentally Friendly?
We exchanged some on this quite a while back (see last - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Pbgiv). Though I have no studies, research or other support for my views, I still believe the Fairtax to be very environmentally friendly. For what it's worth, and because I can, I've posted a listing of my Fairtax environmental views/beliefs on my e-commerce site: http://www.greenearthmarket.com/index.asp?PageAction=Custom&ID=1#fairtax. You last noted an AFT individual mentioning that it was environmentally friendly and that you might have to look into it further - found anything more? Perhaps there's place in the article to somehow mention that there are these beliefs, yet with no research done to confirm or deny? Great, great work on the article btw. (Also - how do you sign with the link back to your own Talk page?) Pbgiv 15:16, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, gotta start somewhere - how about this: It has been suggested that the Fairtax would have both some direct and indirect environmental benefits. 1)Initially by the reduction or elimination of paper use in the preparation and filing of Federal Income Tax. 2)Because it's a tax on only new goods and services, it 2a) would encourage re-use of existing goods and 2b) would discourage disposability of new goods. 3)It would cause a significant shift in the housing market from new to existing homes, increasing the instance and market of restoration and remodelling over demolition and new building. 4) The expected increase of U.S. domestic manufacturing due to the decreased/eliminated domestic corporate tax burden could effect a decrease in global polution because 4a)more of the worlds goods would be produced under our generally tighter environmental controls (as opposed to developing countries with less environmental regulation or adherence) and 4b) fewer of the goods purchased here would be subject to international shipping and it's environmental cost. User talk:Pbgiv Pbgiv 17:10, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Apartment rent?
Morphh, This is something that has been nagging me the past few weeks. It seems to me to be an example of one of the things that won't come down much. Property tax will disappear, and that's about it. Any thoughts? Is this something about the FairTax that should be tweaked? Brian Pearson 00:33, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Renting an apartment has many of the same costs as any type of service or good. The landlord likely pays self-employment or corporate taxes / payroll taxes on the income from the rental.  They also have the compliance cost associated with these taxes, which would be somewhat included in the switch to the FairTax as they would keep .25% of the collection.  So if the owner keeps all their income taxes and their half of payroll (like we expect from most employment arangments), they could still decrease their operation cost by the other taxes they pay and the compliance.  If they have any employees, they will also receive a portion from this tax burden.  If they have maintenance costs, these would be tax free as the final consumption is the rental, so you have reduced cost there.  There is also the possibility that they may refinance, because the FairTax is expected to drop interest rates by 25%.  Also consider the other end... the rebate is meant to untax necessities, which housing is included in the Department of Health and Human Services calculation (possibly one of the most important next to food).  So the renters will likely have more income (once they receive gross pay) and a rebate that is specifically for paying the taxes on such necessities.  Those on social security receive their gross benefit, plus an increase due to any inflation, and the rebate.  As far as tweaking, I wouldn't be for any exclusions.  If there is an cost increase in renting due to the tax, it will be factored into the prebate for poverty level spending.  If there is some other special need, I'd would want it done outside the tax code (like part of the welfare program).  That's my thoughts for the moment. :-)  Morphh   (talk) 13:28, 07 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks Morphh. Knowing you are pretty busy, I posted the question here, as well -- Yahoo's 'ask, answer'. If you have a yahoo account you might post a reply. There are a couple of replies from people who obviously don't know what the FairTax is about. On the other hand, don't worry too much about it, unless you've signed up anonymously. I'll say something when I have time. Brian Pearson 17:34, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Here is some info from AFFT http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=about_research_realestate. Not sure it discusses renting in there but it covers realestate research.  Morphh   (talk) 18:16, 07 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I appreciate it, Morphh. BTW I saw a response elsewhere that sounded a lot like what you might have said, which was not bad for the limited space allowed. I do think the FairTax could do a lot for the country, and I do think it is irresponsible for people running for the presidency not to familiarize themselves with it. Brian Pearson 00:40, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I read your latest post on there... one point concerned me a little - "When that goes away, your income is bigger and things you buy are cheaper." I don't feel the second part is true (unless your talking about pre-fairtax cost) - production cost will be cheaper but it is expected that prices will go up by about 10-15% after the FairTax is added... unless we end up taking home our net pay (so income would not be bigger) and then the prices of goods would be cheaper or the same (even with the FairTax added). Just wanted to make sure you don't think that we'd get a raise and prices would stay the same or be cheaper (after the FairTax was added). This seems to be a common misunderstanding and an error printed in the hardcover edition of the FairTax book (corrected in the paperback). Oh BTW, you can now preorder The FairTax Book II at Amazon - can't wait to get it. I agree with you on the President point. Makes it worse when you have people out their putting out completely false information like Bartlett. Rudy Giuliani (or at least his staff) has agreed to sit down and recieve a briefing on the FairTax. I think he was the last Republican candidated that had not recieved one. Not sure about the Dems. I think the Blue Dog Democrats are planning to get a briefing from John Linder. Linder talked about it on last weekends Phil Hinson's FairTax Podcast. Morphh   (talk) 2:19, 08 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes. I agree I wasn't clear when I talked about things being cheaper. I was typing on the fly with no editing -- a dangerous thing for me to do. I am heartened to see any move by anyone to look into the FairTax. If even one of them speaks well of it afterwords, it could make a difference. And, if any Democrats got on board, that would be great. I saw a newer version of 'The FairTax Book', with the new 'afterwords', but I haven't seen 'The FairTax Book II'. I'll be looking forward to it. I probably am singlehandedly responsible for Hastings' profits on books... Brian Pearson 01:04, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Here are some new studies that were just released by Beacon Hill Institute at Suffolk University. Morphh  (talk) 1:16, 09 September 2007 (UTC)
 * A Comparison of the FairTax Base and Rate with Other Tax Reform Proposals
 * A Distributional Analysis of Adopting the FairTax: A Comparison of the Current Tax System and the Fair Tax Plan
 * The Economic Effects of the FairTax: Results from the BHI CGE Model
 * The FairTax and Charitable Giving

House ways and means Committee
I was just reading "Hearing on Fair and Equitable Tax Policy for America’s Working Families" on the House Ways and Means Committee. There was a lot of good thinking behind a lot of clever words by some very bright people. Unfortunately, it was "inside the box" stuff. Douglas Holtz-Eakin was the only person to mention a sales tax, and I could tell his familiarity with the idea was "passing". One good thing is that some of people giving testimony left contact information, including email addresses and phone numbers. Also, at the end, is a "Submissions for the Record" page where, I suppose, citizens have a mechanism for voicing their thoughts to the Committee. Brian Pearson 02:09, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Can you comment when you have a moment?
Currently there are discussions here Articles for deletion/Jargon of the Neal Boortz Show and here Talk:Jargon of the Neal Boortz Show‎. Basic summary. The Jargon page was created to help bring the main article up to GA status. We followed a similar article which just achieved GA status (see Rush Limbaugh and Jargon of The Rush Limbaugh Show), yet, inconsistently, in that article it helps but on this one it's up for deletion. Any comments you can add, pro or anti, are welcomed. Cheers! --User: (talk) 13:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

FairTax -- Distribution of Tax Burden: NPOV
Hi Morphh, The section is not neutral because it does not have research from the other side of the issue. Until it does, it should have a neutrality tag. I think you shouldn't remove a neutrality tag on text you wrote. The neutrality review is really up to someone else. —Preceding unsigned comment added by John Duncan (talk • contribs) 21:00, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Neutrality is my job too.. and I'll work to inlcude the "other side" once you present sources or even a discussion on whatever the "other side" is. Morphh   (talk) 13:35, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality means that the article does not sound like it is written by an advocate, which I think you are. It's not just about the wording of the phrases, but about supplying complete information and balancing biased sources with unbiased ones. I believe that all your sources are advocacy sources, so the section is not neutral until there is balance. Some time in the future I will have the time to supply some additional research, but I am busy just now. Nevertheless, I dispute the neutrality of the section, and you really shouldn't remove that tag. John Duncan 13:27, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I replied on John Duncan's talk page. Morphh   (talk) 1:08, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Flat tax nonsense
Morphh, I was wondering if there was already a rebuttal to this flat tax (scroll to bottom), so I wouldn't have to redo the wheel? Brian Pearson 00:31, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Never mind, I went ahead and took a stab at it. :) Brian Pearson 03:55, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Cool.. I don't get the time much to get into the blog scene. Though I do drop into http://www.fairtaxblog.com once in a while.  BTW - the state and business would each receive .25% of the FairTax collected (which is about $5 billion when you add it up - over $500 million for California).  Morphh   (talk) 13:42, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't want you to do any writing, I just thought there might be some 'ready-made' counter-debates lying around someplace. I think if I do it myself, I'll learn it better, though. But I have thought a possible point having to do with cost of living. In various parts of the country, cost of living will vary. It costs more in New York or California than Oklahoma or Wyoming. Suppose we have average state cost of living figures instead of one national figure? I suppose some will then go on to suggest cost of living figures for Paducah, Texas vs Houston, Texas, but we'd have to draw the line, somewhere. Brian Pearson 02:01, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:Wgale.png
Thanks for uploading Image:Wgale.png. I noticed the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the image description page and edit it to add, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
 * 2) On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if not used in an article), per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rettetast 18:16, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Reply to "Template Change"
There was a "small" feature? I didn't notice it, or I would of included it, sorry. Thanks for telling me, though. The UserboxerComplain/ubx 20:09, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

John Stossel
Hi, Morphh. You seem to be editing a John Stossel page in one of your sandboxes. This came to my attention because the page for each category in which John Stossel is listed, e.g. American Skeptics, Global Warming Skeptics, has a link to your sandbox. Apparently since your sandbox has the "Category:XX" link for these pages, they are automatically added to the category page. Would you mind adding some  code for the categories on that page? Thanks. JFlav 12:38, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


 * No problem... will do. Thanks  Morphh   (talk) 12:46, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Copyeditor's Barnstar
I've seen you copyedit here and there throughout various articles and you do a rather good job at it. I think this is a well deserved recognition for all you've done and continue to do.


 * Cool - Thanks :-) Morphh   (talk) 20:39, 02 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the input
Thanks for the input at:. I don't remember ever participating in a mediation before, so I don't know, but shouldn't you hang around? Maybe there'll be a party! :-) Famspear 21:18, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Haha, me either - that's why I was interested to see it. A wikiparty sounds fun. :-)  Morphh   (talk) 21:22, 03 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the proofreading
I've noticed that many of my edits are sloppy in grammar and punctuation because you fixed a lot of them. Thanks. Jmegill 17:40, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Biography Newsletter 5
To receive this newsletter in the future, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. This newsletter was delivered by the automated R Delivery Bot 15:49, 7 October 2007 (UTC).

Neal Boortz
Excellent job on the Boortz article with helping it become a GA! There's still more to do and I know you'll continue to help improve it. --User: (talk) 14:01, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * interesting stats I found. Check it out . Cheers! --User: (talk) 15:41, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Cool and congrats on the GA btw. Morphh   (talk) 20:12, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Belief, Rudy Giuliani, global warming
Everyone? believes in global warming? Really? Do you ever read www.foxnews.com ?

Re Giuliani and his belief in global warming: Only Rudy Giuliani knows what he believes (or anyone else knows what they themselves believe, for that matter). If you say that he believes in global warming or the greatness of the NY Yankees, you have to have a reference to refer to, to support what you write about what someone believes. This is an encyclopedia. Wikipedia's reputation suffers greatly when you just put in whatever, without a quote. Without such, edits are vulnerable to removal. Happy editing, Dogru144 23:41, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * For one I said "Just about everyone" but that's not what I was arguing. I only ment that the main debate is not if he believes global warming is real but to what degree it is attributed to humans and what the real impact will be.  This is what I was suggested being included as just saying he believes Global Warming is real means very little.  I was also not suggesting you add in anything unsourced - I was requesting that something sourced be included to make the section useful.  Morphh   (talk) 20:11, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Grassroots@fairtax.org
Morphh, I was wondering if or when I use this email, do my comments or suggestions go someplace where someone sees them, or does someone read it for whatever they think it's worth and move on or...? Just wondered. Brian Pearson 01:48, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I have no idea, I'm not affiliated with them. I'm just another guy like you interested in tax policy.  I know a couple people over there that I send questions to once in a while, that's about it.  If your not getting a response, perhaps a more public forum such as www.fairtaxgroups.com could address your comments or suggestions.  They have a lot of people familiar with the grassroots (as most of them help lead the grassroots in their area).  Morphh   (talk) 13:11, 10 October 2007 (UTC)