Reviewers: To start the review process, follow this link: start review. This will create a dedicated subpage for the GA review. Save this page. (If you have already done this, and the template has not changed, try purging this talk page. See here for instructions.)
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.
The following commentary was posted in the article, but really goes here:
Note toward the following information. We need better information on this than a NY Times article. This is not accurate information for those with post graduate degrees included in the upper tax bracket who net about 40% of their take home pay after state and local taxes and a tithe. For example, a doctor working for $335,000 who has 21+ years of education, school loans, and works a high stress job in this article is lumped with those who simply make their money off of investments. Couples who have studied hard, work hard, are paying off loans, and pay a high price during each and every week are lumped in this article in our mindset with millionaires and multimillionaires who tend to make their money off of sheltered investments. There is no "millionaire" tax bracket. Another example is two people with graduate or post-graduate degrees who make enough to fall in the top tax bracket. There is no room in our mentality for these hard working couples, the ideal couples we inspire them to become at each stage of their academic career. We judge those we deem to be "rich" and want to penalize them with left winged articles like the following. It is not an accurate view of the American public. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk • contribs)
The history section should make it clear that the tax exemption ($ 3-4K ~1913) effectively creates a zero tax bracket.184.108.40.206 (talk) 17:34, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
I suspect that it is clearly understood by most people that any income that has the benefit of a tax exemption is taxed at a zero tax rate, and that this income is in a "zero tax bracket." Famspear (talk) 01:33, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
In the USA, the Federal, most state, and many local governments impose tax. Most state and local principles for income tax are based on or conform to Federal principles. Confining the article to Federal only would be a waste of resources and tend to limit rather than increase reader knowledge. I have reverted edits by a new editor.Oldtaxguy (talk) 04:09, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
I believe this article meets the 6 WP:GACR and propose to nominate it next week. Comments? Oldtaxguy (talk) 00:09, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
I haven't been monitoring this article closely for a while. How often does "income tax is voluntary" or "(Federal) income tax violates the Constitution" reappear? — Arthur Rubin(talk) 12:48, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
The article does not cover either topic. The constitutional topic is covered in Tax protester constitutional arguments, in which it is rather resoundingly rebutted. The "voluntary" topic, to my knowledge, is not covered, as it is so frivolous. See, e.g., the coverage given by Prof. Jonathan R. Siegel of GWU Law school in his wepage and tax pages. Both views are very finge, with no RS supporting them.Oldtaxguy (talk) 21:44, 10 January 2016 (UTC)