Talk:Tax Foundation

Tax Foundation page

This was posted on my talk page - thought I would repost here for others to add their thoughts. Morphh ^(talk) 04:13, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello,

I realize you've made many edits to the Tax Foundation article, but I think you're being overly defensive about your previous work by reversing ALL my edits to the page. Here are the reasons why the current structure is not correct:

1. In the "criticism" section, the language about "family tax burdens" is factually incorrect. The Tax Foundation does NOT publish any annual study of family tax burdens. The annual study in question is its "Tax Freedom Day" study that is release each April. That studies does not use families as the unit of analysis. It's an economy-wide average, which you can read for yourself at: http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/93.html.

2. The "criticism" section lists only the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) as a critic of the Tax Foundation's "Tax Freedom Day" study. But this is clearly misleading. There are many, many groups that are critical of the concept of "Tax Freedom Day," not just the CBPP. In fact, think tanks in dozens of countries around the world calculate their own "Tax Freedom Day" studies, all of which are criticised by various groups for the same basic reasons the CBPP criticises the Tax Foundation's study. It is not the Tax Foundation per se as an organization that the CBPP and others criticise, it is the annual "Tax Freedom Day" study. The correct place to list the extensive criticisms of the concept of "Tax Freedom Day" is not on the Tax Foundation page, but on the Tax Freedom Day page where they are all collected in one location.

For these reasons, I think my edits of the page are logical and fair. Please email me if you want to discuss, rather than simply reversing my edits outright.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.49.242.98 (talk) 02:35, 30 January 2007 (UTC).

Thanks for the info - you should have posted such on the talk page. Large blanking by anonymous IP addresses tend to get more aggressive responses. You had changed some other things such as reference type and general summary style format that conflicted with normal Wikipedia guidelines. It would have been better to make corrections to the text and summarize the criticism. It is not normal practice to just say.. go here. It is better to have a brief summary of the criticism and then say.. for more details go here. Morphh ^(talk) 03:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Added list of directors, more history

I have added a listing of the board of directors, with links, indicating affilations and term of each. I think it's important to know who's running a nonprofit. Also added: a bit more history; links to public filings. Oldtaxguy (talk) 00:21, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Disputed source

I have undone recent edits as they have lacked citations and/or have removed cited material. Citations are a requirement for inclusion of material on Wikipedia. There should be third-party sources that can be used to verify these claims. WP:V states:

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth: whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true.

Any unsourced, speculative, or WP:POV (e.g, insider information) will be removed.

If The Washington Post article is false, there should be a published retraction. I searched, but found only bits confirming an organizational link from 1989-2004. Even an internal Tax Foundation document confirms this, stating on page 2:

Tax Features (ISSN 0883-1335) is published by the Tax Foundation which operates as a separate unit of Citizens for a Sound Economy Foundation.

--E8 (talk) 01:04, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

• I see the 990 list on the bottom of the page, and will use it to confirm other edits asap.--E8 (talk) 07:45, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

• Hi -

Still learning my way around the edit process, so I apologize for not discussing my previous changes here first.

Yes, I do work for the Tax Foundation, and I understand the guidelines about conflict of interest, etc. I'm not out to change the editorial slant of the article, or trying to whitewash our history (we DO get Koch money, certainly) but I believe that correcting information that is flat out factually inaccurate is within my rights. The Washington Post article you cite is not an adequate citation for the paragraph you're attempting to include. An article that says that something "will" happen cannot be taken as proof that it "did" happen. Until you find an article that categorically states that we WERE purchased (which we were not) I'm going to delete the paragraph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nkasprak (talk • contribs) 13:43, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

• There is a secondary source indicating a link between the two, as I posted a few lines above. So long as the link between the Tax Foundation and Citizens for a Sound Economy Foundation is clearly noted on this page (i.e., the cited sources are exchanged), your proposal to remove the questionable source seems acceptable.--E8 (talk) 13:48, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
• Why does the internal document I posted above indicate that the Tax Foundation operated as a separate unit of CSE, if this is not the case? The claimed "independent identity" is directly contradicted by the Tax Foundation's own publication.--E8 (talk) 14:35, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

• The history here, as I understand it (though I don't have detailed documents on hand to prove it) is that the Tax Foundation experienced considerable financial difficulty around that time, and CSE donated it a large sum of money, as well as office space, to get back on its feet. The shared office space may be the source of the "separate unit of CSE," language, but it wasn't an legal ownership relationship, and the cited document does not indicate as such. The two entities were legally independent, and the Tax Foundation was never "purchased" or "owned" by CSE, as originally stated; moreover, within a couple of years, the Foundation had its own offices and there was virtually no link between the groups to speak of. A one-time large donation does not indicate an ownership relationship (I think the original paragraph said the Tax Foundation was owned by CSE until 2005, with no citation whatsoever, which is absurd.)Nkasprak (talk) 14:50, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

• Nkasprak - do you have access to the 990's for the Tax Foundation (or CSE) from this time period? While I they can be acquired from the IRS, since you work at the Tax Foundation, I thought you'd have easier access. If they confirm the error, posting and citing them would forever resolve the issues with this article.--E8 (talk) 22:47, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

• I will see about getting these sometime next week.Nkasprak (talk) 22:59, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

• Without the 990s to refute the article and the internal document, the relationship in question will need to be reintroduced - carefully, and with correct characterization - into the history section. While the formal relationship no longer exists, it clearly did, and given the misinformation on the web about this subject, reliable information should be included here.--E8 (talk) 01:06, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

• Sorry I never got around to this. We have 990s going back to at least 2004 - http://taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/27344.html but not as far back as 1990. In any event, I'll respectfully suggest a slight change in language: "In 1990, the Tax Foundation operated as a separate unit of Citizens for a Sound Economy," instead of "Since 1990" since that language implies we still are. Again, I personally don't know how long that state of affairs lasted but I'm told it was not for more than a couple of years. In any event, there's no source that demonstrates anything after 1990 as far as I know (there may be some somewhere, but I don't think you're going to find anything past 1993 at the very latest based on my understanding of our history.) My point here is that if you're going to use the word "since" you need some kind of document showing how long it went on; in the absence of such a document the wording should be changed according to my suggestions. I'm not going to make the change myself because of my clear conflict of interest, but hopefully I've convinced you of the merits of the change.66.63.47.220 (talk) 19:23, 19 December 2011 (UTC)Nkasprak

Krugman commentary

Question, given Krugman's obvious and well understood biases, why is his OPINION cited as a valid criticism? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.130.15.14 (talk) 13:15, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Because he is a notable figure, and because nearly all criticisms are opinions. The article does not imply that Krugman is unbiased.Nstrauss (talk) 22:28, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

"Pro-business"

The summary states that "it has been described as pro-business and conservative-leaning and has ties to various conservative groups." None of the referenced articles actually prove that out. The Newsweek article that is referenced has a Tax Foundation CRITICISM of a conservative group's claims. The second article is a broken link, and the third article from "The Political Animal" is simply an editorial which simply states that the Tax Foundation is a conservative-leaning group (with no basis to back up that claim). In none of these articles is there any evidence or even reference to "ties to various conservative groups." Therefore I have removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.77.242.105 (talk) 17:42, 23 April 2015 (UTC) One other thing: I think the "pro-business" description of the Foundation in the opening paragraph displays some bias, particularly in its current location as the very first descriptive phrase in the entire article. The citation is a single opinion piece that describes it that way, and I don't think that's sufficient to include it (which is not a statement of fact, but a subjective characterization). This is more of an editorial question, so I realize that it's improper for me as an employee of the Tax Foundation to delete it, but I strongly encourage you to remove it.Nkasprak (talk) 14:50, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

If you think that's negative or biasing, move it somewhere less prominent - no problem with that.--E8 (talk) 15:12, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I moved the "pro-business" description next to the "non-partisan" one; they should be placed together, given the controversial nature of the subject.--E8 (talk) 17:47, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Goals and Principles

It makes no sense for this section to be called "Goals and Principles" when it contains neither. I'd also hate for everything to be dumped into "history." Right now the Tax Foundation's viewpoints are spread in both sections without any organization. How about pulling together third-party references to their analysis being premised on simplicity, neutrality, etc.? That exists, and they are even criticized for it.[1] That way we're not just copying what they say. It seems weird to leave out this central stuff that that they reference in almost everything they put out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.93.220.33 (talk) 12:27, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

This could be expaned - I did add some basics in there. Tax Foundation is an acceptable source for their opinion about themselves. Morphh ^(talk) 21:10, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

This summarizes appropriately. What was present before (that I removed) was cut-and-paste from the TF site, which is not permitted.--E8 (talk) 03:46, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Criticisms without Praise

Hello again. I'll start off with (again) full disclosure - I am an employee of the Tax Foundation and, as such, obviously have an agenda. With that caveat in mind, I'd like to make a (in my mind) quite reasonable suggestion. I don't think it's balanced to have a section for "Criticisms" and no such section for "Praise." I don't have a real problem with the Krugman criticisms being on the page somewhere, but it's biased to have only criticisms when the organization has received a fair amount of praise from other quarters (for example, Milton Friedman). Any of the following quotes from our website would be a worthwhile addition to the page (see right sidebar of this page: http://taxfoundation.org/support/scotthodgemessage/) Additionally, we were recently named "Organization of the Year" by trade publication State Tax Notes: http://www.tax.org/www/features.nsf/Articles/B758C1CAFE9CFE6A8525795D0056B982?OpenDocument Again, I'm not going to make these changes myself. But I think the additions I've suggested are reasonable, verifiable, and relevant to the organization.Nkasprak (talk) 20:15, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Looks to me that the entire article is puff--Wikipietime (talk) 01:47, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Where else on Wikipedia is their a "Praise" section for organizations similar to these? My experience as a reader is that "Criticism" is a very frequently appearing section across all types of pages. I do appreciate that you did state your biases up front, however I would suggest against doing work on this page outside of the Talk page just because it does present a conflict of interest. For Wikipedia's view on the subject, please see: Am_I_allowed_to_edit_articles_about_myself_or_my_organization. Instead, it might be most useful to find the research that the Tax Foundation has done and find the appropriate Wikipedia pages and add relevant content there. For example contributing to any tax related on subjects on Wikipedia would be very helpful from somebody who works at your organization I'm assuming. One place where this article is lacking quite a bit compared to other pages on politically relevant non-profits though is information about it's funding - perhaps you could point some other editors in the right direction on where we could find information about that? Obviously I'm pretty late to the discussion, but hopefully you might find this comment useful. -A Wikipedia User

removed citation

I removed this reference from the last paragraph of the goals and principles section. I did not see any information on where their funding comes from. May be in another journal entry though, so I placed the link here in case in can be of use.EncycloCritique (talk) 20:54, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

POV issues

This article has clear and longstanding WP:NPOV issues. First, criticism should be integrated throughout an article, not put into its own section (see WP:CRITS). The amount of critical content in this article compared to other content (about the organization's history, activities, or supporters) is WP:UNDUE and in violation of WP:BALANCE. The content in the criticism section is shoddy. It's basically a verbose accounting of how the Tax Foundation and the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities don't like each other, which is entirely unsurprising given the fact that the former is conservative, and the latter is liberal. The only sourcing about the tiff between the two organizations are the organizations' own studies. We need more than WP:PRIMARY sourcing to show that this content is noteworthy. Has a dispute between the organizations been the subject of coverage in reliable, secondary sources? I'm sure meaningful criticism has been leveled against this group, but a bunch of white papers from an ideologically opposed group is not it. Safehaven86 (talk) 02:28, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

First, note that WP:CRITS is an essay, there is no policy or guideline that suggests getting rid of criticism sections. Criticisms should be given coverage based on their notability, see WP:DUE and WP:BALANCE. Second, Krugman's criticism is direct, relevant and meaningful. Removal of half of it, and hiding the other half into the middle of an unrelated section is not appropriate. Third, it is entirely appropriate to use an organization's description of itself, as a source for how it describes itself. This is explicitly allowed (see WP:SELFSOURCE), and is not a case of primary sourcing. LK (talk) 16:01, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree Krugman's criticism should be in the article. My main issue is with the back-and-forth between the Tax Foundation and CBPP. Why is the white paper for white paper volley notable? I can find no secondary coverage of their disagreements with each other, and it just doesn't seem noteworthy. This is a WP:WEIGHT issue. On another note, I'm confused by this edit. The source only lists 6 board members as far as I can tell. I don't see Philip English, Stephen Kranz, Tom Roesser, or Scott Hodge listed. With regards to the "Criticisms" section, I can ask for a WP:3O if you like. I just don't see how a bunch of primary sources/white papers from two competing think tanks rises to the level of notability for taking up so much real estate here, especially when other content, Krugman, appears much more noteworthy. Safehaven86 (talk) 17:10, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

OK, I agree, that section is over done. However, a think tank doesn't usually go out of its way to criticize another. There's probably coverage of this somewhere, and there should probably be a couple of lines about it in the article. LK (talk) 00:16, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

I found some coverage of the Tax Freedom Day dispute from a Canadian think tank and Forbes, and I added working links to primary sourcing from both think tanks and integrated this material into a new "activities" section. Do you think this works? I think we should also try to get more information on their activities through history. They've been around for many decades so I'm sure there is noteworthy stuff they've been involved with over time that's not currently in the article. Safehaven86 (talk) 01:56, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. LK (talk) 04:59, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

The link on David P. Lewis in the board of directors point to the governor of Alabama dead since 1884 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.122.14.8 (talk) 16:24, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Good catch, thanks! I removed the inaccurate wikilink. It doesn't appear that we have an article on the correct person. Safehaven86 (talk) 16:36, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Corporate advocacy group

email received Nov 3 2017;

Speaker Ryan Press Office <SpeakerRyanPressOffice@press.speaker.gov>

BREAKING: Analysis Finds House Tax Plan Would Create Nearly 1 Million New Jobs

November 3, 2017 | Speaker Ryan Press Office | http://spkrryan.us/2j2N8fW This afternoon, the indpendent Tax Foundation released an initial analysis of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act introduced in the House this week. Their research shows the economy booming, leading to more jobs, higher wages, greater income, and a relative boost in tax revenue.

Specifically, the Tax Foundation finds the plan would result in: 975,000 more full-time equivalent jobs 3.9 percent increase in size of the U.S. Economy 3.1 percent higher wages for workers They report, "The larger economy and higher wages are due chiefly to the significantly lower cost of capital under the proposal, which is mainly due to the lower corporate income tax rate.”

But that’s not all. When taking into account the tax cuts for individuals, incomes will rise even more. The report finds: "When accounting for the increased GDP, after-tax incomes of all taxpayers would increase by 4.4 percent in the long run."

As we’ve said—and this independent analysis confirms—the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act is all about more jobs, fairer taxes, and bigger paychecks.

--Wikipietime (talk) 01:45, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

The article currently includes three glaring violations of our encyclopedia's basic guidance and principles:

• "The Tax Foundation generally criticizes tax increases and high taxation. For this reason, it is considered fiscally conservative." This statement appears to be nothing but pure WP:OR, as it cites not a single WP:RS to support either claim. Instead, it cites three statements from the Tax Foundation itself, none of which state or directly support either claim—and there's neither any reason to believe that the three citations are representative, nor that they've led a single person (other than the perhaps the editor who cited them) to "consider" TF to be "fiscally conservative". There's zero question that this violates WP:V—indeed, it's baffling that it was ever included. I've deleted it from the lead.

• As noted above, § Goals and Principles has not a single, WP:NPOV citation, and relies entirely on WP:OR analysis of the TF's own statements. Like the sentence from the lead, there is no direct support for the statement that the TF is "generally critical of" anything—it's simply an editor's opinion, ostensibly buttressed by the selective citation of statements from the think tank itself. Our guidance at WP:SELFSOURCE is crystal-clear: "Use of self-sourced material should be de minimis; the great majority of any article must be drawn from independent sources." For obvious reasons, all of the section, except perhaps the first sentence, should also be removed.

• Last, as others have pointed out, no matter how many editors want to include it, Krugman's NYT op-ed is not reliably sourced and doesn't belong here (and the same thing goes for the Foundation's response). Krugman's opinion is citable only for his opinion, and primary-source claims of "fraud" are far too serious to be included here without any reliable sourcing. Given that Krugman's claims have not been covered by any reliable, neutral, third-party, or secondary source, to include his op-ed accusations in this way is simply more WP:OR, and fails the test of WP:DUE and WP:BALANCE. Just as with the rest of the article, § Reception (which would be better labeled "Criticism"), must be WP:NPOV and primarily based on reliable, secondary sources. An encyclopedia article about a respected organization is no place to include grave accusations about which no RS has seen fit to print a single word. The Tax Foundation is frequently cited by RS; surely if there was reason to think that is was perpetrating "fraud", someone, somewhere, other than the wildly biased Krugman would have reported on it—or at least reported his accusation. The above justification for including it—"Because he is a notable figure, and because nearly all criticisms are opinions"—is bizarre and obviously unsustainable. The fact that he's "notable" makes it even more damning that no RS has bothered to note his claims on this subject. And simply slapping a "criticism" or "reception" label onto unreliable, primary-source opinions does not justify their inclusion. Imagine the train wreck if this actually was our standard for inclusion: every wild accusation Tucker Carlson or Rachel Maddow have ever uttered would be considered properly sourced "criticism" in articles on BLM and the GOP.

Thanks in advance for any and all thoughts and/or assistance in maintaining some basic standards here! ElleTheBelle 17:51, 7 September 2022 (UTC)