John Duncan

Go ahead! Say hi!

FairTax Distribution

John, The NPOV tag is for a section that is not presenting research from a verifiable source that has a different point of view. Do you have any research that is not discussed? It can only be point of view if there is another published point of view to present that is not presented. The section contains data that is available (minus the Beacon Hill study that we haven't yet been able to include.. as it just came out - I believe it is positive toward the FairTax). Problem with this subject is that no study has been done that shows the FairTax would have a negative tax burden impact (or I guess an "opponent" viewpoint), while several studies show that it would have a postive impact (I guess a "proponent" viewpoint). The only study opponents offer is the Tax Panel, which is not a study of the FairTax. We've included it anyway.. just disclaiming that it was very different with regard to tax replacement (since it excluded all the regressive taxes replaced under the FairTax - which makes up half the tax base). I don't see that anything is missing. If you have some research or a publication from a reliable source that discusses another point of view or if you have a particular sentence that you believe is bias... please discuss it. But the tag at this point is unwarranted. You have not discussed what you think is point of view.. (I don't know if you feel it is pro or anti - Certainly the arguement could be made that including studies that are not of the FairTax is wrong and the section is anti). You have not presented any point of view that is not present and you haven't identified any particular statement that is bias. Tagging is normally done after discussion fails - we have yet to even discuss it and you provide no evidence that the section is POV. As far as the "text I wrote" - while I did write some.. most of it was transcribed from the main article when it was split into sub-articles. I did the split, so even though it shows I wrote this article, I'm just the editor that copied it into a new article. It has been edited and written by many editors and review many times. I'm going to remove the tag again. If you present a published point of view on the tax burden impact that is not presented (provide source) and someone does not work to include it or does not give sufficient justification not to included it, then a NPOV tag may be appropriate. Likewise, if you find a sentence that you feel is bias and someone doesn't work to compromise on it or give sufficient justification not to change it, then a NPOV tag may be appropriate. Morphh ^(talk) 13:14, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

On a side note, I noticed the reference to the Green Party on your userpage. Pbgiv is working to find sources for the POV that the FairTax would be environmentally friendly. He wrote a short bit about it on his website http://www.greenearthmarket.com/index.asp?PageAction=Custom&ID=1#fairtax I never really thought of it that way but it seems plausible and I've heard it mentioned several times. Also noting that your sister is a lesbian and pushes for civil liberty rights, I thought I should mention the FairTax would remove the exemptions and deductions that discriminate against gays.[1] Morphh ^(talk) 13:24, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

The entire first paragraph (the largest) and two of the four graphs is criticism of the FairTax (even though it wasn't even a study of the FairTax and never claimed to be). Part of the last paragraph is criticism. This section is about the research in regard to tax burden, which has not yet supported the viewpoint that it would shift the tax burden to the middle class claimed by some opponents (the viewpoint is discussed in the article). There is a lot of research that supports the claims of the proponents. Balance does not directly mean 50/50 on research that supports a proponent and opponent viewpoint. You apply appropriate weight to each viewpoint or study. If 20% of research criticizes the plan, then it should be approx 20% of the section - not 50%. So if we have several studies that show the FairTax in a positive light, you weigh each study. In this article, the Tax Panel study (not even a study of the FairTax) takes up more than 25% of the section. Another 25% to rebut the Tax panel, and the other 50% to present basic information about the tax base and the other studies and research. If criticism comes out for a particular study.. we'll add it in. If you have criticism of Kotlikoff's study, Arduan, Lapher & Moore Econometrics study, or Beacon Hill's study.. please let us know. I'm not sure what to do in the meantime while you get time to hunt down research that I've never seen (and I've been researching the plan for almost four years now). Should we just leave the tag up there until you get around to it.. based on your view without anything supporting your conclusion? I'm not saying it couldn't be out there but if it was... I would think it would be highly published considering the misinformation campaign against the FairTax. I'm also not saying that the section could not be improved or may contain perceptions of bias that could be corrected. This is not reason for a tag - we can discuss and address it. I don't know what your knowledge level is with the plan. We get a lot of people that are greatly misinformed on the plan (not saying that you are) - they hear a sound-bite, decide they hate it, and start drive-by tagging articles. So you can see my hesitation to just leave a tag with little discussion on information which presents what is not included that would represent another viewpoint. I'm very willing to work and include such criticism. I've added a great deal of criticism to the articles and personally the FairTax is not my first choice of tax reform but I've studied the plan in detail and have tried to include the research that exists. I actually edit over 500 tax articles on Wikipedia - the FairTax along with tax protesting seem to have a high degree of random attention. Tagging articles is a process if there are normal editors and usually a midterm step in dispute resolution. A tag can actually place more bias on a section than whatever appears to be bias in the content, so it is proper to first discuss and present sources for the neutrality argument if there are editors there willing to work on the issue. Most issues have dispute and if we tagged everything that every person thought was bias without reference, Wikipedia would be a collection of tags. We have no way to measure the mental stability, knowledge, special interest, or extremism with new editors except to present and discuss. There is a discussion on the Talk page for neutrality. While completely unnecessary and counterproductive, I'll leave the tag for a short time to allow you to present research or criticism that would make the section better. I will not leave it up there for you to disappear - it is a quick way to bias a article without doing anything. But as a matter of good faith, I'll leave it up for a short period of time to allow you to collect your research. Usually this is just a statement that it would fall onto the middle class (normally quoting the tax panel) or they discuss regressivity (that lower income will pay a greater percentage of their income in taxes). Let us know what you find. Morphh ^(talk) 16:34, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

In case anyone was concerned, I believe "Morphh's" interest in neutrality to be fictional. I don't know if he's certainly set out to promote the FairTax POV, but he's got himself a little reservation over there in Tax Land that I am just not willing to fight. He's more concerned with the appearance of goodness on his article than he is with truth, and, so, that's where it ends. I add Neutrality tags and he removes them, over and over, so whatever. You get what you pay for.