| Revision as of 12:21, 7 April 2006 editEwlyahoocom (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users19,149 edits →what was gutted?: comparison of← Previous edit | Revision as of 10:19, 8 April 2006 edit undoSilverback (talk | contribs)6,113 edits →what was gutted?Next edit → | ||
| Line 37: | Line 37: | ||
| </blockquote></i> | </blockquote></i> | ||
| :Again, I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "gutted". Can you be more specific? ] 12:21, 7 April 2006 (UTC) | :Again, I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "gutted". Can you be more specific? ] 12:21, 7 April 2006 (UTC) | ||
| ::The first explanation is better and more detailed. Many readers will not be economically literate, and whole sectors of the electorate don't understand indirect and non-linear effects. Note that even the more extensive original explanation, does not get into the growth benefits from lowering the cost of capital and the effects that has on business evaluation of the value of future returns for a project or expenditure. Deeper recessions does convey a sense of loss of economic growth, but even that does not capture the growth lost even in prosperous times due to a higher cost of capital.--] 10:19, 8 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 10:19, 8 April 2006
Where did those statistics regarding the effect of the dividend tax cut come from? I prepare tax returns for a living, and I think the effects on high-income ( > $300K) returns are overstated, and the effects on moderate-income returns (for retired people, not for working people) are understated. Maybe my clients aren't a good statistical sample. Anyway, I'd sure like to see a cite to the source for those numbers. -- gbroiles 19 Aug 2003
I think this article comes across as pure advocacy for elimination of double taxation, rather than information as to what it is. There appears to be a one-sided debate contained within the article, with no small bias evident behind the argument for its elimination. The article needs to be toned down, and a more thorough explanation of the different positions is necessary. There are such animals as "rich" people, and they do earn a lot of money from dividends. People who have little understanding of commerce and economics will come here looking for a reasoned explanation, perhaps in order to decide whether they support such a tax. Anyone who is sensitive to biased language will dismiss the information out of hand, and in fact such an evident bias may have the opposite of the desired effect. This sort of treatment of the subject detracts from its credibility, and dilutes the value of wikipedia.
Anonymous one, it is a non-linear world
The article could probably use some wordsmithing, but feel free to present the argument for double taxing of dividends and thus having a tax system that favors debt financing of corporations if you can make a case for it. All I've ever heard is the short-sighted class warfare rhetoric, which not only is simplistic linear thinking, but is wrong because it is the working poor and not the rich that get hurt by the layoffs cause by the inflexible rigidity of debt financing.--Silverback 07:21, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The fact that this article's neutrality is not called into question by Misplaced Pages and the article for the "Working Poor" is, seems to be further proof that Fox News has bought the Misplaced Pages. --
Wow! Who wrote this? The Cato Institute? Ewlyahoocom 11:34, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
- The line previous to yours was written by an anon.--Silverback 05:34, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
- Hi SB, my comment was actually referring to the article itself and its POV, before the rewrite. (I'll add a linebreak up there to try and make that more clear.) Ewlyahoocom 16:29, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
npov
Why exactly is the NPOV tag on this article? The only specifics I see mentioned thus far on the talk page are calls for citations and "more thorough explanation." There are separate tags for those things....
Thoughts? Ur Wurst Enema 05:17, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
- Perhaps you missed the comments starting "I think this article comes across as pure advocacy..."? I agree with that! The page has barely a description of what the tax is (e.g. what is "taxed at the shareholder's level" supposed to mean?) then launches into a screed. Ewlyahoocom 16:21, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
None of that is specific. If you are so sure that this article is pure "advocacy" or a "screed," surely you could explain why. "I don't like it" ipso facto does not constitute POV. --Ur Wurst Enema 23:13, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
what was gutted?
The discussion of a double tax on dividends favoring debt over equity financing was gutted, and the resulting implications for layoffs and business cycles. Perhaps you can explain why you deleted that.--Silverback 09:28, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
- Here's the original:
Supporters pointed out that the bottom 60% of wage-earners already pay little in taxes but are probably harmed the most by the double taxation. When corporations decide how to raise their capital, they see that the interest payments on debt are taxed only once while the dividend payments on equity are taxed twice, thus the tax system favors going into debt and becoming highly leveraged. Highly leveraged companies must layoff or furloough more workers more quickly at the first signs of an economic downturn. The double tax on dividends thus increases the depth of recessions in the business cycle. It is the bottom 60% of wage earners that suffer more than the "rich" from layoffs and deeper recessions. Given the negative impact of leverage on the business cycle, from a macro-economic perspective, it would be wiser to double tax interest rather than dividends by reducing the deductability of interest.
- Here's the rewrite:
Abolitionists claim that more than half of all wage-earners already pay little in income taxes (not counting social security "taxes") and are "probably" harmed the most by double taxation: a company wanting to raise capital must decide between issuing new debt or issuing new equity; the differing tax treatment encourages the company to issue debt and the company becomes highly leveraged. Later during an inevitable economic downturn, the company -- not being able to bear the risk of missing an interest payment -- will be quick to lay-off workers. By comparison, abolitionists claim, a company has more flexibility with regard to dividend payments.
- Again, I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "gutted". Can you be more specific? Ewlyahoocom 12:21, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
- The first explanation is better and more detailed. Many readers will not be economically literate, and whole sectors of the electorate don't understand indirect and non-linear effects. Note that even the more extensive original explanation, does not get into the growth benefits from lowering the cost of capital and the effects that has on business evaluation of the value of future returns for a project or expenditure. Deeper recessions does convey a sense of loss of economic growth, but even that does not capture the growth lost even in prosperous times due to a higher cost of capital.--Silverback 10:19, 8 April 2006 (UTC)