Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Taxation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme[edit]

As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.

  • The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
  • The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
  • A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.

Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.

Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot (Disable) 21:24, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


Some people have assessed a couple taxation articles as C-class but these articles show up on the unassessed articles page. Curious. How do we properly direct such assessed articles away from the unassessed articles page? Or is it a matter of time before the articles automatically go to their proper assessment page?EECavazos (talk) 21:13, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

FA announcement[edit]

The FairTax article will appear on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on July 15, 2008. Morphh (talk) 13:08, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Your input sought: Deletion review: Principles of Canadian Income Tax Law[edit]

Hi. I came across a new article that was either spam or a copyright violation (it used the word "we" a lot). I tagged it and it was speedy deleted. The author has taken it to deletion review:

I think there may be a chance this is a notable book deserving of a totally different article -- can some of you take a look? Thanks! --A. B. (talkcontribs) 02:51, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Articles flagged for cleanup[edit]

Currently, 804 articles are assigned to this project, of which 271, or 33.7%, are flagged for cleanup of some sort. (Data as of 14 July 2008.) Are you interested in finding out more? I am offering to generate cleanup to-do lists on a project or work group level. See User:B. Wolterding/Cleanup listings for details. More than 150 projects and work groups have already subscribed, and adding a subscription for yours is easy - just place a template on your project page.

If you want to respond to this canned message, please do so at my user talk page; I'm not watching this page. --B. Wolterding (talk) 16:36, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Assistance for dispute[edit]

I would like to request the assistance of editors that are very familiar with Wikipedia policy and have a background in economics. The FairTax article (FA) has been under dispute since it appeared on the front page of Wikipedia in July. We're running into Raul's law #5, and personally I'm pushing the corollary of #1. An editor has argued (and continues to argue) that the FairTax, a tax reform proposal in the U.S., and its economic research are WP:FRINGE and that a large amount of sourced material should be removed. It was posted on the fringe noticeboard and again here (7 editors stated it was not fringe and 3 stated it was - 2 of the 3 editors for fringe being new). The material is sourced in accordance with WP:V/WP:RS and it follows WP:NPOV policy. Removal of such content would thus violate NPOV policy by removing sourced and relevant viewpoints (which would and does apply to either side). The editor has violated 3RR22 July 2008 and WP:NPA[1][2] (although I have not mentioned it until this point). Being the only editor there at the moment to discuss the content, it's an 1 vs 1 dispute and it's starting to get ugly. I am no doubt being stubborn with letting new users violate what I believe to be policy on an article I've worked very hard on (as I'm sure many of you that have moved an article to FA will know). I'd like to get some outside viewpoints. Here is the current dispute if you want to skip the history. We're moving up the dispute resolution tree and I thought this might be a good place to gather some input before going to mediation or arbitration. Thanks, Morphh (talk) 18:39, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Country tax systems[edit]

There are several articles out there with sections on "tax systems" that contain a sub-section of countries (For example, Income tax and Progressive tax). This seems like bad structure to me. An article on income taxes should just describe what income taxation is, the history, principals, examples, and discuss the particular praise and criticisms. It should not list a subsection for each country with some summary of their particular implementation. If such a topic point merits notability requirements, than create an article for that country (like Taxation in Germany or Income taxes in the United States). Likewise aspects of progressivity of a particular country's tax code should be in an article specific to that country's tax system. Many of these articles already have top level or income tax specific article - merge the data if need be or create a top level article if enough content exists. Than we should delete the country tax system sub-sections from these generic articles. Thoughts Morphh (talk) 20:30, 05 September 2008 (UTC)

I've put a bit of work into Tax rates around the world to list all the primary tax articles for a particular country. This can be referenced as a see also for country specific articles on taxation. I decided to be WP:BOLD and remove the country sub-sections (at least on these articles) - I'll look for others. Morphh (talk) 1:55, 07 September 2008 (UTC)
I've decided to be WP:BOLD and revert it. My basic argument is WP:MTAA. I think that an article should support abstract ideas with specific examples. This article is already fairly difficult for someone who has not already studied economics. There are many technical terms, like marginal propensity to consume, which most ordinary readers wouldn't understand, and if they click on the wikilink, they just wind up in another difficult article with technical terms that most ordinary readers wouldn't understand. Nbauman (talk) 02:53, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm not saying that we shouldn't include examples. In fact, I say we should include examples. This does not mean we create a sub-section for every country or even give weight to listing subsections of particular countries. I think it would be fine to use a few different countries in the examples presented, which would be in a section titled examples or something. I'll try to extract some examples from the sections and rewrite it. I should have done this before removal. Morphh (talk) 12:09, 07 September 2008 (UTC)
I made the change, which I hope addresses the concern. Morphh (talk) 12:50, 07 September 2008 (UTC)

Article names like 501(c)[edit]

Hey guy, shouldn't articles like 501(c) be called something like Internal Revenue Code, 501(c)? The current format to me seems obscure and US-centric. And, when I look at 501_(number) there might even be disambiguation problems. Regards, Str1977 (talk) 09:02, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I would agree with that. Morphh (talk) 12:36, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Keeping the title 501(c) may be a convenience to the non technical researcher, and is generally well known. A tax researcher may very well look for Title 26 or IRC. BarristerXVII (talk) 01:46, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

The proper reference would be either 26 USCS 501(c) or IRC § 501(c) depending on the circumstances. Passiveloss (talk) 05:23, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for Taxation[edit]

Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.

We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.

A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.

We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 22:42, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Taxation in France[edit]

I am a newcomer in this project. I have much worked on the article Taxation in France, but I need some help. Is the structure of the article correct ? The main problem is about the French social constributions ("cotisations sociales" in French, "payroll tax" in anglosaxon countries). These contributions are not really taxes, for they are part of the cost of the labour, i.e. they are included in the total wages paid by employers. In France, there is a very clear distinction between taxes and social contributions. Social contributions are collected by the Securité Sociale, an institution independant from the central government. Most of the graphs, charts and stats provided on the official websites do such a distinction. Sould I speak about these contributions in the article ? Should I mention them in a separate section ? Thanks for your help. Do not hesitate to change in the article what needs to be modified. --Pah777 (talk) 16:22, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

RFC on a section in Ernst & Young[edit]

As the article is tagged under this project please note that a user has requested comment on a disputed section in the Ernst & Young article. It revolves around including information on a worker who died of exhaustion. Please see Talk:Ernst & Young#Stroescu case to offer your opinions. Thanks. Woody (talk) 00:44, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Coordinators' working group[edit]

Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.

All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot (Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 06:43, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Document stamp[edit]

Hi, folks!

A brief question - what would the official name be for the revenue stamps that are placed on documents in order to legalize them - eg. documents compliant with stamp duty in the UK; marriage certificates; official translations of legal documents, etc? A suggestion has been made that "documentary stamp" is used in the US, but is this also the case for the entire english-speaking world? please place your answers here, as this question has been asked in several wikiproject pages. Thank you! (the discussion that led to this question can be seen just above the link provided.) BigSteve (talk) 13:39, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Article alerts[edit]

This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 09:45, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

Re-evaluation of Tax protester (United States)[edit]

The article Tax protester (United States) is specified as Start-class for this project, but it appears to be complete, well-sourced, and well-organized...it should probably be at least B-class. Whoever keeps track of these things should probably have another look... (I don't really know how this stuff works) FlyingPenguin1 (talk) 17:00, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I agree and have upgraded it to a B-Class. Morphh (talk) 17:13, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

equity (economics)[edit]

In my class on the Federal income tax, we're discussing vertical vs. horizontal equity today. I'll be adding content to equity (economics) as we learn more, but I'd appreciate help!  :) thanks Andrew Gradman talk/WP:Hornbook 20:03, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Article Changes[edit]

I recently observed changes to the article KPMG tax shelter fraud, where multiple names of indicted individuals were edited out by Peppy1111. I do not necessarily object to the edit but there was no reason given for the deletion. The indictments were documented KPMG Indictment and US: Defendants File a Flurry of Motions Challenging the KPMG Tax-Shelter Case. Just wondering Opjohnboy24 (talk) 14:35, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Pageview stats[edit]

After a recent request, I added WikiProject Taxation to the list of projects to compile monthly pageview stats for. The data is the same used by http://stats.grok.se/en/ but the program is different, and includes the aggregate views from all redirects to each page. The stats are at Wikipedia:WikiProject Taxation/Popular pages.

The page will be updated monthly with new data. The edits aren't marked as bot edits, so they will show up in watchlists. You can view more results, request a new project be added to the list, or request a configuration change for this project using the toolserver tool. If you have any comments or suggestions, please let me know. Thanks! Mr.Z-man 00:40, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

WP 1.0 bot announcement[edit]

This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 04:00, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Road tax rename[edit]

FYI, Road tax has been nominated for renaming. 70.29.208.247 (talk) 13:05, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

new WikiProject: United States Public Policy[edit]

Hi everyone! I want to invite anyone who's active here and has an interest in American public policy (for example, tax policy) to join WikiProject United States Public Policy, which is just starting up. We've got some cool things planned, including working with students and their professors for several public policy courses.--Sross (Public Policy) (talk) 13:52, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Value-Added-Tax-free imports from the Channel Islands[edit]

If anyone has anything to input on this article please feel free to join in! Its a huge issue in the UK right now and a major problem for HMRC who appear to have made a major error of judgement. Bigbrothersback (talk) 22:31, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Assistance needed in real world tax articles[edit]

Dear colleagues, We appear to have a lot of long articles, many well written & well documented, on ways people wish tax were, ought to be, should have been, etc. Examples: Tobin tax, Financial transaction tax, Flat tax, Fair tax, Tax freedom day, Tax farming, etc. Meanwhile, our lead articles are weak. I have been working to imporove key tax articles, starting at the bottom and working up. I know pontificating about what does not exist is fun, but some help here in the world of real taxes would be greatly appreciated. Sorry for the rant, as this corporate tax guy is tired after the 9/15 deadline. Oldtaxguy (talk) 21:12, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Big task... How about you pick an article and we'll see what we can do. I know my time on Wikipedia is not what it use to be. Too many contentious articles have worn me down. Morphh (talk) 0:30, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
I think if we "pick an article" then all work on it, we will have only one more decent article, and still lots of articles that are still in sad shape. Here are some suggestions of articles that need a lot of work: Income tax in the United States, Income tax in the United Kingdom, Capital gains tax, Capital gains tax in the United States, Deferred tax (the article Tax deferral should be merged into this), Gift tax (now a stub), Estate tax in the United States (the Estate tax article is appropriately titled Inheritance tax, and could use work), State income tax, Sales tax, Property tax (tagged as multiple issues), Rates (tax, Customs, Customs duty, Excise tax (large intro, small article), Church tax, Wealth tax (mostly POV). A set of articles on Individual income tax would be good, one per country. Also, the lead income tax articles for most countries are either missing or need work. Hopefully someone besides me is willing to tackle some of these. If we focus on what is, not what should be, I think controversy can be limited. Oldtaxguy (talk) 00:34, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Taxation articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release[edit]

Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the Taxation articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 23:42, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Federal taxation in the United States cleanup request[edit]

The federal taxation in the United States article needs an experienced editor to cleanup and merge it. A majority of the article, something like a 1/3, is related to the federal income tax, which has its own article (Income tax in the United States). The section is bloated and makes the article hard to read, with almost none of the material in the actual federal income tax article.

I am requesting someone merge this material into the actual income tax article, and slim down the material in the federal taxation article (the broader subject article.) This, is turn, will allow the un-bloating and broadening of the taxation in the United States article, which mainly concerns itself with federal taxation (and therefore federal income tax). IMHO this will significantly improve the quality of all of these articles, allowing for inclusion of a greater breadth of material that is taxation in the United States. Int21h (talk) 08:15, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Odd since you're the one that created that article in Feb and bloated it with content from the other articles. It's never been listed as part of the U.S. taxation series on the template and this is the first I've heard of it. I'm not sure I'm oppose to splitting up the articles like this, but shouldn't it get some discussion? Morphh (talk) 12:46, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
It was a straight copy from taxation in the United States. Singular. Bloated with content from an article. And why is that odd? You make it sound like I just threw in any old thing. I didn't, I threw in the federal taxation material, and only the federal taxation material. That others had written a long time ago.
Also see WP:SIZE and WP:SPLIT for details on the common, traditional approach on splitting. 60 kilobytes has been common and accepted for a long time in the "probably should be divided" zone. The US taxation article is already 59 kilobytes. I don't think I was out of line on this. Articles traditionally get split when they an article that would include multiple sub-topics (such as a national taxation scheme with has both federal and state aspects) gets too large, and a sub-topic has enough material to stand on its own and be its own article. Federal taxation is a sub-topic of US taxation, distinct from the 51 state taxation schemes, which especially with California have enough to be their own articles. And notice the maximum depth of the sub-topics in the federal taxation article: 4 levels deep. As it is right now, once the edits get merged back to the US taxation article, that will be 5 levels deep. 5 levels of depth in an article is too much, and nicely fits under the requirements of the "cleanup" tag.
And it can be discussed by anyone at anytime. In fact, that's what I thought we were doing here. If you don't like the split, then during this discussion please consider everything I am saying in terms of the taxation in the United States article. I think they apply equally well. (IOW, when I say the federal taxation article is bloated, consider it as a statement that the US taxation article is bloated. It is the same material at the moment, albeit a little restructured, but the same material nonetheless.) Int21h (talk) 17:50, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
And also note the federal taxation article itself is already 47 kilobytes long. Traditionally in the range of "[m]ay eventually need to be divided (likelihood goes up with size)". Int21h (talk) 18:13, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm in favor of reverting this page to the simple redirect to Taxation in the United States that Morphh had three years ago. Both articles have too many problems to be retained without significant modification, and at best are fully redundant. We can't try to maintain and improve articles that duplicate each other. That's what redirects are for. Oldtaxguy (talk) 03:02, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Why we should not have a debates within articles[edit]

The interchange between user:Arthur Rubin and user:Amodio11 in Income tax in the United States is a perfect example of why we should not have sections "arguments for/against" particular taxes in the article on such tax. There are wide differences of opinion as to what should be.

We should be describing what is, not what should be. WP should not be a forum for political debate. It should be an encyclopedia. I suggest significant curtailment of pro & con sections in any and all articles.

If someone wants the highly controversial pro & con stuff, write a separate article on it, which readers can completely ignore, or better yet, do your own website.

Please note that the articles on religion and politics DO NOT have pro/con sections at all. Further, I have been unable to find "arguments for and against" very much.

Please leave comments here on whether we should outright ban the pro/con sections.

(note: I tend to agree with Arthur Rubin on his point, but know people who do not. On the point in question, I think all opinions are essentially political.) Oldtaxguy (talk) 03:31, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree that we should avoid pro/con or criticism sections. While they are permissible, they are not a mark of high quality writing or the goal of Wikipedia. These sections are often referenced (WP:CRITS, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Article Structure, Wikipedia:Pro and con lists, Wikipedia:Avoid thread mode, and Template:Criticism-section). But I don't want this to be taken as a way to avoid WP:NPOV policy. We need to include different points of view that are presented in reliable sources. It's often best and general consensus that criticism should be woven into the article, not separated into sections, forked, or placed in pro / con lists. So I'd probably consider the "should be" as a likely criticism against "what is". So we should consider weaving such verifiable criticism into the article if it's appropriate for the topic point while keeping undue weight in check. Larger topics like tax reform in general or a particular tax reform plan (Taxpayer Choice Act, FairTax, etc. stuff in Category:United_States_proposed_federal_legislation), should get their own article (if they meet notability). Specifics about "what is" might be best placed into articles such as Internal Revenue Code or one of those sub-articles (Category:Internal_Revenue_Code). We also have an entire section on tax protesting arguments Tax_protester_(United_States), so for many cases, this covers the majority of criticisms. In doing so, it's acceptable to reference that criticism in the main article body or in a summary style section and link it to the larger article(s) discussing the topic. As for the exchange between Arthur Rubin and Amodio11, I agree with Arthur on this point. Amodio11 was trying to introduce unsourced content, which runs contrary to my experience for that label. Morphh (talk) 12:37, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Can we collectively begin to re-rate articles?[edit]

Many of the article ratings are over 3 years old, and many of those articles have changed significantly, affecting how they should be rated. I propose we begin the (slow) process of re-rating all articles. Do we have a formal process within the group for such? Note that several formerly stub or start class articles seem to be C or even B. My personal goal on reworking articles has been to get to B in a few edits. I'm loathe to re-rate articles I've done more than minor work on, as I will be biased. We also have quite a few articles rated as far different priority than I think consensus would be. Let's get this going so we can figure out what we need to do. I'll start with bumping up the priority of [[Taxation in the United States to Top. Also, it seems to make sense to downgrade a priority once we get to where we're going. Oldtaxguy (talk) 03:57, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Here is our project section on Assessment, which includes a table for quality and priority. Morphh (talk) 17:44, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Linking in articles[edit]

Query to group: in discussing state, provincial, and/or local taxes in a general article about the type of tax (e.g., income tax), should we link the name of each state any time it is mentioned? Thoughts appreciated; I'm very undecided. Oldtaxguy (talk) 02:27, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't, certainly not every time it's mentioned. You could link it the first time, but only if it's helpful to the reader. We don't want to WP:OVERLINK, with specifically describes "Avoid linking the names of major geographic features and locations". Morphh (talk) 17:40, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Taxation in the United States article[edit]

Please help with the article overhaul project at User:Ravensfire/Taxation in the United States. Oldtaxguy (talk) 00:42, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Just wondering if you meant this: User talk:Ravensfire/Taxation in the United States? Ottawahitech (talk) 23:30, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
That project was finished during the summer of 2011. Oldtaxguy (talk) 03:18, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Taxation in the Ottoman empire[edit]

Hello all,
I've recently started a family of articles around Taxation in the Ottoman empire. They're mostly written as historical articles, but I'd really appreciate any suggestions for improvement/expansion from an economics/taxation perspective. With a little luck, several of them will go to DYK later this week. I'm building a collection in the template to the right (which will probably grow a little more), and turning some of the redlinks blue. Most of these are very new articles (or neglected stubs), so they still have some rough edges - all criticism is welcome! bobrayner (talk) 19:33, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Taxation in Sweden[edit]

Have made some changes to the Taxation in Sweden page, primarily regarding registration for foreign companies and sole traders active in Sweden but also regarding the text that was there, since it was only really referring to salary tax and was erroneous. However, I have a COI and should have proposed made the changes on the talk page instead. They where later ok:ed by an admin after discussion but I was wondering if someone knowledgeable here could go through it as well to verify that it is up to standards. Will of course only make proposed changes to the discussion pages from now on on subjects I have a COI for. I dont think that there is anything debatable on the page but would appreciate a second opinion. Swe int tax (talk) 12:39, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

History of corporate tax rates in the USA[edit]

Please join the discussion at: Talk:Corporate_tax_in_the_United_States#Have_corporate_taxes_in_the_US_always_been_this_high.3F Ottawahitech (talk) 23:26, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Include PPACA in the project?[edit]

Well, since the Supreme Court says the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare) is constitutional as a tax, should the article come under the purview of WikiProject Taxation? --S. Rich (talk) 15:46, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Tax statistics[edit]

One editor has added graphs based on certain Congressional Budget Office tables. I have a great deal of problems with the tables. They purport to present average tax rates for various income groups. Such averages, if accurate, could be a very useful set of information. However, the averages are not what they appear. The amount of taxes is "imputed" to individuals, even if not assessed on individuals. This involves econometric modeling driven more by assumptions than by data. For example, corporate income taxes are ascribed to individuals, then allocated among income groups. Further the measures of income used bear little or no resemblance to what most people would consider income.

Following are direct quotes:

1. Comprehensive household income equals pretax cash income plus income from other sources. Pretax cash income is the sum of wages, salaries, self-employment income, rents, taxable and nontaxable interest, dividends, realized capital gains, cash transfer payments, and retirement benefits plus taxes paid by businesses (corporate income taxes and the employer's share of Social Security, Medicare, and federal unemployment insurance payroll taxes) and employees' contributions to 401(k) retirement plans. Other sources of income include all in-kind benefits (Medicare and Medicaid benefits, employer-paid health insurance premiums, food stamps, school lunches and breakfasts, housing assistance, and energy assistance).
2. Corporate income taxes are allocated to households according to their share of capital income.

I have the following observations on the above:

Overall: imputation of taxes and income is done in a manner undisclosed, not subject to review. CBO is not known for its accuracy in such regard. A staffer remarked to one tax conference that one key aspect of the budget process was "scoring" particular measures. If a measure raised revenues by increasing compliance with existing law, it was scored as not raising revenue. If the same measure had a cost of enforcement, it was treated as increasing expenditures without offset except by actual penalties imposed. Are we to accept without possibility of review the representations of politicians and their staff? In particular, are we to accept something that is inherently prone to manipulation?
1. How can it be said that an individual's income includes TAXES paid by others, such as unemployment tax imposed on employers?
1. Inclusion of imputed amounts has a strongly distortive effect on results as presented.
1. The definition of income is so far removed from the layman's definition of income that it is useless without severe qualification inappropriate to chart captions.
2. The CBO's allocation of corporate tax to income groups is as best speculative and controversial. For example, a 0.4% effective tax rate for corporate income tax is ascribed to the bottom income quartile, who almost never have any investment income from corporations.
2. There is considerable controversy among economists over whether and to what extent corporate taxes should be attributed to individuals. An excellent example is Microsoft. Prior to 2004, Microsoft had never paid a dividend and it appeared that it never would. Shareholders had the potential for profit only by selling the stock. How can a shareholder who has never received a dividend be considered to have paid part of corporate tax? (Note: when the individual tax rate on dividends was reduced, Microsoft paid large dividends almost immediately.)
2. Imputing corporate tax to individuals without imputing corporate income or at least unrealized gains results in substantial distortion.
2. The combined effect of imputing income to lower brackets and imputing tax to upper brackets results in substantial distortion of purported effective tax rates among income brackets. CBO shows the top 1% of households paying an effective Federal tax rate of 29.5%, including a corporate tax rate of 8.8%. This is clearly nonsense, and is unsupported. See discussions in WP and elsewhere about actual taxes paid by the top earners.

I propose to remove charts based on the CBO tables or similarly derived data. Should we instead come up with some sort of major caveat on the charts? A hazard of charts is people believe they are seeing something proven even when the caption shows it is not proven.

Comments welcome.Oldtaxguy (talk) 02:07, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I've had some similar concerns. FICA was one article that I thought the charts created more confusion than clarification. I've noticed some of the discussion and due to time, have not got involved. So having not read the full discussion, I wouldn't consider this a solid opinion, but up to this point, I tend to agree with Oldtaxguy. Morphh (talk) 13:25, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

PAYE vs. PAYG[edit]

Neither article sheds light on why these two names, and articles, exist -- what is the difference between PAYE and PAYG? If they are just two names for the same thing, the articles should be merged. Doceddi (talk) 20:54, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree that merger is appropriate. PAYG is, as far as I know, used only by Australia and NZ. There may be Australian political concerns that drove the name change in 2000. Oldtaxguy (talk) 22:42, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

The difference is implied in the openings of the two articles. The acronym 'PAYG' became public in Australia with the release of the 'A new Tax System' white paper which became known as ANTS. The relevant section of ANTS is archived at http://archive.treasury.gov.au/documents/167/HTML/docshell.asp?URL=chp4.asp. As the white paper notes, 'Pay as you go' replaced five systems; PAYE withholding of tax, the COIN company instalments system, the prescribed payments and reportable payments source deduction and reporting systems, and the Provisional Tax personal tax instalments system. The use of 'as you go' in the legislation was intended to connote a tax collection system that was integrated and broader than tax collection from salary and wages income. Another example of a term not previously used in Australian Tax Law is 'enterprise', which was intended to connote a broader concept than 'business'.

Pineappleskip (talk) 15:58, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Transfer mispricing[edit]

You probably want to take over, add, link, or whatever to the transfer mispricing article. It needs to be linked to from transfer pricing or subsume it. - tychay (tchay@wikimedia) (talk) 22:31, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I have proposed outright deletion of that article. It smacks of lobbying by certain organizations, and provides no new or useful information. See talk:transfer mispricing. Comments?Oldtaxguy (talk) 20:13, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Grand list[edit]

Apparently the term "Grand list" is unique to a few areas. No article in Wikipedia, nor is term defined in Wiktionary. It is the sum total of assessed property in a municipality. There must be an equivalent term someplace, but couldn't figure it out. Student7 (talk) 22:56, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Forced/Free rider problem[edit]

Rich, Rubin and SPECIFICO are making and/or supporting edits on the free rider problem and the forced rider problem which do not reflect what the reliable sources have to say about the topics... Talk:Forced_rider_problem#See_also_items_removed. But I might be wrong. It would be great if any outside editors could evaluate how well their edits match the reliable sources. Thanks. --Xerographica (talk) 16:05, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Bank deposit levy[edit]

Bank deposit levy is a very high profile topic at the moment. It would be good to have more examples of when this has been attempted in the past. I have found reference to a much smaller levy in Italy, but am struggling to find an indepth explanation of what Italy did during that crash (see talk page). John Vandenberg (chat) 10:15, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Help with Sales taxes in the United States article[edit]

Hi, a little while ago I posted a request on the talk page of the Sales taxes in the United States article about adding a new section to cover the recent efforts to establish a sales tax for Internet purchases. You can see the section I prepared on the article's talk page here. I'm looking for editors to review and discuss this addition with me because I have mentioned The Heritage Foundation, my employer, in this section. Because of my connection to Heritage I would like for other editors to take a look. Thanks! Thurmant (talk) 13:53, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Issues with article State income tax[edit]

There are several issues with an article presently titled "State income tax" whose scope is presently income taxation by the states of the United States of America.

1. Obviously, the first issue is scope. In April 2012 a bunch of people, some of them evidently registered Wikipedians, commented on this US-centricity and seemed to agree on either renaming the article or broadening it, but near as I can tell, nothing's happened.

2. To the extent that its scope should be US state income taxation (whether or not it's renamed), I seriously doubt it's still "Start-class" on the quality scale, although I haven't evaluated the descriptive sections much.

3. I've greatly expanded the history section over the past couple of years. It's probably too big now, given that it more or less chronologically tracks all states' income taxes, mainly using lists. To put it mildly, I don't know of another place where the level of detail I've been shooting for can be found. I think it would be logical to shunt much of what's there off to articles by state, but I'm not clear on the extent to which state-by-state taxation articles exist, or to which information about the history of state taxation would be welcome in broader articles. Is this turning into a research project I should remove from Wikipedia altogether? (If so, while the lists should probably be removed from the existing article, it's not quite that simple. Some paragraphs are really disguised lists; some list entries have information of potential historical interest in them. I or another human should do the edit, not a bot.) My work may also have other flaws in y'all's eyes; I'm not a registered Wikipedian, and this is the biggest thing I've done on Wikipedia.

Joe Bernstein joe@sfbooks.com

A tax preparer of six years' experience, interested in the history of income taxation for several of those years, and with unusually wide experience preparing state tax returns, but by no means an expert on either subject. 128.95.223.115 (talk) 02:40, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

RfC at Talk:Georgism[edit]

Regarding whether support of any land tax is sufficient to list a person as being "influenced by Georgism." Collect (talk) 15:48, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Religious Taxes[edit]

I was wondering how best to incorporate religious taxes in the Template:Taxation? There are articles on Islamic taxation Jizya,Zakat,Nisab,Kharaj etc. and christian related taxes Church tax. Maybe new a subheading, or something else? Jonpatterns (talk) 15:56, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

@Jonpatterns:, I think it would make a good category. I went ahead and added it to the template, but I'm not really familiar with the different religious taxes, so please expand it. Morphh (talk) 21:24, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for adding the links to the template. I'll add more when I've got a moment. Jonpatterns (talk) 21:31, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
I've noticed Temples don't update until a page is edited, probably a bugJonpatterns (talk) 09:49, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Templates should include link to Taxation project?[edit]

Many of the Tax templates don't include a link to the Taxation project, notably Template:Taxation Jonpatterns (talk) 14:27, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, would probably need to be subtle. What do you think, maybe a little "p" after the "v t e"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Morphh (talkcontribs) 14:40, 10 January 2014‎ (UTC)
@Jonpatterns: I thought links to wikiprojects are only mentioned on talkpages? By the way, which other templates does this WikiProject have? XOttawahitech (talk) 21:07, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
I think I go confused between Portals and Projects! Economic side bars some times have links to the the Business and Economic Portal (for example, Template:Economics sidebar, Template:Economic systems sidebar). But taxation doesn't have a specific Portal and may not be suitable for one, or may even come under the Business and Economic one. Jonpatterns (talk) 21:33, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Popular pages tool update[edit]

As of January, the popular pages tool has moved from the Toolserver to Wikimedia Tool Labs. The code has changed significantly from the Toolserver version, but users should notice few differences. Please take a moment to look over your project's list for any anomalies, such as pages that you expect to see that are missing or pages that seem to have more views than expected. Note that unlike other tools, this tool aggregates all views from redirects, which means it will typically have higher numbers. (For January 2014 specifically, 35 hours of data is missing from the WMF data, which was approximated from other dates. For most articles, this should yield a more accurate number. However, a few articles, like ones featured on the Main Page, may be off).

Web tools, to replace the ones at tools:~alexz/pop, will become available over the next few weeks at toollabs:popularpages. All of the historical data (back to July 2009 for some projects) has been copied over. The tool to view historical data is currently partially available (assessment data and a few projects may not be available at the moment). The tool to add new projects to the bot's list is also available now (editing the configuration of current projects coming soon). Unlike the previous tool, all changes will be effective immediately. OAuth is used to authenticate users, allowing only regular users to make changes to prevent abuse. A visible history of configuration additions and changes is coming soon. Once tools become fully available, their toolserver versions will redirect to Labs.

If you have any questions, want to report any bugs, or there are any features you would like to see that aren't currently available on the Toolserver tools, see the updated FAQ or contact me on my talk page. Mr.Z-bot (talk) (for Mr.Z-man) 05:29, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

semi-active status[edit]

Looking at the edit histories for both the talk page and project page shows a downturn in activity. Interestingly there are various article talk page debates going on now about progressive & regressive taxes and income inequality & the effects of taxes. I've been casually following some of them, so I tried looking at the Project page. Well, I see a merger proposal re progressive & regressive taxes being merged into Tax progressivity. (What a great idea I think.) Only the discussion died out years ago – but the notice of merger discussion remains. Perhaps my semi-active tagging will stimulate some more activity on project. (I wish I had time to do so, but other interests are taxing at the moment.) Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 05:23, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Ya, project is sort of dead. I use to be the primary maintainer but I don't have the time anymore. Morphh (talk) 22:10, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

VAT in Afghanistan page[edit]

Afghanistan is in the process of introducing a VAT. There may be value in adding a page on this tax, which could assist taxpayers in understanding the tax and its issues.

Appreciate your thoughts, and also on what pages this article should be linked to from I was thinking 'Taxation in Afghanistan' (a stub), 'Value Added Taxes' and 'Tax Reform'

Cheers

Pineappleskip (talk) 04:48, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Leaflet for Wikiproject Taxation at Wikimania 2014[edit]

Project Leaflet WikiProject Medicine back and front v1.png

Hi all,

My name is Adi Khajuria and I am helping out with Wikimania 2014 in London.

One of our initiatives is to create leaflets to increase the discoverability of various wikimedia projects, and showcase the breadth of activity within wikimedia. Any kind of project can have a physical paper leaflet designed - for free - as a tool to help recruit new contributors. These leaflets will be printed at Wikimania 2014, and the designs can be re-used in the future at other events and locations.

This is particularly aimed at highlighting less discoverable but successful projects, e.g:

• Active Wikiprojects: Wikiproject Medicine, WikiProject Video Games, Wikiproject Film

• Tech projects/Tools, which may be looking for either users or developers.

• Less known major projects: Wikinews, Wikidata, Wikivoyage, etc.

• Wiki Loves Parliaments, Wiki Loves Monuments, Wiki Loves ____

• Wikimedia thematic organisations, Wikiwomen’s Collaborative, The Signpost

The deadline for submissions is 1st July 2014

For more information or to sign up for one for your project, go to:

Project leaflets
Adikhajuria (talk) 13:13, 27 June 2014 (UTC)