`  :The early part of the article, including much of the lead has to first discuss what the legislation is and what it does.  Proponent or opponent viewpoints don't get introduced until the second paragraph of the lead and appear to be well balanced.  We have certain restrictions on introduction size and it tries to summarize the article's content.  Many of the sections first introduce the topic, which is discussion of the legislation or the argument/dispute and then go into pro/con.  The graph in Distribution of Tax burden is discussed in this section (second sentence and the second to last sentence) and further discussed in the sub-article.  Yes - it does suggest that all tax levels in the graph would decrease due to the larger tax base and taxation of wealth.  The source is also provided for those that want more details.  This is a summary so we had to condense the information and try to present the major viewpoints.  Reorganization is welcome so long as both views are presented.  I don't disagree that the predicted effects section has much pro content.  It is a summary of the sub-article, which is primarily positive information.  I think it shows neutrality that we split off much of the positive information into a sub-article.  Advocates could charge that we created a POV fork.  If there is something that is not represented there for criticism from a reputable source and sufficient weight, please add it.  Don't blame the article for POV, if there is no significant criticism to present on these areas.  Many of these points are accepted benefits by both proponents and critics.  Seems some people want to see tons of criticism on every point because they don't like the plan..  well it doesn't work that way.  There are just some things that are positive for any particular tax reform.  I responded to Brianyouman that regressive points were addressed in the article and was describing the points of argument.  I did go outside the discussion of the article to point out some things that he was using for examples.  Much of the debate is contrast from the current system to the FairTax.  There are basic definitions of progressive and regressive but many frame them as regressive compared to what (the current system) or progressive compared to... Anyway... Perhaps we're hitting on .     `