Talk:Progressive tax/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Question on TPC graph removal and replacement with another TPC graph.

[[:File:US federal effective tax rates by income percentile and component.gif|300px|thumb|U.S. federal effective tax rates by income percentile and component as projected for 2014 by the Tax Policy Center.]] [[:File:US Federal Income and Payroll Tax Rates.png|300px|thumb|US federal income and payroll tax rates by income percentile and component as projected for 2014 by the Tax Policy Center.]] I recently added a Tax Policy Center graph (seen right above) to illustrate the concept of progressivity. It survived for a few days but EllenCT and LK just respectively removed it and replaced it with another TPC graph (seen right below). I was curious as to the rationale for this. EllenCT's edit summary called the graph "misleading" but didn't explain why, either there or on the Talk Page. LK replaced it with a self drawn graph from the exact same TPC source page, except that his excludes that page's corporate and estate tax attribution (though it does add a population average figure), leaving it less informative than the more polished looking one it replaced. It also doesn't contain the precise numbers included on the original. Is there a coherent reason for replacing the graph, particularly with another graph from the same source that only partially relates its data? VictorD7 (talk) 06:01, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Please include sales tax. EllenCT (talk) 06:20, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure how that answers my question. You realize the new graph LK made and added doesn't include sales tax, don't you? VictorD7 (talk) 07:13, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

If you're not going to include all taxes, you have to cut somewhere – cutting at the individual income and payroll taxes makes sense, as you are only including taxes that an individual pays directly. As Ellen pointed out, the tax incidence of corporate taxes is unclear and disputed. It makes sense to leave it out. In any case, the graph is clearly illustrating a progressive tax, so nothing is lost. LK (talk) 07:27, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

@Lawrencekhoo: on the contrary, the consensus of the peer reviewed literature attributes the incidence of about half of corporate taxes to labor, consumers, and customers. The only controversy is manufactured to mislead. How many peer reviewed literature reviews and meta-analyses have you looked at for this? There's only one which ends up substantially less than half. EllenCT (talk) 01:07, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Which sources are disputing corporate tax incidence? All sources that produce tax incidence figures in this format attribute corporate taxes roughly the same way, all or mostly all to corporate owners. There has been some primary scholarship hypothesizing different labor/capital splits, but the overwhelming weight of scholarship over the past half century has attributed it mostly to capital, hence the outfits that do tax incidence all following suit. Indeed, isn't it OR for you to selectively combine two categories from the source on personal whim that the source itself doesn't combine, and use that to replace a chart that faithfully represented the source? I'm not certain on that last point, but it seems like it might be. VictorD7 (talk) 07:53, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

As I mentioned before, I would prefer a more neutral tone in your responses - thanks. I don't know what you're background or training is (it would be great if you could post more info on your user page), but AFAIK, the attribution of the corporate income tax is a difficult question, and not as clear cut as you imply. Please have a look here, and here for a survey of the literature. LK (talk) 10:38, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

I would appreciate it if you stopped repeating that line about a "neutral response" without providing any specific complaint about my posts, which have been exceedingly civil. Appeal to personal authority isn't a valid form of argument on Wikipedia, which is supposed to be about evaluating sources, especially since most users are anonymous anyway, and is why I don't bother dressing up my user page (along with my own preference for anonymity). I also don't typically care what others claim on their user pages (which can be anything), but judge editors by their reading comprehension, honesty, displays of knowledge, and cogent argumentation. I'll note that so far I'm the one who's accurately represented sources when there's been a factual disagreement every step of the way.

I assure you that I'm familiar with the scholarship on corporate incidence. Before I respond to you on that score, temporarily setting that aside, it seems to be your position that any tax incidence graph containing corporate taxes doesn't belong on Wikipedia. You even went to the trouble of drawing your own version of the TPC chart that excludes them. Though I object to them for other reasons, would you be willing to demonstrate your consistency by removing the recent CTJ chart additions by EllenCT to these three articles ([1], [2],[3]) since it obviously includes corporate taxes too? Given EllenCT's antipathy toward me, she would probably take it better if you did it. VictorD7 (talk) 18:38, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Since you are familiar with the literature on tax incidence, you must know that estimates for tax incidence vary greatly on the percentage attributable to the share holders of companies, the owners of capital (including land) in general, the workers in the companies taxed, and customers of taxed companies. BTW, the Peter Peterson Foundation report that you cite includes a version of the graph I created (ie income & payroll tax only), and since you are familiar with the literature, you must know that it's a pretty common formulation. Additionally, you must also know that "taxes & transfers" is the usual way to treat taxation in the literature. IMO, the CTJ graph shouldn't be used except as a historical reference, since (as I recently realized) the tax laws changed drastically in 2013, and the graph no longer reflects current situation in the US. I'll talk to Ellen about it. LK (talk) 03:37, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Before I comment on corporate tax incidence literature, I have to push a little here and point out that, by your own logic, the CTJ chart isn't suitable for historical reference either, since it includes corporate taxation. In fact, it's less suitable than CBO and TPC sources (not sure what PGPF "report" you're talking about) since, unlike CTJ, they at least break down corporate and other tax types into identifiable components so readers can see how they're being allocated and make their own judgements (excluding them if they wish). CTJ just lumps them all together. Then there's the fact that the tax changes you mention are irrelevant to this discussion, the 2011 CTJ chart contradicting the TPC in 2011 and the CBO and Treasury Department data showing the top 1%'s federal tax rate around 30% and often higher throughout this century and long before. I would prefer you talk to EllenCT after you remove the graphs, since you didn't talk to me before removing the full TPC chart. VictorD7 (talk) 06:38, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the CTJ graph that you refer to has already been removed from the articles your mentioned – but that is off-topic for this article. The issue at hand is, what graph should we use to illustrate a progressive tax rate. My contention is that we should use a graph that shows straight-forward tax rates, direct income and wage taxes on particular income groups. There is no reason to muddy the waters by including other (especially indirect) taxes that are then attributed to particular income groups, especially if i) this includes some taxes but leaves out others, and ii) such attribution does not have consensus in the literature. Also, the chart illustrates a progressive tax, so what's the problem? LK (talk) 09:02, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

<Insert>Actually it's still in this article. Regarding which chart to use, I think we should stick with actual sources instead of making stuff up. I'll reply to your corporate tax comments more in depth a little later when I get more time, though I already got a start on that by quoting from ITEP (admittedly not the most reliable source) to you on the other page for tangential reasons. VictorD7 (talk) 07:58, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Maybe we could avoid dispute and just make up something that demonstrates a progressive tax structure that is not tied to any country or actual tax. The data need not be "real" to show the structure of a progressive tax. Then no one can get upset that the graph is misleading to some particular country or the incidence of any particular tax. Morphh ^(talk) 16:48, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps we could just use the German income tax rates? That is, I believe, progressive. (Their sales tax is regressive, but let's not bring that up please.) LK (talk) 02:33, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

That works for me. Here is an image: File:Income_Tax_Germany_2010.png Morphh ^(talk) 02:45, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

I actually had the same thought earlier about just making something up, Morph, since we're really just illustrating the concept here. But then I decided I didn't like setting a bad precedent for excluding perfectly valid tax incidence charts for erroneous reasons. I also prefer a bar chart because it better captures incrementally escalating rates. A real bar tax chart like the one that was removed (or even the one LK made) would be preferable to a made up one, but I could live with a made up one, and a generic chart would be better than using a German line graph. It wouldn't make much sense to remove a US chart ostensibly because of doubts over content only to replace it with a foreign one containing a methodology we all probably know much less about, especially on the English Wikipedia. The source is in German, and it's better to use sources in English when possible. VictorD7 (talk) 07:58, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Factually inaccurate RFC closure comment.

I just visited this page for the first time in a while and saw the RFC closure, which got key elements of its rationale totally wrong. @FormerIP: stated "particularly because EITC tax credits are taken into account for the US, but equivalent tax credits/welfare payments are not taken into account for other countries. No-one has disputed this claim, so I am taking it to be true." That claim sure as hell was disputed [4] [5]. Equivalent tax credits in other countries are counted by the sources. What isn't is welfare spending in either the US or the other countries. LK was grasping at straws with the EITC comment, after having repeatedly made various objectively false claims about the sources that were knocked done one by one. The sources make the distinction between the tax structure and spending, for reasons well grounded in logic, definition, and fiscal policy.

Among those who showed some clear sign of having actually read the discussion, the count was 4 for A as a first choice (not counting earlier participants who had also rejected LK's arguments but didn't participate in the RFC), 2 for B as a first choice, 2 for C as a second choice, and 1 for D.

Regardless, on a tangential note, since the muti-year long standing segment that precipitated LK's original removal discussion (which was overwhelmingly rejected by consensus) was improperly removed by him and was not covered by the later, misleading RFC, I'll reintroduce the segment as promised earlier. If someone wants to remove it I won't edit war to keep it in, but given the improper removal and the fact that no consensus has been established for its removal (there's no indication several RFC respondents were even aware of the text in question), it merits being restored once out of sheer principle. VictorD7 (talk) 19:56, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Victor, the issue about EITC tax credits is covered in a key source discussed in the section preceding the RfC, a 2008 report by the OECD [6].

Taxation is most progressively distributed in the United States, probably reflecting the greater role played there by refundable tax credits, such as the Earned Income Tax Credit and the Child Tax Credit.

I concede to error in saying that the claim wasn't challenged. However, there wasn't really a substantive challenge. A single editor (you) said: "European tax credits, including versions of the EITC, are counted by the sources too". But this appears either to be false or to miss the point. AFAICT, the UK (for example) pays its equivalents of EITC and CTC in the form or welfare. This means that they are not taken into account when a comparison is made as to progressivity purely on the basis of tax. So the comparison, while not meaningless, is misleading. This also appears to be generally how things are for Europe. Even if there might be exceptions here and there (although it is not even clear to me that there are), the overall comparison does, indeed, appear to be apples-and-oranges, as I said in the close.

In terms of procedure, you do not get to substitute your own interpretation of the votes by discounting certain votes (all your opponents) on the basis that they just didn't get it. This is because you were a participant in the RfC and you are not entitled to determine the maths for its closure. You are also not entitled to ignore the result of an RfC on the basis that you don't like the outcome.

What you are entitled to do is ask for a review of the close at WP:AN, which I shall do on your behalf shortly. I'd invite you, in the meantime, to self-revert if necessary in order to respect the outcome of the RfC pending the review. Formerip (talk) 20:36, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I have reverted the edit as RFC closures de jure establish consensus. (The revert was done without regard to the result or accuracy or inaccuracy of the closure.) I suggest that the burden is on Victor to set forth the merits/demerits of the closure following the recommendation of WP:Closing discussions#Challenging other closures. – S. Rich (talk) 20:50, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

You're wrong about it not being substantive, Formerip, as evidenced by the fact that the sources disagree with you. The US tax code contains more credits, but they are not the equivalent of welfare payouts. You're equating them, not the sources in question. The fact that European codes rely less on them does not make their greater welfare spending automatically equivalent. The main difference in overall tax progressivity between the US and European countries is actually due to Europe's greater reliance on consumption taxes, underscoring that the US tax code is more progressive at every level (including income tax alone, per the OECD), and not just because of a particular federal credit. But the US has sales taxes too, just as Europe also has equivalent tax credits that are counted in tax studies. No evidence has been presented supporting the implication that the studies cited here don't include European tax credits too. Of course they do.

If the discussion was of government income redistribution then combining taxes and welfare spending would be appropriate, but this article is titled "Progressive tax", and tax code progressivity has other consequences and implications that have nothing to do with redistribution, including impact on GDP growth and revenue volatility. There are good reasons why the OECD, the Oxford Journal study on total taxation I cited above, and other sources distinguish between tax codes and spending. Comparative tax code progressivity is discussed as a stand alone phenomenon on other articles, so it would be surreal for it to be prohibited from mention on the actual Progressive tax page, just because a couple of posters only see the issue through the prism of total redistribution, and view the tax progressivity fact as politically inconvenient to their cause.

Your own OECD quote there says US taxation is more progressive, "probably" reflecting more credits like the EITC, which I'd be perfectly fine using word for word as the sentence in the article. I'm not sure why you think that does anything but reinforce what I've said. Of course one major reason why the RFC should be considered invalid for removal is because it didn't quote or fully describe the existing segment, which already contained a lot of qualifying language. VictorD7 (talk) 23:40, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

This is not the page to re-argue the RFC. – S. Rich (talk) 23:51, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Why not? He did say further discussion isn't precluded, and I responded directly to his comments here. VictorD7 (talk) 00:14, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Further discussion is certainly not precluded. But I think it would be best, for the time being, and for this section, to focus on what might be wrong with the close, which is a slightly different question to whether the close produced the best possible outcome. As I indicated in the close, the material in question may be suitable for the article if couched in the correct terms. That's a matter for further discussion, not a reason to disregard the RfC. From your point-of-view, Victor, I would suggest it is better to reign yourself in because editors reviewing the close may lose sight of any good reason to question the close if all they perceive is someone who just doesn't like it.Formerip (talk) 00:38, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Your last sentence was uncalled for, as it's nothing but a thinly veiled aspersion. I posted concrete criticisms of the close, and you've already conceded you made at least one error. I'm not saying the RFC should be disregarded, just that it isn't fit to apply to the segment it's being used to remove, as suggested below. It did seem to establish a consensus against B (or at least a definite lack of consensus for including it; the RFC's peculiar tripartite multiple choice design isn't optimal for clarity; typically "support" or "oppose" choices are preferable), which can be taken as a fair wording of the RFC author's own proposal. VictorD7 (talk) 04:41, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Actual segment in question

Here's the segment in question:

Progressive taxation often must be considered as part of an overall system since tax codes have many interdependent variables. For example, when refundable tax credits and other tax incentives are included across the entire income spectrum, the United States has the most progressive income tax code among its peer nations.

It was sourced to the OECD, a very reliable source, and was very long standing, having been present in the article in some form since at least 2010. The chief party in seeking removal suddenly and unilaterally started an RFC after having his arguments rejected by several editors in normal discussion. In my view the discussion wasn't ripe for RFC because the poster's arguments kept changing and he made multiple factually incorrect statements regarding various sources produced. Clearing those up one by one was inching us closer toward at least sharing the same set of facts, a process that should have continued. There was also likely broad agreement among editors for tweaking the existing language in some other ways that had little to do with his complaints, since most of us didn't think it was ideal.

But instead the poster started an RFC that didn't quote the segment, didn't mention it was long standing, didn't fully describe it, and only presented it as one of three equal proposals he constructed, the other two options being ones he'd support. It didn't include an array of other options that could have been discussed. Multiple editors complained about the RFC's skewed, misleading construction from the beginning but our complaints were ignored. Most editors involved in the initial discussion opposed removal but a few new RFC-drawn posters voted for "C", giving that option the numerical advantage. Now the RFC is being used as a pretext for completely deleting the segment, despite it being unclear if the uninvolved posters were even aware of what the actual text is, or if they knew the RFC would be used to remove something long standing rather than add something new.

I suggest that the RFC be viewed as establishing consensus for not adding the new segments it lists in the wording it uses, but not for removing the existing segment. For gaining consensus on the latter, a fresh RFC actually quoting or fulling describing the segment, its qualifying language, and its sourcing should be required. An RFC should be neutrally worded enough to be supported by all major parties in a dispute, not pre-rigged by one editor over protests by others. VictorD7 (talk) 00:09, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

You shouldn't ignore an RFC close and edit as you like [7]. Don't think that challenging a close entitles you to ignore it. Besides, you shouldn't challenge a RFC close by posting here. The policy about how to start a closure review [8] says that you should post a report on WP:ANI. Darx9url (talk) 16:20, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm obviously not ignoring it, as evidenced by this section. The closing administrator filed the review, not me, and since that request simultaneously links to this page and asks that involved editors not comment there, I figured I'd gather some of the apparently overlooked points here. VictorD7 (talk)

This amounts to an appeal to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. A check of sources is clear that there is no universal consensus about the status of American tax progressivity (for example, this Brookings argument) and therefore to make an unambiguous statement in Wikipedia's voice that it is "the most progressive" is at best misleading. To single out and select the income tax while ignoring other tax and spending issues that affect progressivity and the Gini coefficient paints a distorted picture.

A more thoroughly-detailed accounting of those arguments is likely off-topic for this article, and belongs in a specific article about the U.S. tax system. Of course, that's only my personal opinion, and if you wish to propose new additional language, we should have that discussion. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:38, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

No, actually the argument for removal amounts to "IDONTLIKEIT". Some respondents actually based on their votes on vague anecdotal claims of living there and US taxes not "seem(ing)" progressive, ignoring sources and facts. Even the RFC, skewed as at was, stipulated that the US income tax is more progressive. Your polemical Brookings blog combining redistributive spending and taxes doesn't outweigh sources like the OECD, the Oxford Journal study cited above, studies on revenue volatility or economic growth, and every tax incidence source (CBO, OECD, Tax Policy Center, Tax Foundation, and even ITEP), which all treat taxation per se as a distinct phenomenon. The original segment was apparently making a point also illustrating tax code complexity, but your complaint about Wikipedia's voice or scope (the Oxford Journal study features total taxation, not just income tax, and the progressivity difference is even more robust than it is on income tax) could easily have been addressed by simple tweaks rather than full deletion. Progressive taxation is not just about income equality or Gini coefficients. Pretending otherwise is POV skew and presents a distorted picture. VictorD7 (talk) 21:27, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

The RFC represents a consensus, and it was closed by an indisputably uninvolved person. The inclusion or exclusion of various facts is subject to consensus decisions by Wikipedians, and the consensus of the RFC determined that singling out the income tax without placing it in the broader context of taxation and spending was potentially misleading. You are entitled to disagree with this consensus, but you are not entitled to unilaterally reject its conclusions and implement your preferred edits anyway. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:02, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Stop swiping at straw men. I said before I made it that my one edit was symbolic and that I had no intention of edit warring to support it, much less against consensus. Panic averted. Relax. I also never questioned whether the closing admin was "uninvolved". However, the contention of multiple editors from the RFC's beginning has been that the issue was framed in a skewed way. All I'm saying is that whatever consensus it's deemed to have established is therefore interpreted with appropriate narrowness. I'm not overly optimistic about a review, since when more than a few lines of reading is required most editors' eyes tend to glaze over, but the errors in the close (one of which has already been admitted) and problems with the biased RFC needed pointing out for the record.

I will say that what you makes your "broader context" remark even more ludicrous (it's a very selective broader context, btw), apart from the facts I just posted above, is that LK's initial argument for removal had nothing to do with combining welfare spending and taxation; indeed he initially just cited the "essentially flat" claim by ITEP, a tax incidence source which treats taxation is a distinct phenomenon, but that (in addition to its other problems) doesn't even make international comparisons. Once that argument was shot down he slid around to other ones. This was about a few partisan posters simply not liking the segment, and being willing to keep throwing crap against the wall hoping something stuck. VictorD7 (talk) 19:01, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

The consensus of the RfC was clearly to avoid politically contentious statements, and to specifically not include the mention of the progressivity (or not) of the US system (or tax code) in this article on the general topic.

That outcome encompasses a fairly wide scope, which I consider to undermine the implication that the question was somehow loaded. As has been indicated above though, there is a procedure for submitting an RfC close for review.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 16:55, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Really? The RFC covers all "politically contentious statements"? I don't think so. It only covers what it said it covers, and some people might have responded differently if it it had included the actual segment in question, complete with qualifiers and sourcing, or had included other options, or had been restricted to just the one issue of removal (yay or nay).

The RFC instead forced people to choose between a straw man, the author's own alternative, or neither (which is being used to justify completely removing the long standing segment), as if those were the only three options, and presented them equally as if they were all new proposals, without mentioning removing anything. It was rigged to produce the result it did. VictorD7 (talk) 21:27, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

You have been accusing me of all sorts of misdeeds on this page, kindly back up those accusations or stop. For instance, you state that I offered a strawman as an alternative. If you can, kindly rephrase your preferred alternative (based on versions in the history) in a way that is significantly different, and in your opinion would not have been a strawman. LK (talk) 04:37, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

I already did at the top of this subsection, along with plenty of accompanying explanation. If you wanted the segment removed via RFC then you should have quoted it, complete with existing qualifiers and sourcing, in a straight up "support removal" or "oppose removal" vote, rather than simply presenting the naked assertion that the US income tax is more progressive as one of two (and only two!) equal proposed new additions, with the third choice being neither, a skewed way to frame the issue. You rigged your argument into the RFC question by its design. An meaningful RFC would have contained a neutral structure supported by all significant sides from the get go. VictorD7 (talk) 18:41, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

To make it clear. It is your contention that because in the RfC: i) I included my suggested alternative, and ii) I used the phrase "The United States has the most progressive income tax code among its peer nations", instead of "For example, when refundable tax credits and other tax incentives are included across the entire income spectrum, the United States has the most progressive income tax code among its peer nations" — therefore I was "rigging" the system, set up a strawman, and skewed the vote. Thank you for your clarification. LK (talk) 03:07, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, qualifications matter, especially given some of the "uninvolved" rationales. The full text might have either solicited different responses or at least different rationales. Also don't forget omitting the sourcing, which is usually presented in the RFCs I've seen, the failure to mention that you were seeking removal rather than presenting some new proposal, and combining the existing segment with your one (and only one) alternative, with none of the above being the third option in a stacked multiple choice format no one but you had agreed on. VictorD7 (talk) 07:08, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

You have accused me of rigging the system, setting up strawman, and skewing the vote, because I included an alternative wording, and did not include a redundant phrase (since the term 'tax code' always includes tax credits and refunds). Interesting that you did not object to the wording of the RfC in your initial response, and in fact did not object about the RfC wording until several days had passed and it became clear that consensus was for C. Even then, your objection to the RfC wording was completely different to your objection now. I'ld ask you to stop throwing mud in an attempt to challenge the RfC close. LK (talk) 12:02, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Wrong again. I included this segment in my first response, when it was still 4 for A versus 0 for C as first choice (with 2 for B and 1 for "D"): I'll close by pointing out that I think this RFC was premature. The situation isn't ripe for it. It contains a cherry-picked focus that ignores many other possibilities that this discussion has barely if it all begun to touch upon, and a skewed, certainly factually inadequate intro. Inviting drive by commentary from people not familiar with this discussion risks taking a confused situation and turning it into an even more chaotic mess. What's more, this discussion (and related ongoing ones on other pages) have been productive, with certain participants making factually false claims, being corrected on them (as exchanges like this show), and eventually acknowledging the correction. As this discussion has progressed editors have steadily (albeit slowly) converged closer to an agreement on the basic pertinent facts. This discussion should continue until that process plays out, and then, once we're all on the same factual page, if there's still some disagreement on how to proceed, an RFC would be appropriate.

Before I posted Mattnad had also criticized the RFC wording in his first reply: "A with caveats. This RFC does not address the scope of the question discussed on this talk page. Coming back to Wikipedia guidelines, we use reliable sources. If the Congressional Budget Office and other major reliable sources include items like the EITC, then we can. LK would like to propose a different definition and constrain the RFC to parameters that suit his particular views." In fact his initial post actually said "None of the above", before changing it to "A with caveats" in an edit, the caveats being that the RFC invalidly addressed the previous lengthy discussion from the get go. Such views were later echoed by Morphh. My first reply did add that unless there's overwhelming consensus for C, or there's no clear consensus for any option, the segment should be restored. But I soon expanded and clarified that point after thinking about it more, back on May 26, when it was still 4 for A versus 4 for C as first choice, by observing this in response to a factually confused comment by another poster: But a point of order: the old segment already only mentions "income" taxes, with a qualified description gleaned from the OECD source at that. This RFC isn't about removing anything, since the segment in question that precipitated LK's quest wasn't even accurately presented in the RFC intro. It's about what, if anything, to add. The old segment has been in the article for years, was recently improperly removed, and will be restored soon. Consensus is required to remove it, not keep it. If consensus is to be gauged by RFC, removing it would require a fresh RFC that quoted or at least fully described the segment and that honestly acknowledged its long standing nature. My initial "overwhelming consensus" comment had in mind argument weight, not just blind vote count, and I don't consider the final tally of 7 to 4 to 2 to 1 among first choices to be an overwhelming consensus anyway, particularly when all 7 of the first choice "C" votes came from new editors who hadn't participated or likely even read the lengthy discussion, as judged by several rationales failing to be grounded in evidence or policy.

The opposition clearly rejected your RFC design from the beginning. Your failure to address that and your incorrect denial here that such opposition even existed only underscore what a sham this all was. VictorD7 (talk) 17:04, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

You can dissemble all you like, but your initial response did not object to my wording, and specifically did not object to leaving out the phrase "For example, when refundable tax credits and other tax incentives are included across the entire income spectrum".[9] You didn't bring up wording till much later. The record and time stamps don't lie, it would be great if you didn't either. LK (talk) 10:19, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

LK, while I don't wish this debate to continue and I support C as the outcome, I think you're crossing a line here with your last sentence and I hope you'll strike it. I would not presume that someone's initial response that neglects to object to wording means a lack of objection or that they thought the RFC was fairly worded. I didn't directly object to the wording in my initial response, but I held a similar view. I just wasn't aggressive or confrontational enough to challenge it and tried to work with what was given. While I expect it best if Victor just let it go, I have issue with civility in your response. Morphh ^(talk) 13:19, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Whoa....indeed time stamps don't lie, and, as I just posted (and perhaps you didn't fully read), my very first post (per your link) included this about your RFC: "It contains a cherry-picked focus that ignores many other possibilities that this discussion has barely if it all begun to touch upon, and a skewed, certainly factually inadequate intro." The intro's factual inadequacy included the failure to cite the segment in question. Even before I posted Mattnad had said this: "This RFC does not address the scope of the question discussed on this talk page....LK would like to propose a different definition and constrain the RFC to parameters that suit his particular views." We obviously are complaining about your wording. The later comments just filled out some details in those complaints. At the time you displayed no concern or curiosity whatsoever about our complaints. You should refrain from recklessly accusing others of "lying" when you're the one who's been repeatedly, objectively proved wrong, from comments about the sources to your new assertions here. VictorD7 (talk) 14:15, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

As mentioned below by S. Rich, this page's discussion has become inordinately personal and is not going to result in any new discoveries or changed minds. The RfC stands, and there is a proper procedure if someone wishes to challenge it. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:53, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Well it did result in some new discoveries for people, assuming they're open minded enough to accept facts. If nothing else it corrected the record for future readers. VictorD7 (talk) 23:48, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I've discovered that there are people who so desire to be believe that they are right that they will continue to believe that they have been proven right no matter what the evidence is. Unfortunately for everyone, this is not the same as actually desiring to be upright. Darx9url (talk) 09:32, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately I agree. Who needs facts when one has politically like minded numbers on one's side? VictorD7 (talk) 20:07, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Closure review

I'll say it again: the proper procedure for challenging a closing is at Wikipedia:Closing discussions#Challenging other closures. Too much of the commentary here is now personal. – S. Rich (talk) 17:00, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

It appears that another uninvolved administrator has unambigously endorsed the RfC closure. Hopefully, this settles the matter. LK (talk) 08:51, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

I have nothing to do with that review request, though the vague, inaccurate commentary provided by an admin who supports another admin, without any indication he or she has fully read the discussion much less understands it, is what I predicted would happen. No, this matter, assuming you're referring to my above section (if not then disregard this response), was simply about correcting the record. That's been done. VictorD7 (talk) 20:04, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

FWIW I support the close on its merits as well. The discussion pretty clearly favored option C, and speaking from an editor's standpoint, I agree with LK that there isn't sufficient evidence to support the unqualified claim that the US has the most progressive tax system among its peers. The clearest source claiming otherwise doesn't seem to include (looking at pp. 103-104 of the OECD report) state sales taxes, which are potentially large and are usually far more regressive than income taxes. That, combined with the uncertainty about how transfer payments were measured is enough to give me pause. But for the purposes of the RfC, that's somewhat beside the point. The close was made by an uninvolved editor, reflected the consensus in the discussion and wasn't perverse with respect to obvious evidence on the ground. I don't see any point in re-litigating it. Protonk (talk) 02:07, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate you coming along and proving me right:

-The claim in the RFC was unqualified, but the segment it's being used to delete is not unqualified, as I quoted above. That's a major point that was totally ignored in the close.

-Even the RFC claim just said "income tax", not "tax system", so obviously it wouldn't include sales taxes on either side. That said, the US overall tax system is even more progressive vis a vis total European tax systems than it is on the narrow income tax front, especially since European systems rely more on (almost universally regressive) consumption taxes than the US does (though US taxation is more progressive without consumption taxes considered too), and European consumption taxes are more regressively structured to boot, lacking many of the exemptions of US sales taxes. Someone who had read the discussion that spawned the RFC would have known that, and would have seen this Oxford Journals study cited multiple times. It does include sales taxes, btw, and its findings are extremely robust. It looks at the issue from multiple angles in multiple ways and US taxation is always more progressive than European taxation. For example, they found that even assuming that the top 1% of Americans paid zero income, property, and payroll taxes would still leave the US tax system as the most progressive. They also picked the most regressive US year studied (1994), compared it to the most progressive European country and year studied (Germany 1989), and found that 63.6% of the top US quintile would have had to pay zero income taxes for the Kakwani scores to equal. It's not even close. If you're sincerely interested in this topic I suggest you read it.

-I know of no uncertainty regarding transfer payments. Tax exemptions, which exist in both the US and European tax codes, were counted. Spending wasn't. Spending isn't taxation. Demanding that tax progressivity be off limits unless it's combined with a different category is preposterous and blatant POV, not to mention that it ignores most of the rest of this very article and the sources.

-"C" got the most votes, but it was hardly a strong consensus, and legitimate arguments have been made throughout this RFC by the opposing side that the RFC isn't applicable to the segment that ostensibly spawned it. Aside from that Wikipedia isn't a democracy; it's about argument evaluation, not just vote counting, and on that score the close was grossly deficient. The closing admin was even forced to concede that he had been wrong to declare that no one had disputed LK's fallacious EITC claim, a key element in his decision. He clearly hadn't read the discussion closely.

-The fact that this RFC was crafted unilaterally by one party in the dispute, who had his proposal soundly rejected by a strong majority of editors actually following the discussion, btw, and had its skewed structure heavily criticized from its inception by the opposing editors, merited a fair hearing. It didn't get one. VictorD7 (talk) 03:00, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

@VictorD7: "I appreciate you coming along and proving me right" There's no need for this. I've seen you make variations on comments like this throughout the debate. All it does is piss people off needlessly and gives them prompting to respond pointedly. Furthermore, I've read your comments because I read the RFC. It would be hard to miss them since you re-iterated them with varying levels of invective multiple times. Doing so has failed to convince your peers of your position. Maybe you should try another tack to see if that's more persuasive. Protonk (talk) 13:36, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Well I've persuaded most people who actually read the discussion (above and below the RFC). I was talking about your response proving me right by showing you hadn't read the discussion. If you had read the discussion, then why did you make your point about an "unqualified" claim regarding US taxation not being warranted when a major complaint about the RFC was precisely its unqualified presentation of "A" while the article segment was heavily qualified? Why did you complain about the OECD study not including sales taxes when the article segment was about income tax? Are you arguing that an income tax analysis should count other tax types? If your concern was other tax types, why did you only mention the OECD study, completely ignoring the Oxford Journals study of overall taxation (including state level taxes) I provided for you above? Did you read it? Why did you post again when your reply contained no facts or substantive commentary? I know it's common for people to entrench into a position and not be open minded to reconsidering it, but your own pride or feeling about me should have no bearing on your evaluation of the objective evidence and arguments presented. VictorD7 (talk) 16:04, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Ok, so in no particular order:

• I posted again in the discussion with "no facts or substantive commentary" because we're not re-litigating the RFC itself here. We're talking about whether or not the close was acceptable and specifically I was trying to warn you away from posting provocative and dismissive commentary on every editor who comes by with an opinion.
• I mentioned the bit about sales tax because total tax burden is how you actually measure overall progressivity of taxation. It's how we measured it in my public econ class and I imagine it's how a reader would expect us to talk about it on the page for "progressive tax". If you want to make a like-for-like comparison of income tax alone that's probably more appropriate for an article which focuses only on income tax. It would be as if we were discussing whether or not to say "The State of New Hampshire levies no taxes on residents", which is true only if select income and sales tax to the exclusion of others. The same thing is true for discussing transfer payments made under the regime of taxation. We could, a priori refuse to consider transfer payments when determining the incidence of taxation, but that would be silly in practice even if the EITC didn't exist. My tax refund is a transfer payment, not a tax, but only the most narrow definition of taxation would refuse to take it into account when noting net tax burden.
• I mentioned the OECD paper because it's the strongest source for the claim and was mentioned the most frequently in the discussion. I didn't mention every other paper listed in the discussion because the RFC is over. I'm not participating in the discussion to convince you of the preponderance of the evidence and arguments. I'm dropping by to note I agreed with the closing admin that the discussion itself fell in one direction. You had your chance to convince your fellow editors on this point (across two discussions lasting about 20 days) and you weren't able to.
• "Unqualified" was probably not the best word to use in this case, as both A and B had respectively, major and minor qualifiers. In retrospect it would've been better to specify that there didn't seem to be broad support for either A or B in the literature unless you noted that 1: transfer payments can and do change the progressivity of the overall tax regime, 2: Many of the results aren't robust to including different revenue streams for taxation. That leans us toward option B, but as I said above, I'm not continuing the RFC. The RFC is over and editors chose option C. In reviewing that close as an editor with an interest in the subject area, part of my commentary included a note that I didn't feel consensus left us with a perverse outcome (which can often happen with technical but politicized subjects)
• "I know it's common for people to entrench into a position and not be open minded to reconsidering it, but your own pride or feeling about me should have no bearing on your evaluation of the objective evidence and arguments presented." This is not conducive to good discussion. Assume that they editors you are working with are commenting and editing in good faith. Do not presume to think that I'm disagreeing with you (despite secretly knowing you're right) out of pride or animus. This, along with the comment you made above when I initially replied, lead to nasty discussions back and forth as editors understandably get pissed off. Do not make this space worse than it is or more contentious than it needs to be. A subject like this requires brisk debate and strong opinions. It does not require editors be belittled for contributing or maligned for disagreeing with you. As I said above, I've read your comments in the RFC and I find the general tone and pointedness of them to be counterproductive. I have relatively little tolerance for editors who make themselves a chore to work with collaboratively. Interact with your peers in civil manner or I will block this account. Protonk (talk) 17:40, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

You claim you "mentioned the bit about sales tax because total tax burden is how you actually measure overall progressivity of taxation", but, again, the segment, the OECD source, and even the RFC were specifically about income tax progressivity, not overall taxation, as is much of the article (including most of the section the segment resided in; particularly note the commentary on NZ and Australian income taxes; also note the German income tax graph higher up). Your initial statement was puzzling since you indicated you had gone combing through the OECD source to find out whether the comparison cited included sales taxes (finding it problematic that it apparently didn't), when the article segment and even the RFC explicitly explained they were talking about the "income tax", so it would have been problematic if it did count sales taxes. Your commentary on how the regressivity of consumption taxes might have changed the results flew in the face of the posted material showing that counting them only increases the USA's progressivity relative to European nations, which is why I wasn't sure if you had seen the Oxford Journals study or the commentary about it here. While I think specific income tax comparisons are perfectly appropriate (as many others apparently also did, since the segment had been there since 2010), I actually prefer a statement covering all taxation. Unfortunately that wasn't one of the main arguments made for removing the segment, and it certainly wasn't an option in the RFC. You didn't answer if you had read the Oxford Journals study covering overall tax progressivity. That could be used as a source for a comparison of overall tax progressivity.

Regarding transfer payments, I'm not sure why we should disregard the sources and rely on our own opinions. Doesn't that violate Wikipedia policy? Furthermore, the OECD source only said greater US income tax progressivity "probably" reflects the greater use of tax exemptions (it listed the EITC as just one example), indicating it hadn't closely examined that specific issue, but the Oxford Journals study said (on journal page 441) about the LIS data it used that, "If they did not take tax expenditures into account—that is, if they only measured the nominal tax rate on households—then the USA, which relies on tax expenditures that go largely to the middle class, would look much more progressive than it does here." No evidence has been produced showing that these studies were somehow misleading in the way they treated tax deductions, and even the OECD clearly distinguished between taxes and transfer payments. I'll add that in most people's opinions there's a big difference between keeping some of the money you earned and having wealth someone else earned transferred to you.

The since removed article segment was even more qualified than the RFC's "A" or "B" was. The crux of the RFC debate is this: Shouldn't an RFC seeking removal of long standing text quote the text and sourcing in question, or at least fully describe it and direct readers to it? Shouldn't it also ideally remain narrowly focused on that matter, rather than presenting three multiple choice options, two of which are supported by one party in the dispute? Shouldn't an RFC's structure and wording be neutral and acceptable to both sides? Neither the close or your comments addressed this issue.

Another still unanswered question deals with the full extent of the RFC's scope. For example, since it only rejected the claim about "income tax" progressivity, would it in your opinion prohibit a segment on overall tax progressivity, as I suggested I prefer anyway above?

I won't comment directly on your threats against me, except to say that I think they were unwarranted, and that I'll chalk them up to you maybe being "piss(ed) off" (your words). I haven't done anything remotely warranting such sanction. I've been as civil as those I've been conversing with; more so in some cases since I read what they say and try to substantively address it in my reply (as opposed to LK just straight up calling me a liar above without any basis whatsoever). I certainly haven't called anyone names or spouted what I'd consider "invective". However, I understand your complaint about my "entrench" comment. While I wasn't trying to hurt your feelings and it was motivated by your previous post being completely about me despite all the substance I had just posted, I can understand why it irked you and I'll refrain from saying something like that again. I'll also ask that you refrain from unhelpful comments like "It would be hard to miss them since you re-iterated them with varying levels of invective multiple times. Doing so has failed to convince your peers of your position. Maybe you should try another tack to see if that's more persuasive", "I was trying to warn you away from posting provocative and dismissive commentary on every editor who comes by with an opinion", and "It does not require editors be belittled for contributing or maligned for disagreeing with you." The middle one is hyperbole at best; rather than be dismissive I've patiently and substantively commented on the points by the various editors I've replied to, though I certainly haven't commented on every editor with an opinion, and most of the involved pre RFC editors agreed with me. The final quote seems to attack my motivation. I think you're using "maligning" loosely, but even if I had maligned people it wasn't because they disagreed with me. My criticisms of certain posts were based on their lack of substance, clearly invalid arguments, or objectively false claims, and I backed my criticisms up. I'll add that my talk about uninvolved people likely not having fully read the discussion wasn't meant to be insulting; that's just human nature. This is a dense, complicated topic and it's perfectly understandable that someone just showing up to it as is won't follow every nook and cranny in it. Even the closing admin conceded that he had gotten at least one element in his closure incorrect, not having noticed multiple posts. VictorD7 (talk) 01:08, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I'll take the above comment to mean you've read my warning. Whether you take it onboard is up to you. Protonk (talk) 01:34, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

You could have at least tried to answer some of the key, legitimate questions I asked. I'll note that the issue of this RFC's scope, what precisely it does and doesn't cover, is still unresolved.VictorD7 (talk) 02:27, 18 July 2014 (UTC)