Talk:Income splitting

regarding references

Please have a citation at each point rather then saying that all the references are listed. The point about unreferenced material is that you don't know where it came from. With this article, all I can see is a mass of text and two links at the bottom. I can't tell what came from where. As such, please put footnotes or something to indicate where the material came from. -- User_talk:I ate jelly -- 14:51, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rather charged language, you think?

Very politically biased article, with claims of "rhetoric" and sexism. Think someone should clean this up? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.92.50.181 (talk) 04:51, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this sentiment, and thus obviously not much has changed in the two years since this comment was made. 2620:101:F000:700:8CC2:676B:75D7:35A1 (talk) 17:41, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Still extremely biased. Discussions of the sexist implications of this practice should be included in the article, but not as part of the introduction. It should be a subsection. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.157.35.100 (talk) 23:40, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why does Wikipedia allow such biased articles to even exist? Shouldn't this article be either cleaned up promptly or be removed entirely? It does not do the reputation of Wikipedia any good to have such a biased article in the database. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.50.181.200 (talk) 17:58, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article sounds like a feminist rant. Wxyz773 (talk) 18:21, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree this article is not neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.65.140.196 (talk) 01:26, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have started to try and work on this article. It is going to take a good deal of effort, because it in a total mess. It is not even close to the standards needed to qualify as neutral. My initial thought was to delete everything. But for now, I have tried to simply tidy it up a little bit. It will however very likely require a complete rewrite.

This article is very biased. Why are the edits that are being made to try and tidy it up being undone? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.65.140.196 (talk) 01:26, 13 February 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.50.181.200 (talk) [reply]

I agree. I have re-written the introductory paragraph. --D'Andria (talk) 21:47, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Problems with endnote 4

There is nothing wrong with the article, "Do egalitarian societies boost fertility?" itself. In fact, it is very good and I am happy that I got the chance to read it. However, it does not back up the claim that "Declining fertility rates in countries that subsidize patriarchal/maternalist marriage and rebounding fertility rates in countries that shift their policies to recognizing equal parental responsibility are also a factor in many countries abandoning fictional income splitting for tax measurement." From the information in the article, one could infer that income splitting props up the traditionalist family structure at the expense of the egalitarian one and delays the u-shaped recovery of fertility rates, but the article does not say anything in particular about countries deciding to abandon income splitting because of its fertility effects nor does it say anything about marriage or taxation.

Commonwealth927 (talk) 23:48, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]