Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:34, 30 January 2013

	Tax was a Social sciences and society good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones Date Process Result March 29, 2007 Good article nominee Not listed

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Business Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Economics Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Taxation (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Taxation, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.TaxationWikipedia:WikiProject TaxationTemplate:WikiProject TaxationTaxation Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Politics High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

1

This page has archives. Sections older than 120 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Quick notes

just quick notes, since i don't have the time or background to write well on it...

purpose: fund-raising vs control/social-engineering/behavior-modification

types: inheritance; custom/import/duty; reseller's; property

related/see also: bonds; notes

capital gains tax

personal property tax

business inventory tax (includes busines equipment)

import taxes vs farm subsidies

stamp duty

revenue stamp

revenue paper

imputed interest/income tax (on zero coupon bonds)

and just for humor, "The Microsoft Tax"

    thanks -- WP

Single rate with threshold

I believe that this page should at least mention the point that the combination of a single tax rate applied only on the excess of income/capital above a threshold will be result in a progressive tax in that the average rate of tax will increase with income/capital. An example is the income tax system which has operated in Sweden where a highly progressive tax is delivered by the combination of a high tax threshold and a single (high) tax rate. Alan Peakall 13:11 Oct 24, 2002 (UTC)

Inheritance taxes

"Inheritance taxes are extremely unpopular and many countries such as Canada and the United States have gotten rid of theirs or are in the process of doing so."

The first half of this is definitely not true. Personally I hate inheritance taxes too, but it's incorrect to assign that view to a majority of the residents of the US and Canada, especially with no time limitation. Many people find great satisfaction in knowing that the estate tax will punish 'the rich' on the assumption that the rich must have aquired their assets in some illicit or immoral manner. Envy has always been popular. Others argue in good faith that the estate tax is valuable in a social sense because it prevents families from becoming too powerful. And some argue that the estate tax saves the children of the wealthy from lives of unhappy idleness. Whatever the objective merits of those arguments, it is an objective fact that many people subjectively approve of inheritance taxes, regardless of whether they are objectively correct in doing so.

The quote's second half is also suspect. I don't know about Canada's inheritance tax, but the situation on the US Estate Tax is quite unclear. Most of the cuts in the federal tax have not really been cuts in federal revenue at all. Until the recent legislation, a portion of the revenue from the federal tax went to the states. The immediate change to the federal tax was to squeeze down on that money. The time has not yet come when the federal government will see serious reductions in its revenue from its estate tax. And many states are already considering state-level inheritance taxes independent of the federal tax to make up for the revenue they lost in the federal law change.

So it's much too broad to claim that the US is in the process of getting rid of its estate tax. There are reductions scheduled at the federal level, but those have not yet begun to really take hold. There is a scheduled repeal of the federal tax, but that lasts for only one year under rules that practically guarantee that Congress will revisit the issue. And it's entirely likely that many states will impose their own inheritance taxes, as they did before the federal government invented one.

I hate to cut the whole sentence because I don't really know what's going on in Canada. But I don't know how to rewrite it to make it true. On balance it's probably better to cut what I know is false than to leave something that might be true.

---

Well, in my opinion inheritance tax is a perfect tax - because you never actually pay it yourself. I suppose I'd better get over to inheritance to discuss the morality of the institution itself but as far as I am concerned if I inherit anything it is a windfall so I don't see why I shouldn't pay tax on it, since I pay tax on income I have earned or gain from dividends or capital gains. What's "envy" got to do with it? If one accepts that taxes are necessary (and of course it is possible to argue they are not) it makes sense for those with more money to pay more.

Exile ---

Fair Tax

Why is Fair Tax top of the list, and so blatantly propagandic (not to mention POV)...

I am removing the entire section; it is blatant propaganda and it doesn't even mention what "Fair Tax" does tax (it's a consumption tax)

Economics of Taxing a Good

I just finished making some large edits to this section. I think some of the language was technically confusing and a little inaccurate--for example "goods" don't have elasticities, curves do. Also, some of the previous text seemed to imply the graphs showed taxes on consumers, but the tax is clearly on producers in the diagrams.

How is it that taxing profits does not alter the structure of production? Entrepreneurs make production decisions based fundamentally on their profit calculation that the value (price) of the produced good will exceed the value (costs) of its factors. Any tax on profits must be included in this calculation, and therefore affect both the quantity and the structure of production. If this is the argument of a particular school of thought, it should be attributed.

Why does everyone have to pay taxes?...thats not fair

Today!

Today taxes are due! Yay! Give America all the money!

NPOV edit of propaganda

The following was excised from the article because nutty ideas and biased assertions of opinion don't belong here:

Toll Tax

A Toll Tax is a tax that is collected anonymously and though this type of tax has been often used historically on roads and bridges, this type of tax has not been implemented as a sole or major revenue provider.

The greatest advantage to a toll tax being used as a sole provider of tax revenue that along with the anonymity it provides, the ability to automate allows for removal of the burden of tax regulation and collection.

The best example of this tax as a sole source tax is the: No Names No Numbers Tax which through such automation removes not only Internal Revenue Service and its huge tax burdens of regulation and bureaucracy; but removes both compliance costs a additional related tax burden that the people incur to comply with complicated tax regulations; and takes the crime of tax evasion which costs tax payers millions each year to incarcerate and keep such tax offenders; Turning the offense into a minimal traffic offense.

Through this tax all other taxes are abolished but for import which states collect for the federal government for it's operation, and use taxes which are limited to a particular use such as the gas tax for roads. Contribution by the American Patriot Party.

Taxation as a Political Pawn and Invasive Tool of Government

Taxation used for political posturing is often used to finance programs that will benefit the constituents of a particular political party.

Democrats and Republicans use taxes to finance social programs that benefit larger bureaucracies and to finance projects that benefit large constituent companies.

Both use the higher or lower tax stance to increase tax revenue ether by increased forced taxation or by increasing profitability through the greater economic growth. Neither has ever attempted to actually limit itself to tax based on the consent of the tax payer or to the minimal need of government to function. This is due to the 16th Amendment first deemed unconstitutional by the supreme court and later made as an amendment to make it so called "constitutional".

This gave the federal government a unlimited power to tax the general public and over throw the meanings of the 17th Grievance of the Declaration of Independence. With this power, Security of ones person, papers and effects became in jeopardy as the federal government through the use of income tax created a method to invade all affairs of business within the United States and that enters and leaves the United States. Contribution by the American Patriot Party.

Maybe we need a article regarding the politics of taxation...

Added Toll Tax and Use Tax (simple)

Needs expanding.

User: Richard Taylor APP

backward economies of India, Africa, et al

What exactly defines a "backward economy"? Isn't that more of an opinion? The world bank generally differentiates economies based on income. "Low income economies" might be more fitting.

"Purposes and effects" versus "Economic effects"

Should "Purposes and effects" be a separate section from "Economic effects"? Paum89 (talk) 18:08, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Tax choice

In addition to the section lacking sources, it might be even more difficult to find a source that this is a non-FRINGE view. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:11, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

It's been featured twice in Forbes (1, 2), once in the Atlantic (1)...and featured in other credible publications. It's obviously not a mainstream view but it certainly merits at least one paragraph in this article. --Xerographica (talk) 08:32, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

All the sources you list here seem to be columns (representing only the opinion of the author) or Op-Ed pieces. Any notability is at first remove; the publication thinks the author is "notable" (or interesting), and the author thinks the concept is notable (or interesting). Still, that problem relates to the article Tax choice, as well. The tag should remain until (at least one) WP:RS is found. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:08, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't think this topic merits a subsection here. While notable, I think it falls into a very small minority when considering the broad topic of taxation and thus likely constitutes undue weight in this article. I do think it is fine for an article of its own and would be alright for a section in a sub-tax article like tax reform. If the content does stay, I'd suggest the sub-topic be changed to "tax reform" to make it a bit broader, with tax choice being a couple sentences of a larger point. Morphh 14:11, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Morphh. There are a whole lot of ideas about better tax systems, but many of them are never put to use. I think that this article should cover the types of taxes and tax systems that are commonly used. Sjö (talk) 09:39, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for the delayed reply, I was blocked for a week. Our entire tax system is based on the preference revelation problem...a problem which tax choice effectively solves. I think that's worth a paragraph or two. Please review all the references that I added to the benefit principle entry. --Xerographica (talk) 20:45, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Theory of taxation

The following sentence does not belong in the lead of the article and has been removed:

"The two main theories of taxation are the benefit theory and the ability to pay theory."

The reason for not including this sentence in the lead is that the lead is meant to be a summary of the article. I have done a search of the article and I have found nowhere in the article "benefit theory" or "ability to pay theory". For the sentence to be included in the lead there should be at least a paragraph on this topic somewhere in the article. Without support of a second editor consensus at the moment is not to include. Guest2625 (talk) 10:22, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Theoretical justification for our tax system?

I added this sentence to the lede...

"The two main theories of taxation are the benefit theory and the ability to pay theory."

...which ‎Guest2625 removed with the explanation that this entry doesn't contain the "terms" used in my sentence.

There's a theoretical explanation for the world's current tax system...either that or we're all crazy. If you're saying that this entry doesn't at all discuss the theoretical basis for our tax system...then clearly that's a problem. You don't solve that problem by removing the one sentence that does mention the justification for our tax system...you solve it by creating the section that does provide the justification. In order to do that...you first have to review all the references that I added to the benefit principle entry. If you're not willing to make that effort...then please don't edit this entry.

Having already read through all those reliable sources and many many many more...here's my take. This paper...The Pure Theory of Public Expenditure...by Paul Samuelson has been cited over 5,000 times. It provides the definitive theoretical justification for our tax system. Samuelson's argument was that the benefit principle had a very limited scope because of the preference revelation problem...a problem which tax choice effectively solves. That's it...that's our tax system in a nutshell. That's the bottom line that readers should not have to wade through miles of minor details to find. --Xerographica (talk) 11:12, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

In wikipedia articles the lead is meant to summarise the article. At the moment there is nothing in the article discussing benefit theory or ability to pay theory. If you want to include such information then create a subsection in the theories of taxation section. That's the appropriate place in the article for such information. Once that subsection is created, then it can be determined what weight that material should be given in the lead. Guest2625 (talk) 11:31, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

In other words...two deficiencies are better than one deficiency. How about you read through the reliable sources...so that we can have an informed discussion on what the RS say. --Xerographica (talk) 11:43, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

(ec)

@Xerographica: That's not what you said. Neither what you said nor the quasi-quote is consistent with what our article theory of taxation states. What you said probably has a reference, but it isn't Samuelson.

@Guest2625: Not exactly correct. While working on an article, a sourced (not just sourcable) statement can be placed in the lead before the supporting section is written.

@Xerographica. Yes. Deficiencies are better than inconsistency within an article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 11:47, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Seriously? You're saying that the Misplaced Pages entry is more of a reliable source than the reliable sources themselves? Here's a novel idea. How about for once you actually find, read and cite a RS. Give it a try. You know why you won't do it? Because it will require you to actually research the topic. It will require more effort than you're willing to make. --Xerographica (talk) 19:39, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Given that it's been two weeks and no editors have offered any reliable sources to support their objections, I will be re-adding the sentence to the lead. --Xerographica (talk) 06:33, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not removing it, but it needs a specific citation. "Theory of taxation" has more types of theories than that. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:46, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Here's one of many... Handbook on Taxation by W. Bartley Hildreth. --Xerographica (talk) 07:15, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Since this is an article about taxation in general, who is the "our tax system" that is being discussed? Are we saying all taxation falls into these justifications? They don't appear to be the base justification for a tax system, such as raise revenue for the state, economic equality, and punish/reward behavior. It appears to better describe the structure or type of tax system, such as motives for progressive structure or the collection/spending like the tax choice model that's been included (which this benefit theory seems to closely match). I have to agree with Guest2625 comment regarding including it in the lead without sufficient body content and weight. I'm not even sure the Theory of taxation article is up to snuff to use it as a measure and how much theory actually reflects practice - seems at times my tax system neither reflects benefit theory or ability to pay. Morphh 15:50, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Have you read through all the reliable sources on the benefit principle entry? --Xerographica (talk) 18:20, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I glanced at them... I'm not sure that answers any of my comments. In fact, it seemed to support my initial thought. Morphh 22:49, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Let me know when you thoroughly read them so that we can have an informed discussion on the topic. --Xerographica (talk) 23:09, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Why don't you just proceed and provide supporting evidence for the statements included. There is no need for me to spend hours reading in these various publications, nor do I have time. Just offer several secondary sources that support the claim, which should be easy if they are the two main theories of taxation. Morphh 16:00, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I also thought the citation failed verification. The focus of the source is "concepts of distribution" and theories on the "optimum allocation of societies resources". I do not see that it supports the statement that they are the two main theories of taxation. The focus is expenditure, and these theories appear to play into the concept of using a tax system as social welfare. Morphh 16:00, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Ability to pay vs benefit

Here are the requested sources...User:Xerographica/Principles of taxation. Now, I really grasp the concept of wp:burden...but it would seem that, if you're going to edit this entry, then you too should have a reasonable burden. Or else we end up with an extremely unbalanced burden...which misses the entire point of a collaborative project. So if you dispute a point or argument that I make...then please bring your own reliable sources to the table. Show me the evidence that you've actually spent your own time researching the topic. Thanks. --Xerographica (talk) 02:56, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Nicely done - I'm reviewing them now, but a quick review of the sources would gain my support of rephrasing "theories of taxation" to "principles of taxation fairness" / "equality" (plenty of sources) or perhaps being descriptive in the application, such as "the structure of a tax is influenced by these principles". We should create a section/subsection in the article, maybe under "Views on taxation" or "Theories of taxation" that expands on the topic. We really should have content in the body of the article before including it in the lead, as the lead is meant to be a summary of the article. It would also be nice to also include examples, maybe something like "an excise tax on gas, often intended for maintaining roads and bridges (those that use the road more will pay more to maintain it), is an example of the benefit principle." I also like some of the more plain language that describes the basis of the principles, such as providing public goods and redistributing income to satisfy the ethical norms of fairness. In the body of the article, we shouldn't have to follow the links to understand the basic premise for the principles. Morphh 14:34, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

• Former good article nominees
• All unassessed articles
• B-Class WikiProject Business articles
• Top-importance WikiProject Business articles
• WikiProject Business articles
• B-Class Economics articles
• Top-importance Economics articles
• WikiProject Economics articles
• WikiProject templates with unknown parameters
• B-Class politics articles
• High-importance politics articles
• WikiProject Politics articles
• Misplaced Pages pages with to-do lists