User talk:Morphh/Archive5

Don't agree, then.
Perhaps I shouldn't ask what further review prompted you to remove "I agree with AndyJones" ;-( AndyJones 19:15, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I still agreed with you but didn't think it added anything after my change and thought it might confuse more then clarify. At that point, I don't think you had taken a position but just raised some questions, which I agreed with.  You had put forward some constructive comments but did not express an AFD conclusion, which I expect was in part because AFD was not the appropriate step for this article.  So, since you weren't entirely clear, I thought it might make my statement unclear if I referenced yours, if that makes any sense.  I also agreed with some statements made by others and I didn't want to make it sound like I just agreed with you.  :-)  Morphh   (talk) 12:41, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Excel logo
Hi Morphh. You'll probably see someone has removed the excel logo from a FairTax ref. I was kinda confused, so I followed up on WP:NFCC, and can't actually see why it isn't usable. It's non-replacable, no commercial damage (quite the reverse), used appropriately, etc, etc. In fact, given that MediaWiki adds the pdf icon to pdfs (unless it's my browser doing that?), it's a very odd decision. Anyway, if you decide it's worth going in to bat over a small green logo, let me know and I'll add my tuppence.

While I'm here, I've been meaning to ask you: I ran across some useful material on www.taxpolicycenter.org, which is "a joint venture of the Urban Institute and Brookings Institution", which tag them themselves as independant, non-partisan etc. Their wikipedia articles seem to bear this out. I'm sure you're familiar with Brookings, as they're mentioned in FairTax, but what about the Urban Institute? Would you consider them a fairly neutral source, or should I handle with care? J.W inklethorpe talk 22:24, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for heads up on the icons, I think I've resolved it. I'll have to get back to you on the Tax Policy Center... my four year old wants to play. :-)   Morphh   (talk) 23:45, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. There's no rush. Anyway, my four year old is asleep - and I ought to be :) J.W inklethorpe talk 23:52, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


 * For the purpose of Wikipedia, I would consider the Tax Policy Center and the other two as reliable sources. The organizations themselves tend to stay independent but the economists working under the organization may publish to one side or another.  Either way, the sources are usually considered reliable by Wikipedia standards.  I'm not as familar with the Urban Institute.  I'm sure I've read some of their work but it is not standing out in my mind.  Morphh   (talk) 13:39, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'd hope that if the Tax Policy centre is from two independant "parents", it'll be up to their standard. Ta, J.W inklethorpe talk 06:30, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The more I read and hear material from the Brookings Institute, they seem to lean toward big government and generally support policies of the welfare state. I often hear them debating more classic liberalism ideas.  I'm not sure if this is the Institute or just some of the economists at the institute presenting their opinion but these institutions normally have some form of group think.  Morphh   (talk) 14:56, 09 November 2007 (UTC)

Altruism in Wikipedia
Study -- Brian Pearson 02:13, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Interesting, I wonder if they include the Bad Samaritans as well.  Morphh   (talk) 13:24, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I took a look at the paper, itself. It does touch on that. I get the impression that the bad fish aren't that much of a factor. Brian Pearson 00:36, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Article question
A few weeks ago, I wrote the the president of a small college, suggesting they write an article about it. He passed this suggestion on, and shortly afterword, the article appeared. There is a bibliography at the end. I was wondering if it needs to be "wikified" or if it is ok as it stands. I've not learned how to do that, yet, but I may have to learn. Brian Pearson 01:01, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Cool, I did a little work on it. Wikilinks look good but if you find more that help the reader, then add them in.  I would suggest trying to break down the articles into sections, such as "History" or sections that fit the college (perhaps "Sports").  I'd write some type of lead that summarizes the article and includes them most important information.  Perhaps add a "See also" to articles that relate.  Check out WikiProject Universities for suggestions and guidance. Good start.  Morphh   (talk) 3:41, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I thought the two who wrote the original did a nice job, though they were unfamiliar with wikipedia. I'm not really strong on writing wiki articles, myself, at least not in breaking things down into sections. I'm better at the 'normal' way of writing as opposed to encyclopedia writing, though I am sometimes critical of the odd sentences and paragraphs. But I will take a few baby steps with your suggestion in mind as I have time. Thanks! Brian Pearson 22:49, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I just remembered there were two Clarendon Colleges. I put them both in the disambiguation page, then learned you had already put a note in the first Clarendon College page about the Texas college. Brian Pearson 23:07, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I just edited the note that was there to directly link to the new article but a disambig is better. Morphh   (talk) 23:31, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Huckabee
We agree that the policy cited, FUR, is a good reason to not include logos on any cnadidate pages. Beyond that, it's easy to have no hard feelings towards you; i've never had any. My concern is solely editors coming through via HucksArmy to force a pseudo-consensus to get the article 'their way'. You were open to discussion and debate, they aren't. I hope you stick around, or at least ,return after the wikibreak to help otu on the article. disagreements are good here ,they force debate before consensus. it's a problem when no debate can be had, or debate is all one sided. You provided neither of those, simply good back and forth. Hoep you don't drop out of here, you're the kind of editor we need. Open-minded about consensus and such. ThuranX 04:04, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I know that I am not good about citation templates. I read that they are optional...and I am a quick and dirty guy. Jmegill 21:47, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I took your advice
And went to this FairTax forum. The conclusion by at least one person is that this one flat tax could have an edge on the FairTax. On the other hand, there may be other variables that either even things out or makes one superior to the other. Brian Pearson 02:01, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * That would be looking at one small aspect of the plan, tax distribution. Here is a good article Confessions of a former flat taxer: FairTax is better by Denis Calabrese,  the former chief of staff to Congressman Dick Armey.  Also see one of my recent posts on the regressive question Sales Tax Not Progressive and consider the article that discusses the points Progressive / regressive debate.  Also consider that the Flat tax has little support in Congress (6 cosponsors on the most popular bill), while the FairTax has 72 and a growing grassroots.   Morphh   (talk) 3:19, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, a lot -- I'll take a look this evening. But I do recognized that not all flat tax proposals are created equal. Brian Pearson 17:37, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Good reply at the forum, thanks. I was fleshing out a nice reply to the flat tax guy and accidentally clicked the page off. :(. I'll try again, later -- this time using Word. It seems I spend hours reading and trying to influence people about the FairTax. Brian Pearson 06:42, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * It is likely that he also agrees with untaxing savings and investment as most flat taxes do this as well.  In fact, by many economists, a flat tax is a consumption tax as it taxes income minus savings and investment.  If you also remove taxes on business and the payroll tax and exempt a certain amount of income to add progressivity, you have something very similar to the FairTax.  Flat tax plans can vary greatly and depending on which one is being advocated, it can change the debate.  I don't know that the flat tax I described above is in any form of bill, which is a strong argument for me.  I don't see the sense in shooting the lead horse in the race to favor a "preferred" horse that is in the pasture.  If it doesn't eliminate payroll or corporate taxes then you could argue regressive aspects, transparency, and border adjustability in global trade.  In all cases you could argue civil liberties, class warfare, illicit income, illegal immigrants, and greatly reduced federal tax agency (elimination of the IRS).  Some, such as the "flat tax option", can not be revneue neutral.  Many different angles... although, I'm not one to try and beat up the other plans too much. I would support serveral options in reforming the tax code but I have to weigh it with what is on the table and the support around each.   Morphh   (talk) 13:36, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Mediation is open
UPDATE My apologies to all, my computer crashed and I was with out internet for the last few days. The Mediation is now open I will be posting my views and opinions with in the next hour. Æon Insanity Now!  18:27, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

An interesting quote
I had visited CAGW thinking it would surely be an organization that would support the Fairtax. I made an initial search but didn't find anything, so I wrote them an email. In a later search, this time using "fairgax" as the keyword instead of "fair tax," I found one page. On that page, there were letters to the editor in an old “Best of” The Pig Book. One person wrote: (1)Payroll tax enforcement: On January 1, 2005, an article published in Barrons suggests that the $1 trillion underground economy’s uncollected taxes would provide the nation with “surpluses as far as the eye can see.” Effectively enforcing the subcontractor payroll tax would collect $100 billion per year for Social Security. I thought it would be interesting to see if that is in fact in a Barrons, and who wrote it. Brian Pearson 23:44, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * My librarian wife found the entire article from a database. Here are a couple of paragraphs:
 * Measuring the size of the underground economy is, of course, more art than science, since most of its denizens seek to remain anonymous. But convincing anecdotal evidence and a number of credible academic studies suggest that it is expanding briskly-probably by an average of 5.6% a year since the early 1990s, edging out the real economy.


 * In the process, the underground economy is undermining the effectiveness of the Internal Revenue Service, which is highly dependent on employees' withholding taxes. If the IRS could collect all the taxes it says that it is owed from the underground economy in a given year, then the current budget deficit would disappear overnight. And if the IRS could collect these taxes every year, then the nation would have surpluses as far as the eye can see.
 * Going Underground


 * Byline: McTague, Jim
 * Volume: 85
 * Number: 1
 * ISSN: 10778039
 * Publication Date: 01-03-2005
 * Page: 17
 * Type: Periodical
 * I have the entire article if there's a place I can put it. Brian Pearson 02:38, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm trying to think were this might be best placed. Perhaps Taxation in the United States, Income tax in the United States, Internal Revenue Service, or Underground economy.   Morphh   (talk) 16:43, 08 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Of course, there is more to the article than that -- it's several paragraphs, long. I figured I could only push fair use, so far. I had posted a note in the underground economy talk section, saying that I thought their article would be improved with the two cites in the FairTax article we talked about before. Either they seem to be stuck on the idea that it's too hard to nail down the size of the underground economy or the site just isn't very active. It may be that it could be used at all of the places you mentioned, but I imagine you are a better judge of that than I am. Brian Pearson 00:20, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Don't think that article is very active. It is not our place to nail down the size of the underground economy, we can only report what others have stated it to be.  In the United States, we have the sites as discussed.  I believe a percentage to GDP to be more accurate as of course the underground economy grows with the normal economy, perhas even faster as you reported above.  It would be fine to add in the material that you found here and the material from the FairTax article.  Just specify that it is for the U.S. (since this is a global article) and try to limit direct quotations if possible (and "" quote them if they are included).  Use the cite journal tag for the reference.  Morphh   (talk) 14:42, 09 November 2007 (UTC)

Answered your question (rhetorical?) at Talk:Atlas_Shrugged
... under "Userboxes", in case you're still interested. Regards, Unimaginative Username —Preceding comment was added at 23:55, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Insulting other editors
You have been insulting another user on the Elihu Root article, which violates Wikipedia behavioral standards. Please watch your behavior more carefully in the future. Mpublius 15:18, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I think you have me confused with another editor... perhaps Mateo SA. I've never edited the Elihu Root article or participated in the talk there.  Morphh   (talk) 15:43, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

My mistake - it was Mateo SA. Mpublius 15:53, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

FairTax definition of "used"
Morphh, it hadn't fully "hit me" what the definition of "used" was, until yesterday, when I was reading one of the sites in FairTax.org. There've been many, many discussions about the immediate effect of the FairTax, and how used items would not be taxed -- only new items and services would be taxed. Just about everybody had jumped to the conclusion that "used was used." So, it looks like there would be a temporary spike in revenue following installation of the FairTax before things settle down. Brian Pearson (talk) 02:39, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what you mean... A good would be considered "used" and not taxable if a consumer already owns it before the FairTax takes effect or if the FairTax has already been paid on the good. When the FairTax takes effect, goods in inventory (still new but has the embedded tax cost of the current system) will not require remittance of the FairTax to allow prices to adjust much faster to the tax changes.  Used goods before and after the FairTax will have embedded tax cost in the value of the product for resale.  So even though used goods are not charged a FairTax, they still contain the embedded cost of the FairTax when first purchased as the price of the used good is dependent on its value in comparison with purchasing a good "new".   Morphh   (talk) 1:18, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


 * "Used property (page 6)– defined as property on which the federal sales tax has been collected already, and property that was held for other than a business purpose on December 31, 2008 (the day before the sales tax became effective). This means that a business could sell a “used” computer to a private individual, but since the business had purchased the computer tax free, it does not meet the definition of used under the FairTax and the sale is taxable. The term “used” relates to whether or not the sales tax has been paid previously, and not just to whether or not the item has been sold previously."
 * I had read another, shorter site, but this was the quickest one I could find. Brian Pearson (talk) 07:06, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Correct, we may want to think of including this clarification in the article under sales tax rate. The last sentence there.. "The term "used" relates..." would probably work nice as the third sentence of the second paragraph.   Morphh   (talk) 12:46, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Looks like it might conflict with the second sentence. How about replacing the second sentence with the suggested sentence, "The term "used" relates..." Brian Pearson (talk) 16:35, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't see that it conflicts. It is a further explanation of the second half of the sentence "the FairTax has already been paid on the good."  Morphh   (talk) 16:42, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I made a little change to try and combine it with the second sentence so that it flows a little better and makes a little more sense together, hopefully reducing some of the confusion. Morphh   (talk) 4:51, 22 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Good! I had the same thought, that it looked a bit rough, but it was a little late last night to work on it. Brian Pearson (talk) 16:29, 22 November 2007 (UTC)


 * What about something like this: 'A good may be “new” if it had been bought before enactment of the FairTax and taxable after passage of the FairTax. A good may be “used” if the FairTax has been paid previously.' Brian Pearson (talk) 19:54, 22 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The first part is incorrect. A good is "used" if it had been bought before enactment of the FairTax (as taxes have already been paid on it - embedded income taxes).  "Paid previously" and an item being "new" is only relavant to goods purchase after the FairTax goes into effect.  Morphh   (talk) 14:05, 23 November 2007 (UTC)


 * My interpretation was that the only relevant tax making it "used" was the tax under FairTax, regardless of any other tax. Brian Pearson (talk) 00:34, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I had a question from someone, recently, which on the surface seemed to have a simple answer, but I hesitated to reply immediately. He asked where the money for the first prebates would come from. My first thought was that it would come from taxes from the previous year, which was from the old system. After all, people may be expecting tax refunds from the "old" year, and that maybe could be in the form of prebates. But then I got to thinking, it may take awhile for people to switch over, applying for the prebates, anyway. I'm not sure what the repercussions are, here. Brian Pearson (talk) 23:51, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I expect there are some initial transition costs with the FairTax and perhaps the first months prebate (about 40 billion) would be included in that. After the first month (since the rebate is issued the month prior to taxation), the prebate will fund itself out of last months revenue.  The first prebate will be paid out of prior income tax revenue but so long as the FairTax is revenue neutral at the end of the year, it shouldn't be any additional cost.  Twelve months of prebates are included in the figures for revenue neutrality - so the tax must collect for the first rebate expense.  Morphh   (talk) 13:29, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Think there may be people demanding their rebate from the previous year? Brian Pearson (talk) 15:36, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Not a FairTax monthly rebate - it starts on the first day the FairTax goes into effect to cover the following month. The rebate is to cover the FairTax and there is no claim to a prior year of the sales tax.  However, the government will have to comply with the laws that were under the income tax system for the prior year.  So if someone paid too much income tax for that year, they are due a tax refund (it is their money).  The IRS would not go completely out of commission until 3 years after the FairTax was enacted, providing them time to settle the books.  Morphh   (talk) 15:47, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Answers in WP Tax talk
Thanks Wise Morphh! Your answers to my questions in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Taxation/Assessment helped clarify for me the role of multiple wikiprojects in article assessments.EECavazos (talk) 03:18, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey
Hey, for what it's worth, if you want to comment here  I'm giving you a heads up. --User: (talk) 03:33, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I tried e-mailing you a while back and just now remembered that you can't receive e-mail. Is that intentionally turned off? Also if you're interested in commenting here, and here if you're interested. Haven't been on much and when I have, it's been dealing with the vandalism of TTN. --User: (talk) 23:11, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I have the e-mail disabled.. I'll consider enabling it again. I'll take a look if I have a chance at the articles.  Morphh   (talk) 13:19, 02 December 2007 (UTC)

America: Freedom to Fascism
This looks like something Ron Paul supporters would agree with. My first impression was that the criticism section wasn't criticism. Brian Pearson (talk) 03:37, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I've watched part of it online a while back but never got around to finishing. I'm already cynical enough. :-)   Morphh   (talk) 13:48, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

State tax modeled after HR 25
I had given some thought to the idea of states setting up their own FairTax system, based upon HR 25. The more I ponder this, the more snags I run into. The FairTax on the national level has been pretty much researched, but at the state level... For example, I had wondered if there should be a state prebate. But, it doesn't seem we have an idea of what the tax would be in the first place, or whether the tax would be on top of the federal tax or if it would be on the base price. Brian Pearson 03:34, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * There are several states that have put together plans, rates, and some that have even written the legislation for state congress. I think I remember a State like Texas dropping their sales tax rate of 8% to something like 3% if they went to the FairTax base.  It would just add to the tax, I believe, so instead of 23% - it would be 26%.   Since the State is the one collecting the FairTax, they would just remit a portion of it to themselves, which they're actually doing anyway (.25% for the collection). The State FairTax would act just like the Federal Sales tax and prebates would be likely be issued.  Every family files yearly or perhaps more if they move, for the rebate.  Think of it like a baseline national rate and prebate, with each state having an addition.  So if you live in Florida, the rate my be 25.8% and the rebate issued to Floridians would be 25.8% of poverty level spending.  One thing I do wonder is if the states will have a "cost of living" addition, as the poverty level is different in each state (Idaho vs. California for example).  Of course, they could choose not to do the prebate and lower they're sales tax requirements.  Something for each state to determine.   Morphh   (talk) 13:35, 02 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Would it be OK if I posted your thoughts on the website forum? This is a topic of discussion. BTW, I've also had thoughts on the poverty level issue. It seems there may need to be variations in the prebate based upon local poverty levels. My question would be, "How fine do we slice it?" Brian Pearson 03:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Sure - no problem. Morphh   (talk) 16:31, 03 December 2007 (UTC)


 * By the way, I noticed, reading the FAQ page that Alaska and Hawaii already have different figures for poverty rates and so would be treated differently.
 * I also noticed a little error. Brian Pearson (talk) 01:24, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Mike Huckabee Merge Proposal
Please comment on merging Mike Huckabee controversies into Mike Huckabee here [] Jmegill (talk) 09:31, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks... looks like it's already over. :-) Morphh   (talk) 0:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Predicted effects of the FairTax > Other indirect effects > Environment
We had discussed this and I finally got off my duff and wrote something. You will find it where I indicate in this subject headline. I trust you can enhance my novice effort considerably and wanted to alert you to it.--Pbgiv (talk) 03:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I took a shot at brushing it up and adding some other references to Mike Gravel, who has called the FairTax a "green tax". Morphh   (talk) 15:20, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

John Stossel GA
John Stossel has been made a Good article. I left a few minor notes on the article talk page. Thanks for your good work. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 20:53, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Nexuscomic.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Nexuscomic.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 23:03, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

figures that describe the FairTax
You've added a number of figures that describe the FairTax, including and.

At first glance, these are puzzling, because the FairTax rate is always (or almost always) lower than the rate under current law, for a taxpayer of any income, age, or marital status. If the FairTax is revenue-neutral, and given the usual definition of "average tax rate", this seems like it should be impossible--the money has to come from somewhere. And since the FairTax would replace the FICA and corporate income taxes as well, the FairTax should actually be higher than the current federal income tax alone, if you integrate over the entire population.

Supporters of the FairTax do expect a sharp increase in economic output, for various reasons. That would make a lower (percentage) tax rate "revenue-neutral" in dollars; but it's fairly clear from the discussion of "revenue-neutral" that they're not considering that effect. There's the savings in bookkeeping costs, but once again that is not what's considered when they talk about "revenue-neutral".

So I've been trying to understand how this comes to be. I was reading Kotlikoff's paper, but it appears that his methodology for the data plotted in is quite complex; it involves a computer simulation. He talks about the inputs to this simulation, but does not give them in a form that makes it easy for me to reproduce or understand the process.

I was wondering if you might be able to provide more background on the assumptions under which these figures are generated. As it is, I would think that many people are confused to see a scheme that lowers taxes for everyone, and yet ends up collecting the same amount of money. 74.61.11.168 (talk) 22:20, 6 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The chart compares all tax burdens under the current system (to include corporate income taxes and payroll taxes to the FairTax). The FairTax would have a higher tax rate then the income tax alone but the FairTax is not a replacement for the income tax alone.  So you have to compare what tax burdens it does replace, like the regressive corporate and payroll taxes, which is what the chart does.  The Tax Panel charts will show you the replacement of the income tax alone, but that is not the FairTax plan.  It is argued that the FairTax can have lower rates because the FairTax has a broader tax base ($9.355 trillion compared to $7.033 trillion of taxable income).  It is stated that the FairTax does a better job at taxing wealth.  This is discussed in the BHI and Kotlikoff papers.  I can not help with regard to the figures that Kotlikoff uses, but I can say that I have e-mailed him in the past and he has been very responsive.  If you want more information, I'd suggesting shooting him a message.   Morphh   (talk) 0:48, 07 January 2008 (UTC)


 * So then, I guess what I'm not clear about is how the broader tax base comes to be. Is that because, assuming a constant GDP, the FairTax applies to more dollars? In that case, it seems like the tax burden (in dollars, or in percent of a person's income, though not in percent of dollars taxed) would be going up for some, and down for others, in order to keep revenue neutrality.


 * Or am I mistaken, and is the 23% rate revenue-neutral, but given the expected ~10% increase in GDP? In that case it's clear how the tax rate can go down for everyone; but that's also a bigger assumption. 74.61.11.168 (talk) 13:24, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure about this specific Kotlikoff paper - I'd have to reread it. I'm pretty sure all the research papers do not assume any growth beyond what is projected for the current system (a static analysis), unless the study is specifically about the macroeconomic effects of the FairTax.  As far as how you get a broader tax base, consider that taxable income is not the same thing as income, just as taxable consumption is not the same thing as GDP.  Taxable income is smaller then taxable consumption.  Within the income tax system, you have a corporate income tax base, individual income tax base, payroll tax base, estate tax base, capital gains tax base, etc.  Then you have exemptions, deductions, loopholes, corporate welfare, etc.  Each of these taxes lays a percentage burden on a overall base of revenue.  The individual income tax is very progressive but some of the other taxes are very regressive.   Since the cost of government is spread out among many different avenues, the burden may not be fully visible to individual citizens.  On the FairTax, it is is estimated to tax 81% of GDP.  A broader tax with little to no exemptions can offer lower overall tax rates.  This is true of Flat tax plans as well.  They remove exemptions, flatten the rate, and apply progressive effects by exempting a base amount of income or in the case of the FairTax a base amount of consumption.  Consider reading some of the papers on Taxes & Tax Reform at AFFT.  I know it is from proponents (so weight it as needed) but it should give you an understanding of the different aspects of taxation.  The rate for revenue-neutrality is disputed and the studies do not factor economic growth.  To answer your question regarding up for some and down for others - yes, there is no tax reform that will not have winners and losers.  This is true of any tax change, even under the current system.   Morphh   (talk) 14:38, 08 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I think that your last two sentences describe what I don't like about those figures. The FairTax proposes a redistribution of the tax burden, and a new way to handle the bookkeeping. But to look at those figures, you would think it was a tax cut that somehow ends up revenue-neutral--the tax rate goes down for everyone, after all.


 * People are accustomed to comparing tax plans as percentage rates, where the base for that percentage is constant. If I'm making $100k/year with a tax rate of 20%, and $30k in deductions, then I would describe my tax rate as (100-30)*0.2/100 = 14%, not 20%. As far as I know, this is standard usage. The situation gets more complicated when multiple sources of income exist, and when we must account for expenses and losses, but the same idea applies.


 * So I'm concerned that those figures are misleading, because if I understand you correctly, then the base for percentage is different in the current system vs. the FairTax. I'm not sure that I would expect people to understand that immediately; I certainly didn't. 74.61.11.168 (talk) 05:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

My gripes with the FairTax
Hi there. Thanks for the discussion on the effects of the Fair Tax. My main gripe with the proposal is a firm belief in the Law of Unintended Consequences. In practice throughout history, when a single form of taxation has been used, it has been evaded. The more methods of taxation that are used, the more chance that everyone will pay their fair share in one form or another, especially since the tax rates in each form *should* be lower. Of course, this does not always work, but it is always better than having a single tax. On the other hand, multiple forms of taxation tend to increase the administration and compliance costs, so there is a balance to be found.

Frankly, the best approach if you must have a single form of taxation is to tax land. It is known. It cannot be moved (well, I live in California and so should not make that statement too certain). It is potentially easy to assess its value (how much was it bought for). And, best of all, it largely reflects the taxpayers benefits from the society... decent schools, roads, police etc usually means increased land value.SimonHolzman (talk) 01:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * There is something to be said for transparency and reducing the amount of collection points (from 145 million to 25 million). Economic figures show that 47% of all retail sales are made by just 688 businesses ("Big-Box" retailers). 87% of retail sales are made by 193,000 businesses, which is 3.7% of U.S. businesses.  Even if the other 24.8 million companies evaded the tax, you would still have half the evasion of today.  I like to know what my government is costing, so I don't like it when they break it up in so many ways.  I can understand the point on land, but I have an issue with land taxes because they're not based on the persons ability to pay - people living in places for years that are on a fixed income find themselves unable to pay the continuing tax increases based on reassessment of land value.  I prefer the Value Added Tax myself.   Morphh   (talk) 20:58, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * If you want true transparency, allow each taxpayer to specify what proportion of their taxes go for different purposes. I suspect that this would drastically change the shape of the Government budget, at least initially. In practice, it would probably result in a feast or famine budgetting process where schools get too much money one year and too little another, but over time it should work out pretty well.


 * As for land taxes... almost any form of taxation will hurt some people. Those on fixed income living in a mansion can either mortgage it or sell it and move to somewhere more suitable to their means. Heck, I don't object to the taxes being added as a lien on the property so that they get paid when the owner dies and the property is sold or transferred to the heir. Property Taxes would be paid by renters, either in addition to their rent or rolled into the rent and so anyone living in America would be paying the tax. Plus, the more expensive the place you live on, the more you would pay. This seems equitable and fair. It is impossible to evade and is cheap to collect with negligible administration needed once a proper land registry is created. Since there would be no difference between residential and commercial land taxes, people who shop in expensive places would pay more tax than people shopping in cheap places. If a high earner was happy living in a cheap house and bought little, they would pay hardly any taxes, but anything they invested in that used land would pay taxes.SimonHolzman (talk) 21:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Interesting thought on land taxes - I'll give it further consideration. With regard to transparency, I think you're talking about government spending, which could also be improved.  I've also thought about the idea of having people "allocate" their taxes.  If not in function, it would at least be interesting to see what programs the people thought were proper for the government to fund or most important to fund.  What I was talking about is knowing how much I'm paying the government.  What is my true tax burden?  How much of my labor goes to the operation of government at each level?  I don't think people have any clue on how much taxes they actually pay.  They're split up in so may different places, and taken in so many different ways that it takes an economist understand the true burden.  Like this MSN Money article that states that a study for the National Bureau of Economic Research, Boston University economists Laurence J. Kotlikoff and David Rapson have found that our all-in marginal tax rate is 40%, give or take a bit. "The art of taxation consists in so plucking the goose as to obtain the largest possible amount of feathers with the smallest possible amount of hissing."  To your point above with multiple taxes - such a collection is great for the government.  However, in my opinion, this is done by deceiving the people to the true cost of government.  To you point on land taxes, this would also be transparent.   Morphh   (talk) 19:08, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

A paper: "Is the U.S. Bankrupt?"
Interesting reading. I happened to agree, though I don't know just HOW bankrupt we are. I do remember once reading that Japan was effectively bankrupt, but absent any further word about the country's finances, I'm assuming they are doing better. Brian Pearson (talk) 04:04, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, it is a very scary situation. This is one of my largest concerns, that the U.S. will implode due to fiscal irresponsibility.  Morphh   (talk) 13:43, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Centralized TV Episode Discussion
Over the past months, TV episodes have been redirected by (to name a couple) TTN, Eusebeus and others. No centralized discussion has taken place, so I'm asking everyone who has been involved in this issue to voice their opinions here in this centralized spot, be they pro or anti. Discussion is here. Even if you have not, other opinions are needed because this issue is affecting all TV episodes in Wikipedia. --User: (talk) 23:18, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

filterware etc.
Hi Morphh -- I just wanted to say that I'm not upset by yr cmts; I also hope that you're not upset by my own strongly-expressed views. I have no hostility towards you, but I must admit I am strongly opposed to your current proposal. Still, I imagine we would find points of agreement elsewhere, so hopefully strong disagreements in one forum won't poison interactions in any others. Cheers, 18:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * No worries and I'm sorry about the excuses comment. It just seems people are making arguments (like vandalism) that go against what wikipedia does (and we do) on a daily basis.  I don't mind such a proposal being defeated on its own merits.  Just seems it is labeled as censorship and filtering is bad, when I don't think its that simple.  I just feel that is not my choice to make for a parent.  While my child is not old enough to browse the Internet, I often give presentations on Internet safety to parents and kids.  They look for easy tools (like Internet Explorer) to help them in that effort.  They are not under any false security that such will fully protect their children but they're doing what they can.  Parents are not going to know to go to any spinoff site that has metadata labels.  I don't see that it degrades the content; it offers additional service which is kept up by a volunteer network with the goals of providing a free encyclopedia.  How does adding metadata that an article contains nudity make the encyclopedia worse?  I just don't get it.  Morphh   (talk) 18:53, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * But parents have that choice already -- there are in fact a myriad of tools to censor, including most ISPs offering something. I appreciate your efforts to establish a more open & lesser-evil standard than some of the ones out there, but I have just never seen these things go anywhere good. I suspect we're going to have to agree to disagree on this issue! --Lquilter (talk) 19:07, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair tax
Thanks a lot for you to have come on the French Wikipedia and changed some errors. A majority of French do understand English, so I think it would be better to write in english. I promess I'll read your article and make a correct article in French. thanks again and sorry I maybe made previously some errors. MaCRoEco (talk) 19:49, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I did my best but Google can only do so much with the translation. :-) Let me know if you have any questions, I'll do my best to explain.  I don't expect to monitor the French article but I'll try to check in from time to time.  I just happend to notice it due to the bot tagging a new language.   Morphh   (talk) 19:53, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

So you are aware:
As you have just had to revert an edit by User:Anappealtoheaven, You may be interested in This AN/I report regarding his POV pushing. Prior reverts of his work by you are referenced in it, as well. ThuranX (talk) 20:44, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the notification. Morphh   (talk) 20:46, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

AnAppealToheaven
As an editor who has reverted edits by Anappealtoheaven, you may find this AN/I report of interest: Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents. ThuranX (talk) 23:53, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Tax protester/Request for comment
Your comment in this RfC would be appreciated. Cheers! bd2412 T 18:23, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: FairTax
I appreciate you keeping things civil with the polite comments you left on my discussion page. The changes you made look pretty good, although I tried to improve things a little more. (Note that I forgot to log in first, so it doesn't say that I made them.) I think you'll be okay with what I did. Cheers, HalfDome (talk) 03:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Real property use tax
Dear Morphh: Editor BD2412 says he will try to look at this over the weekend. I feel queasy about the article. I've added some more comments on the talk page for the article. Yours, Famspear (talk) 20:44, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Taxing government
I didn't see it mentioned under the FairTax article. Would it just muddy the water? I get a number of comments about how government cost would go up.

Semi-related are comments about how, since SS amounts are determined by income, how would they be determined post income tax. Brian Pearson (talk) 00:00, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Companies are still required to report income for social security purposes. Nothing changes for this program except for funding and changes in benefit indexing.  Taxing government is discussed a little bit under revenue neutrality (more so in the sub-article) but as I wrote you in another e-mail, such costs would not change the rate per the economists that have done the rate studies, and any change in prices would be based on the fed reserve increasing the money supply (which may not happen - prices could stay the same).  All the rate researchers (BHI, Kotlikoff, Gale) state that it doesn't matter if prices stay the same or go up, there is no increase in real cost to the government and it does not change the FairTax rate.  If prices go up, so does government revenue as the tax is a percentage of consumption, which includes the price changes.  Government is about 17% of the base, so if prices increase by 10%, the tax base (the other 83%) just increased by 10%, which covers the 10% cost increase on the 17% of consumption by the government.  You also have the reduction of taxes the government is currently paying itself, any contractors, embedded costs, etc.    So while prices may go up, there is no change in real cost.  Any tax the federal government pays, it pays to itself - left hand right hand, so there is no cost - tax expense = tax revenue.


 * With regard to state and local government, any loss in real spending is a gain to the taxpayers, so they may have to adjust their taxes to equal the same real revenue.  This is discussed in more detail in the rate study and BHI's study called fiscal federalism.  If the FairTax didn't tax state and local government, the FairTax rate would go up, but this would be a windfall to the state - if they maintained real revenue, they would decrease taxes, a windfall to the people, which would then be spent to pay the additional FairTax at the federal level.  It all equals out no matter which way you turn it when real revenue and spending are maintained at federal and state.  Some people like to pull out half the equation and use it to show a half-truth.  The government can not self generate revenue.  So with or without government being taxed, the burden is the same.  If you don't tax government, then the expense of government decreases by the same amount.  Keep in mind that we tax government today, which is included in revenue neutrality figures.


 * Bartlett has made some criticism regarding federal government spending and the rate, and such comments were made by other critics with regard to the early FairTax rate studies. Bartlett has been the only one to make this charge about the new studies done (though I'm not sure he's read them as he always references the old JCT study and tax panel study, neither of which were the FairTax).  Kotlikoff wrote a rebuttal and BHI wrote one that will be published in Tax Notes - they did include government spending.  Gale has also said that his study included government spending.  And again, all researchers say that price changes don't change the rate.  While I've included a great deal of Bartlett's criticism in the article, I'd take much of it with a grain of salt.  He has made so many false and inaccurate statements regarding the plan that it is difficult for me to trust anything that he says.  Up until his last publication, he was still claiming the rebate was issued based on income, and he would then go on to criticize that it would take a full IRS agency to track everyone's income to issue prebates.  Of course we know that the rebate is based on family size and not income, so his entire argument was a fabrication.  He does the same thing with half a dozen other arguments - the master of strawmen and misinformation.   Morphh   (talk) 1:45, 03 February 2008 (UTC)

United States v. Kirby Lumber Co.
Please do not add the Unsourced tag to case law articles which include a case citation. They are, by definition, sourced. --Eastlaw (talk) 20:43, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok Thanks, I didn't not see a notes or references section and no external link footnotes (though I did see the external links section), so I assumed no refs. I reverted the other unsourced tags I placed on case law articles. I will keep that in mind in the future.   Morphh   (talk) 21:26, 03 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The general rule I follow is this: if the article discusses anything that is not mentioned in the text of the decision itself (such as subsequent events after the court's judgment was rendered), it needs additional references/footnotes.  Otherwise, additional references are generally unnecessary.  I hope this helps. --Eastlaw (talk) 06:45, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Sun Myung Moon tax fraud and conspiracy case
Hi Morphh. I removed the "tax protester" info box from this article. I am a member of his church and I know that he is not anti-tax or anti-government. In fact he tried to pay the tax the government said he owed rather than have the case go to court. Steve Dufour (talk) 18:21, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Dear Morphh: I think editor Steve Dufour is correct on this point. Although Moon was convicted of tax crime(s), I don't think Moon ever made tax protester arguments, unless you know something I don't. Yours, Famspear (talk) 18:55, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I should have read it a little more before adding the tag. I was running through many of the tax articles trying to do assessments and add banners.  I'm sure I placed a few that should have been left as is.   Morphh   (talk) 20:27, 04 February 2008 (UTC)

"Fiscal Gap"
I've read this term in various places. Given the discussions about the US debt and fiscal policy (Kotlikoff and others), I wondered if "Fiscal Debt" would be a good thing to introduce as its own article. Brian Pearson (talk) 05:22, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * From my understanding, Fiscal debt refers to the Deficit, which is contrasted with the National Debt. Is this your understanding?  Or were you meaning to say "Fiscal gap".   Morphh   (talk) 15:37, 05 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I think I misspoke. I meant "fiscal gap," which is currently at $65.5 trillion. Brian Pearson (talk) 03:32, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, I think that would be a good article. I'll request it from the economics project and try to work on it as I have time.  Morphh   (talk) 13:52, 06 February 2008 (UTC)


 * A section on the fiscal gap has been added to the article on the government deficit. Morphh   (talk) 16:26, 06 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. It seems the fiscal gap can vary quite a bit, given variation of circumstances (or response to them) -- more so than I thought. Brian Pearson (talk) 03:21, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

What do you think of defining fiscal gap as, the acceleration of wealth appropriation by the federal government through price inflation that results from too large of a cash supply? If that gap gets too big you either get a bubble of consumption or a depression from the bust that ensues. MicrocreditSA (talk) 01:51, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Perhaps I'm misunderstanding, but I'm not sure that fully explains the idea. That definition seems to more closely describe an inflation tax regarding monetary policy effects.  My understanding is that fiscal gap refers to the shortfall in government revenues over the very long term. It includes not only the structural deficit at a given point in time, but also the difference between promised future government commitments, such as health and retirement spending, and planned future tax revenues.  What Brian Pearson is describing above is the future $65.5 trillion shortfall (fiscal gap) estimated for the U.S. due to unfunded SS and Medicare expenses.   Morphh   (talk) 3:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The shortfall is created by institutionalized depreciation of US money. Deficit spending, entitlement spending and inflation all serve to appropriate wealth, they just use different mechanisms. There are many contributing factors to the shortfall, or deficit, that is produced during FOMC application of the 'business cycle'. FOMC would like us all to just shut up and believe the reason for the gap is abstruse and can't be discussed unless it is in pedantic FedSpeak. Plain talk, such as The Alpha Strategy by John Pugsley, demonstrates that as FOMC dumps cash into the top and allows banks 10 to 1 leverage while US people are allowed maybe 2 to 1 at best, Price Inflation and Entitlement Programs serve to sop up the buying power of average citizen, hurting their personal liquidity and leaving them at the mercy of FOMC 'policy'. My general position is that FOMC is simply the Wizard of Oz, hiding behind a curtain while it tries to scare people into not noticing the structures that inherently appropriate wealth from average citizens. I definitely think Greenspan was an awful banker, and I am fairly certain his legacy will be known as such in two years' time. It just isn't that complicated b/c it is all a zero sum game. MicrocreditSA (talk) 07:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I believe I understand how the FOMC effects current and past debt and the decrease of purchasing power through inflation, but I'm having a tough time seeing how it applies to future expenditures (as it would seem the future expense grow with the inflation). I'll have to read the Alpha Strategy as I'm not that versed on monetary policy.  I did watch Ron Paul blast Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke - he makes sense.   Morphh   (talk) 13:45, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:Kotlikoff.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Kotlikoff.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the media 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 this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rettetast (talk) 21:14, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Milton Friedman
Hey, if you've got time could you please help out with the issues that have been laid out at the Milton Friedman FAC? Thanks! Gary King (talk) 16:15, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I should be able to spend some time on it this week. I'll see what I can do. :-)   Morphh   (talk) 16:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Seems you've made quite a bit of progress. I think you've completed many of the things that I would have been able to help with.   Morphh   (talk) 0:57, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Removal of spam tag
Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not remove speedy deletion tags from pages that you have created yourself. If you do not believe the page should be deleted, then please place  on the page (please do not remove any existing speedy deletion tag) and make your case on the page's. Administrators will look at your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. -- Orange Mike  |  Talk  14:39, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I think you went a bit overboard and I am fully within my right to remove the tag myself. I don't need your babysitting for an article that existed for about 2 seconds before tagging it.   I just created the article, and talk about scaring away people.  I'm not some newbie, so unless you have a valid reason for tagging it, I suggest you move on and let me improve it.  I found your tagging destructive to wikipedia as a whole, and I'm thinking about making a larger issue of it.  Now that I just looked, I see the article has been deleted!!! Not cool!!!!!  I worked on that for a good part of last night.   Morphh   (talk) 14:51, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

book
I'm going to give that article the benefit of the doubt, and reinstate it. I am also going to nominate it for proposed deletion which will give you 5 days to get in some indication of its importance, which normally has to be reviews in major reliable sources. DGG (talk) 15:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * looking at it and the article for the previous book, I suggest that perhaps the best way of handling it would be to add the information on the publication of the sequel to the first article, and convert the article on the second into a redirect until such time as it becomes a best seller. The earlier information will still be there in the page history. I don't think that a reference to a column on the Fair Tax in general in the WSJ is not really all that relevant to notability of this book in particular. Be aware that you will probably have to defend the article at AfD in the end.  good luck with it. DGG (talk) 15:07, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Appreciate the advice and I think adding it to the first article would work fine. Since it just came out, there are not yet many reviews on it.  It should make the NYT top 10 but I'm not sure what it will get.  It is part of a larger movement and a highly anticipated book in that area.  I have to say, while I agree with your recommendation, I was a bit taken back by the whole process before that.  I'm more of an inclusionist so I rarely participate in AFD but if I was a newbie, you'd bet I would not come back to Wikipedia.  I understand the reason for the process but I have to wonder if the process (bots tagging, less then 24hrs delete, etc) is more destructive then helpful to the goals of Wikipedia.  I have to say that I was quite pissed off - even as a Vet knowing that I should calm, I was saying screw this.. This was not some drive by 1 min entry - you could see from the history that I spent a couple hours on it.  This was time away from my family last night that I spent to improve Wikipedia.  I stayed up late to work on it.  Keep these things in mind when you click that delete button.     Morphh   (talk) 15:23, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Possible new source for Wikipedia/biology sites
"A team at the Marine Biological Laboratory in Woods Hole has successfully developed the "taxonomic intelligence" based infrastructure for the Encyclopedia of Life, a multi-institutional project to create a Web page for all 1.8 million named species on Earth. The first 30,000 species pages go live today." Brian Pearson (talk) 02:06, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Fortune Global 500
Hi, I'm not sure who to contact for this, but I thought you'd interested since you're a member of the Economics WikiProject. There is an article called Fortune Global 500. This article is a copy and paste of the list of the 500 largest companies in the world by revenues published by Fortune magazine every year. Fortune magazine lists these companies by countries and cities. They list Shell as being a company from the Netherlands and not a dual company from Britain and the Netherlands (contrary to Unilever). One British Wikipedian doesn't like that and has changed the article, writting that Shell is a dual British/Dutch company, contrary to the source from Fortune magazine. I tried to explain that the article being simply a copy and paste of the Fortune Global 500 list, we have to respect their editorial choices, otherwise it's not the Global Fortune 500 list anymore, it becomes something else. Unfortunately I feel like I'm preaching in the desert, so to speak. If we start changing things from the list based on what we think is right or wrong, then why not also change EADS which Fortune magazine lists as a Dutch company (because it is legally incorporated in the Netherlands for tax reasons), whereas in fact EADS is a Franco-German company with top management in Paris and Munich? As you can see, this could lead to endless changes to the article. I thought on Wikipedia we had to write information that matches with the sources we use. It would be nice to hear from you on this point. Keizuko (talk) 17:13, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Tax protester constitutional arguments
Dear editor Morphh: OK, what I've done so far is to incorporate the links for the articles on Cryer, Devvy Kidd, and We the People Foundation into the main body of the article, and I have deleted the links at the bottom as now being duplicative. Also, the article already includes the link to The Law that Never Was, which is of course about protester Bill Benson. I've looked around a bit at other articles on individual protesters. Your suggestion has made me realize that we might need to beef up some of those individual articles to show with more specificity what arguments each protester has actually made - and then we can add links to those articles from the articles on "constitutional" and "statutory" arguments. (I know the "conspiracy" article already has some links and/or quotes for Irwin Schiff and Edward Brown.) Gotta get to bed - I'll try to get into this some more in the coming days - though I know my main focus should be on the "constitutional arguments" article right now, right? Famspear (talk) 04:00, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I would first try to work on addressing oppose or comment statements in the FAC. If we correct an issue, such as references, we can note that we corrected the problem, which can change their vote.  Once we address the pressing FAC issues, then we can address the other areas that improve the article but are not as critical.   Morphh   (talk) 14:01, 04 March 2008 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Citizen of the several states
Hi, please comment. Cheers! bd2412 T 09:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

US taxes
No, I'm not Cielomobil. ☆ CieloEstrellado 16:27, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject North Carolina newsletter
Are you interested in helping out with the WikiProject North Carolina newsletter? - Diligent Terrier (and friends) 16:36, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject North Carolina Newsletters
 A newsletter has been planned for WikiProject North Carolina, a WikiProject where you are a member. As a member, you will automatically receive the newsletter on this talk page unless you choose to opt-out. If you wish to opt-out of the newsletter, then please leave a message on the project's talk page. If you would like to help write the newsletter, then please add your name at WikiProject North Carolina/Newsroom. Thank you. Diligent Terrier Bot (talk) 17:33, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

This message was delivered by, a bot operated by .

Introduction..
Hello Morphh,

I am contacting you about project I started called Wiredtape. The purpose of which is to help people deal with regulations and red tape needed to get things done. The reason I am contacting you - is because I saw you are a contributor to tax and other legal issues, which are relevant to my site. I think it is important to distinguish between Wikipedia's purpose and Wiredtape's. Wiredtape doesn't seek to provide historical or encyclopedic information about its subjects; Wiredtape seeks to provide in-depth information regarding bureaucratic procedures, general explanations of terminology and in-depth guides to these processes.

I would like you to become a contributor on Wiredtape. This is a bit direct, and I am sorry for that, but I am in need of contributors :) - moreover, through Wiredtape, I am also trying to make the internet (and life really) a nicer and simpler place.

I hope you might consider this, Thank you, --Bfhappy (talk) 16:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

You can contact me on my user talk page on Wikipedia, or on Wiredtape, or on IRC in #wiredtape.


 * I'm not sure how much I'd have to offer in this area. I'm not a processes and procedures guy.  Famspear or bd2412 might be better able to help you.  I'll take a look though.  Morphh   (talk) 2:15, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


 * First, let me say thank you for taking the time to look.. I will try and contact Famspear or bd2412 (thank you for suggesting them). Though primarily Wiredtape is a processes and procedures site, it also needs and has place for editorials and information articles - such as articles explaining the terminology behind a procedure (things like minimal capitalization (a term from taxes) or valuation of a companies) I hope you feel these are more up your ally. --Bfhappy (talk) 12:33, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject North Carolina May 2008 Newsletter
 The message above has been delivered by Diligent Terrier Bot, a bot operated by Diligent Terrier.

Gracias
Thank you for the barnstar!  APK  yada yada  21:50, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Requesting your input at WikiProject Economics/Featured Article drive
Since you are a member of WikiProject Economics, I would like to direct your attention to WikiProject Economics/Featured Article drive. We are currently deciding on an economics-related article to bring to Featured Article status and we would like your input. Thanks! Gary King ( talk ) 15:18, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Fairtaxfraud.com is a valid source
Fairtaxfraud.com is a valid source for the assertion made. If it is not, then pretty much every article and Americans For Fair Taxation source and Thomas Sipos, etc., is invalid also. Don't remove sources just because you disagree with what they are saying. Diskatopia (talk) 21:02, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * It is in no way a reliable source per wikipedia standards and is not comparable to the other organizations you listed (AFFT & American Chronicle). Also, I have no problem with disagreement or criticism, I do however have a problem with anonymous sites that begin with copyright infringement and publish highly inaccurate material (such as suggesting that the home mortgage deduction prevents you from paying interest). There are much better (reputable) places to get criticism, many of which we reference.   I'm actually the editor added that sentence of criticism to the article (which was more critical and harsh when I wrote it - I called it deceptive marketing and an oxymoron).   The sentence referenced also was in no need of a source - no one disputes the point - it's common sense, so the whole thing was meaningless linkspam.   Morphh   (talk) 23:11, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

income tax graph
I discussed it on the talk page of the image. The red line, for marriage, is incorrectly below the black line. Marrieds pay higher (or, at best, the same) income taxes as singles unless one spouse is barely or not working. Gabriel Duvall (talk) 00:17, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Even if it's corrected, it still violates WP:OR. See also WP:SYN. Gabriel Duvall (talk) 00:18, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I think you're looking at married filing separately, instead of married filing jointly. I don't see that it violates SYN, since it creates no new data - it appears that it just charts the income tax rates for single and married filing jointly.  If we describe this in the caption, then I see no issue.   Morphh   (talk) 13:02, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * WP:SYN doesn't require the creation of new data. Something can be 100% correct, and violate WP:SYN.  And the graph doesn't say "married filing jointly," which is why it's not 100% correct.  Gabriel Duvall (talk) 13:28, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * There is only one source. Please read the policy again.  SYN says two parts can be 100% correct if put together to advance a position.  This does not put together two parts.  I admit that the graph could be more complete, but it is only a single source and does not create any synthesized material.  Morphh   (talk) 13:46, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Adam Smith has been chosen as the first article in WikiProject Economics' first Featured Article drive
I am contacting you because you Supported the decision to choose Adam Smith as the first Featured Article that WikiProject Economics would work on. If you can, please help out and make this goal a reality! A discussion on this has begun at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Economics. Thanks for your time! Gary King ( talk ) 16:47, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Under construction tag on Adam Smith
Haha, smart idea. I've never had any use for that template, but certainly this case would warrant its usage. I keep getting into edit conflicts with you and some of the other editors on the page! :) Gary King ( talk ) 18:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Ya, I know. I have several pages up so I can reload, cut, paste, when I get into the conflict.   Morphh   (talk) 18:44, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Taxation templates fixed
And now I even understand how these collapsibles work! (They use javascript to alter the default "display: none" of the NavContent div). Circeus (talk) 02:21, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

excuse me but i beg to differ...my stats are information and they come directly from the government...so you are saying that the stats that the US government sends out via the census is totally useless???!!!??

Also, what is The Old Regime Police Blotter (Crime in Pre-Revolutionary France) This is not a global site!!!!! so what relevance does it have to the subject.

It seems that you are discriminating against PA with your idea of information. just because most people don't have time to crunch information the government puts out does not mean that my simple graphs of the large data sets are not information.

Replied to you on Adam Smith talk
Just want to say, I appreciate your good faith, and reasonable discussion on the matter. This is the first page I've found such helpful and reasonable people, and it improves my opinion of wikipedia greatly. Thanks q (talk) 22:11, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

rating revision
Hi, I found that you had earlier rated this article. Kindly therefore consider this request. Cheers. Tarun2k (talk) 16:36, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: suggestion for Taxation portal
Hi Morphh, I was going through the list of directory of wiki portals and was quiet disappointed to find non for Taxation. Since you have been instrumental in coming up with the Wikiproject on Taxation, I thought I would shoot the idea to you. Why not we try to make a wiki portal for Taxation? I found the instructions to create a portal really easy and thought that this would be a good idea. But before creating one myself, I was thinking of floating this idea for the response and a cool design. So thought would seek your opinion on the same. What say?Tarun2k (talk) 08:36, 8 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The main holdup at the time for creating a taxation portal was that we did not feel we had enough content (and good articles) to do so. My thought was that we should piggyback on another higher level portal until we get enough to have our own.  Perhaps Portal:Law, Portal:Business and economics, Portal:Numismatics or something....  However, if you think you have enough to put something together, have at it. :-)  Unfortunately, I don't have much time at the moment to help.   Morphh   (talk) 20:12, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Seems like your reply is more on practical lines. The lack of time is problem for me too, though I dont think that lack of content should be one. I will try to work up on the existing lines as of now, by expanding stubs etc. Lets see if we can get an interested bunch of volunteers, we may as well start with the project then. Thanks anyways. Tarun2k (talk) 21:12, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Charlotteflag.png)
Thanks for uploading Image:Charlotteflag.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:10, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Regressive tax
I don't understand the revert. Most people may know something to be realized one way, but that doesn't make it correct. My question: if I get my sources in a row and put in my citations when I make my change again this evening (i.e. I'll have the appropriate academic authority citations to back my assertion) will it still be reverted? I don't want to go to all the trouble of digging the info out if facts are going to be decided by committee, you know? Foofighter20x (talk) 13:49, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't call it a revert as it was not an undo - it was a normal edit. The definition, up until last week, had effective tax rate (which includes both average and marginal).  I have heard progressivity used to describe stepped marginal tax rates, so this definition does not exclude that terminology but such would still produce an average tax rate that would apply.  The tax rate article can explain the difference but the two terms are often used interchangably - effective usually is refering to to "effective average".  I removed "effective" to avoid confusion and almost every definition that I've run into uses just the term "tax rate" without destinction between types (as does our four definition sources).  I'm open to the "average" change if facts are presented.  Although, I've read several definitions that are too specific, like stating that the base is income (incorrectly excluding expenditure - as you noted in the talk post).  We don't have that many other editors on this article, so there's not much of a committee to convince.  I'm not sure that changing or adding that term adds anything to the definition though, except to limit its application.  If limiting the term is appropriate, than I'm fine with it but my preference at the moment is just stating "tax rate", and then "effective tax rate", and third "average tax rate".   What do you see as wrong with the current definition that you see needs "reworking"?  Perhaps we should discuss. Thanks   Morphh   (talk) 20:29, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Any inputs on how best to use these in the articles?
 * Sommerfeld, Ray M., Silvia A. Madeo, Kenneth E. Anderson, Betty R. Jackson (1992), Concepts of Taxation, Dryden Press: Fort Worth, TX, pg. 17
 * A regressive tax is one that takes a decreasing proportion as the tax base increases.
 * A proportional tax is one that applies a constant tax rate to every possible level of any tax base.
 * A progressive tax is one that takes an increasing proportion of the tax base as the tax base increases.

or


 * James, Simon (1998) A Dictionary of Taxation, Edgar Elgar Publishing Limited: Northampton, MA
 * p60 - Flat tax (or Flat rate tax): A tax levied at a single rate.
 * p121 - Progressive tax: A tax where the marginal tax rate exceeds the average tax rate.
 * p122 - Proportional tax: A tax where the marginal tax rate is equal to the average tax rate.
 * p129 - Regressive tax: A tax where the marginal tax rate is less than the average tax rate.

This last cite gives the same definitions as immediately above at pages 362, 365, 362, and 363, respectively. Foofighter20x (talk) 00:24, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Hyman, David M. (1990) Public Finance: A Contemporary Application of Theory to Policy, 3rd, Dryden Press: Chicago, IL


 * Well, I guess we have to ask the question on how many sources is enough. What we can do is try to determine which ones are the most reliable and verifiable sources.  The online sources are easily verified, but your sources may be more reliable, so we'll have to consider which is best.  The first one falls in line with our current source definitions (and our main article definition), which would put us at five.  The second two are a bit different but likely would result in a similar conclusion, although perhaps more difficult for the average person to understand.  So, do the two later sources offer something different or is it the same thing.  I'm trying to think of examples of each for any difference.  If it's the same, then I don't know that we need to change anything (additional sources if we choose to include them).  We could also add these titles as overall references for the article, without them being "inline citations".  If these offer a different definition, then we have to consider adding to our current definition or considering that the viewpoint is a small minority and not worth including.   Morphh   (talk) 3:01, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, imho, these are much more reliable than any blog or website since they are from books and textbooks in a university (Portland State Uni.) library. Also, imho, the definitions all say the same thing.  The classification of the tax is based on how it acts with respect to an increase in the tax base.  An income tax's base is income. A sales tax's base is either the price or quantity or both of the good(s) sold. A property tax's base is either the price or acreage or both of the property. A duty's base is either the price or quantity or both of the imported good. Etc. So, if the tax rate increases as quantity of the good or value of the good goes up, it's progressive. Etc... See what I'm saying? Now, depending on what objects are tax and where the tax burden falls, it can be argued that a tax falls disproportionally on a cross-section of groups (e.g., the might poor bear more tax incidence than the rich), but that doesn't make a tax regressive ipso facto. See what I mean?  Foofighter20x (talk) 00:29, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I can't think of an example where the two definitions would result in different terms being applied. Perhaps we could use the second definitions as a sample method for determining if a tax is regressive.  I still think the first sentence should leave off the term "effective" or "average".  I don't think the 2/3 definitions you provided supports the use of average in the context of the lead sentence.   Morphh   (talk) 3:13, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The latter definitions are more technical in their wording, but all the definitions mean the same thing. (Note: The last book I cited equated proportional tax with flat tax.) Also, the effective tax rate and the average tax rate are different names for the same thing. Foofighter20x (talk) 00:29, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I"ve added the sources and the second definition. Morphh   (talk) 21:54, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Available on any IM system for a revision of the progressive tax pages?
I'd like to discuss a fairly large revamp to the progressive tax page, which might ripple a bit to the other pages as well (regressive and proportional) as the revamp would have to be pretty large and I'd like to have help for it (never mind not having it reverted using 'undo'!) I do not feel the discussion page iterates fast enough for this sort of huge topic.

The main thing is I'd like to have articles discussing the nature of the system (progressive, proportional or regressive) and the current articles do not create a good framework at all for that. (removed to avoid bots) available on google talk and microsoft live messenger. Searching for Ville Lehtonen or vjlehtonen on Skype works as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ville Lehtonen (talk • contribs) 16:02, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks, but I'd like to keep it on the article talk page so others can comment. Morphh   (talk) 16:07, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Fair enough, will be a pretty big edit next time since I'll try to split the whole field. Give me a few hours or days :P —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ville Lehtonen (talk • contribs) 16:12, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * You may want to discuss such edits on the talk if it is significant. I'd hate for you to go through all the work to have a large dispute in content and context.  You can even create your own copy of the article on a subpage (like this - just copy and paste) of your user account to play with and use as an example.  I don't want to deter you from being bold and editing though.  I just remember the effort you put into these edits, where most of it was reverted.  There are WP:MOS and policy things to consider as well.   Morphh   (talk) 16:18, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Fair Tax
Even with your reworded sentence, the opening paragraph gives the false impression (at least to us laymen) that this is something that is more than likely to happen, whereas from what I gather there is very little hope of it actually coming to pass. "has been introduced" fails to convey the fact that there is (relatively) little support, and I feel this is slightly misleading. yandman 13:38, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * It's the largest major tax reform bill in congress with 76 cosponsors (flat tax has 6 cosponsors). 100 cosponsors is considered a "Major" bill.  Most do not sponsor bills, so you can not take such as non-support - only a vote could should that, which has not been accomplished due to chair of the ways and means committee not brining it for vote.  It was one of the major tax discussions on the republican side with the majority of candidates supporting it (Huckabee was just the most vocal).  While McCain does not openly support the plan, he has stated that he would sign the bill.  It's the largest and fastest growing tax reform movement out there, with two NYT bestsellers.  So why should we make such a judgement.  We state the facts and leave the opinion about if it will happen to the reader.   Morphh   (talk) 13:42, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The problem isn't the importance of the bill or how much people talk about it, it's the fact that the lead gives the impression that "this is it". The problem is that for those with little or no knowledge of US politics (i.e. me), "has been introduced" makes it seem like the matter is settled. As for "state the facts", the intro is pretty long, and gives an exhaustive description of its popularity, but fails to convey that this is still a minority (as in less than 50%) opinion. This may be blindingly obvious to Americans, but us "aliens" have no frame of reference here. yandman  13:53, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * We don't know that it is in the minority, it's never been for a vote. Not sponsoring a bill is not equal to opposition.  It's actually rare that legislators would sponsor a bill as it puts their neck out (something to demagogue in the next election).  We can only state what the sponsorship is, what it compares to with regard to tax reform, and the movement.  There are actually several democratic supporters that will not sponsor the bill due to Pelosi's comments, but have stated support when voting on the bill if it comes to the floor.  My Congressman, a Republican, has stated he would likely vote for it, but will not cosponsor it.    Morphh   (talk) 14:30, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Featured article! Wow, good work Morphh, you definitely contributed to this! Famspear (talk) 15:42, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks - Ya, it's on the Main page of Wikipedia so we're getting more discussion than usual.  Morphh   (talk) 15:44, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

~fair tax and partisan vocabulary
Yeah; just checked it out inthe dictionary

partisan = a strong supporter of a party, cause or person.

So non-partisan would refer to an organizatio which did not strongly support a cause, which is obviously not the case.

People use the word "non-partisan" to suggest that their ideas are not ideological but common sense, but this is rhetorical language.

It may be that in some countries "partisan" has another meaning, but that's the meaning I am objecting to. Johncmullen1960 (talk) 18:01, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * As far as organizations go, the term means that they can not support a particular candidate or political party, which AFFT does not. Their 503(c) tax status is dependent on them being a non-partisan organization.   I've never really heard non-partisan use to strictly define a cause.   Morphh   (talk) 18:06, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Etymologically, "partisan" means committed to a party; so lots of causes which are mostly supported by one party or the other in the U.S. still bill themselves as "non-partisan." It's a distinction without a difference. 503(c) organizations are in the same boat, and famously try to find somebody from the "other" party to put in a prominently visible place. Given the overlapping bell curves of American politics, that's usually not so hard to accomplish. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  19:33, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Hiring illegal aliens
Morphh - I guess the problem is that "hiring illegal aliens" can be done in one of two ways - putting them on the payroll with a bogus SSN, or paying them in cash. For the second, certainly, there are savings in social security taxes (employer's share). (However, I don't believe there are any savings in income taxes - employers don't pay any part of employee income taxes that I know of - could you clarify?)

In fact, though, I think that most illegally hired aliens - certainly the ones that make the news, as when ICE does a raid - are hired via a bogus SSN, not by paying cash. (Small employers pay cash, certainly, but large corporations - no way.) And for these cases (the ones in the news), employers save absolutely nothing in federal taxes - they pay the employer share of SSN just as they do for employees with valid SSNs.

So, at minimum, the sentence at question clearly overstates the case, by implying that employer's benefit - taxwise - from hiring illegal aliens, regardless of how they are hired. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 21:49, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The sentence in question (which I appreciate not being put back into the article while it's being discussed) is There would also be no federal tax savings to companies that hire illegal immigrants. You've just pointed out - correctly - that when employers pay cash to illegal aliens (or others), and don't report that to the Social Security Administration and IRS, they probably are paying a lower wage, at least partly because employees are probably not going to report that wage income, and therefore get a higher (effective) wage even though paid less. But that's not what the sentence in question is about - it doesn't say "Companies would also have less incentive to make unreported cash payments for wages. (They'd still have some'' incentive if they are hiring illegal aliens - because they can probably pay less than if they hired U.S. citizens.)


 * And as for editing the article - you're welcome. -- John Broughton  (♫♫) 22:51, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Edit and POV
I'm sure you're suffering from edit fatigue with regard to Fair Tax. I do think, though, that the opinions of people who haven't spent lots of time arguing on one side or another of this article might also have value. I've made clear my personal bias: I don't approve of this bill. I don't think my suggestions boiled down to "these guys are tools of plutocrats," though. I didn't make any significant edits because I've seen the disastrous clash of Wiki-purity and fat-target featured articles time and again. I figured you and your fellow editors had enough to do. No matter — either path would have gotten me to the same place. I just haven't had to ride the revert bus. I'm going back to subject/verb agreement. OtherDave (talk) 15:25, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes - I'm feeling the fatigue. I hate dealing with war-zone articles.  I agree with you regarding new opinions and their value, but I don't think that erases the history and discussion before it.  So any new thoughts are discussed along with the long standing thoughts and agreements.  If good arguments are made, compromise happens and consensus is changed.  I agree that it is often very difficult to do once articles reach a certain level.  As for my position, I like the idea but I'm for many tax plans.  I think we have a screwed up system now that is extremely complex and economically challenged (insufficient to sustain future obligations).  So be it a VAT, Flat tax, Hybrid sales (or VAT) / income tax, or just plain major tax simplification - It's got my approval.  I don't think the FairTax could be implemented as written and it certainly has a hill to climb but that's just my opinion.  Morphh   (talk) 15:56, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

FairTax
I just wanted to congratulate you on FairTax being featured on the main page. I've only just had a chance to read the whole thing, it's great to see a tax based article on the main page. GameKeeper (talk) 20:56, 18 July 2008 (UTC)