This article is within the scope of WikiProject Taxation, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of tax-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.
There is a reference to Showdown at Gucci Gulch in the external links section but it does not provide a link to the book. I'm not sure what should be done with it. 22.214.171.124 05:26, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm still not getting how that wording is accurate, but either way it's horribly difficult to understand. Imputed income is exactly what is meant here. The IRS doesn't tax housing, especially not "flow of housing" which has no meaning in common English, they tax income and imputed income is a concept that refers to this idea. But also since imputed income isn't taxed in the US, we should probably simply reduce or eliminate the discussion on it here and clarify the bit on the shift in incentives in another way. - TaxmanTalk 19:03, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for moving this to the talk page. I guess we disagree on what is the most clear phrase. I think consumption flows is something only talked about by Ph.D. economists, while imputation is relatively common fare for those who might understand the concept. Let's go with your wording. O18 (talk) 01:44, 25 November 2008 (UTC)