Wikipedia:Peer review/FairTax/archive3

FairTax

 * Archive Peer Review, November 2005
 * Archive Peer Review, June 2006

Pre-fac review
With that I think it would be in good shape to pass as long as you're confident the writing is good enough. Writing quality (grammar, etc) are often a problem at FAC and it's not something I'm good at helping with. See if you can get a good copyeditor to run through it. Also see if anyone here has ideas of things I'd missed. Consider Featured article advice if you hadn't already. Definitely good work, it's on the path to pass. I also made one comment in a previous section, that needs addressing too. - Taxman Talk 23:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) The lead needs to conform with WP:LEAD. I can't see how you could justify less than three paragraphs. It also needs to be a summary of the entire article with space allocated in relation to each point's importance to the overall topic. Currently it is focused on pros and cons. For example the lead needs to state the importance of the bill/proposal and it's impact or lack thereof. [[Image:Symbol comment vote.svg|20px]] Inwork: See below for discussion.
 * 2) "the FairTax has generated a large grassroots tax reform movement in recent years" is a statement that is particularly important to cite to the most reliable source available because it speaks to the impact/importance of the proposal. ✅
 * 3) "Due to the rebate, the effective tax rate is progressive on consumption...", but the article then goes on to say some say it is regressive. The statement cannot be stated as a fact if there is substantial disagreement to it being true. It must be stated factually as who says it is true. ✅ [[Image:Symbol comment vote.svg|20px]] Note: See below for discussion.
 * 4) The first section of the Tax compliance section is choppy and should be adjusted to improve the flow. The paragraph in the Implementation section needs a bit too, and it's hard to justify a one paragraph subsection. Can you think of any way to merge that elsewhere, or is there anything important enough to expand that a bit? Certainly don't add anything not of high importance. ✅
 * Thanks for the review. I have also stated the lead needs to be expanded - it was 3 paragraphs and summarized the article but then it was cut down by other editors.  Will do on #2.  On #3, both statements are true - it is progressive on consumption and it can be regressive on income.  It depends on what base your using to define the term.  Since income is the normal base of reference for income taxes, opponents tend to use an income base to define the incidence of a consumption tax.  Proponents use consumption to define the base for incidence.  So the terminology is important as both can be true as they are describing different bases.  #4. - I'll take a look and see what I can do.  Morphh   (talk) 23:52, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem. Yes, now I see that conversation, so take this as another voice in the consensus that for articles of this size WP:LEAD requires 3 or 4 non overwhelming paragraphs. The paragraphs as they are are rather long, and that may be contributing to the other users opinion. See if you can't create balance by breaking them up. For #2 and #3 it then becomes very important to note that there is a subtle distinction being drawn. Also that means stating the proponent's choice of definition without the other half of the issue is a potential POV problem. In addition stating those statements are true would require that somewhere those statements are well cited to very solid sources, though not necessarily in the lead. Keep up the good work. What's your desired timeframe for nominating? My thought is several days would be the minimum to address the above and allow for other comments unless you really want to tackle them. - Taxman Talk 00:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you mean with presenting only one definition. The statement of regressive on income (which itself can be true or false depending on consumption level and time line) is the first sentence of the second paragraph.  So both points of view are defined in the lead.  As I look at breaking up these paragraphs and expanding, I'll see how we can lay this out better.   Morphh   (talk) 01:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok - I've made the changes and checked them off. :-)  Morphh   (talk) 05:00, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Impressive speed, but the checks are better if they're clear they are your comments not mine. It's better at FAC just to note you believe you've handled all points and ask for a review. To my eye everything looks good except the lead. Lead's are very hard, but it's not there yet. Now it's too long, with too much detail, and never comes out and tells the impact of the proposal. Telling there are supporters and a bestseller is a start, but not there yet. Simply state it's impact in cited form, or if you can't cite any, state the lack of it. It's difficult to overestimate the importance of that for a lead section. Here's a data point. West's Federal Taxation 2006 does include a three sentence paragraph on FairTax out of a few paragraphs of discussion of national sales tax. That's out of one page of coverage it gives to tax reform proposals. So while tax proposals are certainly not an aim of the text, it is one comment on the relative impact. It does also state that a VAT is preferable for compliance. Again, just one data point, but a respected source. - Taxman Talk 05:39, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The last "done" check was for addressing your last sentence. I should have thought to put it after your username.  I'll keep at the intro but it may be later this weekend.  I was thinking the second and mainly the third paragraph discussed the predicted impact (in general terms), so I may need some clarification.  I don't think I have access to West's Federal Taxation 2006, looks like a purchase item.  Evasion is discussed in the lead, though not addressing specific criticism.    Morphh   (talk) 06:11, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * There was an excellent article yesterday (25 Jan, 2007) in the WSJ Rich States, Poor that discusses this topic in regard to the states. Morphh   (talk) 06:56, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * There was an excellent article yesterday (25 Jan, 2007) in the WSJ Rich States, Poor that discusses this topic in regard to the states. Morphh   (talk) 06:56, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I can't access that article at the moment, but I'll check it out. I wasn't really suggesting West's as a great reference for much in the article as it's a text focused on covering current taxation. But out of the space given to tax proposals I was commenting on what was given to FairTax. And yeah it's certainly only available for purchase. - Taxman Talk 20:13, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok - Reworked on the Lead again, give that a look. :-)  Morphh   (talk) 18:15, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Much better, but not there yet. I finally see where I've not been clear in what I'm saying. The article is about a proposal, so the impact that I'm saying it must cover is what impact the proposal itself has had (ie implemented or not, changed other taxes that are in effect, changed other countries tax systems, etc), not what is the expected impact of the provisions of the bill would be if it were implemented. The latter seems like what you thought I meant. But it needs the former. So the bill being introduced, what impact if any has that had on other laws or current taxes? Have any countries ever implemented a national sales tax? Along with that it would help to say in the lead that the bill has been introduced, but never voted on in committee. It's that type of thing that gives the needed context to why the proposal matters. And that type of thing is what needs to be in the lead. - Taxman Talk 23:51, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Ahh, Ok - Thank you for the clarification. I have some things in mind but I need to do some research and gather the sources.   Morphh   (talk) 01:23, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Would you have an example of a good lead that addresses impact like you're discussing? Just thought it might be helpful to look at something else as a reference.   Morphh   (talk) 16:43, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I added a few things on the bill in Congress. We may need to scrap something else if we need to trim it down.  I'm not sure what other impacts the FairTax has had on other areas or tax proposals in this country (I know Jim Demint's proposal is pretty much based on the FairTax but uses a combo sales tax / business transfer tax).  It would be fairly easy to state what demands have brought about the FairTax (though it may look similar to predicted impact).  Many countries have implemented a National Sales Tax but all have an income tax to go with it.  Some are looking at moving to a sales tax from a VAT like Russia, however, others like India are moving from a sales tax to a VAT.  Drawing a direct comparison between the FairTax and foreign systems is difficult and likely OR.  The main point of these systems is a consumption base (territorial tax system), which is more competitive & simpler.  So I could add some line in there that discusses the movement to consumption taxes in a global economy.  However, I'm not sure if that would be what is needed.  Thoughts?   Morphh   (talk) 21:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Avoiding OR is the most important thing, so do the best you can with the sources available, state simply how far it's gone and that it hasn't had a major effect on the tax system yet. I think adding to what is there, just say it has attracted as many as 61 sponsors in congress, but it has not yet ever been voted on by committee. That should put it in perspective. The sentence in the lead "Economists expect ..." is POV unless all economists agree on those points. The same with mentioning taxing illegal activity as an advantage, when one of the criticisms is the expansion of black markets. Other than that, it's getting past where I can help much. It seems within range of fixing issues brought up at FAC. I don't have an example of a great lead section handy. I'd have to look through various FAs to find one. You may want to just try that. - Taxman Talk 00:10, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok - Thanks, The "Economists expect ..." statement I think is fairly accurate. I don't think you'll get "all" economist to agree on anything though, so it is not an absolute.  However, these are general benifits of consumption taxes which "Many mainstream economists and tax experts like the idea of some kind of consumption tax -- in fact, the superiority of consumption taxes is almost conventional wisdom these days." I could put it as "Proponents state" but this sounds like it is limited and doesn't have general acceptance of the benefits.  Even opponents such as Economist William Gale agree to the benefits stated.  Perhaps "Many mainstream economist and tax exerts ..." and then state consumption taxes instead of FairTax.?  I don't think we have a criticism for the exansion of black markets (Illegal activity).  There is an argument for the expansion of an Underground economy, which is different.  If there were problems with a underground economy as critics argue, the FairTax will still have advantages in taxing the black market.  The black market is only part of the underground economy (the illegal part).  So the two statements are not contradictory.  However, since you picked up on this - any suggestions on how we should word them better so as not to cause confusion?  Morphh   (talk) 01:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Made some small changes Morphh   (talk) 01:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

FA Drive comments
As per the request for comments on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Taxation, here is my 2 pence. Given some of the discussions above, I’ll note that I don’t care either way about FairTax – unless I swap countries, it’ll never affect me.


 * Coming to it as a non-American, my first thought was that I wasn’t sure if this was a proposal being campaigned for, or something with a reasonable chance of becoming law within the year, say. “Legislative history” makes this clearer, but it was my first stumble.✅ [[Image:Symbol comment vote.svg|20px]] I added in the first sentence that the proposal was in the U.S. Congress to try and clarify this. The second part is harder to address (see third comment).


 * “H.R.25/S.25” was meaningless to me – I’m guessing it’s an administrative identifier? Could it have a wikilink to something explaining it?✅


 * Legislative history leaves me wondering how far it still has to go to “be included in a final version of tax legislation” – what support should a bill garner to get that far? [[Image:Symbol comment vote.svg|20px]] No specific number that I know of - I've heard that 100 cosponsors is a major bill but I don't have anything to source on this. I'll think about this comment but I'm not sure how to address it yet.


 * Effective tax rate - “((income * tax rate) – rebate) / income = effective tax rate” isn’t easy to follow, especially if it wraps. Can it be formula-ed?✅


 * Monthly tax rebate - does “The National Taxpayers Union estimated…” have a cite?✅
 * In addition, my first thought on reading that was “but what’s the overall admin cost?”, which isn’t addressed until later.✅
 * “Proponents point out that income tax deductionss, tax preferences, loopholes, credits, etc. under the current system was estimated at $945 billion by the Joint Committee on Taxation and that the Internal Revenue Service itself sent out $270 billion in refund checks for 2005.” The $270 billion, which I’m assuming is refunds on incorrect assessments, is presumably only half of the corrections to assessments – there will be extra charges after investigations? Anyway, the $945 billion seems a fair comparison to the $489 billion rebate, whereas the $270 billion seems to be a slightly different issue.✅


 * Revenue Neutrality: - "the panel did not score H.R. 25” – I’m confused by this quote – does it mean they did not consider it? In general the section seems very heavy, with much to-ing and fro-ing of claims. I understand that it’s probably one of the major areas of disagreement, and may need heavy coverage.✅ [[Image:Symbol comment vote.svg|20px]] They did not evaluate the legislation - I changed the term from the one quoted to a more common term. Correct - it is a major area, though I've considered writing this in summary and creating another sub-article.
 * “Americans For Fair Taxation (AFFT) claim that…” seems to tell a strange tale of someone being claimed to say one thing, and then saying another. I was left confused as to what had occurred.✅
 * “If the rate is too high, no matter what the rate, it brings to light the true cost of the federal government and the hidden taxes Congress has imposed on the American taxpayer.” – isn’t comment on “hidden taxes” and “imposed” a bit POV?✅


 * Presentation of tax rate – the whole issue hashed out here seemed pretty simple and obvious to me – presumably the detail is indicative of it being an area of contention? [[Image:Symbol comment vote.svg|20px]] Correct


 * Distribution of tax burden – could open with an explanation of the concept of incidence, or at least a link?✅


 * Transition effects – “focus grassroots efforts on HJR 16” – what’s an HJR?✅


 * Is there an international dimension to consider – if I buy from Amazon.com, what will FairTax do? Or if an American imports a Ferrari?✅ [[Image:Symbol comment vote.svg|20px]] If it is a US based business selling you the good (like Amazon.com), then they would charge the FairTax (though Amazon.co.uk may be an export and not levied - VAT or UK sales tax would apply). Imports (like a Ferrari) would get processed though US customs, which would apply the FairTax.

In general terms, it appears to be a very comprehensive view of an issue. I came away well informed. There's clearly been a strong attempt to produce a balanced article. I found it pretty heavy going at times, especially where there was much opponents/proponents back and forth, or it delved into US legislation. It's much more comprehensive than I'd need to get a reasonable idea of the issue; however someone more affected by it might judge it an appropriate length. --Winklethorpe 22:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for taking the time to review the article - I'll try to address the issues you've outlined above. My comments in bold.  Morphh   (talk) 2:37, 16 March 2007 (UTC)