FairTax edit
Since I first saw this article, I knew it could become FA. However, Feco makes an important point:
"I think the article as it stands has two key problems:
1.::It falls in the fuzzy area between purely descriptive articles (here's the legislation, here are the pro and con sides' arguments) and in-depth analytical articles (here's the legislation, here's the rationale of the pro and con sides, here's the generally accepted neutral economic facts that apply and the consequences they predict... reader, YOU look at it all and you decide). I think the article right now needs a lot more analytical content if it's going to have any anlysis at all.
2.::The macro structure of the article and the micro structure of single sections tend to reflect the he said/she said polarized nature of the debate. Careful reading shows echos of one side's argument, the other side's counter argment, the first side's couter-counter argument, etc. "
I see this problem, and is the main reason it cannot be FA right now. This is the main thing I would like the peer review to be on, but if there are any other problems (that you can't quickly fix yourself), let me/us know!
--Trevdna 05:09, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Use the phrase "retail sales tax" in the first sentence as opposed to just "sales tax". When comparing to a VAT make sure you also use the phrase "retail sales tax". The statement "arises from the use of a sales tax rather than a value added tax" is confusing to some because the value added tax is a sales tax (and where I come from it's the principal sales tax). Cedars 12:25, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Done and done! Once again, however, I forgot to log in before editing; all of the edits done to this article from 168.99.166.56 are me. Sorry about this! Any other suggestions???? Trevdna 19:23, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
- Well, the contributors to this article are obviously in favor of this proposal. Friendly Canadian warning: don't fall for it. We have a similar national sales tax, the GST at 7%. Oh they say it will eliminate all other taxes...but when was the last time a government abandoned a source (or six sources) of revenue? Anyways, wow that is a lot of text. It is intimidating and will turn off many potential readers. Try adding some images, like of the Linder guy or pie chart/graph comparisons illustrating the calculations made in the text. The article needs to revise its structure. I did not find the headings to be intuitive, or the sections properly written. Each section should have one theme. Each paragraph one idea helping explain that theme. The section "The FairTax tax rate" is structured properly but the others are not. And now for my notes I made while reading it: in the second or third sentence tell me why the proposal is called FairTax. Get rid of the sub-headings "2003" & "2005" in "Legislative overview"; those are paragraphs, not sections...is "Legislative overview" really the best title for that section? Do the 2003 and 2005 bills have any differences? Those "Revenue-neutral rate studies" are in footnote territory and re-format that section (looks like the first three paragraphs are actually supposed to be one). Is that all there is to say about the studies? Get rid of the "Note: " and the "this article". Try not to start a sentence with a number (ie. ...transaction equals $100. $23 of taxes...). There seems to be a heavy emphasis on the "monthly subsidy checks". In Canada these subsidies for the 7% national sales tax is CDA$54 quarterly...it is not that much money. Restructure the "Predicted benefits of FairTax" section, currently there is a section with no text and two one-paragraph sections, try making it a two-paragraph section. Don't say "we pay a very heavy price", your audience is global (and don't address the reader). Where it says "According to the first line of the second paragraph here [17]" just say the name of the report. Why is the "Black markets" in a list and the other similar sections not? Wherever it says "opponents argue" or "supporters claim" please provide a reference to who these "critics" are. This quote does not have a reference: '"people give because they want to give"'. The section "Transition effects" (and "Changes in the retail economy") does not have any text. The subsection "Effect on savers" does not need six paragraphs. Why the bullet list at "Other indirect effects"? the points are already in paragraph. --maclean25 08:52, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Thanks a million - this is perfect. I'm creating a to-do list for this.
Thank you very much for your fresh set of eyes on this article.
However, is there really too much emphasis on the monthly subsidy checks? Is four times (one to explain them) really too much?Trevdna 17:42, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
New to entry under Wikipedia, so bear with me, but here's my comment: Under Effects on Tax Code Compliance -> Tax Compliance -> third paragraph, the argument being made is that the FairTax will make tax compliance harder to enforce because it is "without withholding and with self-reporting". ???? In fact, the FairTax is withheld when you make a purchase and by a third party, the seller. The quote above, while some opponents may in fact claim it, is blatantly false. Would appreciate it if you could take a look at this again and see what you think. Shoe 00:15, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
The more you mention the monthly prebate checks the less likely critics are going to call this a regressive tax, which the prebate clearly eliminates...but despite the fact that this is mentioned elswhere (outside wiki) critics still moan and complain about the "regressive" nature of sales tax completly ignorant of the fact that the prebate eliminates such a complaint. (Gibby 20:03, 17 January 2006 (UTC))