Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:45, 4 February 2013

This article was nominated for deletion on 7 January 2013 (UTC). The result of the discussion was no consensus.

Economics Start‑class

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 Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating 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

Politics Start‑class

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 Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Tax Choice

Just created this page. It's pretty rough around the edges but it's better than nothing. If anybody wants to give me a hand fixing the references then that would be awesome. --Xerographica (talk) 12:56, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Opinion piece

This article appears to be little more than an opinion piece on what appears to be a fringe view. I have tagged it with problems noted.Oldtaxguy (talk) 23:44, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Regarding your notability critique...pretty much all I can say is that in my opinion it is a notable enough concept to warrant its own article. Can you please offer some specific issues that you have regarding neutrality and unbalanced? I'd certainly be happy to work with you to try and correct any deficiencies in these areas. --Xerographica (talk) 00:30, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Eisenhower vs. Hitler?

Eisenhower vs. Hitler? Unbalanced is putting it rather lightly, I think. ~ Anonymous — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.2.129.81 (talk) 00:11, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

On a technical note...if you look towards the top you'll see a tab..."New section". You can click that to start a new section on this page. Regarding your feedback...which viewpoint is given undue weight? The point of juxtaposing those two passages is to help people understand that war...like every single expenditure...has an opportunity cost. --Xerographica (talk) 01:30, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I think that the IP user is saying that the section is a pretty classic example of an argumentum ad Hitlerum. The fact that respected President and war hero Eisenhower takes one position and Hitler represents the other might raise some not-so-subtle POV concerns in many readers' minds. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 23:21, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

POV towards which view though? Broadly and very generally speaking...conservatism is POV towards more defense spending and liberalism is POV towards less defense spending and tax choice is POV towards whatever priorities you believe to be important. Tax choice is completely neutral on what your public goods priorities are. Or, rather, it's POV towards everybody's views. Does this make sense?

There's been plenty of effort with regards to developing accurate preference revelation mechanisms because economists hold the view that the optimal supply of public goods IS the sum of everybody's true preferences for...views on...public goods... User:Xerographica/Preference_revelation. --Xerographica (talk) 01:37, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I think I see what you're saying. I think the concern is that it is probably read as pushing the POV that defense spending is bad, because Hitler (read: "pure evil") suggested that spending on defense is essential for a nation's security...an informed reader will note that he was "proven" completely wrong just a few years after making that statement, as he was shooting himself in the head inside a besieged bunker in the capital city of his destroyed country. i.e., as a general rule, Hitler is usually considered an undesirable person to be compared to/associated with. I think, though, that this issue could help be resolved in part by explaining more clearly what the section even has to do with tax choice - it could probably be explained without contrasting two opposing viewpoints altogether. I get that the Eisenhower quote is pretty cool-sounding/inspired, but I'm not so sure he's really even talking about tax choice here. Opportunity cost, yes, tax choice, maybe only indirectly. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 02:30, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Reading Hitler or Mao or Stalin as "pure evil" is a fundamental mistake. It's far more useful and insightful and important to think of it as "conceit"...User:Xerographica/The Fatal Conceit. "Conceit" is simply failure to recognize and respect and value other people's freedom of choice. And freedom of choice IS opportunity cost IS tax choice.

Does that make sense? Every time you spend your money/time you're sacrificing alternative uses of your money/time that you also value. You can't talk about tax choice without talking about opportunity cost. If you understand opportunity cost...User:Xerographica/Opportunity cost...then you'll grasp the tax choice argument.

Preventing people from choosing how they spend their limited resources will always result in wealth destruction. So the argument in the book Scroogenomics is exactly the same as the tax choice argument. Same thing with Milton Friedman's argument...other people's money.

Does replying to this match your preferences? It would be "conceit" for me to assume I know the answer better than you do. "Preferences" is another word for "demand". So "conceit" is simply when government planners supply quantities of a good/service/product that does not match the true demand. And true demand is only revealed by your opportunity cost decision. --Xerographica (talk) 06:25, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Whether or not it is indeed a mistake, I think we have to assume - since it's a well-documented phenomenon - that readers will read Hitler's position with the assumption that that position is being presented as the "wrong" position to take. I believe I understand what tax choice and opportunity cost are, I'm just not clear about how the two sections relate to tax choice. Are you saying that Hitler's quote is relevant because the people of Nazi Germany were forced to spend their money on defense against their will, and that this led to disastrous consequences? If it's your intention to avoid the former interpretation and present instead the latter, I think readers would need more explanation to reach that interpretation. As it reads, the section sounds like a contrast between (as you describe in your previous comment) conservative and liberal spending policy (in which (evil failure) Hitler represents the conservative argument), rather than a discussion of the opportunity costs central to the idea of tax choice. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 02:06, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

This is the explanation/background that readers need to have under their belt...

Nevertheless, the classic solution to the problem of underprovision of public goods has been government funding - through compulsory taxation - and government production of the good or service in question. Although this may substantially alleviate the problem of numerous free-riders that refuse to pay for the benefits they receive, it should be noted that the policy process does not provide any very plausible method for determining what the optimal or best level of provision of a public good actually is. When it is impossible to observe what individuals are willing to give up in order to get the public good, how can policymakers access how urgently they really want more or less of it, given the other possible uses of their money? There is a whole economic literature dealing with the willingness-to-pay methods and contingent valuation techniques to try and divine such preference in the absence of a market price doing so, but even the most optimistic proponents of such devices tend to concede that public goods will still most likely be underprovided or overprovided under government stewardship. - Patricia Kennett, Governance, globalization and public policy

In other words...readers need to have a firm grasp on the preference revelation problem...User:Xerographica/Preference_revelation. As you can see...there's plenty of material for the preference revelation problem article...and it's certainly a fundamentally important concept. Yet, there's no article there!

How about this on dollar voting...User:Xerographica/Dollar voting

Individuals express preferences about changes in the state of the world virtually every moment of the day. The medium through which they do this is the market place. A vote for something is revealed by the decision to purchase a good or service. A vote against, or an expression of indifference, is revealed by the absence of a decision to purchase. Thus the market place provides a very powerful indicator of preferences. - David Pearce, Dominic Moran, Dan Biller, Handbook of Biodiversity Valuation

That handbook is pretty very darn awesome. If you click on the link you should see all the search results for "opportunity cost" within the book. They are all worth reading. What is the best balance between development and conservation? What is the best balance between national defense and public healthcare? "Balance" means an optimal supply of public goods. Or, efficient allocation of resources.

We can think of an inefficient allocation of resources as a non-sequitur. It's where the conclusion (supply) does not follow from the premise (demand). When it comes to how society's limited resources are used...WE, THE PEOPLE...are the premise. What was the Great Leap Forward? It was a massive disconnect between the conclusion and the premise. Why? Because people were not given the freedom to "express preferences about changes in the state of the world virtually every moment of the day." Markets give people that freedom...and tax choice would create a market in the public sector. Therefore, no more non sequiturs. That's the theory at least. --Xerographica (talk) 04:53, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Notability

Hello,

The article seems sketchy to me, so I've placed a notability template and a expert template, hopefully someone will be able to check this?

Quite new to Misplaced Pages, so my editing is pretty crap, any pointers on the templates I put in would be greatly anticipated.

Fancykiller65 (talk) 19:14, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

There are sufficient sources to establish its notability as a concept...so I removed the notability tags. If you can specify exactly why the article seems sketchy to you...then we can work on making specific improvements. Generally we prefer to discuss things first on the talk page. --Xerographica (talk) 19:26, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure there are sufficient sources. Can someone point out reliable sources which establishe the term "tax choice"? There are no inline references in this article, and by spot checking a few references in the bibliography, I see that some of them do not use this term at all. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:01, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is not a dictionary...

Each article in an encyclopedia is about a person, a people, a concept, a place, an event, a thing etc., whereas a dictionary entry is primarily about a word, an idiom, or a term and its meanings, usage and history.

This entry is dedicated to the concept of people choosing where their taxes go. This concept has been discussed in enough reliable sources for it to be considered sufficiently notable to warrant an entry on Misplaced Pages.

Whether or not this article should be renamed is an entirely different question. If you feel like another label is more appropriate then perhaps you can create a new section with your suggestion. --Xerographica (talk) 20:10, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, there are several things that concern me. First, while I've heard of the article subject before, I am a little worried about how the article is written and of the content inside it. It reads sorta like a blog, or an essay, or well, "WP:FORUM" considering that you created this article, and have pretty much been the only one editing it, I would like someone else to look into this topic, which is why I put in the expert-subject template. A search for Tax Choice on Google can only reveal this Misplaced Pages article.

There is a second point concerning WP:FORUM. Reviewing your reference #1, http://www.democracyjournal.org/20/your-money-your-choice.php?page=all I came upon in the comments someone with your username saying that he had created a Misplaced Pages page for this topic. Also, I found a comment, right now I'm quite sure by you, attempting to locate sources talking about this, and failing. Again, WP:FORUM.

A comment within reference #3 also has a comment where you identify yourself as the creator of the article. Now, with this WP: SOAPBOX, I question your intention with creating this article and POV concerning the topic. That's why I placed the expert-subject template, so other people can contribute. Finally, I placed the Notability template because I doubted if the references presented were enough. However, I'm pretty new to Misplaced Pages, so I hoped the template would attract other people, which it did. :)

Anyway, in summary, right now, I think this article is being written like:

WP:FORUM: Misplaced Pages is not a publisher of original thought Personal inventions (A search on Google cannot find the words "Tax Choice" anywhere) Personal essays

WP:SOAPBOX: (This article was created and is edited by one person. Considering the biases of the creator, it should be best that Notability and Expert-Subject templates should be placed to One, have more people review the article and actually confirm the validity and notability of the article references, and the article itself. Two, have more people, and therefore more viewpoints and knowledge to contribute to the article.

Now, onto the article itself, perhaps it would be more appropriate to place this topic within Tax Reform? And, I think that the Notability and Expert-Subject templates should be restored to the article page.

Fancykiller65 (talk) 01:52, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

As I already said, the sources contained within the references section are sufficient to establish that this concept is notable enough to warrant its own Misplaced Pages entry. The sci-fi story alone makes this concept notable enough to warrant its own entry.

Regarding the Expert-Subject template...if other editors are experts on this topic...then why haven't they already contributed to it? If you want more exposure for this article...then look over all the other pages that link to it...and figure out additional pages that are sufficiently relevant to contain a link to this entry. The more exposure this entry receives...the brighter and larger the bat-signal...the more likely it is that Batman will see it and come to the rescue.

Regarding WP:FORUM:...yeah, I wish I could take credit for this thought. But look over the references and it's clear that I can't take credit for this idea. If you want to find the most relevant google results for this concept then search for "choose where your taxes go"...or some variation thereof.

Regarding WP:SOAPBOX:...I don't deny that I'm biased in favor of this concept...but most of this entry consists of passages written by other people. If you feel like what I've personally written is unbalanced in favor of this concept...then please be specific. Copy and paste specific sentences that trouble you most and we can brainstorm about how to improve them.

My bias is on the table...what about your bias? Everybody who knows anything about politics/economics is biased in one direction or another. So what's yours? --Xerographica (talk) 02:32, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Honestly, I have no idea if the references given are enough to establish its own article. I do know that not everything a sci-fi story by some reputable author is worth creating a article on. A search for "choose where your taxes can go" reveals only a blog, and various forum threads, completely invalid ways of determining notability.

Quite frankly, I think that the only way for this article to be improved is if the notability and expert-subject templates are placed. All those links to other pages, and no one has placed any in-put or edited the article except for you. Considering your admitted bias and considering you wrote the article in the first place, your article will naturally use those sources that supports your position. A glance at the sources reveals it. Concerning my bias, my only wish is to help keep Misplaced Pages clear of useless, inaccurate knowledge that makes it unrealizable, and hopefully gain some knowledge while attempting to do so. As for political positions, I do not support giving the people the chance to choose where their taxes go, although I've never really thought about it.

Onto fixing, it reads like you researched this yourself, and it feels like a essay more than a article on a particular subject. A Misplaced Pages article, should be more readable than its currently written. For example, the History section has these big two walls of text that are quotes. Can't these be reduced, into more summarizing points?

(Also, I've also realized that Misplaced Pages:Verifiability is relevant to this. Nearly all your links are either blogs, opinion pieces or come from websites that sponsor your bias. You need to get more neutral sources.)

Within section: Revealing preferences, again, walls of text, and unreferenced lines like: Without knowing people's actual preferences for public goods, governments are likely to inefficiently allocate public funds.

Do you have any sources to uphold this position? Section: Foot voting vs tax choice, there are no sources (I think the template called them inline references) to hold these positions. Overall, it just reads to me like a essay being written for submission to a Economics professor advocating a position and policy instead of a neutral article attempting to outline facts instead of opinions.

EDIT: Oh, and I still think that the templates should be restored and the Template:Under construction be placed in, otherwise this article should be placed for deletion. Its not just skirting notability, its also not neutral, its unreferenced and in general, I don't think its even well-written for a wiki article.

Fancykiller65 (talk) 03:24, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

On a technical note, placing a ":", "::" and ":::" and so on next to the left margin will indent your paragraphs.

Clearly we disagree on notability. Just because a concept is an opinion piece written in Forbes (twice) or the Atlantic does not mean that the concept is not notable. The Democracy Journal is a respected journal and the studies on individual earmarking all support the notability of this concept.

Regarding "walls of text"...have you even heard of Adam Smith, Herbert Spencer, Bastiat, Hayek, Buchanan or the Ostroms? You seem to be interested in Misplaced Pages...but do you even know what economic concept Misplaced Pages is based on? I'm just not getting the sense that you have enough economic knowledge under your belt to make really useful contributions to an article on economics. Don't take it personally...the same could be said about me for nearly all the other subjects. My point is...if you were sufficiently familiar with economics...then you would have realized that the walls of text verify what I've written in this article.

But if you're really interested in spending your time learning economics...then pick one section of the article which you feel needs the most improvement...start a new section here on the talk page and offer constructive criticism. To start a new section here on the talk page...scroll up and click on the "New section" tab. --Xerographica (talk) 04:10, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Ahh, thank you for telling me that. Concerning the walls of text, I can only recognize the first name. However, this is not the point, the point is the article needs to be fixed, starting with inline citations. While I can't truthfully persist in demanding that the notability template be placed (without starting a editwar and without a consensus), the templates for expert-subject and under construction should be edited in. You, admitting your bias, and I, with little knowledge of economics cannot be the only ones to create this article in any good-faith with a attempt to present a neutral POV. You can't deny the fact that in order to truly make this a good article, we would need more people to look at it, and placing the templates (which are true), would possibly get more people to edit it and review in-depth.

Besides, what harm is there to placing these truthfully templates on the page? Unless you are biased enough to be trying to deliberately present only your POV, which I don't think your trying to do.

Anyway, I'm more than happy to help and learn at the same time, so I'm going to operate assuming the topic is notable enough to warrant a article on Misplaced Pages, and I will dive into your references while waiting for your inline citations. If you have any suggested additional reading, do list them.

Fancykiller65 (talk) 05:00, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

You're basically advocating that we need a template to say "Please edit this"...or "Please read this" when everybody knows that anybody can edit/read Misplaced Pages. From my perspective it's entirely redundant. People know that Misplaced Pages entries are always a work in progress. If the templates somehow increased traffic to this entry...then that might make sense. If you want experts to edit this article then go to their websites and e-mail them this article.

Regarding neutral POV...well...it's a fine line between advocating a concept and helping readers understand the reasoning behind the concept. The thing is...so much of this article consists of things that people really couldn't technically object to. That's why really nobody has had a reason to challenge any of the statements. The history section is all verifiable...it's pretty much the power of the purse and the magna carta. Revealing preferences is basic economics. The foot voting section is certainly nothing controversial. The ethical consumerism section is nothing that neither liberals nor conservatives would have any reason to object to. The opportunity cost of war just states that wars use resources that could have been used for other purposes. The criticism section contains some common objections and relevant rebuttals.

Inline citations make the page a mess. You're welcome to add them though. But it's pretty standard practice for an editor/reader who doubts what's stated in an article to bring the point up on the talk page. If other editors don't provide evidence to support the item in question...then it's removed or changed. This article has been up for nearly a year...it's linked to from many other articles...and only one person has brought up a concern regarding specific content from the article. The notability has been challenged once when the article only had one or two references...and now by you.

If people really have issues with a statement in an article then they have no problem bringing it up on the talk page. Don't get me wrong...this article could certainly be better written...but none of it is controversial or unverifiable. So just create a new section here on the talk page that focuses on a specific part of the article...and I'll try my best to address your concerns/criticisms/questions. --Xerographica (talk) 07:48, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Pope Benedict XVI

Turns out that A. the pope endorses tax choice and B. "fiscal subsidiarity" is another term for tax choice...

One possible approach to development aid would be to apply effectively what is known as fiscal subsidiarity, allowing citizens to decide how to allocate a portion of the taxes they pay to the State. Provided it does not degenerate into the promotion of special interests, this can help to stimulate forms of welfare solidarity from below, with obvious benefits in the area of solidarity for development as well. - Pope Benedict XVI, Charity in Truth

--Xerographica (talk) 00:30, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Posting this on the talk page, where it was ignored as lacking merit, does not constitute validation of the Pope as RS in this area of study, or achieve WP consensus that the term (jargon) "subsidiarity" should be used in the article. And you didn't even post this page as a citation when adding it. (Don't that adding this as a citation will work now. You can't overcome the fact that he's not RS. You can't.--S. Rich (talk) 01:39, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

So your argument is that the Pope is not a RS for "fiscal subsidiarity" being another term for tax choice? --Xerographica (talk) 01:49, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Subsidiarity--S. Rich (talk) 02:27, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Lock

Based on the two reports of edit-warring at WP:ANEW, I've locked the article for five days. It was either that or block both editors. I expect editors to work out their content differences in the next five days. I will block either editor without notice if after expiration of the lock, there is an appropriate edit to the article, so be sure you have a real consensus before making any changes.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:21, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Rubin added citation needed tags on content in the entry...and I added the appropriate inline citations...here. Rich simply removed entire sections without ever once posting on the talk page or adding citation needed tags. Thanks for not blocking me. --Xerographica (talk) 19:25, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

The sections should be removed unless specific explanation and verification can be provided for each source, per WP:QUOTEFARM. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:12, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're talking about. --Xerographica (talk) 08:21, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Fixed again. Is there anyone else who doesn't understand my argument. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:11, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Can you please assume good faith and create a new section to share specific concerns? In other words, I'd like to improve this page but you're not offering specific suggestions. Thanks. --Xerographica (talk) 15:21, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

That was a specific suggestion. Remove quotes and sections for which we have no reliable source that it's about the topic. (In some cases, it's obviously not about the topic, such as the section which should, to the extent it isn't a quote farm, be in cost of conflict. The Haldeman reference (but not quote) could be recovered by an interview with him saying the story is about the topic. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:46, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I'll just tag them all as irrelevant, for now, but I suspect consensus could be found for removal, even if there isn't a Misplaced Pages article they could fit in. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:48, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your help, but I wouldn't add anything to this article if I thought it wasn't relevant. If you could create a section and share your perspective on specific quotes and why you believe them to be irrelevant then that would help me try and identify where the problem is. Thanks. --Xerographica (talk) 15:56, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Dear Xerographica: I have reverted the Xerographica material, back to an earlier version. Please stop edit warring; the burden is on you to obtain consensus for your additions. Famspear (talk) 15:59, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

A spoonful of choice

Found Lamberton's actual study...A Spoonful of Choice: How Allocation Increases Satisfaction with Tax Payments. It should be added to the references once the lock has expired. --Xerographica (talk) 10:10, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Possibly. But, first, "References" should be changed to "Further reading", or possibly "External links". Those aren't "references". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:19, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Famspear's recent edit

I'm trying really hard to assume good faith regarding the recent removals of entire sections of content...but it's kind of hard when so few editors have expressed a genuine interest in actually improving this article. By that I mean that editors have not been creating sections on this talk page with specific recommendations on how to improve this article. If you're genuinely interested in improving this article...then please give me a hand doing so. Because as far it stands, I'm the only one doing any "building" while there are plenty of editors simply "demolishing" anything that I build. I SUCK at building, but, well, I'm the ONLY one doing any building. So please show me how to build an article...because, I'm sure that I could go around removing content that I disagree with. I already know how to do that...I just choose to spend my time building up rather than tearing down. Thanks. --Xerographica (talk) 16:07, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Dear Xerographica: I'm not really following this article closely and I can't speak for other editors, but my sense is that you're trying to add "entire sections of content" as you put it, and then you're demanding that other editors, prior to removing the material, somehow persuade you as to why the material should not be in the article. Often, that's not a fruitful approach in Misplaced Pages.

One thing I would suggest is taking small portions (emphasis on "small") of the material you want to add and first putting them here on the talk page before inserting in the article. Then, you and other editors can take your time and discuss pros and cons of that material. Sometimes, if an editor tries to add larger volumes of material directly to the article, for which other editors see problems, the editors seeing those problems don't have time to deal with such a large volume of text at once. Smaller, incremental contributions might work better when you're having problems obtaining consensus. That's just my opinion. Famspear (talk) 16:53, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Famspear, thanks for taking the time to share your feedback. I really appreciate it. The thing is...I really don't get the feeling like these editors are genuinely interested in improving this article. If they were, then wouldn't they have contributed at least some content to this article? If you look through the entire year long history...you won't find a single contribution where they've improved on my prose or added their own prose or added citations or added relevant sources. How can I hope to collaboratively build a project with editors who are clearly far more interested in tearing it down?

Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Tax_choice

But I'm not solely basing my viewpoint on this article alone. Look through the history and talk page of the benefit principle. Also, look through the recent history of the tax article and read through the newest talk section... Talk:Tax#Theory_of_taxation. Over and over and over they say that I'm not doing it right. They criticize and disparage and undo my efforts...yet, not once have they led by example. Please add this page to your watchlist. I'd really love to be proved wrong and have these editors show the initiative to build up rather than simply tear down. But given that they have not once built up a single of the dozens of articles that we've edited together, I'm highly skeptical. --Xerographica (talk) 17:41, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Haldeman - We, The People

Can anybody please help me understand why this content was removed from the article?

In 1983 a short science fiction story by Jack C. Haldeman II, We, The People, was published in ANALOG. The plot of the story involves people directly allocating their taxes.

"We, the People," written in a flush of bitter anger, but with an undertone of hope -- has over the years gathered me more response than anything else I've ever written. It has appeared in a variety of newsletters from such diverse organizations as Libertarians and CPAs. I was told that someone once sent copies to all the members of the Senate when they were considering tax reform. It has been used in classrooms to teach the critical difference between a Democracy and a Republic. I wrote it years ago, but I feel it is as pertinent today as it was when it appeared in Analog magazine. - Jack C. Haldeman II, Political Science Fiction

Thanks. --Xerographica (talk) 19:18, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

That may have been a mistake on my part. However, Haldeman doesn't exactly say he was talking about "tax choice" in that quote. Perhaps elsewhere on the web page? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:58, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

He was talking about We, the People. Have you read it? Do you know what the plot of the story is? --Xerographica (talk) 19:37, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Of course I've read the story. It's absurd (both the story, and the fact that Misplaced Pages cannot make the association without a source), IMHO, but, as there is no (revealed, demonstrated, .... whatever) definition of "tax choice", we need a reliable source that the story is about the topic. To do otherwise violates WP:OR. Pope Benedict is at least (apparently) talking about something real, so it's not as much as a stretch to assert it is tax choice.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthur Rubin (talk • contribs) 12:15, February 2, 2013 (UTC)

It's more a problem of being tangential. We can't include mentions of fictional people making choices about taxes. For example, in a 1972 episode of I Love Lucy, Ricki is doing the taxes and he asks Luci: "Honey, shall we check yes on the Presidential Campaign Fund tax choice box?" Luci replies, "Why, yes. I do so much want Calvin Cooledge to win. I hope our donation will help him." -- – S. Rich (talk) 20:56, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

That's exactly what a "In popular culture" section is for. Contrary to popular belief, it wouldn't be OR to include the reference to Lucy. It would be OR to say that Lucy was saying that tax choice would end world hunger. Because that's obviously not what she said. But it wouldn't be OR to say that Haldeman's story argued that tax choice would bring about world peace. Because that's exactly what happened in the story as a direct result of tax choice. And it certainly wouldn't be OR to mention Mancur Olson, "There are multitudes with an interest in peace, but they have no lobby to match those of the 'special interests' that may on occasion have an interest in war." --Xerographica (talk) 22:22, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I just noticed that Rich removed Haldeman's science fiction story from the "Further reading" section. How does that improve this article? If a reader is interested in learning about this topic then why wouldn't they be interested in reading Haldeman's short story? --Xerographica (talk) 08:27, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

The topic of tax choice, at present, is poorly defined and largely limited to economic & political discussions. It has not made it into pop culture. (The Pope's reference to it is not really a pop culture feature of the topic, and the section should be retitled.) If tax choice could be better defined and if it were a reoccurring pop culture theme, then such references might be appropriate. But Haldeman's obscure story hardly shows that tax choice is a reoccurring pop culture theme. Remember that WP is WP:NOTTRIVIA. We cannot use WP to bootstrap this story into pop culture. Attempting to do so is unencyclopedic. – S. Rich (talk) 15:18, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Why did you remove Haldeman's sci-fi story from the "Further reading" section? --Xerographica (talk) 18:34, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Benefit principle

Can somebody please help me understand why the benefit principle was removed from the lead? Thanks. --Xerographica (talk) 01:41, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

"Benefit principle", as a term, has not been expounded upon in the text. The best we have is the mere mention of benefits lower down. The lede needs to summarize. – S. Rich (talk) 03:11, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

It's one thing to follow suggested guidelines...but it's another thing to adhere to them so rigidly that you lose sight that the actual mission is to share relevant and important information with readers. Right now you're arguing that the suggested guidelines are more important than the readers. The benefit principle is simply that taxpayers pay for the public goods that match their preferences. I added it to the article and you removed it. Clearly you didn't like how I integrated it so please show me your preferred method of integrating it. --Xerographica (talk) 18:53, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Freedom of choice

Can somebody please explain why the section on "Freedom of choice" was renamed to "Arguments for tax choice"? Doesn't that imply that all the other sections are NOT arguments for tax choice? What's the precedent? Libertarianism doesn't have a section called "Arguments for libertarianism". This article should simply explain what the reliable sources have to say about the concept. --Xerographica (talk) 02:05, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

This section only had two quotations. No prose summarized the ideas of Brown or Peacock. It was not established that they were talking about freedom of choice, only that they were talking about choice. It was SYN to write "A wrote about taxpayer revolt, etc." and "B wrote about public services, etc.)" therefore "they were talking about freedom of choice." or even to say "they think choice is important." (Compare, if each had used the term "freedom of choice" or "choice is important", then the section might properly be titled as "Freedom of choice" or "The importance of choice".) It is clear enough, though, to say they were giving pro-taxpayer choice arguments. Titling this section "Arguments for" is not to imply that following sections do not support arguments for. The editing was done in an incremental fashion to 1. improve that particular area, and 2. to demonstrate how RS can and should be woven into prose, leaving out quotefarmish material. Now if i have incorrectly summarized the points of Brown or Peacock, those summaries can be corrected. – S. Rich (talk) 03:11, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Why is there so much focus on terms rather than concepts? What IS freedom of choice? Taxpayers would have the freedom to choose where their taxes go. How is that not freedom of choice? Regarding your prose, if I had to choose between sharing with someone else the actual passages...or your prose...it wouldn't even be a difficult choice. But it's doubtful that I could do a better job. So please replace the passages until an editor comes along who can do a better job. --Xerographica (talk) 08:08, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, what is freedom of choice? Freedom of Choice (US school desegregation), Freedom of choice, Freedom of Choice, Freedom of choice? None of these apply to the present article. In fact, "freedom of choice" is a buzzword which seeks to make the idea of tax choice more appealing. Compare, if there were true freedom of choice in taxes, would it include the choice not to pay at all? (I'm all for that idea!) So the idea of "freedom" of choice is illusory -- you may have the choice to die by hanging or to die by firing squad. But do either of these choices actually give you freedom of choice? No, they don't. And advocates of tax choice are only propagandizing their position when they promote "freedom" as a positive for the concept. (As for using prose instead of quotes, we do not have freedom of choice. WP guidance gives us the choice of WP:LONGQUOTE or WP:QUOTEFARM. Other allowable choices for us are WP:TERSE, WP:Brevity, WP:SUMMARY. These are summed up in WP:BETTER.) – S. Rich (talk) 16:01, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Why doesn't freedom of choice apply to the present article? Doesn't it apply to the concept of taxpayer sovereignty? Freedom of choice is a continuum. There always have to be some degree of constraints and limits on our choices. Because of the free-rider problem, people can't be given the option not to pay taxes. But because of the preference revelation problem, they should have the option to directly allocate their taxes. And if a source does argue that taxes should be voluntary then the source isn't talking about tax choice, it's talking about anarcho-capitalism or voluntaryism or any number of other concepts which are not tax choice. --Xerographica (talk) 18:37, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Interesting Essay

This is an interesting concept. I enjoyed the essay. I enjoyed it so much I went to each of the refs and to the see also links. Then I began searching on my own. As a result I have come to the conclusion that this does not meet Notability standards.Capitalismojo (talk) 13:06, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Could the small viable RS bits be moved to appropriate public choice or libertarian articles?Capitalismojo (talk)

Sounds good to me. SPECIFICO talk 14:55, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

There have been three separate studies published on the concept, it's been endorsed by the Pope, it's the subject of a Science fiction story, a Nobel Prize economist wrote about it at length, it's been published in the New York Times, Forbes and the Atlantic. And at least 2 bills were introduced that would have given taxpayers more tax choice. So how much more would be required for it to meet your Notability standards? --Xerographica (talk) 18:04, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Let's not beat ourselves up on this. Notability was discussed in December and we had an AfD that was listed and relisted 4 weeks ago, with no consensus concluded 2 weeks ago. WP:HORSEMEAT! – S. Rich (talk) 18:20, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I now see the AFD alert above. I missed deletion debate. Too bad. Capitalismojo (talk) 22:50, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Confusing section tags

While the problems with the sections are self-evident (e.g., they lack prose which ties together their ideas into the overall concept), the template for confusing section says to discuss. I hope the tags will prompt, motivate, and inspire other editors to improve these portions of the articles. – S. Rich (talk) 17:13, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree. I decided not to disturb some of the defective content, so that it can temporarily remain in the article as a placeholder for sections need to be improved in conformity with WP standards. At some point, if no editor(s) are able or willing to do so, the deletion issue will again need to be addressed. SPECIFICO talk 18:42, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

"Tax choice advocates claim..."

Right now the lead says...

Tax choice advocates claim that allowing taxpayers to allocate portions of their taxes to specific spending can increase their level of satisfaction.

How do you know that the authors of those peer-reviewed studies are advocates of tax choice? The way it's presently worded simply sounds like it's the mere "opinions" of supporters. It's far more accurate and informative to say...

Tax choice studies have shown that giving people a greater degree of freedom in choosing how their money is spent can increase their level of satisfaction.

Then, in the criticism section you can mention The Paradox of Choice: Why More Is Less.

--Xerographica (talk) 19:07, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

That begs the question. It has not been established that "Tax choice" is a specific term notably used to mean whatever specific unstated meaning the article purports to describe. It would be easy for you to fix this if you care. Otherwise this article is of either zero or negative value to readers. SPECIFICO talk 19:44, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

To Xerographica: Previously the lede read: "This theory, which is based on the benefit principle, applies the same concepts of consumer choice theory to taxpayers. Tax choice studies have shown that allowing taxpayers to directly allocate even a small percentage of their taxes can increase their level of satisfaction." The first sentence looks like SYN. The second is supported by studies which may or may not be correct/academically reviewed, etc. (At present it is hard to say.) But whether the studies themselves are accurate is not the main issue. The sentence has been re-written to reflect what (I hope) the authors say and it allows for countering views to be presented IAW WP:BALANCE. (If these three authors are not advocates of tax choice, then the sentence needs revision.) In any event, remember that WP:1ST says: "Please do not write articles that advocate one particular viewpoint on politics, religion, or anything else. Understand what we mean by a neutral point of view before tackling this sort of topic." To keep NPOV, we must look for and consider different views on every subject. (It looks like all of the further reading items are pro-tax choice pieces.) As for Schwartz, I wonder. In looking at the book's article, I do not see taxes mentioned. If he does not address the subject of tax choice, then it is improper SYN to include his thoughts about consumers shopping in a supermarket or on-line or wherever in this article. Compare, Erich Fromm wrote Escape from Freedom. Would it be proper to include that work as supporting an argument for tax choice? Would we cite Fromm and "tax choice is a good idea because it counters the notion of freedom that authoritarians inherently oppose." No. – S. Rich (talk) 20:00, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

We don't know whether the authors are...or are not...advocates of tax choice. That's the bottom line. All we know is that the studies have shown that, when it comes to public goods, preference matching increases people's level of satisfaction. Obviously it does not mean that the studies are perfect or 100% true and accurate. It just means that that's what the studies have concluded. Readers can come to their own conclusions...but it's important for us to convey the fact that there have been published studies on the concept.

Regarding NPOV...you can't accuse ME of violating NPOV when you're the one who removed the criticism section (or allowed it to be removed). If anybody says anything negative about the concept...then it belongs in the criticism section. And if you had actually read through all the sources, then you would have found plenty of arguments against tax choice. The fact that you didn't...clearly indicates that, either you have a reading comprehension problem, or you haven't sufficiently researched this topic to be making substantial edits to the content.

Regarding Fromm...of course we can cite him. It's up to us to decide where tax choice ends and other concepts begin just like it's up to the editors of the Libertarianism article to decide where libertarianism ends and voluntaryism, anarchism, left-libertarianism, social anarchism, libertarian socialism and socialism begin. And believe you me that there is not a single reliable source that delineates libertarianism as the editors have delineated it.

I very reluctantly have to admit that some of your edits haven't been half bad. But please read more and edit less. Thoroughly research and study what's been written on the topic and then tell me whether Fromm should be mentioned in this article...

It may help to see this point if we think of a modern phenomenon which can be compared with child sacrifice, that of war... But once it had broken out (or even a little bit earlier) it became a "religious" phenomenon. The state, the nation, national honor, became the idols, and both sides voluntarily sacrificed their children to these idols... The fact that, in the case of child sacrifice, the father kills the child directly while, in the case of war, both sides have an arrangement to kill each other's children makes little difference. - Erich Fromm, The Anatomy of Human Destructiveness

--Xerographica (talk) 20:58, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Ethical consumerism

Ethical consumerism is an important and recurrent theme within tax choice. Here's the section which was removed...

Allowing taxpayers to choose which government organizations they gave their taxes to would enable them to boycott any government organizations that they deemed to be unethical. For example, pacifists would be able to boycott the military:

Under Velazquez’s act, the money that taxpayers decline to have fund the war would instead go to Head Start and children’s programs, or even rebuilding efforts in Iraq. - Lincoln Anderson, Velazquez: Funding war should be taxpayers’ choice

...pro-life advocates would be able to boycott abortion:

A growing, grassroots movement of concerned citizens fueled by a passion for freedom and armed with facts has created a rare opportunity to set Oregon taxpayers free from spending $1.5 million on 3,500 abortions every year. - Jim Jimerson, Initiative helps boost taxpayers' 'choice'

...and people would be able to boycott publicly funded art that they objected to:

Half the problems politicians face come from citizen objections to what Government spends their money on. People who think art is unimportant to the country fume at the idea that their taxes are spent to promote it. People who think the savings and loan catastrophe is the work of desperadoes will rage against having their money spent to restore what desperadoes have plundered. - Russell Baker, Taxpayers' Choice

That was my meager attempt to convey the relevance of ethical consumerism to tax choice. A meager attempt is better than nothing. If you can improve on my efforts...then please do so. But if you can't, then please replace this section. Thanks. --Xerographica (talk) 21:12, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Kenneth Severe - additional reading?

Rich removed this source from the list of additional reading...

• Severe, Kenneth – Give taxpayers choice of whether to raise salaries The News Tribune. 11 Jan 2009

Clearly the paper felt it was of sufficient interest to publish. What's the problem with including it in the additional reading section? --Xerographica (talk) 22:08, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

See WP:NEWSORG. Letters to the editor are not news reporting or opinions from specialists and recognized experts. – S. Rich (talk) 22:16, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

From the policy...

Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact.

Obviously we're not trying to derive any "facts" from his opinion piece. But his opinion piece was published by a newspaper and it is relevant to tax choice. So please undo your edit. Thanks. --Xerographica (talk) 22:27, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

No. This is not even from a newspaper commentator such as William Safire, etc. It is a letter to the editor, and WP is not a forum for such commentary. The only appropriate place for Severe's comment is in that particular letters to the editor section of that very local newspaper. – S. Rich (talk) 22:41, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Well I disagree. So what was the proper course of action again for disputes over sources? --Xerographica (talk) 23:12, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Unless you can come up with more pertinent WP guidance, I don't think you'll have much success. But first let some other editors weighin on this particular topic. If they do, we might reach a consensus. If they do not, or if we can't reach an agreement in the next few days, one of us can bring it up in a dispute resolution forum. – S. Rich (talk) 23:46, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Patricia Kennett page number

It's page 28...

Nevertheless, the classic solution to the problem of underprovision of public goods has been government funding - through compulsory taxation - and government production of the good or service in question. Although this may substantially alleviate the problem of numerous free-riders that refuse to pay for the benefits they receive, it should be noted that the policy process does not provide any very plausible method for determining what the optimal or best level of provision of a public good actually is. When it is impossible to observe what individuals are willing to give up in order to get the public good, how can policymakers access how urgently they really want more or less of it, given the other possible uses of their money? There is a whole economic literature dealing with the willingness-to-pay methods and contingent valuation techniques to try and divine such preference in the absence of a market price doing so, but even the most optimistic proponents of such devices tend to concede that public goods will still most likely be underprovided or overprovided under government stewardship. - Patricia Kennett, Governance, globalization and public policy

For plenty other passages regarding the preference revelation problem see User:Xerographica/Preference_revelation#Passages. --Xerographica (talk) 23:27, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

An overview of the relevant concepts

Over at Misplaced Pages:Redirects_for_discussion#Other_people.27s_money...Fishicus asked me about the difference between government waste and other people's money. I figured I'd kill two birds with one stone by posting my reply here as well...

Good question. Let's expand our scope a bit...

• Dollar voting/User:Xerographica/Dollar voting - Compared to regular voting, spending your money is a far more accurate reflection of your true preferences
• Consumer sovereignty/User:Xerographica/Consumer sovereignty - You spend your money according to your preferences...or...somebody spends your money for you, according to their guess of your preferences
• Preference revelation problem/User:Xerographica/Preference revelation - How can other people, specifically government planners, possibly know the true preferences of millions of citizens that they've never even met? Therefore, it's very likely that the government will undersupply or oversupply public goods.
• Scroogenomics - Wealth/value is destroyed when people purchase things for you that do not match your preferences. Only the people closest to you are likely to know your true preferences.
• Government waste - The result of allowing government to try and guess the true preferences of an entire nation.
• Tax choice/Taxpayer sovereignty - Creating a market in the public sector would solve the preference revelation problem and eliminate government waste.
• Dispersed knowledge/User:Xerographica/Decentralized knowledge - Markets utilize and integrate far greater amounts of information than planned/command economies.
• Opportunity cost/User:Xerographica/Opportunity cost - Maximizing value within your budget constraint requires sacrificing alternatives that you also value.
• Demonstrated preference - Actions speak louder than words...because of opportunity costs, what you spend your money/time on reveals your true preferences.
• The Fatal Conceit/User:Xerographica/The Fatal Conceit - The belief that the allocation decisions of government planners actually do reflect the true preferences of citizens...or...the allocation decisions of government planners are superior to the true preferences of citizens.
• Great Leap Forward - One, of many, examples of the tragic consequence of conceit.

Another word for "preference" is "demand" as in "supply and demand". Conceit results in economic non sequiturs. There's a disconnect between the premise (demand/preferences) and the conclusion (supply). When it comes to economics...you and I and everybody else...WE, THE PEOPLE...are the premise. There can only be massive disconnects between the supply (how society's limited resources are used) and the demand (our true preferences) when we do not have the freedom to express our true preferences.

The joy of being a kid in a candy store is only possible because millions and millions of other kids had the freedom to choose the candies that match their preferences. Life, for each and every person, should be exactly like being a kid in a candy store. But for that to happen, it's absolutely essential for people to have the freedom to indicate which products/goods/services/ideas/people match their true preferences. This is how we ensure that society's limited resources are used to produce the maximize benefit/value for society as a whole.

Well...that's the theory at least. Clearly it matches my preferences for there to be an article dedicated to Friedman's and Waldfogel's overlapping arguments. But redirecting other people's money to consumer sovereignty would work for now. --Xerographica (talk) 01:05, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

The preceding list expresses your personal opinions and theories. Others, such as myself, will see errors and misstatements them. Without reference to third-party informed statements on the subjects, your lexicon cannot further the editing or other decision processes here. I urge you to generate well-sourced expert material on these subjects so that suitable content can be used to improve WP when it is added to articles. In the absence of such content, you face the needless disappointment of having your articles repeatedly destined for future AfD and redirect discussions. SPECIFICO talk 01:29, 4 February 2013 (UTC) copy-edited SPECIFICO talk 01:39, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

LOL...yes...you caught me. The above list is all my original research. I claim 100% credit for all those theories and concepts. You're so absolutely correct that none of those concepts are supported by the dozens and dozens of quotes, passages and reliable sources that I've shared on my subpages...User:Xerographica. --Xerographica (talk) 02:06, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. That is progress. I hope you'll then consider why your OR is not useful for the common purpose here. You might consider striking it from the redirect discussion as well. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 02:56, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

No, that was sarcasm. Progress would be for you to stop being disruptive. --Xerographica (talk) 03:39, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

The purpose of these talk pages is to improve the article. This effort to hold forth on the "overview of relevant concepts" does not. It seems to be soapboxing. Perhaps you could take other editors concerns more to heart.Capitalismojo (talk) 03:56, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Are you interested in improving this article? So far it seems like your only interests have been to delete it and to accuse me of soapboxing. From my perspective, somebody cannot fundamentally improve an article if they don't have a firm grasp on the relevant concepts. --Xerographica (talk) 06:46, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I see. We can only edit your page if we have a "firm grasp on the relevant concepts." Excellent. What an exciting new idea! Would you administer a test for us to use? Would that be online? Hmmm, I think this is a mess of an article. I believe, however, that almost any WP editor could make significant improvements. One improvement would be; avoid Refs that are hidden behind pay walls. A second would be; edit for clarity. A third would be; read the WP: OWN policy. Capitalismojo (talk) 19:59, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

What do you mean "avoid Refs that are hidden behind pay walls"? Editing for clarity is great (aka style)...but not at the expense of substance. And yes, I'm familiar with OWN. --Xerographica (talk) 20:11, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

There are refs on this article that are unavailable for viewing. JSTOR is one such. It is best to avoid relying on such because it impedes Verifiability. As to clarity, there is previous little of that in this article. We have nebulous sections largely unconnected or poorly connected with the lede. Clarity is not a synonym for style. As to OWN. Your remarks here indicate that you may have read but not understood. You have actually used language here that are the examples and red flags at the OWN policy page. Capitalismojo (talk) 20:35, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Right, I get that this article has refs that the general public does not have access to...I'm the one who put them there. But surely you're not suggesting that relevant and high quality reliable sources be removed? I agree that this article is terribly written. If you want to rewrite any sections then you're more than welcome to. Regarding OWN...here's the article when I "OWNed" it...User:Xerographica/Tax_choice...and you can see the article as it currently stands. The disparity between the articles is painfully obvious evidence that I do not own this article. But that doesn't mean that I can't strive to try and ensure that the content reflects what the reliable sources say about the topic. --Xerographica (talk) 20:53, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

X, one of the reasons that so little of your content survives scrutiny here is that you use low-quality or unreliably sourced citations. It will require more effort, but I believe that if you do more thorough and broader research into your topics you will have more success with at least some of the text you post here. SPECIFICO talk 21:00, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Several observations: JSTOR is part of WP:TWL. WP:V does not mean finding stuff has to be free or easy. The {{Subscription}} allows us to tag articles that require payment. (Moreover, as more and more RS goes to pay modes, the cost factor will become an increasing concern.) JSTOR does have abstracts available which often give us what we need. (E.g., we don't always need to read whole articles to figure out if they are helpful (or not)). – S. Rich (talk) 21:03, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Opportunity costs of war

SPECIFICO removed the entire "Opportunity costs of war" section...User:Xerographica/Tax_choice#Opportunity_costs_of_war from this article...but he did not remove the opportunity costs of war from these other articles... Cost_of_conflict#Opportunity_Cost and Parable_of_the_broken_window#The_opportunity_cost_of_war. On my talk page...User_talk:Xerographica#Burden_of_proof_on_Tax_choice...I asked him several times why he removed the opportunity cost of war from this article but not the others...but so far he has ignored the question.

Can somebody please help me understand the rationale behind his edits? The opportunity cost of war is a well documented and important concept that's highly relevant to tax choice. It would really improve this article if there was a section dedicated to the concept...but it would be a waste of time to re-add it if SPECIFICO would again just remove it for unspecified reasons. --Xerographica (talk) 21:27, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I suggest you be more attentive to the Edit summaries on this and other articles. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 23:08, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

This was your edit summary, "Delete WP:OR Please find RS treatments of this subject matter if you believe it is relevant to the article." So again...why did you remove the opportunity cost of war from this article but not from the other two articles? --Xerographica (talk) 23:35, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

It is unproductive to ask about edits or non-edits to other articles. This talk page pertains to tax choice and tax choice alone. You are improperly asking SPECIFICO to justify an edit based on irrelevant and/or non-existent information. – S. Rich (talk) 23:45, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

• Start-Class Economics articles
• Unknown-importance Economics articles
• WikiProject Economics articles
• Start-Class politics articles
• Unknown-importance politics articles
• WikiProject Politics articles