| Revision as of 22:20, 25 December 2013 editVictorD7 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users4,648 edits →Note to administrators: Reply.← Previous edit | Revision as of 23:20, 25 December 2013 edit undo201.17.48.236 (talk) →Well-developed infrastructure???: new sectionNext edit → | ||
| Line 674: | Line 674: | ||
| does not follow the guideline in ], regarding the connection of a primary use for a term with a corresponding disambiguation page. Further, the previous edit-summary was inaccurate, misleading at best (see https://toolserver.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/rdcheck.py?page=United_States for a clue). ] (]) 23:43, 24 December 2013 (UTC) | does not follow the guideline in ], regarding the connection of a primary use for a term with a corresponding disambiguation page. Further, the previous edit-summary was inaccurate, misleading at best (see https://toolserver.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/rdcheck.py?page=United_States for a clue). ] (]) 23:43, 24 December 2013 (UTC) | ||
| == Well-developed infrastructure??? == | |||
| This article claims that the United States infrastructure is "well-develoed", while the accompanying link: | |||
| 1. is dead; | |||
| 2. point to a site where the USA is currently given a GPA of D+ for its decaying infrastructure. | |||
| http://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/ | |||
| Should the article be edited so as to reflect the reality as an encyclopedia should? | |||
| ---- | |||
Revision as of 23:20, 25 December 2013
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the United States article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116Auto-archiving period: 45 days  |
 view · edit Frequently asked questions
Q1. How did the article get the way it is?
2. How about Switzerland?
Many people in the United States are told it is the oldest republic and has the oldest constitution, however one must use a narrow definition of constitution. Within Misplaced Pages articles it may be appropriate to add a modifier such as "oldest continuous, federal ..." however it is more useful to explain the strength and influence of the US constitution and political system both domestically and globally. One must also be careful using the word "democratic" due to the limited franchise in early US history and better explain the pioneering expansion of the democratic system and subsequent influence.
| |||||||
 | 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.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg)
 | This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:
|
| This article is substantially duplicated by a piece in an external publication. Since the external publication copied Misplaced Pages rather than the reverse, please do not flag this article as a copyright violation of the following sources:
|
Template:Outline of knowledge coverage
 | This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the United States article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116Auto-archiving period: 45 days |
Inequality, tax incidence, and AP survey
- Ellen's replacement of the very long-standing (by several years) housing development image with yet another politically-motivated inequality graph needs to be discussed first. The image is long-standing because it is neutral and cannot be disputed, and this graph does nothing but continue to over-emphasize inequality issues in the country.
- The removal of both graphs in Government finance (including the ITEP one) as a compromise has gone uncontested for weeks. The re-addition of just one of the graphs threatens to stir the pot once again on an issue that had been settled.
- "Four out of five U.S. adults struggle with joblessness, near-poverty or reliance on welfare for at least parts of their lives." This has already been described as a frivolous, highly vague statement that is not elaborated on at all, and does not add anything valuable to the other details in the section. Its removal weeks ago was not contested by anyone, except now EllenCT.
In Ellen's 2-3 week-long absence this article has remained relatively stable, and changes made weeks ago had been agreed on or uncontested, and it shows that there are only a couple of users here that catalyze edit disputes and article instability. Cadiomals (talk) 08:22, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
- Regarding your deletions:
- The housing image is not an image of housing development, just suburban subdivision-style ranch housing which is neither unique to or particularly illustrative of the United States, given that such style of housing exists on every continent except Antarctica, nor illustrative of the section it is in. The article is filled with uninformative photographs. Replacing a photo of suburban housing with an image showing the rise of the top 1% of incomes, as was specifically requested in other comments above, objectively improves the article and the section. There is no evidence that inequality issues are over-emphasized in the article. There is abundant evidence that inequality issues are not given the weight due their importance in economics.
- The Heritage Foundation income tax incidence graph is objectively and mathematically incorrect, and was rightly removed. Even VictorD7 admits that corporate taxes are borne in large part by low income consumers. The ITEP graph is supported by the many sources which correctly attribute corporate tax incidence, even if a few recent think tank sources do not do so correctly. Pretending that there is no objective mathematical truth is the worst kind of abuse of the NPOV policy, tantamount to "he-said-she-said" journalism in the face of obvious factual accuracy of one side and inaccuracy of the other, or the view from nowhere which is rejected by reputable editors with reputations for fact checking and accuracy. I will continue to replace the accurate graph in accordance with the comments about it from the majority of respondents concerning it in the sections above.
- I will not be bullied because I turned my attention to other work for half a month. The AP poll indicating that 80% of Americans must deal with joblessness, low income, or welfare is not reflected in any other statements in the section or the article. There is no evidence that it is either frivolous or vague, and the assertion that it is not elaborated in the source cited is objectively false as anyone reading the source can see. I strongly object to such falsehoods being used to try to bully editors.
- The comments above indicate that the article has been losing editors because they are exhausted dealing with an editor who chooses to draw inferences from what he admits are contradictory premises. Who wants to read an encyclopedia by those who know they are harboring falsehoods, but allow their ideology to guide them down mathematically incorrect paths anyway? Not me, and I refuse to turn my back on this article just because one such person willingly edits with an admitted competence deficit. EllenCT (talk) 11:20, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
- When a long-standing image or piece of info is removed and subsequently disputed, it should be discussed first based on WP:BRD. The image is illustrative and follows relevant guidelines and recommendations, and no one has disputed it until now. You think there are a lot of "uninformative photographs" in this article because they are not all conveying the message you want them to.
- If your proposed replacement image is added there will then be two graphs portraying growing economic divides in the country. That is placing too much emphasis and weight to inequality in this summary section and article. And if you add your proposed graph, the graph showing the growing divide between "productivity and median incomes" ought to then be removed. Drilling it into the readers' heads that the US has inequality problems through multiple paragraphs and two graphs is placing undue weight and is a form of soapboxing and advocacy when there are many other aspects of the economy that are only brushed upon. Your argument that it is "crucial to current political debates" has absolutely no relevance in this summary article. Go nuts in Income inequality in the United States.
- I don't know as much about the ITEP tax graph. I just know that both graphs that used to be in the Government finance section were disputed, the section was trimmed and they were both removed as a compromise, and that this change had gone uncontested for weeks despite continued activity and discussion by many editors on the talk page, which also refutes your claim that it was uncontested because editors were driven away. Nevertheless, this will be put to a definitive vote and I of course will respect consensus if many really want it re-added.
- That statement is vague. It's the same as saying 95% of people have had either a headache or breast cancer at some point in their lives, or that 90% of Americans own either a car or an airplane. 80% of Americans deal with joblessness and low-income at some point in their lives? I'm surprised it isn't 95% percent. It is no surprise that most Americans have likely been jobless at some point if they are laid off or look for a new one; that is typical of almost every country. And who hasn't been low-income at some point in early adulthood, when one is still in an internship or entry-level job? Very few readers are going to check the source for clarification. The statement conveys nothing of educational value to the reader, except for furthering the biased tone in the section you wish to convey: that Americans somehow experience undue hardship relative to other countries.
- The best way to resolve this of course is to bring in other editors' opinions for the survey below. Cadiomals (talk) 13:31, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
- EllenCT just told multiple outright lies. I already corrected her mischaracterization of my views on corporate taxation here (diffs , , , , ) so she has no excuse for invoking my name and repeating that falsehood here. I've always consistently said that corporate tax incidence should be attributed to owners since they're the ones most directly paying them, that they're only borne by others (not just consumers) in the same way all taxes are borne by others, and that we shouldn't cherry-pick a single tax type for political reasons and treat it differently when determining tax incidence. And what "Heritage Foundation income tax incidence graph" is she referring to? The graph was drawn by the Peter G. Peterson Foundation based on Tax Policy Center numbers, not the Heritage Foundation, and she hasn't shown it's "inaccurate" in any way. The Tax Policy Center is far more widely cited and mainstream than ITEP (and its liberal lobbying arm, CTJ), and, as my link to the archived discussion shows, she was unable to answer my basic questions about how her graph even got its numbers, how it attributes corporate incidence (or anything else), or why its internal federal rates are such an outlier compared to the TPC and CBO, both of which corroborate each other and contradict ITEP over time. A single editor bent on soapboxing should not be allowed to destroy this article's fragile stability with loads of massive, undiscussed, contentious edits, or get away with outright lies about other editors and content. We can't let this article be hijacked into becoming a platform for one sided partisan propaganda. Even her flimsy edit summary justifications betray her partisan POV agenda, repeatedly citing things like "material central to recent political debates" or "campaigns". She's a disruptive talking point spammer with no regard for the Talk Page process or encyclopedic quality. VictorD7 (talk) 20:47, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
- You have not exactly been helpful in the progress of this article either, Victor, so I would advise you be more mellow this time and also keep your responses more concise. In my opinion your full revert of Ellen's changes as opposed to my partial revert was uncalled for and catalyzes edit wars. Both you and Ellen's insistence on fully getting your way has been a roadblock in achieving a balanced and stable article and frustrating for the majority of editors who are less politically motivated and more willing to compromise. Both of you will need to respect consensus no matter which way it goes. Cadiomals (talk) 22:51, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
- Actually I'm one of the primary reasons this article has improved over the past year and in particular in recent weeks, and I have a right to correct outright falsehoods, especially when my name is invoked. I didn't fully revert Ellen's changes as I left the one proposal that had been specifically discussed. The other changes are controversial and opposed. I obviously haven't gotten my way on many things, but one difference between me and Ellen is that I respect the Talk Page process and have shown that I'm willing to participate in it. Significant changes should be discussed here before implementation, especially to the politically sensitive sections. A return to mass, unilateral, undiscussed edits will undo everything that's been accomplished in recent weeks, sparking off new waves of continuous counter editing, bloating, and likely edit warring. VictorD7 (talk) 23:51, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
- You have not exactly been helpful in the progress of this article either, Victor, so I would advise you be more mellow this time and also keep your responses more concise. In my opinion your full revert of Ellen's changes as opposed to my partial revert was uncalled for and catalyzes edit wars. Both you and Ellen's insistence on fully getting your way has been a roadblock in achieving a balanced and stable article and frustrating for the majority of editors who are less politically motivated and more willing to compromise. Both of you will need to respect consensus no matter which way it goes. Cadiomals (talk) 22:51, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
- EllenCT just told multiple outright lies. I already corrected her mischaracterization of my views on corporate taxation here (diffs , , , , ) so she has no excuse for invoking my name and repeating that falsehood here. I've always consistently said that corporate tax incidence should be attributed to owners since they're the ones most directly paying them, that they're only borne by others (not just consumers) in the same way all taxes are borne by others, and that we shouldn't cherry-pick a single tax type for political reasons and treat it differently when determining tax incidence. And what "Heritage Foundation income tax incidence graph" is she referring to? The graph was drawn by the Peter G. Peterson Foundation based on Tax Policy Center numbers, not the Heritage Foundation, and she hasn't shown it's "inaccurate" in any way. The Tax Policy Center is far more widely cited and mainstream than ITEP (and its liberal lobbying arm, CTJ), and, as my link to the archived discussion shows, she was unable to answer my basic questions about how her graph even got its numbers, how it attributes corporate incidence (or anything else), or why its internal federal rates are such an outlier compared to the TPC and CBO, both of which corroborate each other and contradict ITEP over time. A single editor bent on soapboxing should not be allowed to destroy this article's fragile stability with loads of massive, undiscussed, contentious edits, or get away with outright lies about other editors and content. We can't let this article be hijacked into becoming a platform for one sided partisan propaganda. Even her flimsy edit summary justifications betray her partisan POV agenda, repeatedly citing things like "material central to recent political debates" or "campaigns". She's a disruptive talking point spammer with no regard for the Talk Page process or encyclopedic quality. VictorD7 (talk) 20:47, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Survey
 |
|
There is currently a dispute (and a discussion above) about whether a few pieces of information are fit to be added to the Government finance and Income, poverty, and wealth sections. Please see the arguments in the thread above and indicate with "support adding" or "oppose adding" as well as your opinion:
Income inequality
Should EllenCT's proposed image to the right be added to Income, poverty, and wealth, replacing the long-standing (by several years) housing development image and alongside a similar image also showing growing economic divides? Or should it be traded out with the other graph while keeping the housing image? What do you think of the emphasis the section currently places on income inequality?
- Oppose adding based on my arguments above. Cadiomals (talk) 13:30, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose, for reasons given. Also the graph is intentionally skewed in appearance by 1% of the pop. which was disproportionately boosted by the bull stock market of much of the period. Ellen's own past inclusion observes that real median income rose over most of that period, but the skewed graph hides the increase by featuring an infinitesimal portion of the country. VictorD7 (talk) 21:41, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
- Support per the ability to reason correctly when contradictions are eliminated. The proposed graph is more informative than the graph proposed above which only shows one variable (proportion of incomes in top 1%) instead of three (the middle 60% and lower 20%) -- who speaks for the lower 20% on Misplaced Pages? EllenCT (talk) 00:03, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
- Ellen is referring to the "graph proposed above" that was rejected by most respondents, so to be clear this isn't a choice between those two options. VictorD7 (talk) 00:48, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
- Support, per ellen. Pass a Method talk 20:37, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose A graph showing this might be useful, but this graph is not satisfactory. It tries to show three different line with widely varying magnitude on the same linear axis, which means the actual values of the two lower ones cannot be determined. It would probably be better to use a single line for the top 1%, but if all 3 are really wanted a log scale would be needed or separate graphs--these would, though, be less dramatic. DGG ( talk ) 00:15, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
- Why not have a graph that shows the change in incomes for the population as a whole, rather than choosing certain sections of the population? Its just confusing this way. Rwenonah (talk) 23:55, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
- So do you support or oppose adding this particular graph? This is the specific issue right now; we can discuss possible alternative graphs afterwards/separately. Cadiomals (talk) 01:54, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
- OpposePer objections above.Rwenonah (talk) 12:22, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose per above. Graph needs adjusting. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 21:43, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose excessive detail for this specific article. Any arguments on the merits are irrelevant as far as I am concerned. If this information has merit as claimed, it would be perfectly appropriate in a different article (not saying it does, though, I have not evaluated it as such) but it simply is too esoteric for this overview article --Jayron32 18:22, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
- Support The general rule is that more information is better than less, and people looking at Misplaced Pages for information on the United States will most likely use Misplaced Pages as their sole source. The information is relevant and valid so it should be included. Remember: Misplaced Pages seeks to be encyclopedic, and the information is relevant and informative. Damotclese (talk) 19:01, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
- Qualified Support I think the graph could be improved (as has been noted, scale obscures information about the two lower categories), but failing that, there are no disputes about accuracy and it is a good graphical summary of an important issue. I've seen variants of this in blogs that are generally considered right and left of the political spectrum and do not believe graph is POV. As to those who believe too detailed, this summary graphic seems appropriate to overview article. Note: Here from WP:FRS Haven't previously been involved with this article. --Federalist51 (talk) 18:34, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
- Qualified Support As above, it'll always be seen as a "dodgy" graph when the Y Axis is skewed like that. If that issue was fixed, I'd fully support the inclusion of that graph. But until the graph is fixed, I don't support it. --HighKing (talk) 11:36, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose. Aside from rounding errors, any graph showing this kind of data absolutely needs to account for 100% of the people. Because it leaves out 19% of the population, I'm suspecting that someone's begging the question. Bring in a graph showing the average incomes of the bottom 20%, the middle 60%, the upper 19%, and the top 1%, and I'll be much more inclined to support it. I also note that Jayron's got a solid argument about this kind of graph being out of place in such a broad article; Damotclese's argument fails on WP:SS grounds. More is better than less, but we can get to the "too much" point like any other encyclopedia; the only difference is that our virtually unlimited space means that we split extra details out to a more specific article instead of removing them entirely. Nyttend (talk) 01:36, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose The original source (which is specifically a blog estopped by WP:RS) states: Income inequality in the United States has been rising since the 1970s. What is the most effective way to succinctly convey this fact? Here is my choice which rather clarifies that the purpose of the graph is to accentuate the "income inequality" claim. The heading of Kenworthy's blog post is "The politics of helping the poor Politics and rising income inequality" and as a blog post it does not meet WP:RS for any purpose of making a claim -- and a graph is, indeed, a "claim" here. Collect (talk) 01:49, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
- Strong Support Speaking from a social scientist standpoint, income inequality is one of the primary indicators for what is happening in a society - much more so than housing. It should definitely be included. LK (talk) 04:10, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose This looks like it was pulled from a "We are the 99%" pamphlet. What about the top 5%, 10%, top 20%? Why just the bottom 20% and 60%? Why the 1%? This looks like it was created to make a specific point regarding inequality and highlight a distinction to push a POV, which I don't think is appropriate. If we're going to include something, it should try to include a more full range and not cherry pick the figures that make the most shocking graph. Morphh 14:50, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose per RfC comment: I oppose this particular graph. Each of the following flaws would need to be addressed: DGG (needs log scale on y-axis); Collect (source issues); Morphh (choose most relevant deciles, with justification as to why they're relevant). Also, I noticed that the time interval runs from 1979 to 2007. It is now nearly 2014. There IS more current data, from highly reputable sources, that include 2011. I know of one such chart from a recent OECD econometrics publication (October 2013) which is public domain. There are others. There's the issue of relevancy to the U.S.A. as well, in considering inclusion of a chart like this. The Emmanuel Saez charts compare the U.S., Germany, and Japan from 1910 to 2011. I would also suggest that income isn't even the most relevant information to present, but rather, asset holdings. Yearly income varies widely, especially for the very wealthy. Net asset value does not, and a chart with assets on the y-axis instead of income would be more meaningful. It is a trend that is unique to the USA in comparison to many other developed and even some developing nations. We need a good chart here, or nothing at all. Otherwise, our credibility will be diminished or possibly be considered political advocacy, which is entirely unacceptable.--FeralOink (talk) 21:14, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Tax incidence
Should the ITEP tax graph to the right be re-added to the Government finance section or should the section remain without an image?
- Oppose adding based on my arguments above. Cadiomals (talk) 13:30, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose, for reasons laid out above. Graph is from a partisan lobbyist and its accuracy is disputed by multiple reliable sources. VictorD7 (talk) 21:41, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
- Support per Ostry and Berg (2011). EllenCT (talk) 23:20, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
- That link doesn't appear to mention the graph (unless I missed it) or be pertinent to this topic. VictorD7 (talk) 00:48, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
- Can you think of the reason that I think it supports it? EllenCT (talk) 01:03, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
- I'd hate to presume. VictorD7 (talk) 01:12, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
- Your best guess? EllenCT (talk) 16:36, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
- I'd hate to presume. VictorD7 (talk) 01:12, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
- Can you think of the reason that I think it supports it? EllenCT (talk) 01:03, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
- That link doesn't appear to mention the graph (unless I missed it) or be pertinent to this topic. VictorD7 (talk) 00:48, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
- Support per reasoning cited by ellen Pass a Method talk 20:39, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose a graph that tries to lump state & local (which can vary wildly) and federal taxes (a combination of over 100 tax systems) along with mixing different tax bases (income & consumption) is not appropriate. You can't even measure these the same way. Any such graph is filled with tons of assumptions and heavily modeled for tax incidence and considering the source, highly partisan. It's not even clear how they came up with these figures. If you're going to include graphs on taxation, federal taxation should be a different graph than state taxation, and consumption taxation should be separate from income taxation when showing distributional effects in order to make any logical sense out of the graph. Morphh 14:31, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
SupportOppose until an alternative source is found for the same information. The graph shows an important reality of local and state taxes for education including property taxes and sales taxes, for instance. Nearly a flat tax ideal by income distribution, with breaks in the aggregate for the most disadvantaged? The reality of American economic life-as-taxes is perhaps a conservative ideal? Where's the beef? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:54, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
- Virginia, where were you when I removed both of the graphs from Gov't finance weeks ago as a way to finally stop the bickering over it? If you really wanted to include this graph, why didn't you raise an objection on the talk page? Cadiomals (talk) 04:39, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
- The beef is it's inaccurate. It was cooked up by a far left lobbyist group and it's internal federal component is massively contradicted by the far more prominent Tax Policy Center (a joint Brookings and Urban Institute project), especially (but not only) for the top 1%, where there's around a 10 point difference. The CBO also tracks closely with the TPC over time, with the federal only top 1% tax rate around 30%, not around 20% (where ITEP has it), from year to year. By contrast the ITEP chart has no corroboration whatsoever, and an opaque methodology we can't examine. The differences aren't a one year fluke, but are consistent over time, as the link in my above post lays out. Doesn't any of that bother you? Shouldn't we hold off on making such a controversial chart the section image in a country summary article? The graph is disputed, unverifiable partisan propaganda. VictorD7 (talk) 19:54, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
- Here's a Tax Foundation piece criticizing the ITEP chart and showing a very different one for total taxation, with a bottom quintile rate of 13% and the entire top quintile (not just the top 1%) averaging 35.6%. VictorD7 (talk) 22:25, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
- That "piece" is neither accurate or in agreement with the peer reviewed literature. EllenCT (talk) 04:14, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
- Hogwash. So far I'm the only one between us actually backing up what I say. Whether you agree with it or not, it's just one more prominent source disputing your chart. VictorD7 (talk) 04:57, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
- That "piece" is neither accurate or in agreement with the peer reviewed literature. EllenCT (talk) 04:14, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose The CBO and Tax Policy Center are far more mainstream and reliable sources for this kind of information. It's absurd to include such a heavily disputed partisan graph in a country summary.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:38, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
- Indeed, and as a solution and compromise we opted not to add any graphs to that section at all, including the one added by VictorD7. That was fine for everyone, but now EllenCT wants to stir the pot again, insisting we re-add just this one and drawing our attention back to a tired debate that had already been settled. Cadiomals (talk) 01:49, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
- Your characterization of the issue which has played very if not most prominently in recent election cycles as settled lacks accuracy. Deleting both graphs was obviously not "fine for everyone". EllenCT (talk) 04:16, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
- I meant everyone except you, because both graphs were removed three weeks ago and no one said a word about it despite continuous discussion on the talk page, mostly because people wanted to finally move on from that issue and the bickering over those graphs that had been occurring weeks prior. As such, the issue of including those graphs was settled, and it showed that you were really the only one insistent on advancing your political agenda. I couldn't care less about your babble regarding "election cycles". Cadiomals (talk) 04:39, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
- Settled it may be, but the editor opening this string sought multiple editor input regarding adding information to the encyclopedia. Could someone repost Victor's chart? (Is there really a question as to whether corporations are people too? I thought I was the only one in the country who disagreed with the Supreme Court at Citizens United.)
- It seems to me that Ellen might agree to Victor's chart now for the sake of presenting something on total effective tax rates, as the information conveyed is a relatively flat tax rate compared to national income tax, and that is informative to the general international reader unfamiliar with how federal regimes tax their populations in actuality. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:48, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
- Are you referring to the Heritage Foundation's chart which doesn't apportion corporate taxes to consumers? Are you aware of how few sources agree with that? Victor frequently cites all three. Meanwhile in reality.... EllenCT (talk) 16:35, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
- I don't know, does it show a relatively flat tax for total effective tax? If so it is of much the same utility to the general international reader, the difference in sources is a wash. ITEP, Heritage, CBO and Tax Policy Center were alternate sources mentioned above. To date in this string, I only see ITEP which generally corresponds to my earlier study, a relatively flat tax for total effective tax in the U.S. -- which is why I support ITEP until another source can be agreed to... which Cadiomals informs me cannot be done... for now ?? Might you allow something from CBO or Tax Policy Center, are their charts readily available at commons? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:20, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
- There is no "Heritage Foundation" chart. Ellen's confused (or lying again) and apparently referring to this PGPF chart of TPC numbers for federal tax rates. Note how its top 1% rate is a few points higher than ITEP's purported total rate. There are no good overall tax incidence charts, because it's notoriously difficult to study local/state taxes with precision. The only one I know of is the ITEP chart, but we know that's problematic because its internal federal component is contradicted so dramatically by the CBO and TPC, the two most prominent and widely cited outfits that do tax incidence. It was also lambasted by the Tax Foundation, which actually produced its own using TPC federal and ITEP state/local numbers, not that ITEP's state/local figures are necessarily credible either. It would be better to have no chart than to post misinformation cooked up by a partisan lobbyist. The relative flattening you mention (still nowhere near a flat tax) is already described in the text, which is a perfectly fair way to handle it. This also isn't about corporate taxation. That's a dishonest smokescreen tossed out by Ellen as a diversion. She has no idea how ITEP even attributes corporate taxes. Unlike the CBO and TPC, they don't provide component breakdowns and their methodology is opaque. Their chart says they count it, but even if they attributed zero to the top 1%, which would be ludicrous and would contradict a statement I found and posted by their spokesman, it still wouldn't account for the discrepancy. BTW, while Ellen's link has absolutely nothing to do with this topic, I have to say I'm shocked, shocked I tell you that liberals' predictions scored better in a cycle where Democrats won. It's a shame the "study" only looked at one election, and didn't examine if conservatives' predictions were better in a year Republicans won. VictorD7 (talk) 18:52, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
- I don't know, does it show a relatively flat tax for total effective tax? If so it is of much the same utility to the general international reader, the difference in sources is a wash. ITEP, Heritage, CBO and Tax Policy Center were alternate sources mentioned above. To date in this string, I only see ITEP which generally corresponds to my earlier study, a relatively flat tax for total effective tax in the U.S. -- which is why I support ITEP until another source can be agreed to... which Cadiomals informs me cannot be done... for now ?? Might you allow something from CBO or Tax Policy Center, are their charts readily available at commons? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:20, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
- Are you referring to the Heritage Foundation's chart which doesn't apportion corporate taxes to consumers? Are you aware of how few sources agree with that? Victor frequently cites all three. Meanwhile in reality.... EllenCT (talk) 16:35, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
- I meant everyone except you, because both graphs were removed three weeks ago and no one said a word about it despite continuous discussion on the talk page, mostly because people wanted to finally move on from that issue and the bickering over those graphs that had been occurring weeks prior. As such, the issue of including those graphs was settled, and it showed that you were really the only one insistent on advancing your political agenda. I couldn't care less about your babble regarding "election cycles". Cadiomals (talk) 04:39, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
- Your characterization of the issue which has played very if not most prominently in recent election cycles as settled lacks accuracy. Deleting both graphs was obviously not "fine for everyone". EllenCT (talk) 04:16, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
- Indeed, and as a solution and compromise we opted not to add any graphs to that section at all, including the one added by VictorD7. That was fine for everyone, but now EllenCT wants to stir the pot again, insisting we re-add just this one and drawing our attention back to a tired debate that had already been settled. Cadiomals (talk) 01:49, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
.gif)
- The U.S. tax regime is highly regressive unless one takes into account federal and state and local taxes. That is the best picture of the actual effect on the individual. This is mostly attributed to local property taxes for education funding education, not national or state funding sources, leading to wild inconsistencies of funding levels from place to place and over time for any one place.
- Here is something from an VictorD7 sourced as generally unbiased, Wall Street Journal's the Tax Policy Center. It shows effective payroll tax rate in a manner which I find consistent with prior study. But for the first quintile progressive feature, the curve fitted to the bar graph is generally flat until the regressive tax structure for the richest incomes.
- The effective tax rate including state and local taxes is more like a flat tax. Do we have an alternative to the ITEP chart which shows the federal, state and local together in a federal system? I believe that would be instructive for the general international reader living in a centralized form of government. --- and lacking an alternative to the ITEP graph for now, we should use it because it does not show the statistical inequity that federal income taxes alone would in error. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:03, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
- I just posted an alternative by the Tax Foundation above that gives a radically different total overall breakdown. ITEP has zero corroboration and its internals are disputed by the TPC, CBO, and Tax Foundation. Misleading people with misinformation is not in Misplaced Pages's interest. TVH wants to use a hotly disputed, extremely partisan chart.....just because? We aren't obligated to have any image. If you don't want an alternative, then we don't have to add one. No one's seriously proposing a different image. And to my knowledge the TPC (which I never said is unbiased, it leans left but is the most prominent tax incidence outfit and produces reliable data) has nothing to do with the WSJ. Perhaps TVH is confused. I'm not sure what the point of the payroll tax chart is (the TPC chart he apparently objects to already showed the federal breakdown by component, including payroll), but in terms of international comparison (if that's what he was getting at) the US is more progressive than Europe in every tax type. I encourage TVH and anyone else here to actually read the sources posted. VictorD7 (talk) 22:06, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
- Lol; the reason VictorD7 uses the Tax Foundation source is because he can't find a real source supporting his argument (don't take my word for it, just ask him). More nonsense from a hardcore right winger. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 22:17, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
- LOL! I've just irrefutably made my case on every point using sources that include the Tax Policy Center, the CBO, the Tax Foundation, and even ITEP. And that lame, substanceless reply is all the hard core left winger Somedifferentstuff can muster. Telling. VictorD7 (talk) 22:38, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, you've provided ZERO SOURCES other than TF. -- Have you applied for a job with the Koch Brothers yet??? -- Ahhhhhhhhhhh, the boy with the broken mirror. ---- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 23:07, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
- ^Ad hominem drivel. I've posted sources all over this section and page. Stop trying to disrupt the discussion process. VictorD7 (talk) 23:13, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
- Your reply is, "I WILL PROVIDE NO SOURCES HERE!". Brilliant right-wing garbage. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 23:27, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
- I suppose until Somedifferentstuff is condemned by other editors and/or banned for trollish disruption, I can repost sourced evidence every time he repeats his lie.
- Your reply is, "I WILL PROVIDE NO SOURCES HERE!". Brilliant right-wing garbage. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 23:27, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
- ^Ad hominem drivel. I've posted sources all over this section and page. Stop trying to disrupt the discussion process. VictorD7 (talk) 23:13, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, you've provided ZERO SOURCES other than TF. -- Have you applied for a job with the Koch Brothers yet??? -- Ahhhhhhhhhhh, the boy with the broken mirror. ---- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 23:07, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
- LOL! I've just irrefutably made my case on every point using sources that include the Tax Policy Center, the CBO, the Tax Foundation, and even ITEP. And that lame, substanceless reply is all the hard core left winger Somedifferentstuff can muster. Telling. VictorD7 (talk) 22:38, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
- Lol; the reason VictorD7 uses the Tax Foundation source is because he can't find a real source supporting his argument (don't take my word for it, just ask him). More nonsense from a hardcore right winger. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 22:17, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
- I just posted an alternative by the Tax Foundation above that gives a radically different total overall breakdown. ITEP has zero corroboration and its internals are disputed by the TPC, CBO, and Tax Foundation. Misleading people with misinformation is not in Misplaced Pages's interest. TVH wants to use a hotly disputed, extremely partisan chart.....just because? We aren't obligated to have any image. If you don't want an alternative, then we don't have to add one. No one's seriously proposing a different image. And to my knowledge the TPC (which I never said is unbiased, it leans left but is the most prominent tax incidence outfit and produces reliable data) has nothing to do with the WSJ. Perhaps TVH is confused. I'm not sure what the point of the payroll tax chart is (the TPC chart he apparently objects to already showed the federal breakdown by component, including payroll), but in terms of international comparison (if that's what he was getting at) the US is more progressive than Europe in every tax type. I encourage TVH and anyone else here to actually read the sources posted. VictorD7 (talk) 22:06, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
- Effective Federal Tax Rate for the Top 1% in 2011
- No reason his presence should be a complete waste of time. VictorD7 (talk) 00:12, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
But Victor, I like the linked chart, it shows increases in property tax which is my point, and the steeply regressive corporate tax which is Stuff's point. Two problems. First, it does not aggregate the changes by income segment, second and more importantly, you have not downloaded it into the Wikicommons for our use in this article. Is there not a blanket release for online publication with attribution?
My point is that taxes are effectively flat when incomes are arrayed low to high on an x-axis, not 45-degrees slope positive (progressive), not 45-degree slope negative (regressive). Most local schools are mostly funded by local corporate taxes, regardless of the effective income tax on them, so the aggregate taxes of federal, state and local show a nearly flat tax in aggregate, not the regressive outrage if income taxes were taken alone, and the ITEP chart shows that overall effect, regardless of the corporate tax detail variances that you have successfully pointed out. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:08, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
- Not sure which "linked chart" you're referring to, but maybe you missed when I checkmated Ellen. Her own graph source calls corporate taxes "very progressive" and attributes them to shareholders, completely refuting what she'd been claiming (guessing). No meaningful variation in corporate incidence has been shown, much less by me. ITEP's huge discrepancy with multiple reliable sources remains unexplained. Stuff doesn't see corporate taxes as regressive (and he had no point; he was trolling). I'm not sure where you got that idea. I haven't seen a chart showing property taxes, but income taxes are progressive (not "regressive"), and you keep making unsourced claims. Yes, there's flattening effect when total taxes are considered, but it's nowhere near as much as ITEP shows (side point - even they call overall taxation "progressive", not "flat"; doesn't have to be a 45 deg. slope). ITEP's 2011 top 1% rate was 21.1% federal + 7.9% state/local = 29% shown in graph. If the federal component is off by around 10 points, then so is the overall number. ITEP's openly stated purpose is to agitate for higher taxes on "the rich". If casual, uninformed readers see that chart, showing the top 1% paying a lower rate than the preceding percentiles, then they'll likely think "Yeah! We should raise taxes on the rich!" However, a more reliable chart properly showing the top 1% paying the highest rate wouldn't have that impact. It was 30.4% federal in 2011 (per TPC), a few points higher now, and in the ballpark of 40% if state/local taxes are added. ITEP's chart isn't harmless misinformation we can tolerate to illustrate a broad principle. That's a meaningful difference.
- If you're saying you like the Tax Foundation chart combining TPC federal rates with ITEP state/local ones, then you're free to try to add it to the commons. Wiki rules forced me to go through a lengthy process to get the PGPF chart added, though PGPF itself was great and instantly granted permission. I'm sure the Tax Foundation would too, if permission is even required. I haven't explored their copyright situation recently. My only concern would be relying on ITEP's state/local data, which, while not explicitly contradicted, is uncorroborated and may be as wrong as their federal data. But it wouldn't hurt to add the graph to the commons so it's available during future discussions. VictorD7 (talk)
- Oppose excessive detail for this specific article. Any arguments on the merits are irrelevant as far as I am concerned. If this information has merit as claimed, it would be perfectly appropriate in a different article (not saying it does, though, I have not evaluated it as such) but it simply is too esoteric for this overview article --Jayron32 18:25, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
- Support The general rule is that more information is better than less, and people looking at Misplaced Pages for information on the United States will most likely use Misplaced Pages as their sole source. The information is relevant and valid so it should be included. Remember: Misplaced Pages seeks to be encyclopedic, and the information is relevant and informative. Damotclese (talk) 19:02, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose adding Too detailed for this overview article. Including it gives undue weight to a graphic which, at the least, is open to challenge as being POV. Note: Here from WP:FRS Haven't previously been involved with this article. --Federalist51 (talk) 18:39, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
@VictorD7. When y-axis numbers are close together, the curve of the x-axis is flat. A curve through the ITEP top shows progressive but flattening across the first 80% under $68,700, @ 17, 21, 25, 28. The curve kinks at the top 40% over $68,700 becoming relatively flat, @ 28, 29, 30, 30, 29, because 28, 29 and 30 are close together (reported increments at truncated percentages).
That is, effective income rate is pretty flat overall across federal and state and local taxes, because regressive state sales taxes on the poor and regressive local property taxes on the rich counter both federal and state progressive income tax effects. And the general international reader will not be made aware of that phenomenon in a federal republic such as the U.S. without a chart of net tax incidence including federal, state and local taxes.
The ITEP chart including federal, state and local taxes is more nearly comprehensive than federal income tax charts alone which show huge regression in the top 20% tax levels in the case of your TCP income tax incidence chart, -- which I believe is misleading as a single source of taxation information in the U.S. for the summary article. Did you find an alternative to the ITEP chart to post here? If so, would you be so kind to do so for the sake of the discussion? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 03:53, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
- I guess you missed all the stuff about ITEP's accuracy being dramatically disputed by multiple sources. If you don't understand at this point that the contradiction is in the internals, so it doesn't matter that the TPC and CBO are federal only (it's still apples to apples with the ITEP federal component), then I don't know how else to walk you through it. I even linked to an alternative overall taxation chart by the Tax Foundation after you made the same request earlier that clearly illustrated these concepts by combining ITEP state/local numbers with TPC federal numbers, showing a very different slope, and explicitly criticizing ITEP's methodology. The text already discusses the more regressive nature of state/local taxes, which change neither the fact that overall US taxation is progressive (per even the ITEP outlier's wording) or that it's more progressive than European systems (the difference is even starker when heavily regressive European consumption taxes are compared with US sales taxes). The findings are robust enough that precision isn't necessary to make the general observation. The section currently has no chart, so there's no danger of readers being misled by one either way. We shouldn't add a hotly disputed, partisan chart just for the sake of having a chart. VictorD7 (talk) 19:45, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
- I noticed that ITEP is used as a source in the combined federal, state and local tax incidence for the link you gave me. Okay, agreed to no chart at this time. Simpler is better in the summary article. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:52, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
- I don't like incidence graphs that try to combine sales taxes and income taxes, because sales taxes are often misrepresented as being overly regressive (which is what is happening here). Partisan sources often consider savings as untaxed income as they try to measure for a single year, instead of tax deferred (they'll spend it during retirement, in a couple years when a child goes to college, or donate it). They distort the definition of measuring incidence by calculating the tax on something other than its tax base - mathematically invalid. As if any money saved is instantly tax free forever, making any measure of that tax burden completely false. Another one, are commercial property taxes born by the property owner, the renter / consumer, or split? Then you got the fact that your combining 50 different tax structures (some that have no income tax, some that have no sales tax, different corporate tax rates) with different exemptions on each into a single graph. It would certainly be nice to have a single graph that just "summed it up" but any such attempt will include lots of assumptions and manipulation - difficult to do fairly. Morphh 14:14, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
- I noticed that ITEP is used as a source in the combined federal, state and local tax incidence for the link you gave me. Okay, agreed to no chart at this time. Simpler is better in the summary article. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:52, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
AP survey
- Ref.: Yen, Hope (28 July 2013). 80 Percent Of U.S. Adults Face Near-Poverty, Unemployment: Survey. Associated Press and Huffington Post Retrieved July 28, 2013. EllenCT (talk) 00:07, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Should the statement "Four out of five U.S. adults struggle with joblessness, near-poverty or reliance on welfare for at least parts of their lives" be added to the Income, poverty, and wealth section? Is it adequately precise or too vague of a statement?
- Oppose adding based on my arguments above. Cadiomals (talk) 13:30, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose as a hopelessly vague and pointless lumping together of categories that's solely designed for emotive impact and mood setting. VictorD7 (talk) 21:41, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
- Support per the original Associated Press sources. EllenCT (talk) 00:07, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
- Support. Pass a Method talk 20:39, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose until a scholarly source is found to put the information into a larger context...good argument for a safety-net society, though. And the U.S. practice obviously more nearly approaches the European welfare state model than many suspect, even in the midst of a fierce national cult of individualism and reliance on family first. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:03, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
- How do you feel about "While racial and ethnic minorities are more likely to live in poverty, race disparities in the poverty rate have narrowed substantially since the 1970s, census data show. Economic insecurity among whites also is more pervasive than is shown in the government's poverty data, engulfing more than 76 percent of white adults by the time they turn 60, according to a new economic gauge being published next year by the Oxford University Press" then? EllenCT (talk) 03:56, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
- There will be no more non-summary details added to those sections, that's it; Income, poverty, and wealth is at its peak in terms of detail. If it isn't already there you can add such information to articles like Income inequality in the United States, Poverty in the United States or even Race in the United States. But it has no place here. And if all you're going to say is that such details are "crucial" and "central to debates in election cycles" don't even bother responding. Cadiomals (talk) 04:13, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
- How do you feel about "While racial and ethnic minorities are more likely to live in poverty, race disparities in the poverty rate have narrowed substantially since the 1970s, census data show. Economic insecurity among whites also is more pervasive than is shown in the government's poverty data, engulfing more than 76 percent of white adults by the time they turn 60, according to a new economic gauge being published next year by the Oxford University Press" then? EllenCT (talk) 03:56, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
- Support; if the source backs up the material I find it to be relevant. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 18:26, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
- The following is copy-pasted from my response to Ellen so you don't have to look for it, as to why this piece of information is useless:
- "That statement is vague. It's the same as saying 95% of people have had either a headache or breast cancer at some point in their lives, or that 90% of Americans own either a car or an airplane. 80% of Americans deal with joblessness and low-income at some point in their lives? I'm surprised it isn't 95% percent. It is no surprise that most Americans have likely been jobless at some point if they are laid off or look for a new one; that is typical of almost every country. And who hasn't been low-income at some point in early adulthood, when one is still in an internship or entry-level job? Very few readers are going to check the source for clarification. The statement conveys nothing of educational value to the reader, except for furthering the biased tone in the section you wish to convey: that Americans somehow experience undue hardship relative to other countries."
- This statement does not express any truly relevant facts. Cadiomals (talk) 04:06, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
- The facts are relevant because they prove governmental assistance is not universally and permanently disabling as opponents sometimes argue. We just need a scholarly source in context of the fact that assistance is overwhelmingly of short duration. The outlier long duration "culture of dependency", the problematic 15%, can often be addressed with literacy education and trade education as has been found effective in various state programs. Scholarly context is what is required for the WP article. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:53, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
- I just have a problem with the way the statement is worded. Saying that 80% of Americans have either been reliant on welfare or unemployed at some point in their lives is like saying 80% of Americans have either had breast cancer or the common cold at some point in their lives. Can't you see how useless such a statement would be? A scholarly source could provide less vague and more specific information as opposed to sensationalist news reports. Cadiomals (talk) 13:01, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
- The facts are relevant because they prove governmental assistance is not universally and permanently disabling as opponents sometimes argue. We just need a scholarly source in context of the fact that assistance is overwhelmingly of short duration. The outlier long duration "culture of dependency", the problematic 15%, can often be addressed with literacy education and trade education as has been found effective in various state programs. Scholarly context is what is required for the WP article. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:53, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose excessive detail for this specific article. Any arguments on the merits are irrelevant as far as I am concerned. If this information has merit as claimed, it would be perfectly appropriate in a different article (not saying it does, though, I have not evaluated it as such) but it simply is too esoteric for this overview article --Jayron32 18:26, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
- Comment. The direct quotation is almost certainly political propaganda. Lies, damned lies, and Mark Twain. 99% of adult americans at some point in their lives have murdered their spouses with an assault rifle, stolen from their neighbors with a sawed-off shotgun, or watched television on which the gun debate sometimes comes up -- ban guns today! 99% of americans, at some point in their lives, have been unemployed for nine consecutive months -- counting newborns! 99% of americans believe the moon landing was a hoax, or the twin towers were a federal plot, or that someone who borrows a writing utensil from them may never return it to them -- you just don't realize how deep the conspiracy goes!
- This POV-pushing *in* the sources themselves is inherently a problem, of course; Reliable Sources are *not* required to be NPOV, themselves. So the question is, since wikipedia *is* required to be — or at least strive to be — neutral, is there a way to make use of the HuffPo data, which is illuminating for the readership, without pushing the HuffPo POV on the readership? In other words, does the "relative to other countries" additional data exist that Cadiomals mentioned? If so, then maybe a relative-to-other-countries-chart would be useful, especially if we have historical data, showing the trend over time. Maybe 80% is good compared to other countries. Maybe the triplet-category is a new-fangled yet highly-explanatory statistical mechanism invented by some brilliant sociology PhD, and HuffPo is just reporting one portion of the research team's groundbreaking new results.
- But I suspect that no such datasets for other countries, let alone historical, exist... and if so, that itself indicates the x-or-y-or-z nature of the cobbled-together summary was intended to advance an agenda. Now, even if the the quote itself is still worthy of being included in wikipedia somewheres... perhaps Ariana Huffington#Political Positions? 74.192.84.101 (talk) 16:19, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose adding Host of reasons this doesn't belong in this article. Tone is not encyclopedic. Lumps together a number of different facts in a way that ends up being POV and, without elaboration, isn't very informative. To explain in detail would not be appropriate for this overview article. Note: Here from WP:FRS Haven't previously been involved with this article. Federalist51 (talk) 18:59, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
Corporate tax incidence text
Is "U.S. taxation is generally progressive, especially the federal income taxes, but the incidence of corporate income tax has been a matter of considerable ongoing controversy for decades." preferable to "U.S. taxation is generally progressive, especially the federal income taxes, and is among the most progressive in the developed world."? EllenCT (talk) 00:59, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
- The former is preferable because it is more accurate and compliant with the WP:NPOV policy, in that order. The latter is cherrypicked puffery unsupported by the most reliable sources. EllenCT (talk) 00:59, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
- Actually the latter, long standing version you've altered without prior discussion is undisputed and less poorly written than your new sentence. We might be able to reach an agreement on including corporate incidence material, but shoving it into the first sentence renders it confusing at best and gives undue emphasis to a small portion of taxation that has no bearing on overall US tax progressivity vis a vis other developed nations, or on whether overall US taxation is progressive (even your own outlier far left CTJ source concedes it's "progressive"). You haven't even bothered to construct an argument for your misleading edit's legitimacy. VictorD7 (talk) 01:19, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
- This element of the discussion relates to the tax incidence chart above which shows a nearly flat tax rate if state and localities property and sales taxes are included for income segments. National policy is progressive, local and state are regressive, by and large. Comparisons across central governments and federal governments are difficult without aggregating national and local taxes together. Also, when something does go to narrative, limit reference notes to two, and expand the notes to include multiple sources, as a matter of WP style. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:13, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
- Look closer. Even the inaccurate, far left lobbyist graph you're referring to doesn't show anything close to a "flat tax". The entire right half only covers the top 10%. As proved above, its federal component also dramatically understates rates for high earners compared to the TPC and CBO. Here's yet another critique of the ITEP chart by the Tax Foundation. They give a far different overall tax incidence chart at the bottom. None of that directly relates to this discussion though, because Ellen hasn't shown that the discrepancy is due to corporate tax differences, and even if it was, the findings about the US having a more progressive overall tax system (not just federal) are extremely robust. Europe has an outright regressive tax system that relies heavily on consumption taxes. As the Northwestern U. study and media sources explain, even their income tax structure is more regressive than America's, and their consumption taxes are more regressive than our sales taxes (which feature various exemptions). Of course other countries have corporate taxes too, rendering the corporate incidence question pointless to this issue, and they're only a small percentage of taxation anyway. Please read the sources. They're actually quite clear and decisive. The partial flattening caused by state/local taxes is already described in the text. There's no reason to overstate it with a hotly disputed, unverifiable chart from a partisan lobbyist. VictorD7 (talk) 20:12, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
- VictorD7, could you please explain the terminology you use. If non-partisan groups like ITEP are "far left", what superlatives do you use for social democrats, democratic socialists, communists, trotskyists, maoists and anarchists? Are anarchists "far far far far far far far left?" TFD (talk) 21:43, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
- It's not "non-partisan". It even has a liberal lobbying arm called Citizens for Tax Justice. Forget the labels though. The pertinent issue is that its numbers are dramatically contradicted by multiple reliable sources. Isn't that supposed to matter? VictorD7 (talk) 22:17, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
- I agree the contradiction is dramatic. But you have already admitted that corporate tax is borne by consumers, so by your own definition the sources which do not attribute corporate tax incidence to anyone but the owners and corporate employees are not reliable. And while you have found "multiple" such sources, they are not peer reviewed, because the peer reviewed literature attributes corporate tax incidence in the way you said it should be attributed. Until you resolve this contradiction, you have no path to competent editing on the topic. EllenCT (talk) 04:09, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
- Your lies are tedious, Ellen. I said no such thing. You're conflating tax incidence with economic ripple effects. Even your own ITEP/CTJ spokesman said investors pay corporate taxes. I posted the quote for you from the ITEP website. Maybe they also attribute some to consumers (what about labor?), and maybe they don't (you don't know and haven't been able to find anything concrete), but corporate taxation wouldn't account for the large contradiction anyway. You haven't cited anything from "peer reviewed literature" because the links in question don't help your case and have nothing to do with this discussion. The TPC and CBO are far more mainstream, cited, and reliable than an uncorroborated, outlier ITEP chart. VictorD7 (talk) 04:41, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
- So now you are saying corporations don't pass on tax increases to their customers? EllenCT (talk) 16:31, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
- Those are economic ripple effects (and to labor, and to other businesses, just like income and all taxes; we shouldn't cherry-pick), not tax incidence. VictorD7 (talk) 18:56, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
- So now you are saying corporations don't pass on tax increases to their customers? EllenCT (talk) 16:31, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
- Your lies are tedious, Ellen. I said no such thing. You're conflating tax incidence with economic ripple effects. Even your own ITEP/CTJ spokesman said investors pay corporate taxes. I posted the quote for you from the ITEP website. Maybe they also attribute some to consumers (what about labor?), and maybe they don't (you don't know and haven't been able to find anything concrete), but corporate taxation wouldn't account for the large contradiction anyway. You haven't cited anything from "peer reviewed literature" because the links in question don't help your case and have nothing to do with this discussion. The TPC and CBO are far more mainstream, cited, and reliable than an uncorroborated, outlier ITEP chart. VictorD7 (talk) 04:41, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
- I agree the contradiction is dramatic. But you have already admitted that corporate tax is borne by consumers, so by your own definition the sources which do not attribute corporate tax incidence to anyone but the owners and corporate employees are not reliable. And while you have found "multiple" such sources, they are not peer reviewed, because the peer reviewed literature attributes corporate tax incidence in the way you said it should be attributed. Until you resolve this contradiction, you have no path to competent editing on the topic. EllenCT (talk) 04:09, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
- It's not "non-partisan". It even has a liberal lobbying arm called Citizens for Tax Justice. Forget the labels though. The pertinent issue is that its numbers are dramatically contradicted by multiple reliable sources. Isn't that supposed to matter? VictorD7 (talk) 22:17, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
- VictorD7, could you please explain the terminology you use. If non-partisan groups like ITEP are "far left", what superlatives do you use for social democrats, democratic socialists, communists, trotskyists, maoists and anarchists? Are anarchists "far far far far far far far left?" TFD (talk) 21:43, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
- Look closer. Even the inaccurate, far left lobbyist graph you're referring to doesn't show anything close to a "flat tax". The entire right half only covers the top 10%. As proved above, its federal component also dramatically understates rates for high earners compared to the TPC and CBO. Here's yet another critique of the ITEP chart by the Tax Foundation. They give a far different overall tax incidence chart at the bottom. None of that directly relates to this discussion though, because Ellen hasn't shown that the discrepancy is due to corporate tax differences, and even if it was, the findings about the US having a more progressive overall tax system (not just federal) are extremely robust. Europe has an outright regressive tax system that relies heavily on consumption taxes. As the Northwestern U. study and media sources explain, even their income tax structure is more regressive than America's, and their consumption taxes are more regressive than our sales taxes (which feature various exemptions). Of course other countries have corporate taxes too, rendering the corporate incidence question pointless to this issue, and they're only a small percentage of taxation anyway. Please read the sources. They're actually quite clear and decisive. The partial flattening caused by state/local taxes is already described in the text. There's no reason to overstate it with a hotly disputed, unverifiable chart from a partisan lobbyist. VictorD7 (talk) 20:12, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
- This element of the discussion relates to the tax incidence chart above which shows a nearly flat tax rate if state and localities property and sales taxes are included for income segments. National policy is progressive, local and state are regressive, by and large. Comparisons across central governments and federal governments are difficult without aggregating national and local taxes together. Also, when something does go to narrative, limit reference notes to two, and expand the notes to include multiple sources, as a matter of WP style. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:13, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
- Actually the latter, long standing version you've altered without prior discussion is undisputed and less poorly written than your new sentence. We might be able to reach an agreement on including corporate incidence material, but shoving it into the first sentence renders it confusing at best and gives undue emphasis to a small portion of taxation that has no bearing on overall US tax progressivity vis a vis other developed nations, or on whether overall US taxation is progressive (even your own outlier far left CTJ source concedes it's "progressive"). You haven't even bothered to construct an argument for your misleading edit's legitimacy. VictorD7 (talk) 01:19, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Would you please answer the question: What proportion of corporate taxes do you believe are borne by consumers? EllenCT (talk) 05:07, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
- If one defines "borne" as tax incidence, then 0%. Of course what matters is what the sources do. Now stop dodging and finally answer my question: Precisely how much, if any, corporate tax does ITEP attribute to the top 1%? The CBO and TPC both provide that answer. Can you? If not, then your whole fixation on corporate incidence is a red herring. VictorD7 (talk) 00:24, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
- That isn't what tax incidence means at all, and you know it. I am asking in the sense that you meant when you said, "I tend to agree with you that corporate income taxes are passed on to consumers." Musgrave et al. (1951) derived 45.5% by observing which parameters of economic models best fit actual outcomes, which is the same method the ITEP uses today, as does the U.S. Treasury's Office of Tax Analysis, which says:
- "A naïve view of the incidence of the corporate tax is that shareholders bear the burden of the tax through lower after-tax rates of return. This naïve view ignores the possibility that the tax will be shifted onto consumers through higher prices, workers through lower wages ... or other types of capital as capital shifts out of the corporate sector in response to the lower after-tax return offered by corporations. To move beyond this naïve view, a model of economic behavior is necessary to guide predictions about how the burden of the corporate income tax will be distributed. Much of the literature on corporate tax incidence has focused on building such models and, depending on the assumptions, these models have generated a wide range of predictions."
- Modern simulations and empirical derivations (see Table 1 on page 17 here) say that consumers bear from 57% to 75% of corporations' tax. The only sources which claim 0% are the few which you've cherry-picked. So what do you really believe, Victor? How much corporate tax is passed on to consumers? I've answered your question, now you answer mine. EllenCT (talk) 03:46, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
- That isn't what tax incidence means at all, and you know it. I am asking in the sense that you meant when you said, "I tend to agree with you that corporate income taxes are passed on to consumers." Musgrave et al. (1951) derived 45.5% by observing which parameters of economic models best fit actual outcomes, which is the same method the ITEP uses today, as does the U.S. Treasury's Office of Tax Analysis, which says:
- You know that people can lie by ripping a line from context or misrepresenting something, like your recent "Nazi" edit summary did. Here's the rest of my quote (again), per your own link: I tend to agree with you that corporate income taxes are passed on to consumers and others, but then I think other taxes are at least partially passed on in various ways too, as I illustrated earlier with my income tax hike on the rich guy comments. That said, if one is going to develop effective tax rate incidence charts, then corporate taxes should be imputed to the owners, since they're the ones most directly paying them. That's because there's no way to precisely account for the largely hidden economic ripple effects of corporate or other tax types, as your own Treasury source indicates.
- You failed to answer my question. For example, this TPC analysis attributes a corporate rate of 6% to the top 1%. What does ITEP attribute? I already answered your question about consumers (0%), so answer mine.
- You're obfuscating. Why are you citing a 1951 paper that has nothing to do with any modern outfits or graphs being discussed, when you haven't even posted proof of how ITEP attributes corporate incidence? Here's a quote I've posted before from ITEP's own site: "All taxes have to be paid by somebody at some point," says Steve Wamhoff, legislative director at Citizens for Tax Justice, the liberal lobbying arm of the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, a research group. "The corporate tax is paid by the owners of corporate stock and business assets."
- I'm not cherry-picking. The TPC and CBO are the two most prominent tax incidence outfits out there, whether you like how they attribute corporate incidence or not. ITEP is a third, less prominent tax incidence outfit that produces outlier results. Since we've established that you don't even know how ITEP attributes corporate incidence, and that it wouldn't account for the discrepancy with reliable sources no matter how they distributed it, this corporate incidence tangent is a red herring. It's amusing seeing you pretend you believe that corporate taxes are regressive, even quoting a Bush administration paper, when we both know you'd oppose slashing or eliminating the corporate tax, just as ITEP would (unless I missed some anti-corporate tax activism on their part). You're willing to say stuff you don't believe just for the short term goal of making taxes appear less progressive than they really are, in hopes of fueling support for tax hikes (income, capital gains, probably even corporate). You're not even cherry-picking, you're desperately grabbing at straws. VictorD7 (talk) 07:22, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
- Update - Searching on ITEP's website for "corporate taxes" yielded this page by CTJ, their liberal lobbying arm and your graph source. Here are the best parts: "Third, the corporate income tax is ultimately borne by shareholders and therefore is a very progressive tax..."; "Corporate leaders sometimes assert that corporate income taxes are really borne by workers or consumers. But virtually all tax experts, including those at the Congressional Budget Office, the Congressional Research Service and the Treasury Department, have concluded that the owners of stock and other capital ultimately pay most corporate taxes." How about that? VictorD7 (talk) 07:50, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
"America has one of the lowest corporate income taxes of any developed country, but you wouldn’t know it given the hysteria of corporate lobbying outfits like the Business Roundtable. They say that because Japan lowered its corporate tax rate by a few percentage points on April 1, the U.S. now has the most burdensome corporate tax in the world.
The problem with this argument is that large, profitable U.S. corporations only pay about half of the 35 percent corporate tax rate on average, and most U.S. multinational corporations actually pay higher taxes in other countries. So the large majority of Americans who tell pollsters that they want U.S. corporations to pay more in taxes are onto something.
Large Profitable Corporations Paying 18.5 Percent on Average, Some Pay Nothing
Citizens for Tax Justice recently examined 280 Fortune 500 companies that were profitable each year from 2008 through 2010, and found that their average effective U.S. tax rate was just 18.5 percent over that three-year period.
In other words, their effective tax rate, which is simply the percentage of U.S. profits paid in federal corporate income taxes, is only about half the statutory federal corporate tax rate of 35 percent, thanks to the many tax loopholes these companies enjoy.
Thirty of the corporations (including GE, Boeing, Wells Fargo and others) paid nothing in federal corporate income taxes over the 2008-2010 period.
You might think that these companies simply had some unusual circumstances during the years we examined, but we find similar tax dodging when we look at previous years and the new data for 2011.
For example, GE’s effective tax rate for the 2002-2011 period (the percentage of U.S. profits it paid in federal corporate income taxes over that decade) was just 1.8 percent. Boeing’s effective federal tax rate over those ten years was negative 6.5 percent, (meaning the IRS is actually boosting Boeing’s profits rather than collecting a share of them)." -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 20:13, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what the point of that stuff is, but it underscores what I've already proved with quotes above about CTJ supporting corporate taxation, and viewing it as progressive. For the record, the US not only has the highest nominal corporate tax rate, but one of the highest effective ones. (,) VictorD7 (talk) 22:15, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
- No more blogs, please! If Huffington Post is an unreliable source, there's no real reason the Tax Foundation's blog is more reliable. Rwenonah (talk) 22:23, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
- The Tax Foundation is a think tank, and I only posted this to respond to quotes from the lobbying outfit (CTJ) cited above, but don't worry, it's an irrelevant tangent. I'm glad to see you're not high on the Huffington Post as a source though, since it's currently used as a source multiple times in the Income section. VictorD7 (talk) 22:32, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
- No more blogs, please! If Huffington Post is an unreliable source, there's no real reason the Tax Foundation's blog is more reliable. Rwenonah (talk) 22:23, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
This is so pathetic! Here we go again with the walls of text and filibustering. As long as there is this kind of arguing going on about these charts, they will not be added, as they are not needed in this summary article. There are other issues in this article and we need to move on. People visit this article to get a general overview of the country. As of right now the tax chart (which is currently tied in terms of support/opposition) and the 1% chart (majority opposition) will not be added to this article when it comes off protection, and I will do anything I can to stop anyone who tries. It would be a huge shame if this article is locked yet again and indefinitely, as there are many innocent editors who actually want to make constructive, non-politically motivated contributions to it. If readers wish for detailed coverage of things like taxation they will go to the appropriate main articles like Taxation in the United States, where those graphs and plenty of others already exist. Not here. Bottom line, it's high time for us to move on to other things. Cadiomals (talk) 04:05, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
- Huffington Post is really used as a source? Seriously? Rwenonah (talk) 20:42, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Discussion
We should wait at least a couple of days at least until several opinions pile-up before deciding whether or not to add the specific pieces of information, and there ought to be an over two-thirds majority. Any consensus gathered should be and will be respected. Cadiomals (talk) 13:24, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
- Why not a week? EllenCT (talk) 23:20, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
- Well, I said at least a couple of days so a week is fine.
- Thank you. EllenCT (talk) 00:07, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
- Consensus is mixed at best, so let's accept Legobot's month. 180.158.95.3 (talk) 06:43, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you. EllenCT (talk) 00:07, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
- Well, I said at least a couple of days so a week is fine.
I have submitted a request for full page protection of the article for a few days until this issue is resolved in a civil manner to prevent further edit warring. Cadiomals (talk) 00:55, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
- I don't consider accusations of edit warring civil. I am happy to wait a week, as long as other editors understand that you tried to revert more than you included in your RFC. EllenCT (talk) 01:08, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
- "Accusations" of edit-warring when there have been several reverts over the past 24 hours, including ones made by you? The concept of an RFC for consensus also seems to have completely gone past your head as you still chose to restore your changes anyway. That's not how it works. Keep in mind that you are the one who sparked all this by making many sudden changes after two weeks of article stability, and the article's edit history testifies to this, so there can be no disputing that fact. I will admit I inadvertently reverted more than I intended and VictorD7 was of no help, but SomeDifferentStuff's restoration should more than suffice for now. No more changes ought to be made to the article until we have several other users contributing their opinion on the above issues, it's as simple as that. Have some patience, and if others agree with you, it will manifest itself here. Cadiomals (talk) 01:13, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
- No significant, undiscussed changes should have been allowed. The remaining ones have lowered article quality and consensus should have been sought for them one at a time. Flooding the page with multiple simultaneous edits renders meaningful Talk Page discussion difficult at best and tends to dissuade most observers from participating. VictorD7 (talk) 01:52, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
- "Accusations" of edit-warring when there have been several reverts over the past 24 hours, including ones made by you? The concept of an RFC for consensus also seems to have completely gone past your head as you still chose to restore your changes anyway. That's not how it works. Keep in mind that you are the one who sparked all this by making many sudden changes after two weeks of article stability, and the article's edit history testifies to this, so there can be no disputing that fact. I will admit I inadvertently reverted more than I intended and VictorD7 was of no help, but SomeDifferentStuff's restoration should more than suffice for now. No more changes ought to be made to the article until we have several other users contributing their opinion on the above issues, it's as simple as that. Have some patience, and if others agree with you, it will manifest itself here. Cadiomals (talk) 01:13, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
- Query.
on income-inequality. The housing image should stay and a graph should be displayed, --- as is allotted to other sections. Can the "Dual image" convention be used to pair both graphs side by side -- right justified iaw WP:ACCESS for visually impaired? The general reader will know to click on the image to enlarge it were they concerned to read each graph in greater detail than the format allows, supporting narrative provides the context. The two graphs together show two distinct aspects of the same reality, and the two graphs together I would support. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:39, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
- At this point it would be a lot of images to cram into that significantly shortened section. If the two graphs were to be placed side by side, both would have to be small enough not to squeeze the text next to it, basically forcing the reader to click the image to clearly see it. Another problem is that the 1% graph is significantly taller than the median income graph. I believe we should keep the housing image and choose one of the two graphs; any more seems like cramming too much into one section. And don't you think illustrating the same phenomena with two images is redundant? Cadiomals (talk) 10:41, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
- They do not illustrate the same phenomenon, although they are related. Which is more than one can say for the photograph of a ranch house subdivision and anything unique to the U.S. EllenCT (talk) 11:09, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
- I took the liberty of making a trial run of the two images above. I am surprised at how poor the resolution is, but I thought it was worth a try. Other editor reaction? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:34, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
- I like it, but I would prefer the data plotted on the same x-axis with different y-axes. What program can produce .svg charts directly? EllenCT (talk) 01:36, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
- I took the liberty of making a trial run of the two images above. I am surprised at how poor the resolution is, but I thought it was worth a try. Other editor reaction? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:34, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
- They do not illustrate the same phenomenon, although they are related. Which is more than one can say for the photograph of a ranch house subdivision and anything unique to the U.S. EllenCT (talk) 11:09, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
- At this point it would be a lot of images to cram into that significantly shortened section. If the two graphs were to be placed side by side, both would have to be small enough not to squeeze the text next to it, basically forcing the reader to click the image to clearly see it. Another problem is that the 1% graph is significantly taller than the median income graph. I believe we should keep the housing image and choose one of the two graphs; any more seems like cramming too much into one section. And don't you think illustrating the same phenomena with two images is redundant? Cadiomals (talk) 10:41, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
- I wish there was some way to combine this one. EllenCT (talk) 21:15, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
- RfC comment Don't know about how good the graphs are, but I can say the tract house picture is so bland and uninformative that one might as well link to a random picture. victor falk 10:49, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
- Is that not the point, the blandness of a majority of the population which is in suburbia tract housing, large square footage for the common man, better constructed than Latin American shanty towns, but nevertheless built with balloon framing, plywood and drywall instead of better European materials of stone, lathe and plaster, --- roofs that last only 20 years, not the 200 years of thatch or slate? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:36, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
- You might think it's bland but it isn't uninformative because it is a fairly good representation of how the majority of suburban middle-class Americans live and a portrayal of the average standard of living in the country. The sprawling, uniform suburban style shown here is also fairly unique to Northern America, as Europe is more densely packed. More important than this though is that it is a long standing image that not everyone agrees on removing, and that Ellen had planned on replacing with yet another redundant graph which gives undue weight to representing inequality. The dual graph above might be more tolerable. Cadiomals (talk) 12:07, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
- Why do you say that inequality is over-weighted in the article, given ? EllenCT (talk) 05:13, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
- As it currently is, I think inequality has just enough weight in the article and in this section in particular. You were planning on replacing a long-standing photo with yet another graph, which some obviously did not agree with. Like I said, the dual image above might be a compromise, though many still disagree with how the info in the 1% graph is presented. Also, the article you linked to, while interesting and informative, ultimately has no relevance when determining what is sufficient for a summary article which is meant to have a limit on details. I don't know how many more times you have to be reminded this article is not and will never be your soapbox. Cadiomals (talk) 07:24, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
- There is a way that all three graphs can be combined, because the categories are shared along with the y-axes. There is no support for trying to trick people in to believing that taxes are more progressive than they are or that the top 1% of income earners have gained less than they have. Elucidating those points in the face of an active effort to obscure them is hardly soapboxing. And it's right to show how the difference is offset by incomes failing to keep pace with productivity. Why aren't you going after the source of inaccuracy instead of the people who want to improve the article? EllenCT (talk) 15:08, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
- As it currently is, I think inequality has just enough weight in the article and in this section in particular. You were planning on replacing a long-standing photo with yet another graph, which some obviously did not agree with. Like I said, the dual image above might be a compromise, though many still disagree with how the info in the 1% graph is presented. Also, the article you linked to, while interesting and informative, ultimately has no relevance when determining what is sufficient for a summary article which is meant to have a limit on details. I don't know how many more times you have to be reminded this article is not and will never be your soapbox. Cadiomals (talk) 07:24, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
- Why do you say that inequality is over-weighted in the article, given ? EllenCT (talk) 05:13, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
- You might think it's bland but it isn't uninformative because it is a fairly good representation of how the majority of suburban middle-class Americans live and a portrayal of the average standard of living in the country. The sprawling, uniform suburban style shown here is also fairly unique to Northern America, as Europe is more densely packed. More important than this though is that it is a long standing image that not everyone agrees on removing, and that Ellen had planned on replacing with yet another redundant graph which gives undue weight to representing inequality. The dual graph above might be more tolerable. Cadiomals (talk) 12:07, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) This picture does not represent the characteristics of sprawling American suburbia particularly well. At first glance, it could be from anywhere in the western world. Also, the habitat of a particular segment of the population is not illustrative of "Income, poverty, and wealth" in the US in general. victor falk 05:33, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
- Housing is an indicator of income, poverty and wealth. The image is typical of where a majority of the population resides in every region of the country in the U.S. And while there may be such places somewhere else in the western world such as France or Belgium, I did not see any such places in my brief visits there observing by plane, train, bus or taxi. Is it true that a majority of French now live in tract housing in suburban Paris, Cherbourg and Marseille, or is tract housing in fact distinctively American for a majority in every region only in the U.S. in their millions? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:13, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
- Agreed on all points; this image is an accurate indicator of the general standard of living of the majority of the population and fairly unique to North America, though the bottom line remains that it is long standing by years and there are people against its removal. No one ever argued over it until Ellen proposed its replacement with an even more contentious image. If people really thought it was a useless image I imagine it would have been replaced long ago. Cadiomals (talk) 11:53, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
- "It's been there for years" sounds like a rather weak argument. If people can't agree upon an image of certain minimum quality, then there should be no image. And saying "it would have been replaced long ago", after first saying "it can't be replaced for it's been there for so long" strikes as a... rather circular argument. victor falk 12:09, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
- Insert @ victor falk. Okay, the image of tract housing in suburbia is uniquely typical of where a majority of the population live for the U.S. as a whole and for a majority within every region of the U.S., -- it is typical in a way distributed in the millions, which is found in few other countries, though perhaps some provinces of Canada? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:01, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
- The arguments for why the image is effective and ought to stay (beyond just being long standing) are already here, so don't just ignore them. And an image that is long-standing in a highly visible article that is always evolving could be interpreted as implicit approval of its value to the article. Ellen has been the only one raising hell about issues that have already been settled. We should actually be sticking to the subject of whether the image she wants to replace it with is agreed on, and so far it doesn't have widespread approval. Cadiomals (talk) 12:53, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
- "It's been there for years" sounds like a rather weak argument. If people can't agree upon an image of certain minimum quality, then there should be no image. And saying "it would have been replaced long ago", after first saying "it can't be replaced for it's been there for so long" strikes as a... rather circular argument. victor falk 12:09, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
- Agreed on all points; this image is an accurate indicator of the general standard of living of the majority of the population and fairly unique to North America, though the bottom line remains that it is long standing by years and there are people against its removal. No one ever argued over it until Ellen proposed its replacement with an even more contentious image. If people really thought it was a useless image I imagine it would have been replaced long ago. Cadiomals (talk) 11:53, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
- Housing is an indicator of income, poverty and wealth. The image is typical of where a majority of the population resides in every region of the country in the U.S. And while there may be such places somewhere else in the western world such as France or Belgium, I did not see any such places in my brief visits there observing by plane, train, bus or taxi. Is it true that a majority of French now live in tract housing in suburban Paris, Cherbourg and Marseille, or is tract housing in fact distinctively American for a majority in every region only in the U.S. in their millions? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:13, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) This picture does not represent the characteristics of sprawling American suburbia particularly well. At first glance, it could be from anywhere in the western world. Also, the habitat of a particular segment of the population is not illustrative of "Income, poverty, and wealth" in the US in general. victor falk 05:33, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
I still object to the graph on the right, since its use of data for only parts of the American population is both confusing and seems to be clearly trying to present a POV.Rwenonah (talk) 17:16, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
I like the housing picture but object to both the above charts as inappropriate POV and shoddy construction in the income breakdown case. The current graph erroneously implies that income should necessarily correlate precisely with productivity (apples and oranges), cherry-picks a potentially aberrational starting place where this is depicted as having been the case for a few years, and makes no mention of the impact of technological progress or globalization, the obvious factors likely driving the recent divergence if it in fact exists (I haven't seen anyone verify EPI's claims). It's based on a single section sentence that was only added ex post facto as a flimsy excuse for adding the graph by an editor who had spent weeks trying to add the graph first back when the section didn't even mention the word "productivity". As bad as that is, the new proposed income breakdown chart is even worse for reasons I and others have already laid out. Adding both of them would be abysmal. Both graphs are essentially niche, political talking points. Why not something more neutral, like showing a breakdown of income by age over the course of an average individual American's life? Not that the SUBsection needs more than a single image anyway. Of course amid all the "inequality" increase talk, there's currently no mention of the nation's changing labor force demographics, due to things like the influx of millions of low skilled illegal immigrants in recent decades or women entering the work force in huge numbers from the 1980s onward. The historical comparison omits the fact that the top 1%'s share was at its record low point in the 1970s it chose to start its comparison in, that said share is largely driven by the stock market, and that the top 1%'s share more often than not increases during economic growth periods while sharply declining during economic downturns, raising questions about its significance. VictorD7 (talk) 00:38, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
I support both graphs. The 1% material carries significant weight as the 1% has been widely reported on and the "Productivity and Real Median Family Income Growth" is significant in terms of economics as it shows a pronounced divergence beginning around 1979. In other words, as an example according to the graph, if a family built 2 bicycles a week and was paid $50 in 1979, they built 6 bicycles a week in 2011 and made only a little more income. Have a look at the graph. This is highly relevant in terms of economics and has been studied. The tract housing photo isn't real interesting but many Americans live in this type of housing so I don't have a significant objection to it. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 19:13, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
- You're assuming the same "family" was making bikes in 1979 and 2011, and at roughly the same income level, ignoring that the individuals making up each quintile have changed over the years, as has the manufacturing process. If the process is more mechanized now, then one would expect greater productivity with labor being cheaper per unit, greatly benefiting consumers. There's no reason to assume income and productivity would or should necessarily mirror each other indefinitely. VictorD7 (talk) 22:26, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
- This entire discussion misses the forest for the trees here. This article is meant to be an overview article on the country in question, and ALL of these items represents a level of detail which is not normally expected in an overview article such as this. No one is arguing per se that Misplaced Pages shouldn't cover these topics at all, just that this article may not be the appropriate place for them. By putting such detail into this article, it throws off the balance by presenting far too much detail in an article of this type. It's WP:UNDUE purely because this specific article can't be long enough to present a complete picture of these highly detailed subtopics, so by presenting single surveys, or studies or whatever in this article, it puts the perspective of THOSE specific surveys into too much prominence. Those surveys can be covered in more appropriate detail in other articles at Misplaced Pages. They just don't belong here. --Jayron32 04:27, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
| Non-constructive back-and-forth |
|---|
|
Teen declines in reading, math and science
PISA scores released today are very disappointing. U.S. 15 year-olds dropped from 25th to 31st internationally in math, 20th to 24th in science, and 11th to 21st in reading since 2009. How should the article reflect this? EllenCT (talk) 10:53, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
- Why should it? We have subsidiary articles for minutiae like this. I'm not aware (I could be wrong) of any other country article that touts how smart or dumb its students are. We don't need to include every possible thing about the U.S. in this. --Golbez (talk) 13:35, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
- I don't think it's minutiae, I think it's central to the future economic and social viability of the nation. EllenCT (talk) 14:10, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
- At the absolute most, I suppose the article could note the rankings as they are, and not make any note of the shift. That's how you could do it - simply say "According to one study, students in the U.S. rank 31st in math etc etc". No further commentary is needed unless it can be conclusively tied to a particular policy. --Golbez (talk) 16:27, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
- Hard to gauge comparisons. Many nations split student populations to study Algebra at age 14, tracking college bound for Algebra classes, and dropping those destined for trade school, whereas many U.S. states require Algebra for an unmodified high school diploma for all students, regardless of academic potential. Poor states are included in U.S. statistics, poor Chinese provinces in the west and north are not formally included in official "national" tallies. U.S. engineers used to score lower than British right out of college, then higher five years later because of the continuing education from an "education for life" work ethic to stay current in their field. I'd like to see something of academic scholarship in a controlled study, rather than merely reposting AP headlines. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:59, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
- After the sentence in the Education section "The US spends more on education per student than any nation in the world" we could add "Despite this, American students tend to lag behind other OECD countries on international measures of mathematics, science and reading proficiency" and attach the sources. That is the absolute most I would be willing to support in mentioning this. International comparisons of educational achievements are already debatable topics, as TheVirginiaHistorian articulated. Cadiomals (talk) 01:43, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
- Hard to gauge comparisons. Many nations split student populations to study Algebra at age 14, tracking college bound for Algebra classes, and dropping those destined for trade school, whereas many U.S. states require Algebra for an unmodified high school diploma for all students, regardless of academic potential. Poor states are included in U.S. statistics, poor Chinese provinces in the west and north are not formally included in official "national" tallies. U.S. engineers used to score lower than British right out of college, then higher five years later because of the continuing education from an "education for life" work ethic to stay current in their field. I'd like to see something of academic scholarship in a controlled study, rather than merely reposting AP headlines. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:59, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
- At the absolute most, I suppose the article could note the rankings as they are, and not make any note of the shift. That's how you could do it - simply say "According to one study, students in the U.S. rank 31st in math etc etc". No further commentary is needed unless it can be conclusively tied to a particular policy. --Golbez (talk) 16:27, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
- I don't think it's minutiae, I think it's central to the future economic and social viability of the nation. EllenCT (talk) 14:10, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
- Here is a link to the report. I think we should mention how U.S. students rank internationally. However, I think that any commentary should be left to other articles. This is not a new story btw. Educational achievement in other countries has been improving since WW2 to the extent that they are catching up with or exceeding the U.S. TFD (talk) 20:23, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I agree with the replies above and ask that the recommended edit be made. EllenCT (talk) 10:13, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
- The template asks for a complete and specific description. Please state the specific phrase you want added to the article. --Golbez (talk) 13:14, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Not done for now: Agreed - we need the exact text you want included, complete with references, and the exact text you want it replaced with. Please reactivate the {{edit protected}} template when you have an agreement on the exact wording to be used. Best — Mr. Stradivarius 01:13, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
- Golbez, why do you think the change in ranking is less noteworthy than the absolute rank? The absolute rank will change over time, but the drop from 11th to 21st in reading among OECD countries from 2009 to 2013 will remain true without needing to be updated to maintain accuracy. EllenCT (talk) 05:05, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
- Because it says nothing as to whether or not it was because the U.S. got worse, or the rest of the world simply got better. --Golbez (talk) 05:11, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
- Fair enough. Which facts from do you think are most appropriate to include? EllenCT (talk) 05:15, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
- And to add to my previous comment, it also doesn't include the degree. Let's say the U.S. dropped ten spots, but the distance between the top and bottom of those ten spots was smaller than the distance to the next spot down. In other words, a very tiny improvement could cause a massive change in ranking. I'm not saying that's the case here; I'm saying, it's a potential interpretation without all the data, and we aren't going to give all the data here. --Golbez (talk) 05:20, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
- "Which facts ... do you think are most appropriate to include?" – Read my response above. That is the absolute most I think is appropriate to add to the Education section. Also read Virginia's response. We cannot go too deeply into a single set of data by a single organization, especially since there are factors involved that make it debatable. Cadiomals (talk) 07:07, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
- I think we should state the basic facts. "According to ............. in 2012, U.S. 15 year-olds ranked 31st in math, 24th in science, etc. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 02:39, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
- Why mention just one stat from one organization when there are other organizations with similar stats? If we made a more general statement it could better encompass a broader range of sources. Besides, the stats the OECD came up with are already debatable given that methods, selection, and education systems vary amongst different countries. For example, the educational achievement in Shanghai is not representative of China as a whole, especially its less developed provinces which are not tested. Meanwhile, the US tests all students and gives free secondary education to all, while many countries require you be accepted to such schools. A more general statement could potentially allow us to provide more sources. Cadiomals (talk) 12:44, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
- I think we should state the basic facts. "According to ............. in 2012, U.S. 15 year-olds ranked 31st in math, 24th in science, etc. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 02:39, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
- Fair enough. Which facts from do you think are most appropriate to include? EllenCT (talk) 05:15, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
- Because it says nothing as to whether or not it was because the U.S. got worse, or the rest of the world simply got better. --Golbez (talk) 05:11, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
It's time to call these issues settled and move on
On the three issues that have been discussed over this past week, these are the conclusions that have been drawn based on looking at the votes and arguments in the surveys:
- The line graph displaying income growth for the 1% has majority disapproval, so it will not be added. Anyone could add it to Income inequality in the United States if they want as it is more directly relevant there. Otherwise, it is not of utmost importance to this article, as salient summary information regarding growing inequality is already covered in several sentences in the Income, poverty and wealth section, along with a graph showing the growing divide between productivity and income. If someone wants to instead replace the productivity/income graph with the 1% graph, that's another discussion; otherwise the section has reached its peak in terms of appropriate detail and no more images should be crammed in there.
- The statement "Four out of five U.S. adults struggle with joblessness, near-poverty or reliance on welfare for at least parts of their lives" has majority disapproval and will not be re-added. Also, no one supporting it has actually provided a rationale for why the statement is of critical importance, neither has anyone refuted opposing claims that it is frivolous, vague, and poorly worded, especially in a section that already dedicates most of its information to issues of unemployment, poverty, and inequality. As User:TheVirginiaHistorian said, until more scholarly sources with specific, clarifying data can be found, this statement is of little educational value to the reader other than trying to get a biased point across.
- The taxation graph is more of a draw, but if we can't all agree on an accurate and non-controversial graph, why add one at all? How big of an impact will this really have if it is left out? May I remind you all that for three weeks before Ellen returned, no one complained about the graph's removal. The fact of the matter is almost no one visits this specific article to get detailed information on how taxation works in the country. If they were looking for just that info they would either do a Google search or visit Taxation in the United States. Speaking of which, anyone who wants to is free to add the graph to that article. The graph really shouldn't be added here as long as we can't all agree on it.
In conclusion, it's high time for us to call these issues settled and move on to other, preferably non-political, issues so the article can gradually improve instead of being in a constant deadlock. Maybe then this article will have a chance to become Good again. We should not allow certain people to keep us in the same rut, as it is counter-productive; neither should any editors selfishly turn to childish methods of edit-warring and creating deadlock to try and get their way. Unfortunately I don't expect certain people (...) to just be mature, concede, and move on; and it would be a huge shame if this article is constantly being locked, as there are many innocent editors who actually want to make constructive, non-politically motivated contributions to it. Anyone who tries to add this information without/despite consensus and cause another edit war is only being selfish and immature. Cadiomals (talk) 05:26, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
- I would like the opportunity to produce a combined graph in line with what TheVirginiaHistorian has proposed before there is a "final" decision on whether the information should be included in general. Furthermore, since this is a wiki, I will take as much time as I like to try to make one, whether that be three days, three weeks, three months, or three years. Silence is not consent. EllenCT (talk) 07:46, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
- The taxation-graph is important data, methinks. I have often wanted to know whether overall the USA has a regressive tax per Ellen, a progressive tax per Victor, or effectively a flat tax per VirginiaHistorian. But due to all the variables involved the question is devilishly complex, and of course political dynamite, so I doubt we can get something with a single chart-line that everyone agrees to. Point in fact, the Reliable Sources disagree! Wikipedians cannot decide that conflict amongst the RS's, but we can describe it. Perhaps a unified graph, which superimposes the admittedly-POV datasets published by the various places, and pushed as WP:The_Truth by various groups, would be most useful? The readership would then know 1) that the total tax burden apportioned to various social-classes-by-income is important, and 2) that the mere calculation itself is controversial/politicized, plus finally 3) have a pretty good idea of which political camps push which kind of message. Does that sound reasonable?
- If so... we can have at least one line on the combo-chart which reflects the "data story" preferred by democrat-leaning-RS's, plus another line on the combo-chart which reflects the "data story" preferred by republican-leaning-RS's... though ideally I would like to see at least four lines, the green-party-leaning-dem, economic-centrist-dem, economic-centrist-repub, and libertarian-party-leaning-repub. Such a chart would give readers a clear idea of which groups are pushing what story, and in the prose-caption (or footnote or something) we can briefly explain why, then refer the readership to Tax policy in the United States and Taxation in the United States and 16th Amendment#Repeal Efforts and VAT#United States and similar things. Hope this helps; please drop a note on my talkpage, if somebody would like to work on such a combo-chart, I'll be glad to help. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 16:41, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
- p.s. Forgot to explicitly mention... my suggested combo-chart would *not* be for the wealth-subsection, but rather, for this other section which currently has no chart: United_States#Government_finance. Thanks. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 16:51, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
- No, I like where you're coming from, but in practice even Ellen's outlier source calls overall taxation "progressive", and most of my sources are liberal leaning too or government agencies, so it doesn't fall neatly into ideological boxes. This particular dispute was over the degree of progressivity, and the fitness of a chart that was contradicted by multiple other sources (the others closely tracking each other). I suppose we could add a bunch of different charts as you suggest, fully explaining the disputed data, but that seems more appropriate to a different, more topically focused article than one already widely seen as too bloated. VictorD7 (talk) 19:10, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
- Obviously I mostly agree. There is still the issue of political bias, but I raised that so editors would have it mind over the long term going forward, maybe not worsen the problem through blind, piecemeal editing, and maybe help pull it back some toward neutrality over time. There's also the problem of low quality sources (e.g. Huffington Post), which isn't necessarily strictly political. And there's the problem of skewed emphasis on certain details, like private savings when far more notable items like the Social Security crisis aren't mentioned, but those don't have to be political either, regardless of the initial poster's agenda. VictorD7 (talk) 19:10, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Quality of sources on corporate tax incidence
I object that my statements were hidden/collapsed above: The peer reviewed literature review summarized in Table 1 on page 17 here clearly indicates that corporations pass from 57% to 75% of their taxes on to their consumer customers. VictorD7, who is on record as saying and never denying that corporations pass some of their taxes on to customers, refuses to say in what proportion, and insists on including five non-peer reviewed sources which say 0%, because that makes taxes appear more progressive than they are, which supports the false assertion that U.S. taxes are progressive for the top 1%, an admitted editing goal stemming from VictorD7's self-described political position.
That clear contradiction is the source of the disagreement on these topics, and has been for the better part of a year.
Could we please have other editors survey the peer reviewed literature to provide a greater range of estimates for the figure? Because some editors, who claim to share my perspective, have been insinuating that I am the one being dishonest here, and I take offense to that. I expect it from editors who admit they proceed while harboring contradictions, but other supposedly neutral observers should have no illusions about exactly what is happening. EllenCT (talk) 06:36, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
- Falsehoods on multiple levels, as anyone can see by reading the collapsed discussion or just this post. Corporate incidence was a red herring all along. Ellen's failed to demonstrate that it has anything to do with the various topics being discussed. Since the source of the graph she's pushing even contradicts her on this, it's not clear what she's even proposing (opposing ITEP now?). Looks like it's just Talk Page disruption. VictorD7 (talk) 19:48, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
- Again, VictorD7 doesn't deny any of my specific assertions, while claiming that they are false in general. I am proposing that a third party survey the peer reviewed literature to answer whether VictorD7 or I have been producing the higher quality sources on the proportion of corporate tax incidence borne by consumers. I am also considering proposing a general topic ban as a trial for this specific instance, e.g., anyone who admits to harboring a contradiction is prohibited from editing on topics related to that contradiction. EllenCT (talk) 07:03, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
- Everything you said was false, as people can read through my link. That's more efficient than repeating myself every time you lie. You really should be banned for trolling, bad faith editing, and disruption. You didn't even bother to say what precisely you're proposing, since your own old graph source joins the CBO and TPC in attributing corporate incidence to shareholders. Talk about a contradiction. You have no point. VictorD7 (talk) 19:44, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
- "Everything"? Let's take this one by one.
- Have you claimed that corporations pass some taxes on to consumers, yes or no?
- Have you refused to state what proportion of their taxes corporations pass on to consumers?
- Have you been inserting multiple non-peer reviewed sources which claim that corporations pass 0% of their taxes on to their customers?
- Have you been inserting graphs which make it look like taxes are progressive for the top 1% because they assume that corporations pass 0% of their taxes on to their customers?
- Are you politically opposed to more steeply progressive taxation?
- Have you found any peer reviewed sources which agree with the sources on corporate tax incidence you have been inserting?
- What does Misplaced Pages policy say about editors who knowingly insert statements which they know are not supported by the most reliable sources to advance a political point of view?
- Which specific statements do you believe I have not been entirely honest about?
- Do you believe that a contradiction indicates that one of the contradicted statements is false?
- How do you intend to correct the mistakes inherent in using less reliable sources which disagree with more reliable sources?
- EllenCT (talk) 07:30, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
- First answer the question about what your article related goal here is, and whether you now oppose the ITEP chart you formerly supported. VictorD7 (talk) 16:05, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
- I asked for third parties' opinions on which of us has been including the more reliable sources on the crux of our disagreement. I still support including the ITEP chart and have no idea why anyone would think otherwise. Your turn. EllenCT (talk) 13:26, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
- Since ITEP agrees with sources like the CBO and TPC about attributing corporate taxes to shareholders, it's unclear why you're attacking my sources on this point, why you consider this corporate incidence tangent "the crux of our disagreement", or how this is relevant to the article. VictorD7 (talk) 19:28, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
- You probably see my attempt to help you reconcile a logical contradiction as an attack on "your" sources. I am trying to help, not attack. The ITEP, CBO, TPC, TF, HF, OMB, Treasury, CEA, World Bank, IMF, and university economics departments all publish series, some papers of which are peer reviewed and some of which are not. Would you please answer the questions? EllenCT (talk) 02:31, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
- You still haven't answered mine. Why do you feel corporate incidence is "the crux of our disagreement"? And why do you support the ITEP chart when it attributes corporate taxation to shareholders too? VictorD7 (talk) 03:32, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
- It's my best guess of the crux. The ITEP attributes a proportion within the peer-reviewed range given above. 11. What do you think is the crux of our disagreement? Please answer the other ten first. EllenCT (talk) 04:31, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
- You still haven't answered mine. Why do you feel corporate incidence is "the crux of our disagreement"? And why do you support the ITEP chart when it attributes corporate taxation to shareholders too? VictorD7 (talk) 03:32, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
- You probably see my attempt to help you reconcile a logical contradiction as an attack on "your" sources. I am trying to help, not attack. The ITEP, CBO, TPC, TF, HF, OMB, Treasury, CEA, World Bank, IMF, and university economics departments all publish series, some papers of which are peer reviewed and some of which are not. Would you please answer the questions? EllenCT (talk) 02:31, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
- Since ITEP agrees with sources like the CBO and TPC about attributing corporate taxes to shareholders, it's unclear why you're attacking my sources on this point, why you consider this corporate incidence tangent "the crux of our disagreement", or how this is relevant to the article. VictorD7 (talk) 19:28, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
- I asked for third parties' opinions on which of us has been including the more reliable sources on the crux of our disagreement. I still support including the ITEP chart and have no idea why anyone would think otherwise. Your turn. EllenCT (talk) 13:26, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
- First answer the question about what your article related goal here is, and whether you now oppose the ITEP chart you formerly supported. VictorD7 (talk) 16:05, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
- "Everything"? Let's take this one by one.
- Everything you said was false, as people can read through my link. That's more efficient than repeating myself every time you lie. You really should be banned for trolling, bad faith editing, and disruption. You didn't even bother to say what precisely you're proposing, since your own old graph source joins the CBO and TPC in attributing corporate incidence to shareholders. Talk about a contradiction. You have no point. VictorD7 (talk) 19:44, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
- Again, VictorD7 doesn't deny any of my specific assertions, while claiming that they are false in general. I am proposing that a third party survey the peer reviewed literature to answer whether VictorD7 or I have been producing the higher quality sources on the proportion of corporate tax incidence borne by consumers. I am also considering proposing a general topic ban as a trial for this specific instance, e.g., anyone who admits to harboring a contradiction is prohibited from editing on topics related to that contradiction. EllenCT (talk) 07:03, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
Guess? Just to clarify, is it your position that the discrepancy between ITEP and the other sources is due to differences in attributing corporate incidence, and that the former allegedly doesn't attribute to owners (shareholders/investors/capital), attributing to consumers and/or labor instead, or at least attributes such a smaller proportion to owners than the other sources that it causes the huge gap, resulting in a less progressive looking structure with relatively higher low income rates and lower high income rates than other sources? VictorD7 (talk) 04:53, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, a smaller portion, but I'm not sure about what you mean by income rates. Attributing 0% of corporate tax incidence to consumers makes it look like the top 1% pay more taxes than the top 20%. Attributing a peer reviewed amount makes it look like the top 1% pay less taxes as a percentage of their income. EllenCT (talk) 05:25, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
- Do you have proof of that? Leaving aside the fact that the gap between TPC's and ITEP's top 1% rate is larger than TPC's entire corporate component of that rate, ITEP itself contradicts you on attribution.
- ITEP (pages 44-45): "Of course, while a corporation may be treated as a single legal person, it exists in reality as a collection of individuals—the shareholders that own it; the executives and staff that work for it; and the consumers that buy its products. As a result, any tax levied on a corporation ultimately falls on one of these groups. Economic research generally indicates that for the most part, it tends to be borne by corporate shareholders. The owners of corporate stocks and business assets — which are concentrated among the rich — ultimately pay corporate income taxes...the corporate income tax is one of the most progressive taxes a state can levy. Since stock ownership is concentrated among the very wealthiest taxpayers, the corporate income tax falls primarily on the most affluent residents of a state. As the chart on this page shows, the wealthiest one percent of Americans held just over half of all corporate stock in 2007, while the poorest ninety percent of Americans owned just 10 percent of the total".
- While I haven't seen ITEP's actual federal component breakdown (you certainly haven't provided it), their state by state breakdown reiterates that, and their total state average attributes no corporate taxes to the lowest 95% of income earners, a rate of 0.3% to the top 1%, and 0.1% to the next lowest 4% (page 118).
- This is from a WSJ story hosted on ITEP's site: "Yet wealthy people bear a bigger share of corporate income taxes, which are ultimately borne by individuals. "All taxes have to be paid by somebody at some point," says Steve Wamhoff, legislative director at Citizens for Tax Justice, the liberal lobbying arm of the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, a research group. "The corporate tax is paid by the owners of corporate stock and business assets.""
- When one searches on the ITEP site for "corporate taxes", near the top this piece pops up by CTJ (your chart source), ITEP's "sister" group and "lobbying arm": "... the corporate income tax is ultimately borne by shareholders and therefore is a very progressive tax, which means any attempt to replace it with another tax would likely result in a less progressive tax system....The Corporate Income Tax Is Borne by Shareholders and Thus Very Progressive....Taken as a whole, America’s tax system is just barely progressive. It would be considerably less progressive if the corporate income tax was repealed. Most, if not all, of the corporate income tax is borne by shareholders in the form of reduced stock dividends, and high-income Americans receive the lion’s share of these dividends. Corporate leaders sometimes assert that corporate income taxes are really borne by workers or consumers. But virtually all tax experts, including those at the Congressional Budget Office, the Congressional Research Service and the Treasury Department, have concluded that the owners of stock and other capital ultimately pay most corporate taxes. Further, corporate leaders would not lobby Congress to lower these taxes if they did not believe their shareholders (the owners of corporations) ultimately paid them. (In contrast, corporations do not lobby for lower payroll taxes, which are borne by workers)."
- CTJ reiterates that view in this testimony before the Congressional Progressive Caucus (page 7): "The owners of corporate stocks and business assets — which are concentrated among the rich — ultimately pay corporate income taxes. Corporate leaders and their lobbyists argue that corporate taxes are ultimately paid by workers who suffer when corporations leave the U.S. to find lower taxes. This cannot be true. Corporations would not spend so much time lobbying you to lower their taxes if they did not think their shareholders were the ones ultimately paying them. Several non-partisan analysts have also concluded that the corporate income tax is mostly borne by the owners of corporate stocks and business assets."
- Clearly a rational person must accept that your hypothesis is refuted. There is no contrary evidence, much less proof of your claims. There's overwhelming proof of the opposite. Do you accept this? If so, we can move forward and I'll address your "peer review" comments. VictorD7 (talk) 06:14, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
- I absolutely do not accept your continued cherry picking of non-peer reviewed sources. The peer reviewed evidence is clear and contrary to your verbose attempt at obfuscation. Please answer the eleven questions above. EllenCT (talk) 09:18, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
- Since you refuse to address or even acknowledge the overwhelming proof I just posted that ITEP (your cherry-picked source, not mine), attributes corp. taxation to owners (and even explicitly argues against attributing it to consumers or labor!), the total opposite of your entire premise for this section, then it should be clear to anyone reading this that you aren't interested in having an honest, rational conversation, and that your other wild, ignorant claims merit no response. VictorD7 (talk) 18:10, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
- Non-peer reviewed, cherry-picked sources aren't proof of anything. See below. EllenCT (talk) 07:25, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
- That's your description for ITEP now? You're the one who cherry-picked it; you're trying to add its chart to the article. It may be a garbage source, but it can be used to prove its own views. Indeed, see below. VictorD7 (talk) 04:54, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
- Non-peer reviewed, cherry-picked sources aren't proof of anything. See below. EllenCT (talk) 07:25, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
- Since you refuse to address or even acknowledge the overwhelming proof I just posted that ITEP (your cherry-picked source, not mine), attributes corp. taxation to owners (and even explicitly argues against attributing it to consumers or labor!), the total opposite of your entire premise for this section, then it should be clear to anyone reading this that you aren't interested in having an honest, rational conversation, and that your other wild, ignorant claims merit no response. VictorD7 (talk) 18:10, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
- I absolutely do not accept your continued cherry picking of non-peer reviewed sources. The peer reviewed evidence is clear and contrary to your verbose attempt at obfuscation. Please answer the eleven questions above. EllenCT (talk) 09:18, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
- Do you have proof of that? Leaving aside the fact that the gap between TPC's and ITEP's top 1% rate is larger than TPC's entire corporate component of that rate, ITEP itself contradicts you on attribution.
This really isn't the place to argue over corporate tax incidence. If people want detailed information, they can go to the relevant article. Rwenonah (talk) 15:53, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
- Are you proposing Corporate tax incidence? I have had that on my to-do list for a while, but if we can't work this out, it will be born controversial, and I would very much like to prevent that. EllenCT (talk) 04:31, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
- Since the incidence of corporate tax is debatable, we cannot use it to prove the U.S. tax system is inherently progressive. If it were progressive then one would expect that U.S. stock markets would consistently underperform foreign stock markets because the higher corporate tax would lead to lower equity accumulation. TFD (talk) 09:32, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
- True, all things being equal, but rule of law, independent judiciary, intellectual property rights, fiscal stability and physical security, for example, also factor in equity accumulation. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:55, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
- It would not affect profit as a percentage of share value, because share value takes those factors into account. TFD (talk) 16:12, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
- All the presented sources say it is progressive, but the entire premise of this section was Ellen's belief that ITEP's tax incidence numbers differed so dramatically from other tax incidence sources because it allegedly attributed corporate taxes to consumers or labor rather than owners, an assumption I just showed is absolutely false. Despite her claim, corporate taxation is not "the crux of our disagreement". This entire tangent was pointless. VictorD7 (talk) 18:16, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
- Did you read her report from the Brookings Institute? TFD (talk) 18:53, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
- You mean the Tax Policy Center? Yes. It didn't say what she claimed it did either. But this isn't about whether you think corporate taxes are progressive. This is about whether Ellen's ITEP source thinks they are. VictorD7 (talk) 19:10, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
- It most certainly does say that the peer reviewed literature agrees with your original statement that corporations pass most of their taxes on to consumers. Perhaps you can find dozens of non-peer reviewed sources that say they do not, to support your disinformation campaign that US taxation is supposedly progressive for the top 1%. But you have not found a single peer reviewed source supporting your revised view which you adopted for the purpose of supporting that disinformation, and your refusal to answer any of my questions while I have answered all of yours proves it. You have provided the clearest evidence of willful POV-pushing editing behavior I have ever seen, here on one of Misplaced Pages's most popular articles. Do you really think you are convincing anyone of your position? You have sealed your fate. EllenCT (talk) 00:59, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
- Prove that with quotes. While you're busy not doing that, and lying about my statement, explain why you still believe ITEP (the point of this whole discussion; the graph you wanted to add) attributes corporate taxation to consumers or labor rather than owners, given all the proof I posted above from ITEP itself contradicting you (including from their actual numbers), while you haven't supported your claim with a shred of evidence. VictorD7 (talk) 01:32, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
- A single paper by independent authors in ITEP's or anyone else's series is not the collective judgement of that organization. As requested: "a $1.00 increase in corporate tax revenue decreases wages by approximately $0.60" in the United States (that is a WP:SECONDARY source because it is based on many other curated data set publications, and it is peer reviewed) and "an exogenous rise of $1 in tax would reduce the wage bill by 49 cents" in Europe (also a peer reviewed WP:SECONDARY source.) Answer the 11 questions above. EllenCT (talk) 04:36, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
- You still haven't answered why you believe ITEP attributes corp. taxes to consumers when all the evidence I posted from them states the opposite, that they attribute to owners like the TPC and CBO do. Answer that and I'll debunk your "peer review" claims, though, if you can't answer the ITEP question, the other tangent is irrelevant to the article. Cooperate and I'll even answer your 11 questions as a courtesy, but I want to wait until after we clear up the most important part of this discussion (the ITEP thing). However, I will point out that neither of your quotes come from the TPC meta-analysis you linked to and have been making claims about (meta-analyses are superior to single studies for our purposes), and, like that piece, they both focus on labor, not "consumers" as you've been claiming. Neither of your quotes even mentioned "consumers". VictorD7 (talk) 04:52, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
- Because the evidence you posted isn't the official ITEP position reflected in their summary graph, it's just unreviewed individuals writing papers in their series. Please do me the courtesy of answering the 11 questions above, whether or not I am able to meet your moving goalpost criteria for whatever the "ITEP thing" is. The quotes didn't come from the TPC meta-analysis, they came from a citation search on the intersection of the most highly favorably cited of its sources. "Labor" includes consumers and employees, as opposed to capital ownership, which also includes consumers through e.g. pension funds, which have become vanishingly small these days. EllenCT (talk) 06:08, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
- So you have absolutely no evidence to support your claim that ITEP attributes corporate taxes to consumers? And no, I did post their official (and only) position, including testimony to Congressmen. I even linked to the official report with their actual state by state tax incidence numbers, in which they call income and corporate taxes the "main progressive element of state and local tax systems" (page 5), and assign all measurable corporate taxes to the top 5% in the combined average (page 118), with the top 1% paying by far the highest corporate tax rate. How do you reconcile your position with this fact? I'm not the one here with the moving goalpost. This is the crux of this entire section, and we need to settle it. It's ok to admit you were mistaken, Ellen. You won't melt and the world won't end. If you do, I'll answer your 11 questions and post in depth on the tangential "peer review" element. And no, "labor" refers to employees. Of course people are typically both, but employees and consumers are often investors too, so that's beside the point. Your sources invariably speak of the labor/capital split and the impact on "wages", not "consumers". VictorD7 (talk) 07:59, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
- Because the evidence you posted isn't the official ITEP position reflected in their summary graph, it's just unreviewed individuals writing papers in their series. Please do me the courtesy of answering the 11 questions above, whether or not I am able to meet your moving goalpost criteria for whatever the "ITEP thing" is. The quotes didn't come from the TPC meta-analysis, they came from a citation search on the intersection of the most highly favorably cited of its sources. "Labor" includes consumers and employees, as opposed to capital ownership, which also includes consumers through e.g. pension funds, which have become vanishingly small these days. EllenCT (talk) 06:08, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
- You still haven't answered why you believe ITEP attributes corp. taxes to consumers when all the evidence I posted from them states the opposite, that they attribute to owners like the TPC and CBO do. Answer that and I'll debunk your "peer review" claims, though, if you can't answer the ITEP question, the other tangent is irrelevant to the article. Cooperate and I'll even answer your 11 questions as a courtesy, but I want to wait until after we clear up the most important part of this discussion (the ITEP thing). However, I will point out that neither of your quotes come from the TPC meta-analysis you linked to and have been making claims about (meta-analyses are superior to single studies for our purposes), and, like that piece, they both focus on labor, not "consumers" as you've been claiming. Neither of your quotes even mentioned "consumers". VictorD7 (talk) 04:52, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
- A single paper by independent authors in ITEP's or anyone else's series is not the collective judgement of that organization. As requested: "a $1.00 increase in corporate tax revenue decreases wages by approximately $0.60" in the United States (that is a WP:SECONDARY source because it is based on many other curated data set publications, and it is peer reviewed) and "an exogenous rise of $1 in tax would reduce the wage bill by 49 cents" in Europe (also a peer reviewed WP:SECONDARY source.) Answer the 11 questions above. EllenCT (talk) 04:36, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
- Prove that with quotes. While you're busy not doing that, and lying about my statement, explain why you still believe ITEP (the point of this whole discussion; the graph you wanted to add) attributes corporate taxation to consumers or labor rather than owners, given all the proof I posted above from ITEP itself contradicting you (including from their actual numbers), while you haven't supported your claim with a shred of evidence. VictorD7 (talk) 01:32, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
- It most certainly does say that the peer reviewed literature agrees with your original statement that corporations pass most of their taxes on to consumers. Perhaps you can find dozens of non-peer reviewed sources that say they do not, to support your disinformation campaign that US taxation is supposedly progressive for the top 1%. But you have not found a single peer reviewed source supporting your revised view which you adopted for the purpose of supporting that disinformation, and your refusal to answer any of my questions while I have answered all of yours proves it. You have provided the clearest evidence of willful POV-pushing editing behavior I have ever seen, here on one of Misplaced Pages's most popular articles. Do you really think you are convincing anyone of your position? You have sealed your fate. EllenCT (talk) 00:59, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
- You mean the Tax Policy Center? Yes. It didn't say what she claimed it did either. But this isn't about whether you think corporate taxes are progressive. This is about whether Ellen's ITEP source thinks they are. VictorD7 (talk) 19:10, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
- Did you read her report from the Brookings Institute? TFD (talk) 18:53, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
- True, all things being equal, but rule of law, independent judiciary, intellectual property rights, fiscal stability and physical security, for example, also factor in equity accumulation. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:55, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Your attempt to dodge the source quality issue is a complete waste of everyone's time. I have answered every one of your questions, but I will not answer any more until you answer all eleven of mine. You also ought to check an economics glossary to avoid making yourself look any more foolish than you already have. EllenCT (talk) 10:27, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
- Funny, I was thinking the same thing about you regarding dodging and making yourself look foolish with your basic ignorance. Since your 11 questions are largely ad hominem drivel that aren't relevant to the article, while my question that you continue to dodge is vital to the premise of this entire section and much of your posting in recent weeks (including some of your article editing), it's far more incumbent on you to answer. I just posted direct proof showing that ITEP's tax incidence attributes corporate taxation to owners in a very progressive fashion, just like the TPC and CBO, the opposite of what you've been claiming about ITEP. Clearly you have absolutely no counter evidence, but your failure to even address the posted proof demonstrates bad faith on your part. If your dodging continues, you'll be exposed as a troll. VictorD7 (talk) 18:06, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
- Questions about your behavior aren't ad hominem unless you have been misbehaving. Are you going back on your promise to answer them? EllenCT (talk) 21:48, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
- I said I'd answer your ridiculous ad hominem questions as a courtesy if you cooperated by addressing the actual substance of how ITEP attributes corporate taxes, the whole reason you've been subjecting this Talk Page and article to "corporate incidence" talk in recent months. What do you think about the section below, where I quote ITEP's own FAQ stating that they attribute taxes progressively to corporate owners? Feel free to comment on it down there. VictorD7 (talk) 22:08, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
- The only reason you see the questions as ad hominem is because you know honest answers will expose the extent of your abuse of wikipedia rules and low quality sources to push your political viewpoint. They are nothing more than query reiterations of the statements you called all lies. You said you would answer them, so answer them. EllenCT (talk) 01:44, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
- Do you think ITEP is lying when it claims to attribute corporate taxes to capital owners, yielding progressive results? VictorD7 (talk) 03:09, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
- I will not answer any more of your questions until you answer mine. I will point out that the question at the top of page three of the document you link to only discusses corporate income tax, not property, sales, or excise taxes or tariffs, and doesn't say whether "primarily" means more or less than 54.5%, which is the figure I understand that they use, and a far cry from the 100% implied by your cherry basket of non-peer reviewed sources. EllenCT (talk) 04:53, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
- Your entire discussion has been about corporate taxes, not other types. And here's what ITEP says on corporate taxes (note the sentence after the "primarily" one): "It is generally agreed that corporate income taxes, at both the state and federal level, fall primarily on owners of capital. In accordance with this theory, ITEP’s incidence analyses of state corporate income taxes typically distribute the incidence of the tax according to nationwide ownership of capital assets such as stocks and bonds....The incidence of the tax in ITEP’s analyses is generally quite progressive, because the vast majority of capital income nationwide is held by the very best-off Americans." I'm not sure what you mean by the "54.5%" number (capital, labor, or consumers? Did you find that in an ITEP source somewhere or just make it up?), but it says it attributes corporate taxes according to ownership of capital assets. Is ITEP a "cherry basket of non-peer reviewed sources", Ellen? VictorD7 (talk) 05:12, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
- I was referring to the same use of the word "primarily" that you quoted. Answer my questions. EllenCT (talk) 05:17, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
- I know. That's why I pointed out that the following sentence is the one that explains how ITEP actually attributes corporate taxes. Only "ownership of capital assets such as stocks and bonds" is mentioned. Do you have a verifiable source for your "54.5%"/"consumers" claim? And you didn't answer, do you feel that ITEP is a cherry-picked, "non-peer reviewed source"? Or do you just mean the CBO and TPC when you apply that label? VictorD7 (talk) 05:26, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
- I will not answer any more of your questions until you answer mine. You said you would do so, but you have not. People can see how true you are to your own word, let alone to the reliable sources. EllenCT (talk) 05:41, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
- I know. That's why I pointed out that the following sentence is the one that explains how ITEP actually attributes corporate taxes. Only "ownership of capital assets such as stocks and bonds" is mentioned. Do you have a verifiable source for your "54.5%"/"consumers" claim? And you didn't answer, do you feel that ITEP is a cherry-picked, "non-peer reviewed source"? Or do you just mean the CBO and TPC when you apply that label? VictorD7 (talk) 05:26, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
- I was referring to the same use of the word "primarily" that you quoted. Answer my questions. EllenCT (talk) 05:17, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
- Your entire discussion has been about corporate taxes, not other types. And here's what ITEP says on corporate taxes (note the sentence after the "primarily" one): "It is generally agreed that corporate income taxes, at both the state and federal level, fall primarily on owners of capital. In accordance with this theory, ITEP’s incidence analyses of state corporate income taxes typically distribute the incidence of the tax according to nationwide ownership of capital assets such as stocks and bonds....The incidence of the tax in ITEP’s analyses is generally quite progressive, because the vast majority of capital income nationwide is held by the very best-off Americans." I'm not sure what you mean by the "54.5%" number (capital, labor, or consumers? Did you find that in an ITEP source somewhere or just make it up?), but it says it attributes corporate taxes according to ownership of capital assets. Is ITEP a "cherry basket of non-peer reviewed sources", Ellen? VictorD7 (talk) 05:12, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
- I will not answer any more of your questions until you answer mine. I will point out that the question at the top of page three of the document you link to only discusses corporate income tax, not property, sales, or excise taxes or tariffs, and doesn't say whether "primarily" means more or less than 54.5%, which is the figure I understand that they use, and a far cry from the 100% implied by your cherry basket of non-peer reviewed sources. EllenCT (talk) 04:53, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
- Do you think ITEP is lying when it claims to attribute corporate taxes to capital owners, yielding progressive results? VictorD7 (talk) 03:09, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
- The only reason you see the questions as ad hominem is because you know honest answers will expose the extent of your abuse of wikipedia rules and low quality sources to push your political viewpoint. They are nothing more than query reiterations of the statements you called all lies. You said you would answer them, so answer them. EllenCT (talk) 01:44, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
- I said I'd answer your ridiculous ad hominem questions as a courtesy if you cooperated by addressing the actual substance of how ITEP attributes corporate taxes, the whole reason you've been subjecting this Talk Page and article to "corporate incidence" talk in recent months. What do you think about the section below, where I quote ITEP's own FAQ stating that they attribute taxes progressively to corporate owners? Feel free to comment on it down there. VictorD7 (talk) 22:08, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
- Questions about your behavior aren't ad hominem unless you have been misbehaving. Are you going back on your promise to answer them? EllenCT (talk) 21:48, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Anyone can see that I said I'd answer your off topic questions after we settled the ITEP attribution matter, since the latter is vastly more important to the article. Is ITEP a reliable source for its own views, Ellen? You have an obligation to answer that, since you are trying to push ITEP's tax chart into the article. That is the basis for this entire discussion you've started. VictorD7 (talk) 05:48, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
- This whole section is about the quality of sources used by ITEP, and I answered all your specific questions about them. The 54.5% figure comes from a source I cited months ago because I picked up the phone and called someone who used to work for the ITEP and asked them what they used, just like I suggested that you call them weeks ago. This isn't article space so I don't need you to be able to verify what you ought to be able to do for yourself. You clearly have no intention of keeping your word and answering my questions. EllenCT (talk) 07:25, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
- I'll answer below, since this split conversation is silly. VictorD7 (talk) 19:12, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
ITEP attributes corporate taxes to owners, just like the TPC and CBO.
This is important because Ellen's entire premise has been that ITEP attributes corporate taxes "regressively" to consumers rather than owners, explaining (trying to excuse) the difference between its tax incidence numbers and the other sources. She's posted no evidence of this, but that premise is why she's created all these discussions about corporate incidence, and it's even led to her adding a segment that's still in the article. But the premise was wrong. From ITEP's own FAQ:
"It is generally agreed that corporate income taxes, at both the state and federal level, fall primarily on owners of capital. In accordance with this theory, ITEP’s incidence analyses of state corporate income taxes typically distribute the incidence of the tax according to nationwide ownership of capital assets such as stocks and bonds....The incidence of the tax in ITEP’s analyses is generally quite progressive, because the vast majority of capital income nationwide is held by the very best-off Americans."
This supports the overwhelming evidence I've already posted from ITEP above. The discrepancy between ITEP and other sources must be caused by other factors. A reasonable person would consider this issue settled. Does anyone have any rational counter argument or counter evidence? Or can we agree that Ellen is wrong and move on from there? VictorD7 (talk) 18:59, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
- As has been pointed out to you, other sources disagree. Furthermore, since you have already dismissed ITEP as a rs, claiming it is "left wing", then you cannot use it as a reliable source. Reliability does not mean the source says what you happen to believe. TFD (talk) 21:14, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
- No, you completely missed the point. This isn't about whether corporate taxes are progressive. This is about whether Ellen was correct in claiming ITEP treats them as regressive. She's the one pushing the ITEP chart as a source. She claims they attribute corp. taxes to consumers. I found all this evidence showing they attribute it to owners. Which of us do you think is right on this point? I'd like your feedback. VictorD7 (talk) 21:24, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
- Where'd you run off to, TFD? Does ITEP attribute corporate taxes to consumers (regressive) or capital owners (progressive)? This isn't a trick question. I'm essentially asking you what 2+2 equals and making it an open book test. Feel free to read the above quote containing the answer, any of the other evidence posted here saying the same thing, or anything else about ITEP you want to if you can find it. VictorD7 (talk) 00:48, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
- Are you now claiming that ITEP is rs? Otherwise what they say is mute. TFD (talk) 01:50, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
- You've got to be kidding. Let me try this again. I'm not asking you to comment on corporate taxes. This discussion isn't about whether corporate taxes really are progressive or not. I think ITEP is garbage, but it is a reliable source for its own views, and Ellen's still pushing its chart for article inclusion. Let's make this test multiple choice: Please read the ITEP quote I posted above, and answer whether it means....
- Are you now claiming that ITEP is rs? Otherwise what they say is mute. TFD (talk) 01:50, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
- A. ITEP attributes corporate taxes to capital owners, producing progressive results (my position)
- or
- B. ITEP attributes corporate taxes to consumers, producing regressive results (Ellen's position)
- A. ITEP attributes corporate taxes to capital owners, producing progressive results (my position)
- And I'm guessing you meant "moot", not "mute", and no, it's not because Ellen is still basing her entire position on the answer being "B". Again, the only reason we're discussing corporate incidence is because Ellen wants to include the ITEP chart, and she's still insisting that its discrepancy with other sources can be dismissed as differences in corporate attribution. VictorD7 (talk) 03:02, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
- The correct answer to VictorD7's false multiple choice question is none of the above. ITEP attributes 54.5% of corporate taxes to capital owners and the remainder to consumers, in accordance with the ranges given in the most reliable of the peer reviewed WP:SECONDARY sources, which I know from a personal communication unsuitable for inclusion as a source in articles. That is why they show the top 1% paying less total tax as a percentage of their income than the top 20%, and why VictorD7 despises them even though he is willing to quote vague passages from them to try to support his POV-pushing. EllenCT (talk) 05:06, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
- Do you have a verifiable source to support your anecdotal claim allegedly delivered via secret communication? One that mentions this "54.5%" figure, or even the word "consumers"? Because publicly ITEP just speaks of attributing to capital ownership, and even explicitly argues against "corporate leaders" who support attributing to consumers or labor. VictorD7 (talk) 05:20, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, but it's unpublished, as I said above. Call them and ask them. But first answer my questions. EllenCT (talk) 07:25, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
- You said you called someone who "used to work for" ITEP. That means they don't work for them now? Did you personally know this person or what? Is his or her name a secret? I'm not interested in contacting ITEP when they clearly spell out their methodology all over their website and publications, only stating that they attribute corporate taxes to owners and arguing against the notion of attributing to consumers or labor, even attacking the motives of those who do argue in favor of consumer attribution. The burden of producing source proof otherwise is on you. Even if your mystery source was telling the truth, that would just mean that ITEP is saying one thing publicly and quietly doing something very contradictory, totally destroying the group's credibility. It would mean that they support and publicly lobby for corporate taxes as a "very progressive" tax on "owners of capital" (their words), while silently scoring them in a far more regressive fashion just to make overall taxation look less progressive than it really is, hoping to fuel popular support for tax hikes on "the rich" regardless of type. It's telling that you'd have no problem with that. VictorD7 (talk) 19:12, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, but it's unpublished, as I said above. Call them and ask them. But first answer my questions. EllenCT (talk) 07:25, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
- Do you have a verifiable source to support your anecdotal claim allegedly delivered via secret communication? One that mentions this "54.5%" figure, or even the word "consumers"? Because publicly ITEP just speaks of attributing to capital ownership, and even explicitly argues against "corporate leaders" who support attributing to consumers or labor. VictorD7 (talk) 05:20, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
- And if ITEP attributes half to consumers, how do you explain them attributing zero state corporate taxes to the bottom 95% in their combined state average (page 118), and by far the highest corporate tax rate to the top 1%? Is it possible your alleged secret source who "used" to work for ITEP was mistaken? VictorD7 (talk) 20:47, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
- Answer my questions and I'll answer yours. EllenCT (talk) 03:26, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
- You're the one trying to get something added to the article. VictorD7 (talk) 04:05, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
- Answer my questions and I'll answer yours. EllenCT (talk) 03:26, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
- And if ITEP attributes half to consumers, how do you explain them attributing zero state corporate taxes to the bottom 95% in their combined state average (page 118), and by far the highest corporate tax rate to the top 1%? Is it possible your alleged secret source who "used" to work for ITEP was mistaken? VictorD7 (talk) 20:47, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Note to administrators
In light of the dispute above, please see , , and Talk:Taxation in the United States#Chart that needs to be removed and the following "ITEP chart is disputed by multiple sources." section. Please encourage editors to edit without conflicts. EllenCT (talk) 00:52, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
More edit warring pretending the Peterson Foundation graph isn't advocacy, after ample opportunity to state whether anything peer reviewed agrees with it and failing to do so. How long will administrators allow that abuse? EllenCT (talk) 22:04, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
- Ellen, your proposals here are being rejected by numerous editors for, among reasons, their partisan POV nature. Your purpose with this "note" isn't coherent, but your attempt to remove a perfectly legitimate Tax Policy Center chart from the other article without bothering to even make an actual argument is also being opposed by multiple editors. I'm not sure why you're invoking "administrators", but I'd advise you to stop the ad hominem stuff and focus on substance, or drop this altogether. In case someone else does read this, I'll point out that the old discussion Ellen linked to was brought to a clear conclusion on another page (), the original objections being rooted in false premises that were easily cleared up. VictorD7 (talk) 02:05, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
- I stand by my statements and repeat my request for sanctions. I have either lost all ability to assume that you are editing in good faith, or all confidence in your competence as required for accurate editing, or both. EllenCT (talk) 01:58, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
- Then I'll repeat my observation that you've exhibited serial dishonesty, atrocious reading comprehension, and a deep incompetence that have all led to great disruption. Unlike you, I can and have supported my claims with specific evidence. Misplaced Pages would be better off if you were banned. VictorD7 (talk) 23:34, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
- "Supported" or tried to paper over your assertion that corporations pass taxes on to their customers while producing sources that say they don't to try to insert a graph that says they don't? Your favored sources aren't peer reviewed, mine are peer reviewed and secondary. End of discussion. Happy holidays. EllenCT (talk) 07:30, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
- "Proved" is more apt, but I was being modest. You haven't provided any sources that actually support or even mention your ITEP chart, and multiple editors across multiple articles have repeatedly posted evidence refuting your assumption about ITEP's methodology on corporate taxation, which you've ignored. You've posted no counter evidence. Feel free to quote and link to my quote about "customers" that you keep mischaracterizing, the one where I said all taxes have economic ripple effects, not just corporate taxes and not just for consumers, but that a feasible tax incidence chart should attribute taxes to those most directly paying them, which in the case of corporate taxes are the owners. This would be a good place to show yet again how dishonest you're being, on the slim chance that someone else actually does go through and read all this. Merry Christmas. VictorD7 (talk) 22:20, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
- "Supported" or tried to paper over your assertion that corporations pass taxes on to their customers while producing sources that say they don't to try to insert a graph that says they don't? Your favored sources aren't peer reviewed, mine are peer reviewed and secondary. End of discussion. Happy holidays. EllenCT (talk) 07:30, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
- Then I'll repeat my observation that you've exhibited serial dishonesty, atrocious reading comprehension, and a deep incompetence that have all led to great disruption. Unlike you, I can and have supported my claims with specific evidence. Misplaced Pages would be better off if you were banned. VictorD7 (talk) 23:34, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
- I stand by my statements and repeat my request for sanctions. I have either lost all ability to assume that you are editing in good faith, or all confidence in your competence as required for accurate editing, or both. EllenCT (talk) 01:58, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
English, national language?
I don't think you can call English the national language of the US. Does English represent the ethnically diverse national identity of the US? Also, surely English is the de facto official language of the US, as it is used officially by the government of the US? How else is "official language" defined? And why is it stated that English is only the official language of at least 28 states? Do the federal bodies in other states exclusively use Spanish instead? This article appears to use a odd definition of "official language". Rob (talk/edits) 17:54, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
- An "official language" on a national level would require a piece of law, such as a passed congressional bill or part of the US Constitution, that established English as the official language. Otherwise, it is not "official," which is a legal definition. There has not been any law and there is not any part of the Constitution designating any language as the official language of the United States, so we do not have an official language. Other countries often do have laws specifying official languages, such as Canada's Official Language Act, which legally specified English and Friend as the official languages of Canada. English is the "de facto" language in the United States due to the portion of the population speaking it as their first language and language of every day use. English is only the official language in 28 states as only those 28 states have passed laws designating it as their official language. Other states likely have not passed any law at all regarding an official language, and thus do not have one. Federal bodies act according to federal laws, not state laws (generally), and the lack of designating English as the official language in 22 states does not in any way make Spanish their official language. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 18:01, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
- Apologies, I meant "state bodies", not "federal bodies". Your definition of "official language", that it requires legislation, is different to that in Europe. Proclamation is enough to designate something as official here. I guess "official" has a different meaning here. Also, that English is the de facto language of the US, doesn't make it the national language. Unless again we have an alternative definition, "national language" is the language that represents the national identity, and not necessarily the majority, such as in Luxembourg, Wales, and the Irish Republic. English would be a national language of Britain; where it was formed; not the US. Regards, Rob (talk/edits) 18:43, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
- Official language is always de jure, not de facto. That's what "official" means. --Golbez (talk) 18:03, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
- So, English is official in 28 states and five territories in the U.S. along with Spanish in Puerto Rico, Samoan in American Samoa, and Chamorro in Guam and Northern Marianas? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:00, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
- English is considered the de facto national language because it is spoken as a first language by over 80% of the population and as a 2nd (or higher) by the rest of the population, and is the form of communication used almost the entire time by the government and media. Also "national" language does not have to mean the country where the language originated, it can refer to the language either spoken by the vast majority of the population and/or the common language used to unify the country. English is not considered de jure or "official" on the federal level because the federal government has never made a legal proclamation, on paper, that English is the official language. It would be ridiculous to proclaim that the US has no national language, de facto or otherwise, when English is spoken by almost everyone here. I hope that cleared things up for you. Cadiomals (talk) 10:08, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
- In Europe, "national language" refers almost exclusively to the language of the national identity, and thus, English wouldn't be described as the national language of the US. Even though 80% of the US population speak English, 80% of the US population are not ethnically British. Similarly in the Irish Republic, English, the most spoken language, would not be described as a national language here, as it was adopted by the country's people fairly recently (last 500 years), whereas the original language, Irish Gaelic, that represents the Irish identity, is often described as the national language of the state. There's quite a few states in Europe with minority national languages, which probably explains the alternative definition. I should probably check the US definitions before commenting on terminology in a US English article. Thank you, Rob (talk/edits) 10:37, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
- So it turns out my query was answered in good order, and we all understand why WP uses "national language" as English for the U.S. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:06, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
- It would be fairly difficult to determine the national language of the US using the so-called "European definition" considering the United States is a relatively young colonial nation whose main language originated some place else, and without the lengthy history needed to develop a new language of its own, while the natives who once lived here (along with whatever languages they spoke) have almost all been wiped out. The article for National language provides for varied definitions. Cadiomals (talk) 20:13, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
- If the articles, written in European English, then the European definitions would be used. That's why at Britain's article, English is stated as an official language, even though there is no legislation determining the official language. Rob (talk/edits) 21:22, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
- Oh, I might have misread your comment. Apologies if I was patronising you, Rob (talk/edits) 21:27, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
- No problem. 'No harm, no foul. play on.' TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:45, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
- Oh, I might have misread your comment. Apologies if I was patronising you, Rob (talk/edits) 21:27, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
- So it turns out my query was answered in good order, and we all understand why WP uses "national language" as English for the U.S. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:06, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
- In Europe, "national language" refers almost exclusively to the language of the national identity, and thus, English wouldn't be described as the national language of the US. Even though 80% of the US population speak English, 80% of the US population are not ethnically British. Similarly in the Irish Republic, English, the most spoken language, would not be described as a national language here, as it was adopted by the country's people fairly recently (last 500 years), whereas the original language, Irish Gaelic, that represents the Irish identity, is often described as the national language of the state. There's quite a few states in Europe with minority national languages, which probably explains the alternative definition. I should probably check the US definitions before commenting on terminology in a US English article. Thank you, Rob (talk/edits) 10:37, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
- English is considered the de facto national language because it is spoken as a first language by over 80% of the population and as a 2nd (or higher) by the rest of the population, and is the form of communication used almost the entire time by the government and media. Also "national" language does not have to mean the country where the language originated, it can refer to the language either spoken by the vast majority of the population and/or the common language used to unify the country. English is not considered de jure or "official" on the federal level because the federal government has never made a legal proclamation, on paper, that English is the official language. It would be ridiculous to proclaim that the US has no national language, de facto or otherwise, when English is spoken by almost everyone here. I hope that cleared things up for you. Cadiomals (talk) 10:08, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
- So, English is official in 28 states and five territories in the U.S. along with Spanish in Puerto Rico, Samoan in American Samoa, and Chamorro in Guam and Northern Marianas? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:00, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
Usefulness of US languages treemap
I do not agree with the addition of this U.S. languages treemap but wanted to make sure others agreed before removing it myself. 1) The "English" portion of the treemap takes up 80% of the graph and the rest of the languages are just little colored rectangles with unreadable text unless they are clicked on and most importantly 2) it is essentially a graphical repetition of data already found in the table to its left and as such it is redundant. This image reminds me of the product exports tree map except there is already a table showing the same information. So I don't think the graphic actually adds anything useful and just saturates the article with even more diagrams. Does anyone disagree? Cadiomals (talk) 04:50, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
- It communicates the tabular information graphically. That's why graphs exist. And it fills a big white space next to the table that would otherwise be empty. Could certainly make the fonts larger if that would help. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 05:30, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
- This would work better as a bar chart. As it is, or as a more traditional pie chart for this kind of data, it can not convey the extent of multilingualism. EllenCT (talk) 07:06, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
- Agree with Ellen on pie chart, and related languages should have related colors on the spectrum and be placed adjacent, such as the Romance Languages, or at least related dialects such as French-French-creole, etc. The present chart does not provide space for labeling French, which is a larger block that Vietnamese. Bar chart might allow for uniform fonts labeling all languages on the chart (English inside its bar) in a way which would be difficult in a pie chart at article scale. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:05, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
- This would work better as a bar chart. As it is, or as a more traditional pie chart for this kind of data, it can not convey the extent of multilingualism. EllenCT (talk) 07:06, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
- I'll add a label to French.
Pie charts are misleading, for many reasons explained in pie chart and other sources. And The tiny slivers you'd get would not solve any labeling problems; they'd make it worse. You'd use up white space around the graph in order to make room for labels, which would make the graph even harder to see. I understand how attractive pie charts are, because they look pretty and they're familiar. But when you have more than two data items, pie charts create a false impression, which undermines the whole point of the graph. You want your audience to get a grasp of the proportions between the items, and pies do that poorly.
A bar chart isn't misleading like a pie; people generally will interpret the proportions correctly, as with the tree map. But it wastes large amounts of space, so that in order to make room for all the dead space above the bars, the smaller values are reduced to even harder to see slivers. The point of the the tree map here is to enlarge the marks to fill all the available space, so that you can see as much of them as possible, while retaining correct size ratios between the marks.
I wouldn't want make the colors related because this chart is about the number of speakers of each language in the US, not linguistics. It's true that some languages share common roots, but to use color imply a special relationship between US speakers languages would be original research. Here are the alternate versions, using a pie and bars, if those are preferred. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:46, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
- Wow. thank you. Tree map really does convey the information more clearly graphically at scale. Impressive. Thanks for your patient and courteous reply. I still wonder if an additional layer of geographical origins might be conveyed by use of the spectrum, maybe by major world regions as denominated in the U.S. Census. Perhaps the percentages could be listed alongside each language in the Tree map key. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:57, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
- I still don't see how it conveys information any more effectively when a data table that gives exact numbers already exists, because English alongside Spanish basically dominates the diagram with a few little squares in the corner. I therefore continue to see it as redundant and superfluous. There isn't an inherent necessity to represent all the data graphically when tables do it just fine. At least it's taking up white space and not squeezing aside any text. Cadiomals (talk) 23:20, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
- I agree the table is superior to even a log-scale bar chart. EllenCT (talk) 05:10, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
- I still don't see how it conveys information any more effectively when a data table that gives exact numbers already exists, because English alongside Spanish basically dominates the diagram with a few little squares in the corner. I therefore continue to see it as redundant and superfluous. There isn't an inherent necessity to represent all the data graphically when tables do it just fine. At least it's taking up white space and not squeezing aside any text. Cadiomals (talk) 23:20, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
- Wow. thank you. Tree map really does convey the information more clearly graphically at scale. Impressive. Thanks for your patient and courteous reply. I still wonder if an additional layer of geographical origins might be conveyed by use of the spectrum, maybe by major world regions as denominated in the U.S. Census. Perhaps the percentages could be listed alongside each language in the Tree map key. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:57, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
- I'll add a label to French.
A bar chart with a semilog y-axis scale would be more informative than any of these, and again, would not misrepresent multilingual speakers. EllenCT (talk) 21:52, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Article size (load time is long)
So I am sure most will agree this article is bloated with details that can be better served in the main articles. Having people Skipp the article because its to big and tedious does not help anyone. Will make a section below soon with a break down of the article and things that can be moved. Would love others to get in this conversation as I can see from above lots of editors have raised this concern yet more still being added to section many find not all that relevant. A section like "Income, poverty, and wealth" should be trimmed...way to much details for the average reader who is coming here to learn about the USA as an overall topic. -- Moxy (talk) 23:36, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
- You should have been here two months ago when the Income, poverty and wealth section and a few other sections were about twice their current sizes. It was an arduous month-long process just to get those sections shortened. The sections I think could use significant trimming are History, Crime and law enforcement and maybe a little in Culture; otherwise the rest of the sections look of adequate length. Even though I still think I, P, and W can be further trimmed, it was exhausting enough just to get it cut down to its current size and there are definitely users here who will object to further shortening it. It would be another arduous process that should be taken one section at a time. Cadiomals (talk) 23:55, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
- Agree there will be a few that think the article is not to long or think what they added is so important that sizes does not matter. But what we have to look at its readability...simply not good if people leave the page because its simply full of details (stats) that have no meaning or context to a NON American. -- Moxy (talk) 00:26, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
- I would be happy to see the History and Culture sections trimmed down very substantially, but not the current events-related parts where low-information voters are likely to look when making political decisions, especially in the face of such a strenuous disinformation campaign based on cherry-picked low quality sources. EllenCT (talk) 01:37, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
- Agree there will be a few that think the article is not to long or think what they added is so important that sizes does not matter. But what we have to look at its readability...simply not good if people leave the page because its simply full of details (stats) that have no meaning or context to a NON American. -- Moxy (talk) 00:26, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
- I agree with trimming Income, poverty, and wealth, but if you're serious then hang around and participate, Moxy. Don't fire off a driveby shot and take off. VictorD7 (talk) 03:14, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
- Would love to help - but have not recently because i am not interested in the edit wars that have been happening here. I will even bring this to GA level if we can agree on trimming at least 1/3 of the article. As most know I specialize in references ...over the next week or two will make bibliography that we can work from. Canada - Bibliography of Canada this way we can all agree what sources are the best.There is way to many web-links here should look like Military history of Canada as in real books should be used. -- Moxy (talk) 16:03, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
- Wunderbar -- the article, IMHO, is too long by far more than you can imagine, contains material which, at best, belongs in su-articles, and I suggest substantial trimming of some of the er "lesser references" should be possible. For my approach see (my edited version) vis-a-vis the starting point for my edits at <g>. I also would like readability to improve -- right now it is at 50, which makes it "Wiki-average" which, IMHO, not that much to boast about - let's aim for 55 at least. Collect (talk) 17:10, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
- The longest sections in history are the first few. I've taken a shot at just trimming below, but reading into Gordon S. Wood's The idea of America -- another approach might be to treat the history topically, concerning constitutionalism, democracy, party politics, judicial review --- directly relating to the current U.S. -- much as JimWae proposed something is missing in an article on the United States without treatment of the growth of democracy. The first few sections have been hijacked from a year or so ago and seem to be metastasizing into a chronological narrative. This whole issue of length can be sidestepped in large part with a link to History of the United States, and choosing a topical treatment. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:45, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
I will say that length can't be the only concern. If we're going to fix the History section then let's fix it. Quality and accuracy matter too. We certainly can't just deal with the first two sections. The worst section is the last one, and the others need work as well. VictorD7 (talk) 18:24, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Native American and European contact
The following proposed section edit is for conciseness and encyclopedic style. The final paragraph concerning a few Indian wars was so unrepresentative as to be distracting, the subject matter belongs in Settlement.
People from Asia migrated to the North American continent approximately 15,000 or more years ago. Some, such as the pre-Columbian Mississippian culture, developed advanced agriculture, grand architecture, and state-level societies. After European explorers and traders made the first contacts, it is estimated that their population declined due to various reasons, including diseases such as smallpox and measles to which indigenous Americans had no natural immunities, intermarriage, and violence.
In the early days of colonization many settlers were subject to shortages of food, disease and attacks from Native Americans. Native Americans were also often at war with neighboring tribes and allied with Europeans in their colonial wars. At the same time many natives and settlers came to depend on each other. Settlers traded for food and animal pelts, natives for guns, ammunition and other European wares. In the process "Native American influenced colonist, and colonist influenced Native American". Natives taught many settlers where, when and how to hunt and fish and cultivate corn, beans and squash in the frontier. European missionaries and others felt it was important to "civilize" the Indians and urged them to concentrate on farming and ranching and not depend primarily on hunting and gathering.
end proposal. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:04, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
- Weren't you the one who once pointed out that the source actually said violence was not a significant factor in Amerindian depopulation? This might be a good opportunity to fix that. VictorD7 (talk) 19:20, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
- insert. Disease was overwhelmingly the cause of Amerindian depopulation. Another myth-buster, most fatalities along the Oregon Trail were first snake bites, second self-inflicted gunshot wounds -- not attacks by Amerindian raiders. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:46, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
- Not sure, but it really does read like an eighth grade textbook. I'm not happy with how the section has been hijacked from about a year ago. Rather than refighting American historiography here, I wonder if we could turn to a topical organization on constitutionalism, democracy, judicial reiview and political parties as U.S. historical contribution to world political life, and leave the rest to History of the United States. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:02, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
- I never really saw a need for a separate Native American section to begin with, since this is a national and not continental history, but some others disagreed. The bigger problem was that the process went off the rails for a while due to unilateral, piecemeal editing with little or no thought given to the big picture, until at least some order and stability was restored. I'd have to see what you're proposing before endorsing a topical approach, but I do generally support the notion of editing coherently with the big picture in mind. VictorD7 (talk) 18:19, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
edit. Settlement
proposed section edited for conciseness and encyclopedic style.
After Columbus' discovery of the New World in 1492 other explorers followed. The first Spanish explorers set up settlements in parts of Florida and the American southwest that were eventually merged into the United States. There were also some French attempts to colonize the east coast, and later more successful settlements along the Mississippi River. Successful English settlement on the eastern coast of North America began with the Virginia Colony in 1607 at Jamestown and the Pilgrims' Plymouth Colony in 1620. Early experiments in communal living failed until the introduction of private farm holdings. The continent's first elected legislative assembly, Virginia's House of Burgesses of 1619, and the Mayflower Compact at the Pilgrims disembarking, established precedents for the pattern of representative self-government and constitutionalism that would develop throughout the American colonies.
Most settlers in every colony were small farmers, but other industries developed. Cash crops included tobacco, rice and wheat. Extraction industries grew up in furs, fishing and lumber. Manufacturers produced rum, ships and by the late colonial period Americans were producing one-seventh of the world's iron supply. Cities eventually dotted the coast to support local economies and serve as trade hubs. English colonists were supplemented by waves of Scotch-Irish and other groups. As coastal land grew more expensive freed indentured servants pushed west. Slave cultivation of cash crops began with the Spanish in the 1500s, and was adopted by the English, but life expectancy was much higher in North America because of less disease and better food and treatment, so the numbers of slaves grew rapidly. Colonial society was largely divided over the religious and moral implications of slavery and colonies passed acts for and against the practice. But by the turn of the 18th century, African slaves were becoming the primary source of bonded labor in southern regions.
With the 1732 colonization of Georgia, the 13 colonies that would become the United States of America were established. All had local governments with elections open to most free men, with a growing devotion to the ancient rights of Englishmen and a sense of self-government stimulating support for republicanism. With extremely high birth rates, low death rates, and steady settlement, the colonial population grew rapidly. Relatively small Native American populations were eclipsed. The Christian revivalist movement of the 1730s and 1740s known as the Great Awakening fueled interest in both religion and religious liberty.
In the French and Indian War, British forces seized Canada from the French, but the francophone population remained politically isolated from the southern colonies. Excluding the Native Americans, who were being conquered and displaced, those 13 colonies had a population of over 2.1 million in 1770, about one-third that of Britain. Despite continuing new arrivals, the rate of natural increase was such that by the 1770s only a small minority of Americans had been born overseas. The colonies' distance from Britain had allowed the development of self-government, but their success motivated monarchs to periodically seek to reassert Royal authority.
end proposal. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:53, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
- It'd be more encyclopedic to add the word "successful" to the cited English colonies somewhere, since they weren't the first English attempts. I'm also not sure about the "bonded labor" sentence. Doesn't "bonded labor" refer to people who lose their freedom over debts? VictorD7 (talk) 19:50, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
- Agreed. And the focus can be enlarged to other "successful" colonies to incorporate those Dutch, Spanish, French and Russian colonies which are eventually incorporated into the U.S. This is way to much English colonies, exclusively original-thirteen. Moxy has proposed using a Canadian bibliography of sources in the discussion above, I wonder if they treat all Europeans more evenhandedly.
- But, also, another approach might be to treat the history topically, concerning constitutionalism, democracy, party politics, judicial review --- directly relating to the current U.S. -- much as JimWae proposed something is missing in an article on the United States without treatment of the growth of democracy. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:57, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
- Not sure if your first paragraph was sarcastic, but adding a single word qualifier (or slight rewording) for the sake of accuracy is hardly tantamount to enlarging the section's scope to issues of tangential importance. An inadequately qualified "began" is the problem. Maybe just saying "Permanent English settlement on the eastern coast of North America began ...." would suffice, though that might be murkier than "successful" since Roanoke was an attempt at permanent settlement. VictorD7 (talk) 18:21, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
- Your recommendation is incorporated above in the narrative without italicization.
- I'm not sarcastic. To stay with the original thirteen is fine for now, as most U.S. current day constitutional procedure is English-derived. However, today Spanish colonial law influences the Ninth, Tenth and Fifth Circuit Courts in California, Arizona and Texas and Code Napoleon the Fifth Circuit in Louisiana. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:06, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
- I tweaked the sentence closer to what I actually had in mind. As for scope, the Spanish and French are appropriately mentioned, but a rational history of the US would primarily focus on the English colonies. I'm not sure there's much room for more on other colonial influences when you're reducing centuries of settlement to just four short paragraphs that don't even describe English growth with specifics apart from naming the first two colonies and Georgia. More important to American development than foreign influence or even slavery was the early shift from a communal arrangement to a capitalistic one in both Jamestown and Plymouth, as it both enabled those colonies' survival/success and set the tone for an American ideology that persists to this day and is even distinctive compared to the UK, and yet you're proposing dropping that brief sentence, along with any mention of early hardships faced (though the latter are at least mentioned vaguely in the prior section). VictorD7 (talk) 18:54, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
- Not sure if your first paragraph was sarcastic, but adding a single word qualifier (or slight rewording) for the sake of accuracy is hardly tantamount to enlarging the section's scope to issues of tangential importance. An inadequately qualified "began" is the problem. Maybe just saying "Permanent English settlement on the eastern coast of North America began ...." would suffice, though that might be murkier than "successful" since Roanoke was an attempt at permanent settlement. VictorD7 (talk) 18:21, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
- Lest I come off more argumentative than I intend, for the most part I think your proposals are fine. I'm just making a couple of observations. VictorD7 (talk) 18:59, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
- The economic system is not properly called capitalism after the experiment in communalism, but I used the term 'private farm holdings' above as our next redraft. The communalism was derivative from primitive Christian church under persecution as described in New Testament book of Acts. It was ended famously at Jamestown when John Smith imposed martial law and declared to the rich who had paid for their passage as adventurers (versus indentures to the company), "He who shall not work, shall not eat." That was again, in context of the starving community at the time, a scriptural reference, not economic capitalism. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:59, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
- Lest I come off more argumentative than I intend, for the most part I think your proposals are fine. I'm just making a couple of observations. VictorD7 (talk) 18:59, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
- I'm fine with that wording, and it's close to the sentence currently in the article ("personal property"). I'll just sidestep the issue of whether it'd be appropriate to equate early church sharing with the authoritarian communal operations in the early English colonies (though I agree that was an inspiration), and whether "capitalistic" is appropriate to describe the direction they proceeded on, since I just used the word for convenience. It's arguably not optimal to use the word "capitalism" at all since it was largely coined (at least made famous) by socialists to have a negative connotation, but sometimes it's handy.
- We should still do something about the incoherent "bonded labor" sentence. Might be easiest just to delete it. VictorD7 (talk) 21:56, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Why can't we make the US cities template more like this?
| Largest populated areas in Australia 2021 data from Australian Bureau of Statistics | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rank | Name | State | Pop. | Rank | Name | State | Pop. | ||
| 1 | Sydney | NSW | 5,259,764 | 11 | Geelong | Vic | 289,400 | ||
| 2 | Melbourne | Vic | 4,976,157 | 12 | Hobart | Tas | 251,047 | ||
| 3 | Brisbane | Qld | 2,568,927 | 13 | Townsville | Qld | 181,665 | ||
| 4 | Perth | WA | 2,192,229 | 14 | Cairns | Qld | 155,638 | ||
| 5 | Adelaide | SA | 1,402,393 | 15 | Darwin | NT | 148,801 | ||
| 6 | Gold Coast–Tweed Heads | Qld/NSW | 706,673 | 16 | Toowoomba | Qld | 143,994 | ||
| 7 | Newcastle–Maitland | NSW | 509,894 | 17 | Ballarat | Vic | 111,702 | ||
| 8 | Canberra–Queanbeyan | ACT/NSW | 482,250 | 18 | Bendigo | Vic | 102,899 | ||
| 9 | Sunshine Coast | Qld | 355,631 | 19 | Albury-Wodonga | NSW/Vic | 97,676 | ||
| 10 | Wollongong | NSW | 305,880 | 20 | Launceston | Tas | 93,332 | ||
This is the conventional template used for almost all countries. We simply use the populations of the city propers instead of their metro areas, which shouldn't make a huge difference. The current table, in my opinion, lists information unnecessary and uninteresting to most readers, like what regions the cities lie in and the MSAs used by the Census Bureau. This template is not only simpler and more straightforward, but it's smaller and allows 20 cities to be fit into less space. That's why it's the conventional template used in most articles. We should seriously consider using this instead. Cadiomals (talk) 01:15, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
- I like your proposal’s economy of graphic presentation. But I’d like the regions reported to be the SMSAs. Their description could be in subsidiary articles, linked in the chart. Instead of "Gold Coast-Tweed Heads QLD/NSW", use the convention, Greater New York SMSA. versus "New York–New Jersey–Connecticut–Pennsylvania, NY–NJ–CT–PA MSA", or Greater Philadelphia SMSA versus "Philadelphia–Camden–Wilmington, PA–NJ–DE–MD MSA."
- SMSAs reflect how Americans live, work and commute to entertainment, in banking, marketing and trade. So the Rand-McNallly Commercial Atlas uses SMSAs. Using core cities alone is simply 19th century anachronism which does not reflect current reality or usage. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:28, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
- Wouldn't a solution be to simply name this table "Largest metropolitan areas in the U.S." and then use the populations of the Census' MSAs instead of the city cores? Cadiomals (talk) 06:42, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
- Yes. Though the links take some research. New York's SMSA is treated at New York metropolitan area, Philadelphia is at Delaware Valley, so the chart will have to be coded ], ] to read New York MSA, and Philadelphia MSA, respectively, so we can sidestep any "turf" wars at Misplaced Pages to be waged over regional naming conventions. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:56, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
- Wouldn't a solution be to simply name this table "Largest metropolitan areas in the U.S." and then use the populations of the Census' MSAs instead of the city cores? Cadiomals (talk) 06:42, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
Relative wealth
The paragraph on wealth tries to puff up symptoms of income inequality. What could be included from the CreditSuisse Global Wealth Databook to help balance it? I'm thinking rank by median wealth. EllenCT (talk) 07:33, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
- Not sure if you meant to word your first sentence like that, and your link is busted, but, as I posted before when you raised this issue, Credit Suisse, a private, Swiss based finance outfit, is a dubious source for an article at this level and the report is more of a brand exposure ad campaign than anything else. Among other methodological flaws, the results aren't PPP adjusted (the norm for international comparisons). For example, their report says France's wealth per adult tripled(!) in value between 2000 and 2007, but acknowledges that "much of the pre-2007 rise was due to the appreciation of the Euro against the dollar." In other words, it's a distortion with very little impact on actual living standards (mostly a mirage). There are similar descriptions for many other countries. Unless you really believe that French people saw their wealth triple in a few years, this report is worthless. If we were to add new stuff to an already bloated article, there are countless more deserving items. VictorD7 (talk) 09:09, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
- I fixed the link. What do you propose as a more authoritative source on wealth? The number of billionaires per hollowed-out shell of formerly vibrant cities? Just because you found a typo or glitch doesn't mean you should throw the baby out with the bathwater. EllenCT (talk) 11:41, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what your goal is here, but I know that this summary article has more than enough economic statistics and even some other country articles don't have. If you desire more balance in certain sections, you should consider what things should be excluded rather than included. Based on discussions above most people would not support the addition of further statistics as we agreed this article could use fewer details, not more. It has already surpassed the 90KB limit, suggesting that a lot of info can be condensed or spun off into separate articles. You went as far as to add retirement savings statistics which is completely irrelevant to most readers and which no other country article includes. We've all heard your arguments before about "crucial" info for "low-information voters" which is important to current "election cycles", but it has no place in this summary article as has been repeated many times before by so many different people. In short, no more new economic statistics ought to be added; if anything we should be considering which ones can be cut out. Many people still think the I, P and W section can be cut down one or two paragraphs further, but in not wanting to dwell on the same issues we've decided to move on to other sections for now. Cadiomals (talk) 19:50, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
- I am just saying that it would be better to describe wealth by ranking countries by median wealth, since it is a relative measure, than ranking _illionares per capita, or _illionares per anything else for that matter. That's a replacement, not an addition. EllenCT (talk) 02:10, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
- No, the section hasn't mentioned that for quite some time. I guess you haven't read it lately either. VictorD7 (talk) 22:10, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
- I am just saying that it would be better to describe wealth by ranking countries by median wealth, since it is a relative measure, than ranking _illionares per capita, or _illionares per anything else for that matter. That's a replacement, not an addition. EllenCT (talk) 02:10, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
- Not a "typo or glitch" but fundamental flaws. VictorD7 (talk) 21:27, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
- Assumes facts not in evidence. Why do you think the France issue wasn't a one-time thing? EllenCT (talk) 02:10, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
- Because I actually read the report. Apparently you didn't. I just cited a salient example to illustrate the absurdity of the report's methodology. VictorD7 (talk) 22:10, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
- Assumes facts not in evidence. Why do you think the France issue wasn't a one-time thing? EllenCT (talk) 02:10, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what your goal is here, but I know that this summary article has more than enough economic statistics and even some other country articles don't have. If you desire more balance in certain sections, you should consider what things should be excluded rather than included. Based on discussions above most people would not support the addition of further statistics as we agreed this article could use fewer details, not more. It has already surpassed the 90KB limit, suggesting that a lot of info can be condensed or spun off into separate articles. You went as far as to add retirement savings statistics which is completely irrelevant to most readers and which no other country article includes. We've all heard your arguments before about "crucial" info for "low-information voters" which is important to current "election cycles", but it has no place in this summary article as has been repeated many times before by so many different people. In short, no more new economic statistics ought to be added; if anything we should be considering which ones can be cut out. Many people still think the I, P and W section can be cut down one or two paragraphs further, but in not wanting to dwell on the same issues we've decided to move on to other sections for now. Cadiomals (talk) 19:50, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
- I fixed the link. What do you propose as a more authoritative source on wealth? The number of billionaires per hollowed-out shell of formerly vibrant cities? Just because you found a typo or glitch doesn't mean you should throw the baby out with the bathwater. EllenCT (talk) 11:41, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
DAB pages
this edit does not follow the guideline in WP:DAB, regarding the connection of a primary use for a term with a corresponding disambiguation page. Further, the previous edit-summary was inaccurate, misleading at best (see https://toolserver.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/rdcheck.py?page=United_States for a clue). TEDickey (talk) 23:43, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Well-developed infrastructure???
This article claims that the United States infrastructure is "well-develoed", while the accompanying link:
1. is dead; 2. point to a site where the USA is currently given a GPA of D+ for its decaying infrastructure.
http://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/
Should the article be edited so as to reflect the reality as an encyclopedia should?
- Kenworthy, L. (August 20, 2010) "The best inequality graph, updated" Consider the Evidence
- "Who Pays Taxes in America?" (PDF). Citizens for Tax Justice. April 12, 2012.
- Prasad, M. (April 2, 2009). "Taxation and the worlds of welfare". Socio-Economic Review. 7 (3): 431–457. doi:10.1093/ser/mwp005. Retrieved May 5, 2013.
{{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter|coauthors=ignored (|author=suggested) (help) - Crook, Clive (February 10, 2012). "U.S. Taxes Really Are Unusually Progressive". The Atlantic. Washington DC. Retrieved April 3, 2013.
- ^ Matthews, Dylan (September 19, 2012). "Other countries don't have a "47%"". The Washington Post. Retrieved October 29, 2013.
- "How Much Do People Pay in Federal Taxes?". Peter G. Peterson Foundation. Retrieved April 3, 2013.
- ^ Cite error: The named reference
CBO, Distributionwas invoked but never defined (see the help page). - "Table T12-0178 Baseline Distribution of Cash Income and Federal Taxes Under Current Law" (PDF). The Tax Policy Center. Retrieved October 29, 2013.
- Harris, Benjamin H. (November 2009). "Corporate Tax Incidence and Its Implications for Progressivity" (PDF). Tax Policy Center. Retrieved October 9, 2013.
- Gentry, William M. (December 2007). "A Review of the Evidence on the Incidence of the Corporate Income Tax" (PDF). OTA Paper 101. Office of Tax Analysis, US Department of the Treasury. Retrieved October 9, 2013.
- Fullerton, Don (2002). "Tax Incidence". In A.J. Auerbach and M. Feldstein (ed.). Handbook of Public Economics. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science B.V. pp. 1788–1839. Retrieved October 9, 2013.
{{cite book}}: Unknown parameter|coauthors=ignored (|author=suggested) (help) - Musgrave, R.A. (March 1951). "Distribution of Tax Payments by Income Groups: A Case Study for 1948" (PDF). National Tax Journal. 4 (1): 1–53. Retrieved October 9, 2013.
{{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter|coauthors=ignored (|author=suggested) (help) - Prasad, M. (April 2, 2009). "Taxation and the worlds of welfare". Socio-Economic Review. 7 (3): 431–457. doi:10.1093/ser/mwp005. Retrieved May 5, 2013.
{{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter|coauthors=ignored (|author=suggested) (help) - Crook, Clive (February 10, 2012). "U.S. Taxes Really Are Unusually Progressive". The Atlantic. Washington DC. Retrieved April 3, 2013.
- "How Much Do People Pay in Federal Taxes?". Peter G. Peterson Foundation. Retrieved April 3, 2013.
- "Table T12-0178 Baseline Distribution of Cash Income and Federal Taxes Under Current Law" (PDF). The Tax Policy Center. Retrieved October 29, 2013.
- ^ Cite error: The named reference
MLA Datawas invoked but never defined (see the help page). - "Regional Population, 2021". Australian Bureau of Statistics. 11 February 2022.
- Delisted good articles
- Old requests for peer review
- Former good article nominees
- All unassessed articles
- Pages using WikiProject banner shell with duplicate banner templates
- B-Class United States articles
- Top-importance United States articles
- B-Class United States articles of Top-importance
- Past U.S. collaborations of the Month
- WikiProject United States articles
- WikiProject templates with unknown parameters
- B-Class country articles
- WikiProject Countries articles
- B-Class North America articles
- Top-importance North America articles
- WikiProject North America articles
- Unassessed United States articles
- Unknown-importance United States articles
- Unassessed United States articles of Unknown-importance
- Unassessed United States Government articles
- Unknown-importance United States Government articles
- WikiProject United States Government articles
- United States Government articles with to-do lists
- Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press
- Misplaced Pages articles that use American English
- Misplaced Pages requests for comment