Talk:Luxury tax

Untitled

Glad this got taken off the prod list. Now, who wants to make this into a good article? Sparsefarce 20:24, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Pyat rublei 1997.jpg

Image:Pyat rublei 1997.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 11:30, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for expansion?

This article can be improved by describing the effect of luxury taxes on jobs, if any. Does it affect rates of employment or unemployment? For example, revenues raised from luxury taxes could be invested or used to employ people, or the people who would otherwise buy luxury items may invest or save their money instead, but also, when fewer people buy the taxed items, then the manufacturers may lay people off or go out of business. What is the net effect? Bwrs (talk) 17:44, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Theory of luxury tax

The theory discussed in the entry at the moment only considers luxury goods as positional goods. That approach puts the discussion in a Veblen or game-theoretic framework. Another way of thinking about luxury taxes is marginal utility of income. Luxury taxes are consumption taxes charged to people with low marginal utility of income (because of high incomes and declining marginal utility). That approach is consistent with a neoclassical and utilitarian economic framework. Bulei (talk) 20:04, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Luxury tax/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

==WP Tax Class==

Stub class because one section and it needs references.EECavazos 00:08, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Division of article into sections leads to classing of article as start rather than stub.EECavazos (talk) 03:33, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

==WP Tax Priority==

Mid priority because applicable globally and has significant impact.EECavazos 00:09, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Last edited at 03:33, 14 May 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 22:38, 29 April 2016 (UTC)