Talk:Tax choice

Tax Choice

Just created this page. It's pretty rough around the edges but it's better than nothing. If anybody wants to give me a hand fixing the references then that would be awesome. --Xerographica (talk) 12:56, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Opinion piece

This article appears to be little more than an opinion piece on what appears to be a fringe view. I have tagged it with problems noted.Oldtaxguy (talk) 23:44, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Regarding your notability critique...pretty much all I can say is that in my opinion it is a notable enough concept to warrant its own article. Can you please offer some specific issues that you have regarding neutrality and unbalanced? I'd certainly be happy to work with you to try and correct any deficiencies in these areas. --Xerographica (talk) 00:30, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Eisenhower vs. Hitler?

Eisenhower vs. Hitler? Unbalanced is putting it rather lightly, I think. ~ Anonymous — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.2.129.81 (talk) 00:11, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

On a technical note...if you look towards the top you'll see a tab..."New section". You can click that to start a new section on this page. Regarding your feedback...which viewpoint is given undue weight? The point of juxtaposing those two passages is to help people understand that war...like every single expenditure...has an opportunity cost. --Xerographica (talk) 01:30, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I think that the IP user is saying that the section is a pretty classic example of an argumentum ad Hitlerum. The fact that respected President and war hero Eisenhower takes one position and Hitler represents the other might raise some not-so-subtle POV concerns in many readers' minds. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 23:21, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

POV towards which view though? Broadly and very generally speaking...conservatism is POV towards more defense spending and liberalism is POV towards less defense spending and tax choice is POV towards whatever priorities you believe to be important. Tax choice is completely neutral on what your public goods priorities are. Or, rather, it's POV towards everybody's views. Does this make sense?

There's been plenty of effort with regards to developing accurate preference revelation mechanisms because economists hold the view that the optimal supply of public goods IS the sum of everybody's true preferences for...views on...public goods... User:Xerographica/Preference_revelation. --Xerographica (talk) 01:37, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I think I see what you're saying. I think the concern is that it is probably read as pushing the POV that defense spending is bad, because Hitler (read: "pure evil") suggested that spending on defense is essential for a nation's security...an informed reader will note that he was "proven" completely wrong just a few years after making that statement, as he was shooting himself in the head inside a besieged bunker in the capital city of his destroyed country. i.e., as a general rule, Hitler is usually considered an undesirable person to be compared to/associated with. I think, though, that this issue could help be resolved in part by explaining more clearly what the section even has to do with tax choice - it could probably be explained without contrasting two opposing viewpoints altogether. I get that the Eisenhower quote is pretty cool-sounding/inspired, but I'm not so sure he's really even talking about tax choice here. Opportunity cost, yes, tax choice, maybe only indirectly. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 02:30, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Reading Hitler or Mao or Stalin as "pure evil" is a fundamental mistake. It's far more useful and insightful and important to think of it as "conceit"...User:Xerographica/The Fatal Conceit. "Conceit" is simply failure to recognize and respect and value other people's freedom of choice. And freedom of choice IS opportunity cost IS tax choice.

Does that make sense? Every time you spend your money/time you're sacrificing alternative uses of your money/time that you also value. You can't talk about tax choice without talking about opportunity cost. If you understand opportunity cost...User:Xerographica/Opportunity cost...then you'll grasp the tax choice argument.

Preventing people from choosing how they spend their limited resources will always result in wealth destruction. So the argument in the book Scroogenomics is exactly the same as the tax choice argument. Same thing with Milton Friedman's argument...other people's money.

Does replying to this match your preferences? It would be "conceit" for me to assume I know the answer better than you do. "Preferences" is another word for "demand". So "conceit" is simply when government planners supply quantities of a good/service/product that does not match the true demand. And true demand is only revealed by your opportunity cost decision. --Xerographica (talk) 06:25, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Whether or not it is indeed a mistake, I think we have to assume - since it's a well-documented phenomenon - that readers will read Hitler's position with the assumption that that position is being presented as the "wrong" position to take. I believe I understand what tax choice and opportunity cost are, I'm just not clear about how the two sections relate to tax choice. Are you saying that Hitler's quote is relevant because the people of Nazi Germany were forced to spend their money on defense against their will, and that this led to disastrous consequences? If it's your intention to avoid the former interpretation and present instead the latter, I think readers would need more explanation to reach that interpretation. As it reads, the section sounds like a contrast between (as you describe in your previous comment) conservative and liberal spending policy (in which (evil failure) Hitler represents the conservative argument), rather than a discussion of the opportunity costs central to the idea of tax choice. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 02:06, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

This is the explanation/background that readers need to have under their belt...

Nevertheless, the classic solution to the problem of underprovision of public goods has been government funding - through compulsory taxation - and government production of the good or service in question. Although this may substantially alleviate the problem of numerous free-riders that refuse to pay for the benefits they receive, it should be noted that the policy process does not provide any very plausible method for determining what the optimal or best level of provision of a public good actually is. When it is impossible to observe what individuals are willing to give up in order to get the public good, how can policymakers access how urgently they really want more or less of it, given the other possible uses of their money? There is a whole economic literature dealing with the willingness-to-pay methods and contingent valuation techniques to try and divine such preference in the absence of a market price doing so, but even the most optimistic proponents of such devices tend to concede that public goods will still most likely be underprovided or overprovided under government stewardship. - Patricia Kennett, Governance, globalization and public policy

In other words...readers need to have a firm grasp on the preference revelation problem...User:Xerographica/Preference_revelation. As you can see...there's plenty of material for the preference revelation problem article...and it's certainly a fundamentally important concept. Yet, there's no article there!

How about this on dollar voting...User:Xerographica/Dollar voting

Individuals express preferences about changes in the state of the world virtually every moment of the day. The medium through which they do this is the market place. A vote for something is revealed by the decision to purchase a good or service. A vote against, or an expression of indifference, is revealed by the absence of a decision to purchase. Thus the market place provides a very powerful indicator of preferences. - David Pearce, Dominic Moran, Dan Biller, Handbook of Biodiversity Valuation

That handbook is pretty very darn awesome. If you click on the link you should see all the search results for "opportunity cost" within the book. They are all worth reading. What is the best balance between development and conservation? What is the best balance between national defense and public healthcare? "Balance" means an optimal supply of public goods. Or, efficient allocation of resources.

We can think of an inefficient allocation of resources as a non-sequitur. It's where the conclusion (supply) does not follow from the premise (demand). When it comes to how society's limited resources are used...WE, THE PEOPLE...are the premise. What was the Great Leap Forward? It was a massive disconnect between the conclusion and the premise. Why? Because people were not given the freedom to "express preferences about changes in the state of the world virtually every moment of the day." Markets give people that freedom...and tax choice would create a market in the public sector. Therefore, no more non sequiturs. That's the theory at least. --Xerographica (talk) 04:53, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Notability

Hello,

The article seems sketchy to me, so I've placed a notability template and a expert template, hopefully someone will be able to check this?

Quite new to Wikipedia, so my editing is pretty crap, any pointers on the templates I put in would be greatly anticipated.

Fancykiller65 (talk) 19:14, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

There are sufficient sources to establish its notability as a concept...so I removed the notability tags. If you can specify exactly why the article seems sketchy to you...then we can work on making specific improvements. Generally we prefer to discuss things first on the talk page. --Xerographica (talk) 19:26, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure there are sufficient sources. Can someone point out reliable sources which establishe the term "tax choice"? There are no inline references in this article, and by spot checking a few references in the bibliography, I see that some of them do not use this term at all. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:01, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a dictionary...

Each article in an encyclopedia is about a person, a people, a concept, a place, an event, a thing etc., whereas a dictionary entry is primarily about a word, an idiom, or a term and its meanings, usage and history.

This entry is dedicated to the concept of people choosing where their taxes go. This concept has been discussed in enough reliable sources for it to be considered sufficiently notable to warrant an entry on Wikipedia.

Whether or not this article should be renamed is an entirely different question. If you feel like another label is more appropriate then perhaps you can create a new section with your suggestion. --Xerographica (talk) 20:10, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, there are several things that concern me. First, while I've heard of the article subject before, I am a little worried about how the article is written and of the content inside it. It reads sorta like a blog, or an essay, or well, "WP:FORUM" considering that you created this article, and have pretty much been the only one editing it, I would like someone else to look into this topic, which is why I put in the expert-subject template. A search for Tax Choice on Google can only reveal this Wikipedia article.

There is a second point concerning WP:FORUM. Reviewing your reference #1, http://www.democracyjournal.org/20/your-money-your-choice.php?page=all I came upon in the comments someone with your username saying that he had created a Wikipedia page for this topic. Also, I found a comment, right now I'm quite sure by you, attempting to locate sources talking about this, and failing. Again, WP:FORUM.

A comment within reference #3 also has a comment where you identify yourself as the creator of the article. Now, with this WP: SOAPBOX, I question your intention with creating this article and POV concerning the topic. That's why I placed the expert-subject template, so other people can contribute. Finally, I placed the Notability template because I doubted if the references presented were enough. However, I'm pretty new to Wikipedia, so I hoped the template would attract other people, which it did. :)

Anyway, in summary, right now, I think this article is being written like:

WP:FORUM: Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought Personal inventions (A search on Google cannot find the words "Tax Choice" anywhere) Personal essays

WP:SOAPBOX: (This article was created and is edited by one person. Considering the biases of the creator, it should be best that Notability and Expert-Subject templates should be placed to One, have more people review the article and actually confirm the validity and notability of the article references, and the article itself. Two, have more people, and therefore more viewpoints and knowledge to contribute to the article.

Now, onto the article itself, perhaps it would be more appropriate to place this topic within Tax Reform? And, I think that the Notability and Expert-Subject templates should be restored to the article page.

Fancykiller65 (talk) 01:52, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

As I already said, the sources contained within the references section are sufficient to establish that this concept is notable enough to warrant its own Wikipedia entry. The sci-fi story alone makes this concept notable enough to warrant its own entry.

Regarding the Expert-Subject template...if other editors are experts on this topic...then why haven't they already contributed to it? If you want more exposure for this article...then look over all the other pages that link to it...and figure out additional pages that are sufficiently relevant to contain a link to this entry. The more exposure this entry receives...the brighter and larger the bat-signal...the more likely it is that Batman will see it and come to the rescue.

Regarding WP:FORUM:...yeah, I wish I could take credit for this thought. But look over the references and it's clear that I can't take credit for this idea. If you want to find the most relevant google results for this concept then search for "choose where your taxes go"...or some variation thereof.

Regarding WP:SOAPBOX:...I don't deny that I'm biased in favor of this concept...but most of this entry consists of passages written by other people. If you feel like what I've personally written is unbalanced in favor of this concept...then please be specific. Copy and paste specific sentences that trouble you most and we can brainstorm about how to improve them.

My bias is on the table...what about your bias? Everybody who knows anything about politics/economics is biased in one direction or another. So what's yours? --Xerographica (talk) 02:32, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Honestly, I have no idea if the references given are enough to establish its own article. I do know that not everything a sci-fi story by some reputable author is worth creating a article on. A search for "choose where your taxes can go" reveals only a blog, and various forum threads, completely invalid ways of determining notability.

Quite frankly, I think that the only way for this article to be improved is if the notability and expert-subject templates are placed. All those links to other pages, and no one has placed any in-put or edited the article except for you. Considering your admitted bias and considering you wrote the article in the first place, your article will naturally use those sources that supports your position. A glance at the sources reveals it. Concerning my bias, my only wish is to help keep Wikipedia clear of useless, inaccurate knowledge that makes it unrealizable, and hopefully gain some knowledge while attempting to do so. As for political positions, I do not support giving the people the chance to choose where their taxes go, although I've never really thought about it.

Onto fixing, it reads like you researched this yourself, and it feels like a essay more than a article on a particular subject. A Wikipedia article, should be more readable than its currently written. For example, the History section has these big two walls of text that are quotes. Can't these be reduced, into more summarizing points?

(Also, I've also realized that Wikipedia:Verifiability is relevant to this. Nearly all your links are either blogs, opinion pieces or come from websites that sponsor your bias. You need to get more neutral sources.)

Within section: Revealing preferences, again, walls of text, and unreferenced lines like: Without knowing people's actual preferences for public goods, governments are likely to inefficiently allocate public funds.

Do you have any sources to uphold this position? Section: Foot voting vs tax choice, there are no sources (I think the template called them inline references) to hold these positions. Overall, it just reads to me like a essay being written for submission to a Economics professor advocating a position and policy instead of a neutral article attempting to outline facts instead of opinions.

EDIT: Oh, and I still think that the templates should be restored and the Template:Under construction be placed in, otherwise this article should be placed for deletion. Its not just skirting notability, its also not neutral, its unreferenced and in general, I don't think its even well-written for a wiki article.

Fancykiller65 (talk) 03:24, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

On a technical note, placing a ":", "::" and ":::" and so on next to the left margin will indent your paragraphs.

Clearly we disagree on notability. Just because a concept is an opinion piece written in Forbes (twice) or the Atlantic does not mean that the concept is not notable. The Democracy Journal is a respected journal and the studies on individual earmarking all support the notability of this concept.

Regarding "walls of text"...have you even heard of Adam Smith, Herbert Spencer, Bastiat, Hayek, Buchanan or the Ostroms? You seem to be interested in Wikipedia...but do you even know what economic concept Wikipedia is based on? I'm just not getting the sense that you have enough economic knowledge under your belt to make really useful contributions to an article on economics. Don't take it personally...the same could be said about me for nearly all the other subjects. My point is...if you were sufficiently familiar with economics...then you would have realized that the walls of text verify what I've written in this article.

But if you're really interested in spending your time learning economics...then pick one section of the article which you feel needs the most improvement...start a new section here on the talk page and offer constructive criticism. To start a new section here on the talk page...scroll up and click on the "New section" tab. --Xerographica (talk) 04:10, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Ahh, thank you for telling me that. Concerning the walls of text, I can only recognize the first name. However, this is not the point, the point is the article needs to be fixed, starting with inline citations. While I can't truthfully persist in demanding that the notability template be placed (without starting a editwar and without a consensus), the templates for expert-subject and under construction should be edited in. You, admitting your bias, and I, with little knowledge of economics cannot be the only ones to create this article in any good-faith with a attempt to present a neutral POV. You can't deny the fact that in order to truly make this a good article, we would need more people to look at it, and placing the templates (which are true), would possibly get more people to edit it and review in-depth.

Besides, what harm is there to placing these truthfully templates on the page? Unless you are biased enough to be trying to deliberately present only your POV, which I don't think your trying to do.

Anyway, I'm more than happy to help and learn at the same time, so I'm going to operate assuming the topic is notable enough to warrant a article on Wikipedia, and I will dive into your references while waiting for your inline citations. If you have any suggested additional reading, do list them.

Fancykiller65 (talk) 05:00, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

You're basically advocating that we need a template to say "Please edit this"...or "Please read this" when everybody knows that anybody can edit/read Wikipedia. From my perspective it's entirely redundant. People know that Wikipedia entries are always a work in progress. If the templates somehow increased traffic to this entry...then that might make sense. If you want experts to edit this article then go to their websites and e-mail them this article.

Regarding neutral POV...well...it's a fine line between advocating a concept and helping readers understand the reasoning behind the concept. The thing is...so much of this article consists of things that people really couldn't technically object to. That's why really nobody has had a reason to challenge any of the statements. The history section is all verifiable...it's pretty much the power of the purse and the magna carta. Revealing preferences is basic economics. The foot voting section is certainly nothing controversial. The ethical consumerism section is nothing that neither liberals nor conservatives would have any reason to object to. The opportunity cost of war just states that wars use resources that could have been used for other purposes. The criticism section contains some common objections and relevant rebuttals.

Inline citations make the page a mess. You're welcome to add them though. But it's pretty standard practice for an editor/reader who doubts what's stated in an article to bring the point up on the talk page. If other editors don't provide evidence to support the item in question...then it's removed or changed. This article has been up for nearly a year...it's linked to from many other articles...and only one person has brought up a concern regarding specific content from the article. The notability has been challenged once when the article only had one or two references...and now by you.

If people really have issues with a statement in an article then they have no problem bringing it up on the talk page. Don't get me wrong...this article could certainly be better written...but none of it is controversial or unverifiable. So just create a new section here on the talk page that focuses on a specific part of the article...and I'll try my best to address your concerns/criticisms/questions. --Xerographica (talk) 07:48, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Pope Benedict XVI

Turns out that A. the pope endorses tax choice and B. "fiscal subsidiarity" is another term for tax choice...

One possible approach to development aid would be to apply effectively what is known as fiscal subsidiarity, allowing citizens to decide how to allocate a portion of the taxes they pay to the State. Provided it does not degenerate into the promotion of special interests, this can help to stimulate forms of welfare solidarity from below, with obvious benefits in the area of solidarity for development as well. - Pope Benedict XVI, Charity in Truth

--Xerographica (talk) 00:30, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Posting this on the talk page, where it was ignored as lacking merit, does not constitute validation of the Pope as RS in this area of study, or achieve WP consensus that the term (jargon) "subsidiarity" should be used in the article. And you didn't even post this page as a citation when adding it. (Don't that adding this as a citation will work now. You can't overcome the fact that he's not RS. You can't.--S. Rich (talk) 01:39, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

So your argument is that the Pope is not a RS for "fiscal subsidiarity" being another term for tax choice? --Xerographica (talk) 01:49, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Subsidiarity--S. Rich (talk) 02:27, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Lock

Based on the two reports of edit-warring at WP:ANEW, I've locked the article for five days. It was either that or block both editors. I expect editors to work out their content differences in the next five days. I will block either editor without notice if after expiration of the lock, there is an appropriate edit to the article, so be sure you have a real consensus before making any changes.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:21, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Rubin added citation needed tags on content in the entry...and I added the appropriate inline citations...here. Rich simply removed entire sections without ever once posting on the talk page or adding citation needed tags. Thanks for not blocking me. --Xerographica (talk) 19:25, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

The sections should be removed unless specific explanation and verification can be provided for each source, per WP:QUOTEFARM. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:12, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're talking about. --Xerographica (talk) 08:21, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Fixed again. Is there anyone else who doesn't understand my argument. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:11, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Can you please assume good faith and create a new section to share specific concerns? In other words, I'd like to improve this page but you're not offering specific suggestions. Thanks. --Xerographica (talk) 15:21, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

That was a specific suggestion. Remove quotes and sections for which we have no reliable source that it's about the topic. (In some cases, it's obviously not about the topic, such as the section which should, to the extent it isn't a quote farm, be in cost of conflict. The Haldeman reference (but not quote) could be recovered by an interview with him saying the story is about the topic. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:46, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I'll just tag them all as irrelevant, for now, but I suspect consensus could be found for removal, even if there isn't a Wikipedia article they could fit in. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:48, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your help, but I wouldn't add anything to this article if I thought it wasn't relevant. If you could create a section and share your perspective on specific quotes and why you believe them to be irrelevant then that would help me try and identify where the problem is. Thanks. --Xerographica (talk) 15:56, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Dear Xerographica: I have reverted the Xerographica material, back to an earlier version. Please stop edit warring; the burden is on you to obtain consensus for your additions. Famspear (talk) 15:59, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

A spoonful of choice

Found Lamberton's actual study...A Spoonful of Choice: How Allocation Increases Satisfaction with Tax Payments. It should be added to the references once the lock has expired. --Xerographica (talk) 10:10, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Possibly. But, first, "References" should be changed to "Further reading", or possibly "External links". Those aren't "references". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:19, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Famspear's recent edit

I'm trying really hard to assume good faith regarding the recent removals of entire sections of content...but it's kind of hard when so few editors have expressed a genuine interest in actually improving this article. By that I mean that editors have not been creating sections on this talk page with specific recommendations on how to improve this article. If you're genuinely interested in improving this article...then please give me a hand doing so. Because as far it stands, I'm the only one doing any "building" while there are plenty of editors simply "demolishing" anything that I build. I SUCK at building, but, well, I'm the ONLY one doing any building. So please show me how to build an article...because, I'm sure that I could go around removing content that I disagree with. I already know how to do that...I just choose to spend my time building up rather than tearing down. Thanks. --Xerographica (talk) 16:07, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Dear Xerographica: I'm not really following this article closely and I can't speak for other editors, but my sense is that you're trying to add "entire sections of content" as you put it, and then you're demanding that other editors, prior to removing the material, somehow persuade you as to why the material should not be in the article. Often, that's not a fruitful approach in Wikipedia.

One thing I would suggest is taking small portions (emphasis on "small") of the material you want to add and first putting them here on the talk page before inserting in the article. Then, you and other editors can take your time and discuss pros and cons of that material. Sometimes, if an editor tries to add larger volumes of material directly to the article, for which other editors see problems, the editors seeing those problems don't have time to deal with such a large volume of text at once. Smaller, incremental contributions might work better when you're having problems obtaining consensus. That's just my opinion. Famspear (talk) 16:53, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Famspear, thanks for taking the time to share your feedback. I really appreciate it. The thing is...I really don't get the feeling like these editors are genuinely interested in improving this article. If they were, then wouldn't they have contributed at least some content to this article? If you look through the entire year long history...you won't find a single contribution where they've improved on my prose or added their own prose or added citations or added relevant sources. How can I hope to collaboratively build a project with editors who are clearly far more interested in tearing it down?

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tax_choice

But I'm not solely basing my viewpoint on this article alone. Look through the history and talk page of the benefit principle. Also, look through the recent history of the tax article and read through the newest talk section... Talk:Tax#Theory_of_taxation. Over and over and over they say that I'm not doing it right. They criticize and disparage and undo my efforts...yet, not once have they led by example. Please add this page to your watchlist. I'd really love to be proved wrong and have these editors show the initiative to build up rather than simply tear down. But given that they have not once built up a single of the dozens of articles that we've edited together, I'm highly skeptical. --Xerographica (talk) 17:41, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Haldeman - We, The People

Can anybody please help me understand why this content was removed from the article?

In 1983 a short science fiction story by Jack C. Haldeman II, We, The People, was published in ANALOG. The plot of the story involves people directly allocating their taxes.

"We, the People," written in a flush of bitter anger, but with an undertone of hope -- has over the years gathered me more response than anything else I've ever written. It has appeared in a variety of newsletters from such diverse organizations as Libertarians and CPAs. I was told that someone once sent copies to all the members of the Senate when they were considering tax reform. It has been used in classrooms to teach the critical difference between a Democracy and a Republic. I wrote it years ago, but I feel it is as pertinent today as it was when it appeared in Analog magazine. - Jack C. Haldeman II, Political Science Fiction

Thanks. --Xerographica (talk) 19:18, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

That may have been a mistake on my part. However, Haldeman doesn't exactly say he was talking about "tax choice" in that quote. Perhaps elsewhere on the web page? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:58, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

He was talking about We, the People. Have you read it? Do you know what the plot of the story is? --Xerographica (talk) 19:37, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Of course I've read the story. It's absurd (both the story, and the fact that Wikipedia cannot make the association without a source), IMHO, but, as there is no (revealed, demonstrated, .... whatever) definition of "tax choice", we need a reliable source that the story is about the topic. To do otherwise violates WP:OR. Pope Benedict is at least (apparently) talking about something real, so it's not as much as a stretch to assert it is tax choice.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthur Rubin (talk • contribs) 12:15, February 2, 2013

It's more a problem of being tangential. We can't include mentions of fictional people making choices about taxes. For example, in a 1972 episode of I Love Lucy, Ricki is doing the taxes and he asks Luci: "Honey, shall we check yes on the Presidential Campaign Fund tax choice box?" Luci replies, "Why, yes. I do so much want Calvin Cooledge to win. I hope our donation will help him." -- – S. Rich (talk) 20:56, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

That's exactly what a "In popular culture" section is for. Contrary to popular belief, it wouldn't be OR to include the reference to Lucy. It would be OR to say that Lucy was saying that tax choice would end world hunger. Because that's obviously not what she said. But it wouldn't be OR to say that Haldeman's story argued that tax choice would bring about world peace. Because that's exactly what happened in the story as a direct result of tax choice. And it certainly wouldn't be OR to mention Mancur Olson, "There are multitudes with an interest in peace, but they have no lobby to match those of the 'special interests' that may on occasion have an interest in war." --Xerographica (talk) 22:22, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I just noticed that Rich removed Haldeman's science fiction story from the "Further reading" section. How does that improve this article? If a reader is interested in learning about this topic then why wouldn't they be interested in reading Haldeman's short story? --Xerographica (talk) 08:27, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

The topic of tax choice, at present, is poorly defined and largely limited to economic & political discussions. It has not made it into pop culture. (The Pope's reference to it is not really a pop culture feature of the topic, and the section should be retitled.) If tax choice could be better defined and if it were a reoccurring pop culture theme, then such references might be appropriate. But Haldeman's obscure story hardly shows that tax choice is a reoccurring pop culture theme. Remember that WP is WP:NOTTRIVIA. We cannot use WP to bootstrap this story into pop culture. Attempting to do so is unencyclopedic. – S. Rich (talk) 15:18, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Why did you remove Haldeman's sci-fi story from the "Further reading" section? --Xerographica (talk) 18:34, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Benefit principle

Can somebody please help me understand why the benefit principle was removed from the lead? Thanks. --Xerographica (talk) 01:41, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

"Benefit principle", as a term, has not been expounded upon in the text. The best we have is the mere mention of benefits lower down. The lede needs to summarize. – S. Rich (talk) 03:11, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

It's one thing to follow suggested guidelines...but it's another thing to adhere to them so rigidly that you lose sight that the actual mission is to share relevant and important information with readers. Right now you're arguing that the suggested guidelines are more important than the readers. The benefit principle is simply that taxpayers pay for the public goods that match their preferences. I added it to the article and you removed it. Clearly you didn't like how I integrated it so please show me your preferred method of integrating it. --Xerographica (talk) 18:53, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Freedom of choice

Can somebody please explain why the section on "Freedom of choice" was renamed to "Arguments for tax choice"? Doesn't that imply that all the other sections are NOT arguments for tax choice? What's the precedent? Libertarianism doesn't have a section called "Arguments for libertarianism". This article should simply explain what the reliable sources have to say about the concept. --Xerographica (talk) 02:05, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

This section only had two quotations. No prose summarized the ideas of Brown or Peacock. It was not established that they were talking about freedom of choice, only that they were talking about choice. It was SYN to write "A wrote about taxpayer revolt, etc." and "B wrote about public services, etc.)" therefore "they were talking about freedom of choice." or even to say "they think choice is important." (Compare, if each had used the term "freedom of choice" or "choice is important", then the section might properly be titled as "Freedom of choice" or "The importance of choice".) It is clear enough, though, to say they were giving pro-taxpayer choice arguments. Titling this section "Arguments for" is not to imply that following sections do not support arguments for. The editing was done in an incremental fashion to 1. improve that particular area, and 2. to demonstrate how RS can and should be woven into prose, leaving out quotefarmish material. Now if i have incorrectly summarized the points of Brown or Peacock, those summaries can be corrected. – S. Rich (talk) 03:11, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Why is there so much focus on terms rather than concepts? What IS freedom of choice? Taxpayers would have the freedom to choose where their taxes go. How is that not freedom of choice? Regarding your prose, if I had to choose between sharing with someone else the actual passages...or your prose...it wouldn't even be a difficult choice. But it's doubtful that I could do a better job. So please replace the passages until an editor comes along who can do a better job. --Xerographica (talk) 08:08, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, what is freedom of choice? Freedom of Choice (US school desegregation), Freedom of choice, Freedom of Choice, Freedom of choice? None of these apply to the present article. In fact, "freedom of choice" is a buzzword which seeks to make the idea of tax choice more appealing. Compare, if there were true freedom of choice in taxes, would it include the choice not to pay at all? (I'm all for that idea!) So the idea of "freedom" of choice is illusory -- you may have the choice to die by hanging or to die by firing squad. But do either of these choices actually give you freedom of choice? No, they don't. And advocates of tax choice are only propagandizing their position when they promote "freedom" as a positive for the concept. (As for using prose instead of quotes, we do not have freedom of choice. WP guidance gives us the choice of WP:LONGQUOTE or WP:QUOTEFARM. Other allowable choices for us are WP:TERSE, WP:Brevity, WP:SUMMARY. These are summed up in WP:BETTER.) – S. Rich (talk) 16:01, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Why doesn't freedom of choice apply to the present article? Doesn't it apply to the concept of taxpayer sovereignty? Freedom of choice is a continuum. There always have to be some degree of constraints and limits on our choices. Because of the free-rider problem, people can't be given the option not to pay taxes. But because of the preference revelation problem, they should have the option to directly allocate their taxes. And if a source does argue that taxes should be voluntary then the source isn't talking about tax choice, it's talking about anarcho-capitalism or voluntaryism or any number of other concepts which are not tax choice. --Xerographica (talk) 18:37, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Interesting Essay

This is an interesting concept. I enjoyed the essay. I enjoyed it so much I went to each of the refs and to the see also links. Then I began searching on my own. As a result I have come to the conclusion that this does not meet Notability standards.Capitalismojo (talk) 13:06, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Could the small viable RS bits be moved to appropriate public choice or libertarian articles?Capitalismojo (talk)

Sounds good to me. SPECIFICO talk 14:55, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

There have been three separate studies published on the concept, it's been endorsed by the Pope, it's the subject of a Science fiction story, a Nobel Prize economist wrote about it at length, it's been published in the New York Times, Forbes and the Atlantic. And at least 2 bills were introduced that would have given taxpayers more tax choice. So how much more would be required for it to meet your Notability standards? --Xerographica (talk) 18:04, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Let's not beat ourselves up on this. Notability was discussed in December and we had an AfD that was listed and relisted 4 weeks ago, with no consensus concluded 2 weeks ago. WP:HORSEMEAT! – S. Rich (talk) 18:20, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I now see the AFD alert above. I missed deletion debate. Too bad. Capitalismojo (talk) 22:50, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Confusing section tags

While the problems with the sections are self-evident (e.g., they lack prose which ties together their ideas into the overall concept), the template for confusing section says to discuss. I hope the tags will prompt, motivate, and inspire other editors to improve these portions of the articles. – S. Rich (talk) 17:13, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree. I decided not to disturb some of the defective content, so that it can temporarily remain in the article as a placeholder for sections need to be improved in conformity with WP standards. At some point, if no editor(s) are able or willing to do so, the deletion issue will again need to be addressed. SPECIFICO talk 18:42, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

"Tax choice advocates claim..."

Right now the lead says...

Tax choice advocates claim that allowing taxpayers to allocate portions of their taxes to specific spending can increase their level of satisfaction.[2][3][4]

How do you know that the authors of those peer-reviewed studies are advocates of tax choice? The way it's presently worded simply sounds like it's the mere "opinions" of supporters. It's far more accurate and informative to say...

Tax choice studies have shown that giving people a greater degree of freedom in choosing how their money is spent can increase their level of satisfaction.[2][3][4]

Then, in the criticism section you can mention The Paradox of Choice: Why More Is Less.

--Xerographica (talk) 19:07, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

That begs the question. It has not been established that "Tax choice" is a specific term notably used to mean whatever specific unstated meaning the article purports to describe. It would be easy for you to fix this if you care. Otherwise this article is of either zero or negative value to readers. SPECIFICO talk 19:44, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

To Xerographica: Previously the lede read: "This theory, which is based on the benefit principle, applies the same concepts of consumer choice theory to taxpayers. Tax choice studies have shown that allowing taxpayers to directly allocate even a small percentage of their taxes can increase their level of satisfaction." The first sentence looks like SYN. The second is supported by studies which may or may not be correct/academically reviewed, etc. (At present it is hard to say.) But whether the studies themselves are accurate is not the main issue. The sentence has been re-written to reflect what (I hope) the authors say and it allows for countering views to be presented IAW WP:BALANCE. (If these three authors are not advocates of tax choice, then the sentence needs revision.) In any event, remember that WP:1ST says: "Please do not write articles that advocate one particular viewpoint on politics, religion, or anything else. Understand what we mean by a neutral point of view before tackling this sort of topic." To keep NPOV, we must look for and consider different views on every subject. (It looks like all of the further reading items are pro-tax choice pieces.) As for Schwartz, I wonder. In looking at the book's article, I do not see taxes mentioned. If he does not address the subject of tax choice, then it is improper SYN to include his thoughts about consumers shopping in a supermarket or on-line or wherever in this article. Compare, Erich Fromm wrote Escape from Freedom. Would it be proper to include that work as supporting an argument for tax choice? Would we cite Fromm and "tax choice is a good idea because it counters the notion of freedom that authoritarians inherently oppose." No. – S. Rich (talk) 20:00, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

We don't know whether the authors are...or are not...advocates of tax choice. That's the bottom line. All we know is that the studies have shown that, when it comes to public goods, preference matching increases people's level of satisfaction. Obviously it does not mean that the studies are perfect or 100% true and accurate. It just means that that's what the studies have concluded. Readers can come to their own conclusions...but it's important for us to convey the fact that there have been published studies on the concept.

Regarding NPOV...you can't accuse ME of violating NPOV when you're the one who removed the criticism section (or allowed it to be removed). If anybody says anything negative about the concept...then it belongs in the criticism section. And if you had actually read through all the sources, then you would have found plenty of arguments against tax choice. The fact that you didn't...clearly indicates that, either you have a reading comprehension problem, or you haven't sufficiently researched this topic to be making substantial edits to the content.

Regarding Fromm...of course we can cite him. It's up to us to decide where tax choice ends and other concepts begin just like it's up to the editors of the Libertarianism article to decide where libertarianism ends and voluntaryism, anarchism, left-libertarianism, social anarchism, libertarian socialism and socialism begin. And believe you me that there is not a single reliable source that delineates libertarianism as the editors have delineated it.

I very reluctantly have to admit that some of your edits haven't been half bad. But please read more and edit less. Thoroughly research and study what's been written on the topic and then tell me whether Fromm should be mentioned in this article...

It may help to see this point if we think of a modern phenomenon which can be compared with child sacrifice, that of war... But once it had broken out (or even a little bit earlier) it became a "religious" phenomenon. The state, the nation, national honor, became the idols, and both sides voluntarily sacrificed their children to these idols... The fact that, in the case of child sacrifice, the father kills the child directly while, in the case of war, both sides have an arrangement to kill each other's children makes little difference. - Erich Fromm, The Anatomy of Human Destructiveness

--Xerographica (talk) 20:58, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Ethical consumerism

Ethical consumerism is an important and recurrent theme within tax choice. Here's the section which was removed...

Allowing taxpayers to choose which government organizations they gave their taxes to would enable them to boycott any government organizations that they deemed to be unethical. For example, pacifists would be able to boycott the military:

Under Velazquez’s act, the money that taxpayers decline to have fund the war would instead go to Head Start and children’s programs, or even rebuilding efforts in Iraq. - Lincoln Anderson, Velazquez: Funding war should be taxpayers’ choice

...pro-life advocates would be able to boycott abortion:

A growing, grassroots movement of concerned citizens fueled by a passion for freedom and armed with facts has created a rare opportunity to set Oregon taxpayers free from spending $1.5 million on 3,500 abortions every year. - Jim Jimerson, Initiative helps boost taxpayers' 'choice'

...and people would be able to boycott publicly funded art that they objected to:

Half the problems politicians face come from citizen objections to what Government spends their money on. People who think art is unimportant to the country fume at the idea that their taxes are spent to promote it. People who think the savings and loan catastrophe is the work of desperadoes will rage against having their money spent to restore what desperadoes have plundered. - Russell Baker, Taxpayers' Choice

That was my meager attempt to convey the relevance of ethical consumerism to tax choice. A meager attempt is better than nothing. If you can improve on my efforts...then please do so. But if you can't, then please replace this section. Thanks. --Xerographica (talk) 21:12, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Kenneth Severe - additional reading?

Rich removed this source from the list of additional reading...

• Severe, Kenneth – Give taxpayers choice of whether to raise salaries The News Tribune. 11 Jan 2009

Clearly the paper felt it was of sufficient interest to publish. What's the problem with including it in the additional reading section? --Xerographica (talk) 22:08, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

See WP:NEWSORG. Letters to the editor are not news reporting or opinions from specialists and recognized experts. – S. Rich (talk) 22:16, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

From the policy...

Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact.

Obviously we're not trying to derive any "facts" from his opinion piece. But his opinion piece was published by a newspaper and it is relevant to tax choice. So please undo your edit. Thanks. --Xerographica (talk) 22:27, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

No. This is not even from a newspaper commentator such as William Safire, etc. It is a letter to the editor, and WP is not a forum for such commentary. The only appropriate place for Severe's comment is in that particular letters to the editor section of that very local newspaper. – S. Rich (talk) 22:41, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Well I disagree. So what was the proper course of action again for disputes over sources? --Xerographica (talk) 23:12, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Unless you can come up with more pertinent WP guidance, I don't think you'll have much success. But first let some other editors weighin on this particular topic. If they do, we might reach a consensus. If they do not, or if we can't reach an agreement in the next few days, one of us can bring it up in a dispute resolution forum. – S. Rich (talk) 23:46, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Patricia Kennett page number

It's page 28...

Nevertheless, the classic solution to the problem of underprovision of public goods has been government funding - through compulsory taxation - and government production of the good or service in question. Although this may substantially alleviate the problem of numerous free-riders that refuse to pay for the benefits they receive, it should be noted that the policy process does not provide any very plausible method for determining what the optimal or best level of provision of a public good actually is. When it is impossible to observe what individuals are willing to give up in order to get the public good, how can policymakers access how urgently they really want more or less of it, given the other possible uses of their money? There is a whole economic literature dealing with the willingness-to-pay methods and contingent valuation techniques to try and divine such preference in the absence of a market price doing so, but even the most optimistic proponents of such devices tend to concede that public goods will still most likely be underprovided or overprovided under government stewardship. - Patricia Kennett, Governance, globalization and public policy

For plenty other passages regarding the preference revelation problem see User:Xerographica/Preference_revelation#Passages. --Xerographica (talk) 23:27, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Also...

Because most public goods and services are financed through a process of taxation involving no choice, optimal levels of expenditure are difficult to establish. The provision of public goods can be easily over-financed or under-financed. Public officials and professionals may have higher preferences for some public goods than the citizens they serve. Thus they may allocate more tax monies to these services than the citizens being served would allocate if they had an effective voice in the process. Under-financing can occur where many of the beneficiaries of a public good are not included in the collective consumption units financing the good. Thus they do not help to finance the provision of that good even though they would be willing to help pay their fair share. - Vincent Ostrom, Elinor Ostrom, Public Goods and Public Choices

An overview of the relevant concepts

Over at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion#Other_people.27s_money...Fishicus asked me about the difference between government waste and other people's money. I figured I'd kill two birds with one stone by posting my reply here as well...

Good question. Let's expand our scope a bit...

• Dollar voting/User:Xerographica/Dollar voting - Compared to regular voting, spending your money is a far more accurate reflection of your true preferences
• Consumer sovereignty/User:Xerographica/Consumer sovereignty - You spend your money according to your preferences...or...somebody spends your money for you, according to their guess of your preferences
• Preference revelation problem/User:Xerographica/Preference revelation - How can other people, specifically government planners, possibly know the true preferences of millions of citizens that they've never even met? Therefore, it's very likely that the government will undersupply or oversupply public goods.
• Scroogenomics - Wealth/value is destroyed when people purchase things for you that do not match your preferences. Only the people closest to you are likely to know your true preferences.
• Government waste - The result of allowing government to try and guess the true preferences of an entire nation.
• Tax choice/Taxpayer sovereignty - Creating a market in the public sector would solve the preference revelation problem and eliminate government waste.
• Dispersed knowledge/User:Xerographica/Decentralized knowledge - Markets utilize and integrate far greater amounts of information than planned/command economies.
• Opportunity cost/User:Xerographica/Opportunity cost - Maximizing value within your budget constraint requires sacrificing alternatives that you also value.
• Demonstrated preference - Actions speak louder than words...because of opportunity costs, what you spend your money/time on reveals your true preferences.
• The Fatal Conceit/User:Xerographica/The Fatal Conceit - The belief that the allocation decisions of government planners actually do reflect the true preferences of citizens...or...the allocation decisions of government planners are superior to the true preferences of citizens.
• Great Leap Forward - One, of many, examples of the tragic consequence of conceit.

Another word for "preference" is "demand" as in "supply and demand". Conceit results in economic non sequiturs. There's a disconnect between the premise (demand/preferences) and the conclusion (supply). When it comes to economics...you and I and everybody else...WE, THE PEOPLE...are the premise. There can only be massive disconnects between the supply (how society's limited resources are used) and the demand (our true preferences) when we do not have the freedom to express our true preferences.

The joy of being a kid in a candy store is only possible because millions and millions of other kids had the freedom to choose the candies that match their preferences. Life, for each and every person, should be exactly like being a kid in a candy store. But for that to happen, it's absolutely essential for people to have the freedom to indicate which products/goods/services/ideas/people match their true preferences. This is how we ensure that society's limited resources are used to produce the maximize benefit/value for society as a whole.

Well...that's the theory at least. Clearly it matches my preferences for there to be an article dedicated to Friedman's and Waldfogel's overlapping arguments. But redirecting other people's money to consumer sovereignty would work for now. --Xerographica (talk) 01:05, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

The preceding list expresses your personal opinions and theories. Others, such as myself, will see errors and misstatements them. Without reference to third-party informed statements on the subjects, your lexicon cannot further the editing or other decision processes here. I urge you to generate well-sourced expert material on these subjects so that suitable content can be used to improve WP when it is added to articles. In the absence of such content, you face the needless disappointment of having your articles repeatedly destined for future AfD and redirect discussions. SPECIFICO talk 01:29, 4 February 2013 (UTC) copy-edited SPECIFICO talk 01:39, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

LOL...yes...you caught me. The above list is all my original research. I claim 100% credit for all those theories and concepts. You're so absolutely correct that none of those concepts are supported by the dozens and dozens of quotes, passages and reliable sources that I've shared on my subpages...User:Xerographica. --Xerographica (talk) 02:06, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. That is progress. I hope you'll then consider why your OR is not useful for the common purpose here. You might consider striking it from the redirect discussion as well. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 02:56, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

No, that was sarcasm. Progress would be for you to stop being disruptive. --Xerographica (talk) 03:39, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

The purpose of these talk pages is to improve the article. This effort to hold forth on the "overview of relevant concepts" does not. It seems to be soapboxing. Perhaps you could take other editors concerns more to heart.Capitalismojo (talk) 03:56, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Are you interested in improving this article? So far it seems like your only interests have been to delete it and to accuse me of soapboxing. From my perspective, somebody cannot fundamentally improve an article if they don't have a firm grasp on the relevant concepts. --Xerographica (talk) 06:46, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I see. We can only edit your page if we have a "firm grasp on the relevant concepts." Excellent. What an exciting new idea! Would you administer a test for us to use? Would that be online? Hmmm, I think this is a mess of an article. I believe, however, that almost any WP editor could make significant improvements. One improvement would be; avoid Refs that are hidden behind pay walls. A second would be; edit for clarity. A third would be; read the WP: OWN policy. Capitalismojo (talk) 19:59, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

What do you mean "avoid Refs that are hidden behind pay walls"? Editing for clarity is great (aka style)...but not at the expense of substance. And yes, I'm familiar with OWN. --Xerographica (talk) 20:11, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

There are refs on this article that are unavailable for viewing. JSTOR is one such. It is best to avoid relying on such because it impedes Verifiability. As to clarity, there is previous little of that in this article. We have nebulous sections largely unconnected or poorly connected with the lede. Clarity is not a synonym for style. As to OWN. Your remarks here indicate that you may have read but not understood. You have actually used language here that are the examples and red flags at the OWN policy page. Capitalismojo (talk) 20:35, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Right, I get that this article has refs that the general public does not have access to...I'm the one who put them there. But surely you're not suggesting that relevant and high quality reliable sources be removed? I agree that this article is terribly written. If you want to rewrite any sections then you're more than welcome to. Regarding OWN...here's the article when I "OWNed" it...User:Xerographica/Tax_choice...and you can see the article as it currently stands. The disparity between the articles is painfully obvious evidence that I do not own this article. But that doesn't mean that I can't strive to try and ensure that the content reflects what the reliable sources say about the topic. --Xerographica (talk) 20:53, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

X, one of the reasons that so little of your content survives scrutiny here is that you use low-quality or unreliably sourced citations. It will require more effort, but I believe that if you do more thorough and broader research into your topics you will have more success with at least some of the text you post here. SPECIFICO talk 21:00, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Several observations: JSTOR is part of WP:TWL. WP:V does not mean finding stuff has to be free or easy. The {{Subscription}} allows us to tag articles that require payment. (Moreover, as more and more RS goes to pay modes, the cost factor will become an increasing concern.) JSTOR does have abstracts available which often give us what we need. (E.g., we don't always need to read whole articles to figure out if they are helpful (or not)). – S. Rich (talk) 21:03, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Opportunity costs of war

SPECIFICO removed the entire "Opportunity costs of war" section...User:Xerographica/Tax_choice#Opportunity_costs_of_war from this article...but he did not remove the opportunity costs of war from these other articles... Cost_of_conflict#Opportunity_Cost and Parable_of_the_broken_window#The_opportunity_cost_of_war. On my talk page...User_talk:Xerographica#Burden_of_proof_on_Tax_choice...I asked him several times why he removed the opportunity cost of war from this article but not the others...but so far he has ignored the question.

Can somebody please help me understand the rationale behind his edits? The opportunity cost of war is a well documented and important concept that's highly relevant to tax choice. It would really improve this article if there was a section dedicated to the concept...but it would be a waste of time to re-add it if SPECIFICO would again just remove it for unspecified reasons. --Xerographica (talk) 21:27, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I suggest you be more attentive to the Edit summaries on this and other articles. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 23:08, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

This was your edit summary, "Delete WP:OR Please find RS treatments of this subject matter if you believe it is relevant to the article." So again...why did you remove the opportunity cost of war from this article but not from the other two articles? --Xerographica (talk) 23:35, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

It is unproductive to ask about edits or non-edits to other articles. This talk page pertains to tax choice and tax choice alone. You are improperly asking SPECIFICO to justify an edit based on irrelevant and/or non-existent information. – S. Rich (talk) 23:45, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm trying to improve this article by including a section on the opportunity costs of war. But I can't do that if SPECIFICO is going to arbitrarily remove it. How do I know his decision was arbitrary? Because he has not removed the "OR" from the other two articles. Given that he has not removed those other sections, clearly he's not genuinely concerned with OR...instead, his interest is to be disruptive. --Xerographica (talk) 00:06, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I was unaware of those articles until you posted the links, why do you think SPECIFICO was aware of them and "disruptively" not editing them? (I can't believe I just wrote that.) You seem to be suggesting that not editing one article is a sign of bad faith in a second article. Really? Capitalismojo (talk) 22:47, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

User_talk:Xerographica#Burden_of_proof_on_Tax_choice. When SPECIFICO has argued over and over that this article should be deleted...and he removes entire sections of content...then it's clear that his actions are speaking just as loud as his words. Once he makes his first positive contribution...then, and only then...will I consider the possibility that he's interested in improving this article. --Xerographica (talk) 23:11, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

– S. Rich (talk) 23:32, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

User Charges for Public Services

Rubin removed the following reference with this explanation..."only indirect. Do you have evidence of relevance except through the other articles to which you added the reference."

• Bird, Richard M. and Tsiopoulos, Thomas - User Charges for Public Services: Potentials and Problems 1997

Rubin, it took me at least an hour to thoroughly read the paper. But you removed it FOUR minutes after I added it to the references. How many times am I going to have to ask you to read more and edit less? First you read the paper and then you can make the argument that it's only indirect. Otherwise, how can we have an informed discussion when you haven't even read the material? Please stop your disruptive editing. --Xerographica (talk) 18:37, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Please stop attacking other editors. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. SPECIFICO talk 19:02, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

X: – S. Rich (talk) 19:26, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

It's conceivable that "tax choice" is mentioned in that article, but only if the title is misleading, which would suggest that the document should not be used for any article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:03, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Reliable sources that have been deleted

Several reliable sources have been deleted from the "Further reading" section of this article. None of the following sources are in violation of Wikipedia reliable source policy. Please familiarize yourself with the policy and replace the sources.

---

• Source: Mae, Brandy. "Choosing Where Taxes Go". Forbes. Retrieved 18 April 2012.
• Published by: Forbes
• Removed by: 72Dino
• Reason given: "with all due respect to her profession, a guest post by a bookkeeper is not exactly an RS on this topic and their is no editorial oversight over a post like this (it's basically a letter to the editor)"

---

• Source: Haldeman II, Jack C., We, The People 1983.
• Published by: Analog Science Fiction and Fact
• Removed by: Rich
• Reason given: "delete FR which is fictional story mentioning choice of taxes (see talk for more))"

---

• Source: Severe, Kenneth – Give taxpayers choice of whether to raise salaries The News Tribune. 11 Jan 2009
• Published by: The News Tribune
• Removed by: Rich
• Reason given: "remove FR item -- looks like a letter to editor, Severe is not on TNT news staff, senior staff, or editorial board"

---

• Source: Bird, Richard M. and Tsiopoulos, Thomas - User Charges for Public Services: Potentials and Problems 1997
• Published by: Canadian Tax Foundation
• Removed by: Rubin
• Reason given: "only indirect. Do you have evidence of relevance except through the other articles to which you added the reference."

---

Thanks. --Xerographica (talk) 00:50, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I reviewed those. The excisions all look appropriate. Please review the site policies on RS and RS for Economics. SPECIFICO talk 00:57, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Severe and Mae are not RS. As discussed above, they are letters to the editor. Haldeman is discussed above. Rubin is correct about Bird & Tsiopoulos. So, WP:DEADHORSE already! And then to imply that editors don't know about policy – you are about to step over the line (again). Stop. – S. Rich (talk) 01:22, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

The editors review each letter and they have complete discretion over which letters are published. You never answered my question regarding Haldeman. Again, why did you remove his story from the "Further reading" section? Regarding Bird & Tsiopoulos...how do you know that Rubin is correct? Have you read the paper? --Xerographica (talk) 01:36, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

– S. Rich (talk) 01:41, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

"Letters to the editor" in newspapers are reviewed, and are never reliable sources, except ocassionally if the letter-writer is a published expert. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:01, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

It requires an expert opinion that Haldeman is speaking about "tax choice" in his comments. What he speaks about in the story is irrelevant (to Wikipedia) without commentary. Personally, I have no doubt that he was talking about "tax choice", but we need some commentary which specifically mentions what concept he was talking about. I don't know if that was the reasoning explained above, but .... Perhaps if David Freedman, or some other economist/science fiction writer, were to have talked about Haldeman's story? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:09, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

In order for Haldeman's story to be included in the "Further reading" section...it has to be A. relevant to tax choice (which it is) and B. published by a credible organization (which it was). It's as simple as that. We don't need David Friedman, or the Pope, to say anything about Haldeman's story for us to include it in the "Further reading" section. We can actually include Haldeman's story anywhere in this article as long as we don't say anything original about his story. Let me repeat that. We can actually include Haldeman's story anywhere in this article as long as we don't say anything original about his story. Saying that Haldeman wrote a short science fiction story about tax choice isn't original...it's pure, easily verifiable, fact.

Please copy and paste the relevant policy passage which states that letters published by editors are never reliable sources...except for the exception you noted. Thanks. --Xerographica (talk) 17:27, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Xero, per WP: BRD it is upon you to explain why these should be re-included. Your efforts to date are unconvincing. The other editors have explained their reasons. We have engaged in discussion. Your arguments have not yet convinced other editors. Perhaps you could share additional reasons why you think the other editors are mistaken about the policies and link to the policies you believe should guide us here. Capitalismojo (talk) 18:32, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

What can I say? Is it any surprise that I want to give interested readers as many relevant options as possible and allow them to decide for themselves what's of value to them? But it's not like I'm advocating that yahoo question and answers be included here. All those references are clearly reliable...

Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact.

Published letters and guest posts are opinion pieces. They certainly aren't scholarly treatments of the subject...but not everybody can be expected to grasp Buchanan as easily as they can grasp Haldeman. And it's really ridiculous to assume that only economists can have anything interesting or relevant or important or useful to say about tax choice. If that's the case then why is the Pope still included in the article?

When rules are arbitrarily followed then we end up wasting hours and hours debating them rather than simply improving the article. --Xerographica (talk) 19:03, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Or, When rules are ignored then we end up wasting hours and hours debating them rather than simply improving the article. SPECIFICO talk 19:08, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Speaking of improving articles...I'm looking forward to your replies...Talk:Government waste. --Xerographica (talk) 19:19, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

(ec / many / to X) I was going to say WP:SPS, but the general WP:QS is more appropriate; the decision as to whether a letter to the editor is published hardly ever (to the point of requiring extraordinary evidence) has to do with editorial review as to the accuracy of the letter, and rarely has to do with editorial review as to the notability of the letter.

As for why the Pope is in the article, I'm not entirely sure. It's a notable opinion, and it doesn't require an expert to see that it's about the topic. In Haldeman's case, the story is not even an opinion, and his commentary on writing it is not explicitly about the topic.

And although I have no doubt it's the case, it does require an expert or personal opinion that Haldeman's story is about tax choice. You have made it clear that this is a technical term (such as what you tried to place in have your cake and eat it, too); it therefore requires an expert opinion.

WP:DEADHORSE — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:21, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Does it require an expert opinion to say that in Haldeman's story 99.987% of taxpayers use the long form? --Xerographica (talk) 21:17, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

No, but his story is fiction, and so not a reliable source for anything. (Would you use State of Fear in the article on global warming?) And his commentary on the story doesn't say it's about "tax choice". The minimum we need for inclusion is somebody, either Haldeman or an expert, saying the story is about tax choice. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:28, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Kennett failed verification?

SPECIFICO rewrote the preference revelation section with the following explanation..."Copy edit. Conforming text to cited source content. No mention of "tax choice" in the sources. Kennett failed verification but I did not delete in case there is relevant content to be added from that book by future editors."

What does he mean by "Kennett failed verification"? Here's the relevant passage...

Nevertheless, the classic solution to the problem of underprovision of public goods has been government funding - through compulsory taxation - and government production of the good or service in question. Although this may substantially alleviate the problem of numerous free-riders that refuse to pay for the benefits they receive, it should be noted that the policy process does not provide any very plausible method for determining what the optimal or best level of provision of a public good actually is. When it is impossible to observe what individuals are willing to give up in order to get the public good, how can policymakers access how urgently they really want more or less of it, given the other possible uses of their money? There is a whole economic literature dealing with the willingness-to-pay methods and contingent valuation techniques to try and divine such preference in the absence of a market price doing so, but even the most optimistic proponents of such devices tend to concede that public goods will still most likely be underprovided or overprovided under government stewardship. - Patricia Kennett, Governance, globalization and public policy

Can somebody please explain. Thanks. --Xerographica (talk) 19:27, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Three problems: 1. as SPECIFICO said, the passage does not use the term tax choice. Additionally, 2. it is a quote with internal links (see MOS:QUOTE), and 3. it is WP:LONGQUOTE. – S. Rich (talk) 19:55, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

This article is not about the term...it's about the concept. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Are you arguing that this passage is not directly relevant to tax choice? And what does QUOTE and LONGQUOTE have to do with anything? Sure, it would improve this passage to be included in the article...but why are you attacking an argument that nobody has made? I am not arguing that this passage should be included in this article...so please do not waste my time by attacking arguments that nobody is making. --Xerographica (talk) 20:09, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Srich has addressed your question, but more importantly the Ostrom paper was directly misrepresented as if it spoke to the opposite of the position it actually presents. I was greatly dismayed to discover that. SPECIFICO talk 20:13, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

If you are "not arguing that this passage should be included in this article...so please do not waste my time by attacking arguments that nobody is making." why bring up the issue? You asked for clarification about the above passage, so you got what you asked for. – S. Rich (talk) 20:16, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, copy and paste the specific Ostrom passage that you are referring to. Rich, are you arguing that Kennett's passage is not relevant to the tax choice concept? --Xerographica (talk) 23:25, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, what Ostrom passage? Please clarify. X, your inquiry bewilders me. You said you are "not arguing that this passage should be included." Do you mean you don't care if it's not in, or are you seeking to dictate that it should be in? – S. Rich (talk) 01:08, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Here's how the section is currently written...

According to Vincent and Elinor Ostrom, it is possible that government may oversupply, and a market arrangement may undersupply, those public goods for which exclusion is not feasible.

...and here are the relevant passages...

• even the most optimistic proponents of such devices tend to concede that public goods will still most likely be underprovided or overprovided under government stewardship. - Patricia Kennett, Governance, globalization and public policy
• The provision of public goods can be easily over-financed or under-financed. - Vincent Ostrom, Elinor Ostrom, Public Goods and Public Choices

...and a few more...

• If a revenue source is earmarked but has no logical connection with the expenditure function it supports, then from an efficiency perspective the amount of the public service supplied will almost certainly be either too great or too small. - Richard M. Bird and Thomas Tsiopoulos, User Charges for Public Services: Potentials and Problems
• Nevertheless, even without perfect knowledge, the government must decide whether or not to provide the public good. It also must decide how much of the public good it should provide. Finally, the government must decide, all without guaranteed information, on a tax schema. Under such circumstances, it is not possible for the government to reach an optimal solution and a Pareto distribution of taxes for the public good. - Wilfried Eecke, Ethical Dimensions of the Economy
• In his seminal analyses of public goods, Samuelson concluded that strategic bias implied that there was ‘an inherent political difficulty of ever getting men to reveal their tastes so as to attain the definable optimum’. This view led to widespread acceptance by economists for some time that true demand for public goods could not be determined. - C.D. Throsby, Glenn A. Withers, Strategic bias and demand for public goods

As I've explained before...we solve the free-rider problem by forcing people to pay taxes. But that still leaves the preference revelation problem...the problem of determining the true demand for public goods. Without that information, it's very likely that the government will either oversupply or undersupply public goods. Tax choice, in theory, would solve this problem because if people have to pay taxes anyways, then why would they "lie" about their true preferences for public goods?

Under most real-world taxing institutions, the tax price per unit at which collective goods are made available to the individual will depend, at least to some degree, on his own behavior. This element is not, however, important under the major tax institutions such as the personal income tax, the general sales tax, or the real property tax. With such structures, the individual may, by changing his private behavior, modify the tax base (and thus the tax price per unit of collective goods he utilizes), but he need not have any incentive to conceal his "true" preferences for public goods. - James Buchanan, The Economics of Earmarked Taxes

A somewhat less technical way of thinking about it...

The biggest objection is that important programs will be underfunded. But that consequence is actually logically impossible. If Americans don't think a program is important enough to provide more funding, then in a democracy, by definition it isn't a priority so doesn't deserve more funding. - Daniel Indiviglio, If Taxpayers Could Decide How Their Money Is Spent?

Markets work because it's the demand that determines the supply. It's the dog that wags the tail...not the other way around. In a tax choice system, the supply of public goods would be optimal because it would be determined by the demand for public goods. That's the theory at least. Any criticisms of this theory should be developed in the criticisms section. --Xerographica (talk) 03:49, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't know what you're trying to propose by your "passages". You need to propose specific wording supported by the references. So far, none of your paragraphs above are supported by the quotes without further interpretation, and few of the quotes support anything appropriate for this article. Idiviglio has some possibilites, if it were a reliable source, which it clearly isn't. It's an editorial, according to the mini-bio at the top, and Idiviglio doesn't seem to have "expert" credentials. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:02, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I understand exactly what the "experts" are saying...and I understand exactly what Indiviglio is saying...but I have absolutely no clue what you are saying. --Xerographica (talk) 06:20, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, you claim to be an expert, so of course you claim to understand what the "experts" are saying.

Indivigilo's column has the form of an editorial, and he/she was an "associate editor". Editorials, even in generally reliable publications, are only reliable for the opinion of the author. If the author is an expert, that's helpful.

(ec) As for Kennett, she seems to be saying that "even the most optimistic proponents of such devices tend to concede that public goods will still most likely be underprovided or overprovided under government stewardship." Isn't tax choice one of the "devices"? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:26, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I've never once claimed to be an expert. But I have read what plenty of experts have to say about public economics.

Regarding "devices"...why do you think that tax choice is a technique to try and "divine" the true preferences of taxpayers? "Divine" means to try and guess something. In a tax choice system...why would the government have to guess at the demand for say, national defense? Why would congress have to sacrifice a chicken and poke around in its entrails to determine exactly how much you value national defense? Why would congress have to climb to the top of the mountain to ask the oracles to reveal exactly how much national defense you prefer? Why would congress have to shake and shake and shake the magic 8 ball in order to try and discover whether you wanted more or less national defense?

In a tax choice system, given that you would have to pay taxes anyways, if you wanted more national defense then you'd simply give more of your taxes to the Dept of Defense. There's no need for the government to call the psychic hotline to "divine" exactly how much you value national defense. Your tax payments would demonstrate your true preferences for national defense. No voodoo magic guessing games required.

Over and over and over I've told you about the opportunity cost concept. But evidently you still don't get it. Here it is in Kennett's passage...

When it is impossible to observe what individuals are willing to give up in order to get the public good, how can policymakers access how urgently they really want more or less of it, given the other possible uses of their money?

That's the opportunity cost concept...and tax choice is opportunity cost. You would have a limited amount of money that you could spend on public goods...just like you have a limited amount of money that you can spend on private goods. Can you buy all the private goods that you want? Obviously not...which means that you have to prioritize. You have to skip the "frivolous" things in order to have enough money to spend on "important" things.

But the market works because it's entirely up to you to decide what's "frivolous" and what's "important". It's entirely up to you to decide what's "trash" and what's "treasure". It's entirely up to you to decide what's "baby" and what's "bath water". And it would be exactly the same with tax choice because tax choice would create a market in the public sector.

In a tax choice system, you would have the freedom to decide whether it was worth the opportunity cost to give more of your taxes to the Dept of Defense. The "bundle" of public goods that you purchased would accurately reflect your true preferences for public goods. That's exactly why tax choice would solve the preference revelation problem. The supply of national defense would be determined by the demand for national defense. No guessing or "divining" required. --Xerographica (talk) 07:24, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

That is an interesting series of observations. It misses the point. The talk page is not a forum for advocating the concept, however interesting and good it may be. We are here to improve the article. Arthur has made the correct point that the 'passages' are not (as written) helpful. We need some new language (perhaps you could boil down some of what you have written above) that is supported by reliable source (inline) references. That's it. Everyone would be happy and the normal editing process could proceed.Capitalismojo (talk) 17:56, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Let me give you a practical example. The lede of your article Club theory is a good start. Your reference page there has no inline citations. The very first, and perhaps the first three of the 'references' could and maybe should be used as refs for the lede there. In a similar way you could explain parts of tax choice in the article and potentially take the sources of the quotes as your inline refs. That is what I, at least, am looking for. I hope that helps. Capitalismojo (talk) 18:06, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

My goal here is to share the relevant passages in order to try and help other editors firmly grasp why SPECIFICO's new wording is not an improvement on my previous wording. Clearly, involved editors do not really grasp the relevant concepts or else they would have undone his edit themselves or voiced their disagreement here on the talk page. So in order for us to really improve this page together...in order for this to truly be a collaborative effort...each and every one of us has to fundamentally understand 1. the problems with the current system and 2. how tax choice could potentially solve these problems. Then everybody, not just myself, can suggest wordings that more closely align to what the reliable sources have to say about the concept. Otherwise we'll end up with way too many edits, just like SPECIFICO's, which are not improvements for the simple reason that they stray further away from the reliable sources.

So please compare my previous wording with SPECIFICO's new wording and let me know whose wording more closely aligns to what the reliable sources say about the topic. Also, please suggest your own wording. My previous wording was far from ideal, and there is certainly plenty of room for improvement. But that improvement can only occur when editors understand exactly what the reliable sources say about the topic.

I've added numerous sections to this article...and Rich, Rubin and SPECIFICO have deleted them. There are plenty of reliable sources...yet I do not see these editors going through the RSs and adding the relevant material to this article. Cutting content is easy, but contributing content takes effort. Building is always more of a challenge than simply tearing down. Because all these editors do is tear down...I've lost my good faith in them. Once they start actually building this article up...then, and only then, will my faith in them start to renew.

Regarding club theory...thanks for your feedback...but it can't just be me building up. Take a look at Thomasmeeks' contributions to the article I created for the benefit principle. Look through the history and you can see green and red. Read over the talk page and you can hopefully get more of a sense that these editors are not part of the solution. Could they be part of the solution? I'd love it if they were. But right now I'm the only one who is encouraging them to find, read and paraphrase relevant reliable sources and clearly...it isn't cutting it. --Xerographica (talk) 19:13, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Optimal quantities of public goods

The following seems incredibly flawed: "However, John McMillan writes that in a quasi-market for public goods, taxpayers' valuations of the alternative uses of their tax dollars would help ensure that there was an optimal provision of public goods." One cannot answer the question "How many pounds of beef do you want?" with "I want $10 worth" without knowing the cost of beef beforehand. In other words, it's a stretch to suggest that tax choice would result in optimal quantities of public goods unless tax payers themselves were able to quantify (approximately, in dollars) their personal use of government services (plus one's share of administrative overhead which depends on overall usage), which - again - is a stretch. Although not entirely apt in this context, the phrase "design by committee" comes to mind (perhaps "mural by astigmatic amateurs with tunnel vision" would be more apt). The true benefit of tax choice seems to be that tax payers are more satisfied with government's use of tax dollars (whether or not those tax dollars are actually being spent more wisely). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.180.214.148 (talk) 13:14, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

"Optimal" in economics is fairly straightforward. It isn't "optimal" for a vegetarian to split half her food budget between meat and not-meat, given that this division of her money would fail to maximize her benefit. Therefore, "optimal" is a function of people's personal preferences, which can only be revealed by their freedom to decide how they divide their own limited dollars among their virtually unlimited wants. 47.232.248.179 (talk) 08:12, 26 August 2020 (UTC)