Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Silverback (talk | contribs) at 09:33, 7 April 2006 (restore previous edit, I see a lot of the explanation was gutted.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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)