This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics articles
This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Taxation, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.TaxationWikipedia:WikiProject TaxationTemplate:WikiProject TaxationTaxation articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
The above titled section is not correct according to my research for the 2-4-8 Tax Blend article. Please take a look at the Wealth Redistribution section. Please note that the wealth survey data has been updated through 2010. EugenePatrickDevany 15:34, 20 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 248TaxBlend (talk • contribs)
A 2011 Congressional Research Service report stated, "Changes in capital gains and dividends were the largest contributor to the increase in the overall income inequality. Taxes were less progressive in 2006 than in 1996, and consequently, tax policy also contributed to the increase in income inequality between 1996 and 2006. But overall income inequality would likely have increased even in the absence of tax policy changes." (Hungerford, Thomas L. (December 29, 2011). Changes in the Distribution of Income Among Tax Filers Between 1996 and 2006: The Role of Labor Income, Capital Income, and Tax Policy(Report 7-5700/R42131). Washington, D.C.: Congressional Research Service. Retrieved 1 January 2014.)
Criticized by those who have a terrible track record on the issue, other than their fortunes being at risk if he were to continue to work for the CRS. How would you feel about it if what happened to him happened to you? Some people devote a lot of their lives to trying to document the truth to help as many people as possible, but the few people who would have to give up a small part of their vast wealth are very offended by that, and they spend so much on trying to be clever about their cherry picking, to try to convince people that they aren't taking advantage of them. It's really difficult to handle realizing that one has fallen for it. Some people never recover and go to the grave propping up the same people stealing livelihood from their family.
In any case, I'll propose a further compromise by deleting Sowell's argument about people who earn more when they get older proving that income mobility exists (because it is stupid), and adding better material on infrastructure, education, and health care. EllenCT (talk) 04:34, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Some of his research was easily disproven in peer reviewed research. I'm not buying the conspiracy or ad hominem - critics often have much to lose as well. Morphh(talk)05:01, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly was disproven in which peer reviewed research? I'll believe that when I see it, but I carefully followed the controversy for months and Hungerford was never anything but vindicated. EllenCT (talk) 05:59, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what's stupid about income mobility. Certainly we should make it clear that many of these statistics are snap shots in time and that people tend to move through income and wealth cycles in their life, just as the unemployment statistics may not represent the same people each year. Not sure how infrastructure, education, and health care will tie into this article, so we'll need to make sure it is directly applicable. We need to be cautious it doesn't become a WP:COATRACK. Morphh(talk)04:53, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The idea that people making more money as they age shows social mobility is stupid, because it's the same people. Read any critique of Sowell's mobility arguments. I wish Sowell would. How can you be not sure of how infrastructure, education, and healthcare are relevant here? Did you read their text? And in the future, instead of reverting, please propose specific changes and discuss them here first. EllenCT (talk) 05:59, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you're going to rewrite/restructure most of the page, please discuss such massive alterations here first. It looks like you just loaded up a bunch of stock, totally one sided partisan material and dumped it all onto this page, even deleting some preexisting stuff you disagree with. You should argue for the material piecemeal. I won't comment on every change right now, but, for starters, the Saez chart you put at the very top (giving it extreme prominence) only focused on 1% of the population, which just happens to be the same 1% a far left political movement has turned into a political bumper sticker in recent years. It was rejected on another article for just that reason. If it's included here, it should be much lower and accompanied by counterpoint material to maintain NPOV. VictorD7 (talk) 07:04, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
VictorD7 is a abusive liar lacking the WP:COMPETENCE to find any support for his political opinions in the peer reviewed literature, let alone the WP:SECONDARY literature, but that doesn't stop him from trying to insert those opinions. I ask others to join me in asking that he be sanctioned for his repeated behavioral problems until he starts using peer reviewed sources and apologizes. EllenCT (talk) 07:08, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're projecting on the competence/abuse/dishonest fronts. That wasn't even a coherent reply to my post. I didn't insert anything, opinionated or otherwise. I simply reverted your extremely POV changes to the earlier version.VictorD7 (talk) 08:49, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
EllenCT, you're going to end up sanctioned yourself. Each section and topic in this article should be a major topic and directly related to "Tax policy and economic inequality". Not "tax policy" or "economic inequality", but both and directly so. This is not a rehash of an income inequality article. We don't need summary sections on "Income inequality", "Wealth distribution", or "Inequality by race" unless it is directly sourced to opinions with regard to tax policy. They're WP:COATRACK sections. Each section should describe tax policy and it's direct effect for that topic as related to economic inequality. For example, your insertion of Health Care "Preventative health care expenditures can save several hundreds of billions of dollars per year in the U.S., because for example cancer patients are more likely to be diagnosed at Stage I where curative treatment is typically a few outpatient visits, instead of at Stage III or later in an emergency room where treatment can involve years of hospitalization and is often terminal." The term "tax" is not even mentioned. The term "equality" is not even mentioned, never mind a direct statement that ties the two directly together. They have no context for "tax policy and economic inequality". I think there could be a section for HeathCare - the tax system is used to offer subsidization and penalties, but this needs to be done in a neutral way that directly ties to the subject. Also, stop adding the graph which has already been discussed in RFC to be inappropriate. You can't avoid consensus by moving to a different article. Morphh(talk)15:15, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Do you spread these off topic lies everywhere you post? I posted quotes about the 1962 paper by the CBO and your own freaking source a long time ago, along with a lot of other material totally proving you wrong. By contrast you have yet to find a single source (peer reviewed or not) that supports your "consumers" claim. That has nothing to do with the larger debate anyway, since your assumption about your ITEP chart attributing to consumers was also disproved (or at least it would mean ITEP is very dishonest with their words and numbers if they are secretly attributing to consumers), and your misunderstanding of what "peer review" even means and its pertinence here has been patiently explained to you. Your claim about my position being "new" was proved false with direct quotes and links from our first conversation months ago (it's always been consistent), and you keep mangling it anyway. Sources are what matter (all the tax incidence sources attribute at least mostly to owners, some a minority to labor), but to the extent my opinion is of interest it's not that taxes aren't passed on to consumers, but that tax incidence charts should attribute corporate taxes to corporate owners, since they're the ones most directly paying them. Just like a regular income tax hike on a member of the top 1% should be attributed to him, and not to the people he lays off, the businesses he doesn't buy from or invest in, etc.. I differentiate between incidence and economic ripple effects, but then that's my opinion. Ignoring my words while continuing to invoke my name with these false claims is trollish of you. VictorD7 (talk) 02:34, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Because I realized there were whole areas of material added that were unbalancing the article and not on topic. I'd also like to ask you why you added this graph [4] after it was extensively discussed and discarded here (with your participation): Talk:Progressive_tax#RFC_on_graph_linking_top_marginal_tax_rates_to_job_growth? It's becoming tedious to rollback your inappropriate edits around the project after editors have given thoughtful feedback. You seem to have a desire to add this same material in as many articles as possible, no matter how poor the fit.Mattnad (talk) 01:14, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Would you please discuss the portions you believe are "unbalancing" or off topic before deleting or reverting them here? The graph is historically accurate and consistent with the sources and historical outcomes which show that less tax applied more progressively produces more growth than more tax in general. EllenCT (talk) 15:23, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There are two other editors who feel your approach and content is off topic and POV. Instead of making a case, you simply reinsert the same content you have been pushing on other articles. I note that you side stepped my direct question regarding the tax rate and employment growth chart. You'd get more traction if you were less "bold" and more willing to engage in a meaningful dialog. I have reverted your third effort. If you try again without getting some consensus, you may find yourself in with an edit warring warning.Mattnad (talk) 15:59, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There are a lot of editors who think Austrian economics is worth something even though it doesn't predict historical outcomes from prior data, or get any traction in the peer reviewed literature. I will continue to give their editorial opinions the weight they deserve. All the graphs I have added here are accurate, informative, and not misleading. EllenCT (talk) 16:13, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What does that have to do with anything? I voiced some of my objections above. Your response was to add a new graph and revert all the content. Morphh(talk)16:19, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
EllenCT, I don't believe your response addresses the fact that you have ignored this RFC which included a diversity of editors, many of whom (myself included) have not been involved in your "Austrian economics" debates. I have been open to a reasoned discussion with you, but I'll admit I do not appreciate your method of summarily discounting other editors' perspectives on article scope or source quality.16:56, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
I did not ignore the RFC, I disregarded systemic biases. I rely on the accuracy of models that can predict historical outcomes from prior empirical data, the preponderance of the peer reviewed literature, and mathematical accuracy. Please do not introduce bases against valid hypotheses, against the peer reviewed secondary literature, or against mathematical accuracy. I will continue to try to reach a compromise by incorporating your incremental changes into my work. I hope that we can meet in the middle. EllenCT (talk) 00:33, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You keep using that word "compromise". I do not think it means what *you* think it means given your last revert erased all of my recent incremental changes. Perhaps compromise means something else to you?Mattnad (talk) 01:55, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This article is not here to cover every aspect of social spending that influences economic inequality, which would be about everything. The topic is specific. Does tax policy add specific provisions for education to help reduce inequality? I think the sentence you added does address this so I have no problem with it or the supporting graph, so long as it verifies. As for the reset of the material in that section, it should be moved to another article (if it's not already in another article). We could keep a couple sentences that allow context for the sentence you added, but the majority can be handled by a tag at the top referencing additional details in another article. Morphh(talk)01:25, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
a related observation: You tend to rely on large expositions of an academic paper or author to the exclusion of examples of the application or results of tax policy using a range of sources. It's not an enticing editorial approach for a reader. I'd recommend a combination of brevity and variety if you want to be expansive, but always remember an encyclopedia needs to be focused and err on the side of economy of text. Otherwise an article can become unwieldy.Mattnad (talk) 01:43, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Economist Gary Becker states that the root cause of income inequality is differing levels of educational attainment, and that inequality could reverse itself as more Americans get college degrees.[1] According to Becker, the "rise in returns on investments in human capital is beneficial and desirable" to society because it increases productivity and standards of living.[1] Income tax revenues are also positively effected by attendance to higher education, as college educated taxpayers often earn much more than those without college education.[2]
However, the cost for college tuition has increased significantly faster than inflation, leading the United States to have one of the most expensive higher education systems in the world.[6][7] It has been suggested that tax policy could be used to help reduce these costs, by taxing the endowment income of universities and linking the endowment tax to tuition rates.[8] The United States spends about 7.3% of GDP ($1.1 trillion in 2011 - public and private, all levels[9]) annually on education, with 70% funded publicly through varying levels of federal, state, and local taxation.[10]
Reviewing the statements as I work on the content for this section. This is the sentence that Ellen added:
Mean income of U.S. families by education of head, 1989-2010. Government investment in college tuition subsidies usually pay for themselves many times over in additional tax revenue.
"Public subsidy of college tuition increases the net present value of income tax receipts because college educated taxpayers earn much more than those without college education." Sourced to: Bosworth, Barry; Burtless, Gary; Steuerle, C. Eugene (December 1999). Lifetime Earnings Patterns, the Distribution of Future Social Security Benefits, and the Impact of Pension Reform(PDF) (report no. CRR WP 1999-06). Chestnut Hill, Massachusetts: Center for Retirement Research at Boston College. p. 43. Retrieved October 1, 2012.
I said I had no problem with it, so long as it verifies. Well, I'm having trouble verifying it. The source does discuss factoring education as part of their methodology, so I have no issue with the basic premise that higher education increases income. Where I question the verifiability from the source is with regard to "public subsidy" and implied net gain to tax revenue from the public expense. I can't find that in the source and it's not the topic of the publication and I'm concerned this is WP:SYN. While it may seem like a logical conclusion on the surface, I can think of several mitigating factors that might make it false. Morphh(talk)17:04, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've tried to find sources on this as well. This particular paper indicates that the answer is not clear cut pro or con and does a detailed exposition on the theories and models examining the returns on public investment in education. [5]Mattnad (talk) 18:26, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Mattnad: Which specific passage from the source indicates that the answer is unclear? The characterization "not as favorable as they are often said to be" still means favorable, does it not? EllenCT (talk) 02:39, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The paper provides a nuanced exploration of elements the contribute to success or failure of public subsidies, so there are numerous passages for both. If you want to save yourself some time, you can read the conclusion of the paper on p.23 which starts with, "So we have arrived back at the paper’s central question: Does increased state spending on higher education promote economic growth? And there appears to be a definitive answer: Sometimes it does, and sometimes it doesn’t." That written, the author cites studies that indicate decreasing marginal utility of student tuition subsides, partly because of high attrition rates (students failing to graduate), and students taking advantage of subsidies who didn't need them in the first place. Mattnad (talk) 11:14, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That is not an answer to the questions I asked. The author presents a hypothetical point of diminishing returns but makes no attempt to connect it to the class size ratio. EllenCT (talk) 03:55, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Morphh: By what specific mathematical reasoning did you come to the conclusion that the public subsidy of college education does not imply a net tax gain? EllenCT (talk) 02:39, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What I said was that I can think of several mitigating factors that might make it false. If we're trusting your mathematical reasoning, then it's WP:OR. Likewise, my thoughts are irrelevant and I would refer you to the publication that Mattnad offered that discusses pros and cons. If you're really interested in the "off the top of my head" thoughts as to why it could be false, I can provide them, but that seems like WP:FORUM. Morphh(talk)14:26, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We are trusting my mathematical reasoning because I summarize the peer reviewed secondary literature instead of a bunch of random right-wing editorials that come up when you ask people who care about Whitewater do a web search. EllenCT (talk) 03:55, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Since Ellen didn't know the difference between consumption and labor, among countless other things, the notion of her surveying peer reviewed literature and speaking with authority on the results is hilarious. Best to stick to actual quotes from the sources. VictorD7 (talk) 09:03, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ellen, I'm not sure how to respond to that. We've discussed WP:SYN many times with your edits. But let's go through it again, "if one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be a synthesis of published material to advance a new position, which is original research." Concluding C would be a logical fallacy, because B could also simultaneously lead to D, E, F, which could alter the conclusion C. Your mathematical reasoning postulates that:
Higher education leads to increased income tax revenue (verified with the source). (A)
Subsidization increases enrollment in higher education (assumed to be true - no objection). (B)
From this, it appears you make the hypothesis that subsidization increases income tax revenues and pays for itself multiple times over (C) without a direct source making that conclusion. Per SYN, "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article. What could possibly mitigate that conclusion:
Subsidization (taxation) could directly decrease economic growth reducing income tax revenue. (D)
Large subsidization could cause inflation of college costs, negating or reducing the subsidy's intent. (E)
The increased supply of college educated individuals pressed against the demand could decrease the average income of that group. (G)
Decreased or negative ROI for those that don't graduate. (H)
Opportunity cost of public dollars subsidizing education of wealthier students who would have been willing to pay more or go to a private institution. (I)
I'm not saying these possible adverse effects do or do not change the outcome. I don't reject the idea presented in your hypothesis. I'm just saying we need a direct source that makes that conclusion, as I don't see that it is WP:CK as you suggest. Morphh(talk)15:10, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Mean income of U.S. families by education of head, 1989-2010. Government investment in college tuition subsidies usually pay for themselves many times over in additional tax revenue.
You made this edit and used as justification a talk page discussion which indicated the content you inserted was not supported by a reliable source and probably WP:SYN. How do you justify adding this into another article? Your source makes no mention that government investment in education has positive returns. I'm having a hard time assuming good faith on your part.Mattnad (talk) 15:32, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Mattnad: are you seriously claiming that the one non-peer reviewed source you found from a computer scientist ("with apologies to Arthur Laffer" for a downward-sloping curve) invalidates the conclusion that the thousands to tens of thousands up front for college subsidy producing roughly doubled earnings on average results in a net tax gain? Seriously? What is your back of the envelope WP:CK math on that? Have you made any effort to search the peer reviewed literature on the topic? EllenCT (talk) 22:13, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not doing any math. I'm just waiting for you to provide reliable sources for the items you keep adding to various documents. For instance:
you have repeatedly added this caption to a chart "Government investment in college tuition subsidies usually pay for themselves many times over in additional tax revenue" with no citation to support that. Please provide a source.
With edit, you included "Similarly, public subsidy of college tuition will increase the net present value of income tax receipts because college educated taxpayers earn much more than those without college education." I checked your source. Page 43, from the citation, is a table of figures "TABLE 10: TWO WAYS TO MEASURE REPLACEMENT RATES FOR MINT AND SSA, 1931- 1935 BIRTH COHORT (FIGURES IN PERCENT)". I also read the entire publication. It makes no mention of a positive value of public tuition subsidies. But you added it anyway. Please explain.
Please provide a reliable source for these two sentences and make a habit of it going forward. And since we've been down this path, let's avoid WP:OR. We need a source that says what you're writing. Not your interpretation of disparate sources.Mattnad (talk) 22:53, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Mattnad: have you or have you not made any effort to search the peer-reviewed literature reviews on the subject? And again, are you seriously claiming that an up-front investment in college of the same order of magnitude as it's annual income increase outcome doesn't return the investment? What about the returns to aggregate demand growth from increased consumer spending? WP:COMPETENCE is required to edit, and that includes being able to do basic math per WP:CK. The amortization graphs in the source I provided clearly support the included text, and if you can't read them that is your problem, not mine. EllenCT (talk) 23:12, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure which graphs you're referring to, but if it's the one to the right I just added to your talk page, it makes no mention of public tuition subsidies having a net positive impact. If you've read peer review literature that supports your edits, please provide them.Mattnad (talk) 23:27, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Mattnad: Figure 2 on PDF page 45 of the original supporting source at [6]. Again, did you make any effort whatsoever to search the peer reviewed literature before you started deleting things on the basis of the up reviewed Pope Center monograph which doesn't even quantify it's hypothetical point of diminishing returns, or even rely on actual data to support it? EllenCT (talk) 23:35, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So your citation meant to say P. 45. Not page 43 as you wrote. Now if I look at those charts, they indicate that people with more education have more income. Now, please show me in that paper where they give credit to public subsidies, and indicate "Government investment in college tuition subsidies usually pay for themselves many times over in additional tax revenue" as you put it. Or how about another peer reviewed publication? All I want is a reliable source that says what you are writing. Mattnad (talk) 23:42, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Mattnad: Are you saying that the fact that college subsidies pay for college education is not WP:CK? Again, did you make any effort whatsoever to search the peer-reviewed literature before you went off deleting statements it supports on the basis of your un-reviewed Pope Center monograph which doesn't even quantify its hypothetical point of diminishing returns or support its existence with empirical data?EllenCT (talk) 23:53, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly subsidies pay for education. But I note you're sidestepping providing sources that say public subsidies have a positive net return in tax revenue. And how you're fixated on the Pope Center monograph, a document I haven't brought up on this talk page, is just weird. All I'm asking you for is sources to support what you write. So come on EllenCT, what's your source that says, "Government investment in college tuition subsidies usually pay for themselves many times over in additional tax revenue". You wrote it, so provide a reliable source.Mattnad (talk) 00:21, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Mattnad: Whether you think it is weird or not, please answer my question about the amount of effort you put in to checking the peer reviewed literature before you deleted material based on an un-reviewed monograph from a right-wing think tank which you cited in opposition only days ago. EllenCT (talk) 00:31, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. Those citations are completely off the mark. Not a one even comes close to supporting your statement "Government investment in college tuition subsidies usually pay for themselves many times over in additional tax revenue". I can't be sure if you're serious. Two don't even deal with the United States. Either you cannot understand the question, or you know you don't have anything to support your POV.Mattnad (talk) 03:41, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You are mistaken. They all support the statement. Why do you think I've been adding their conclusions to both general and US-specific articles? EllenCT (talk) 03:43, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You have been adding your conclusions to articles and pushing a POV without the benefit of reliable sources to back it up. I can't guess at your motivation.Mattnad (talk) 10:32, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Mattnad why do you say that none of the sources supports the statement? They all do, depending on whether you allow amortization as WP:CK. Which one do you think comes closest to supporting the statement, and why do you think it does not? EllenCT (talk) 11:14, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The NYT ref does not support the material. The "right wing" ref above does not support the material. As I read each of these refs I wonder if any of the refs support it. I'd rather not waste time reading material that is not relevant. Capitalismojo (talk) 15:57, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I bothered to read the EllenCT's refs. Suffice it to say they obliquely relate to her views, but what she wants to write is not supported by these sources and classic WP:OR. If EllenCT had a reference she would have provided it by now. To illustrate the point, one article addresses the Canadian educational system, another is about Finland, a third is about the value of professional training for machinists, and another is about tax law from decades ago. The "math," when presented at all, is situational and does not make broad conclusions the way EllenCT has.Mattnad (talk) 21:28, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you really believe that, you need to take up the publication of original research with the peer reviewed law review editors. Do you know why they're called law reviews? Read WP:PSTS. EllenCT (talk) 00:34, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ellen, instead of just saying "yes they do", let's consider this as if we're writing a quote. Provide a quote from the sources that directly supports the statement that public subsidies in higher education pay for themselves in income tax revenues. As if we were to write it: XYZ states that "quote source". No interpretation, no opinion, no CK claims - just a direct quote. That would be a helpful step. Morphh(talk)16:42, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have now read each of your refs. None of them say what you have averred. These refs do not support you. To have wasted our time adding references that do not support the edit is galling. I now understand why you refused to pull out a quote or even a page number. There is no support for your edits in the refs. I can only conclude that you have either inferred it or made it up. Either way, I am appalled. Capitalismojo (talk) 15:16, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For what mathematical reason do you believe the cited amortizations do not support the statement? How much time have you spent looking for reliable sources on the topic? EllenCT (talk) 02:45, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
EllenCT, the onus is on you to demonstrate how the sources support your statement. You've been asked, and you have not answered except to ask a question about his/her "mathematical reason". That's evasive and more evidence that you have no source to support your POV. As it happens, I did look for sources and one that I found, that directly addresses the question, is here [7]. It found it's not conclusive that government subsidies of education have a positive ROI. As I recall, you didn't like it and have chosen to ignore it. Mattnad (talk) 13:58, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you have an inconclusive source suggesting that a peer reviewed secondary source is inaccurate, it is your burden to show that yours is more reliable. EllenCT (talk) 03:46, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
EllenCT, you have not provided any sources to refute on this topic. But perhaps we missed it. Please quote your "peer reviewed secondary source" that says "Government investment in college tuition subsidies usually pay for themselves many times over in additional tax revenue". Mattnad (talk) 10:17, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Figure 2 on page 45 of the original source [8]. Aare you seriously claiming that an up-front investment in college of the same order of magnitude as its annual income increase outcome doesn't return the investment? What about the returns to aggregate demand growth from increased consumer spending? EllenCT (talk) 23:46, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That figure does not support the material. I created a discussion for this topic. It would seem to make sense to have it there, instead of several different pages. Morphh(talk)23:52, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It most certainly does. Why do you say it does not? If you insist on deletions from multiple articles, then you are free to copy my replies to whatever other places you want them to go. EllenCT (talk) 23:59, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What effort have you made to check your hypothesis (that government subsidy of higher education doesn't lead to higher education -- really???) with the peer reviewed literature? EllenCT (talk) 00:25, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And we go round and round. Note how EllenCT tried to make it seem that editors are arguing about whether or not government subsidize college, when her starting point inserted on many pages is that "Government investment in college tuition subsidies usually pay for themselves many times over in additional tax revenue" notwithstanding she cannot provide a single citation that says that. Whatever you're selling, I'm not buying.Mattnad (talk) 00:32, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This debate about education spending, which is one small portion of the budget for most governments, is way off-topic for the article. Keep in mind that under WP:TITLE, specifically WP:PRECISION, policy says "titles should be precise enough to unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, ...." Well, the WP:TOPIC of this article is government spending as a whole – and precision means we must not include education spending or student loan spending or the results of government spending on education or any other small aspect of government spending in the educational field nor even pot-hole repair. My gosh, government spending includes pensions to retired government employees – does the fact that such spending enables them to spend time contributing to Wikipedia mean that this is a positive result that should be included in the article? (Assuming we have RS to support such a statement.) I hope this example shows how seeking to show what benefits or dismal results arise from government spending are not germane to the article. – S. Rich (talk) 07:20, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, it is pertinent because of the examples of government spending which reduce government debt the most, education, infrastructure, and health care top the list. EllenCT (talk) 05:22, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I'm game. Show me a source that healthcare spending reduces government debt (and explain the mechanism). Here's a reliable source, a CNN article, that indicates that healthcare spending is the leading reason we have future debt in the trillions [9]. And I quote, "Add together the original Medicare program and the Medicare Part D prescription drug benefit, and you'll see that about $108 trillion of the $124 trillion in unfunded liabilities is driven by healthcare for senior citizens and disabled people. This is the source of the debt crisis: 87 percent Medicare, 13 percent everything else." Is CNN partisan? Perhaps. But I just don't see how healthcare spending reduce debt as you have averred.Mattnad (talk) 21:12, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That conversation is out of date. I know I suggested copying one of my conversations elsewhere, but I didn't mean to if it isn't going to be kept current, and let me make another suggestion in place of that one: How about summarizing the peer reviewed secondary literature instead of right-wing editorials? Because all those diffs are in the history, and it's pretty damn clear who has been following policy and who hasn't. EllenCT (talk) 03:50, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Does anyone seriously think Sowell's argument that people make more money as they age shows social mobility has any merit whatsoever? Am I the only one who has done any research on it? EllenCT (talk) 00:12, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I assume you are referring to 'Ecological fallacy argument' section. With lines like The quoted study also found that only 5% of those in the bottom quartile on income earners in 1975 were still there in 1991 while 29% of those workers were in the top quartile by 1991.http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell110811.php3 It could become complex social mobility happens over time, so you need to trace everyone's earnings over there life? But really the question is, is the society as a whole getting wealthier? Not do people get wealthier over time and do wealthy people die?. Maybe a way to improve the article is to look at the poverty line, instead of looking at the number of people buying more luxuries, looking at the number of people going hungary. Jonpatterns (talk) 21:25, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've done research and if we're discussing inequality changing over time, making the point that these are different people in the various quintiles over time because individuals earn much higher incomes as they age is a vital one to make.
I'm not getting the point of including all the tax acts. There is not a single mention of inequality in all the subsections. What does seem to address the topic to some degree is the first part of the main section, which summarizes the sub-sections. I suggest we just remove the subsections and wikilink the acts as we discuss them in that section. Morphh(talk)16:51, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking the same thing. It's a whole bunch of detailed tax rate charts that most readers won't care about and do not address effective tax rates including deductions, EITC, and the AMT. Even something like this chart [10] is more reader friendly to capture the main points of average taxes by income group over time. What's also missing is an overlay of state and local taxes. This seems to focus more on Federal tax policy only, but given federal, state and local taxes and related are layered and include some deductions (ie, deducting property taxes from state taxes, and state taxes from federal), it's gap.Mattnad (talk) 17:43, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The first sentence of this article is "The provisions of the United States Internal Revenue Code regarding income taxes and estate taxes have undergone significant changes under both Republican and Democratic administrations and Congresses since 1964." Usually the first sentence tries to include the title of the article (bold) or at least define it. We sort of hit the ground running. I bring it up because I'm having a tough time thinking of a good way to start it. I also wonder if we should rename the article to something like "Tax policy effects on economic inequality..." or "Effects of tax policy on economic inequality..." but that would make the title even more wordy that it already is - problems for WP:CONCISE. Morphh(talk)20:55, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think the lede section needs a rewrite, but I've been waiting for the the article to be updated and refined. Then we can figure out what to say, and perhaps what to call the article.Mattnad (talk) 11:04, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Many sections need a rewrite or a direct connection to the subject. We have sections like Gift tax that don't mention equality. We need to work the subject topic into the prose so you can jump to any section and know why it relates to tax policy effecting economic inequality. I'd also hope that we can do more than just say that a particular tax is progressive, as we could do that in a couple sentences. If we're giving it a section (which indicates a major topic point for the article), then it should have some verifiable content as to why a particular tax is positively or negatively effecting economic inequality. Otherwise, we can delete those sub-sections and just write a more complete section for tax structure that references the underlining systems that add or remove progressivity. Morphh(talk)14:18, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Probably the healthcare section has the best example of a direct connection between progressive taxation and economic inequality benefit. Aside from that, most of the article is dedicated to arguing that taxes are too low for the wealthiest which leads to inequality. Other countries with lower Gini coefficients tend to have higher taxes across the board, but also very progressive government spending as an equalizer. It's almost as if this article is missing half the story. I'll add that it focuses on Federal taxation, but in fact the states do a lot, depending, on leveling via taxes and transfer payments. NJ and Vermont for instance are very explicit in how they tax and apportion the revenue to help lower income households.Mattnad (talk) 15:10, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Because there has been no attempt to compromise, by, for example, including passages from my preferred version I have added a disputed tag because of the Sowell nonsense about people earning more as they get older being social mobility, and a POV tag for the absurd slant way past the right of the GOP, out in to fringe Randroid libertarian nonsense. EllenCT (talk) 02:45, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you need to look at the changes, as the Sowell content has already been removed. I removed it, like other sectional text, because it did not directly tie into the article topic. If attributed, editorial opinion of Sowell being nonsense should not be a factor for removal. So I don't rule out inclusion as appropriate for npov to balance out a specific point if needed. As for the "absurd slant way past the right of the GOP, out in to fringe Randroid libertarian nonsense", what specifically are you talking? The only content that was really added to the article was Education and Heathcare. Morphh(talk)14:06, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Those are some bold revisions which did not have consensus in January, not to mention at a minimum the Healthcare section was sourced to some Canadian Health System research. Arzel (talk) 01:13, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I believe you mean additions. It was the replacements which did not have consensus, so I propose including both. I agree that the Canadian research on preventative care is only useful in the context of the information at [11] and the subsequent section. I am very happy to be working with you on this. EllenCT (talk) 01:19, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You added back into the article Candian research along with an argument for single payor. This is not the correct article for this information. Arzel (talk) 17:00, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, single payer, that's what Canada has. US potential savings include the differential efficiencies from private health insurance to single payer, plus the single payer system's room for improvement in preventative care. How do you think we should approach the fiscal impact of preventative universal health care? EllenCT (talk) 17:04, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is not an article about single payer healthcare. Actual savings in preventative medicine have not been proven and the recent real world experiment in Washington State does not show a real benefit to health outcomes for those with health insurance and those without. Also, there is some evidence that preventative care for some conditions (like PSA screenings) make actually be less cost effective. Regardless, this article is not the place to argue for against hypotheticals. Arzel (talk) 20:00, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What do you think is fair to say about the differences in fiscal conditions between universal preventative care and the status quo in the US? Did you look at what some of the sources I added after your initial deletion have to say about it? EllenCT (talk) 23:05, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is no fair way to talk about it because you are dealing in hypotheticals. The only study that even comes close to looking at this was the unintentional effect of Oregon's Medicaid expansion which showed an increase in cost for those that had Medicaid versus those that did not. However, it will be years before anyone knows if this unintentional experiment reduces future medical expenses due to preventative care. Arzel (talk) 03:52, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's a misuse of statistics - implying correlation without causality. You're repeated attempts to circumvent consensus and rehash discussions is just disruptive WP:IDHT. Stop it or I will move toward sanctions. Morphh(talk)01:30, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How exactly? It accurately represents both the data and the trend. You don't like it because it makes the trend seems more defined than it would be if plotted with different bins? EllenCT (talk) 00:21, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We've been though this before. But for an even earlier discussion, here's a thread from Jimbo Wales talk page where he writes, "...speaking as an ordinary editor, the graph is absolutely and totally biased to the point of absurdity. Such oversimplifications to make a political point are the very definition of bias."Mattnad (talk) 01:14, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Jimbo Wales: which sources do you believe are in support of that opinion? Are you aware that the consensus of the secondary sources has been firmly contrary since Ostry and Berg's 2011 and follow-up publications? EllenCT (talk) 05:20, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You can't assert that there is a consensus that only you are aware of. There is no consensus for that graph anywhere you have proposed it at Wikipedia. Capitalismojo (talk) 11:27, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The consensus flipped after Art Okun's 1970s regression error described at [12] was identified. In terms of years of productive life lost, it was the worst math error in history, dwarfing the humanitarian damage of 20th Century political despotism. EllenCT (talk) 12:22, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your challenge is to show through reliable sources why your edit should be adopted as consensus at wikipedia, specifically why it is a good edit for this article. You have not demonstrated that it is. Asserting but not demonstrating that there is a consensus among economists that supports the information is not helpful. The IMF link above does not support your idea that there is a consensus behind that graph. It shows that three IMF researchers have concluded that income inequality is a great drag on sustained growth. That may be important information. It doesn't support the inclusion of the graph. Capitalismojo (talk) 15:06, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[13] describes a corresponding correction stemming from a different error. The data in the graph is unquestionably true. The implications are consistent with the most reliable secondary sources on both corrections. What more do you want? EllenCT (talk) 10:10, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, that article works against your efforts. The student identified sampling error which distorted the findings. The graph that you like cherry picks only a few years. Years that were left out also show periods of lower GDP growth when taxes were higher, and higher GPD growth when taxes were lower. At any rate, I'd recommend you consider past RFCs and discussions. Most editors think the chart is biased and designed to draw a conclusion that is not supported by a reliable source.Mattnad (talk) 11:45, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
They seem fine. Why do you believe the material should be included in this article? It didn't seem connected to "tax . policy and income inequality". Capitalismojo (talk) 11:21, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Y1ou are probably right, however alarum bells are set off by the last edit in the sequence. The edit summary does not justify the removal in context, and three minutes in not long enough to study the reference given.
The previous one " Government investment in college tuition subsidies usually can increase tax revenue." deleted with the summary "Not directly related to government spending." seems odd too.
Regarding the deletion of the chart on income by education attainment, this goes back to EllenCTs efforts to make the case, without a reliable source, that tuition subsidies pay for themselves in increased revenue (see thes discussions above). She backed off on the positive ROI, but still does not have a source. And even if there were a source that states the obvious, there's nothing connecting it to tax policy. One could just as well argue that public roads increase tax revenues since they enable commerce.
Regarding EllenCT's WP:Comprehensive, that is not an invitation to broaden an article well beyond its topic. This is an area where editorial input matters. EllenCT seems to take a broader view than other editors when it comes to topics around income inequality.Mattnad (talk) 16:21, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK, this article is about economic inequality though, not just income inequality. I will try to find time to look in more detail. All the best: RichFarmbrough, 22:05, 24 May 2014 (UTC).
"Without a reliable source"?!? I did not back off on the positive ROI of education spending! What is wrong with these recently deleted sources?
And yes, one could just as well argue that public roads increase tax revenues since they enable commerce which is exactly what these recently deleted sources say:
Cohen, Isabelle; Freiling, Thomas; Robinson, Eric (January 2012). The Economic Impact and Financing of Infrastructure Spending(PDF) (report). Williamsburg, Virginia: Thomas Jefferson Program in Public Policy, College of William & Mary. p. 5. Retrieved October 1, 2012.
Since the only purported objections here have been entirely in line with the deleted sources, I intend to restore the deletions. EllenCT (talk) 11:08, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK EllenCT, please quote from these citations to demonstrate that government education subsidies have in aggregate a positive ROI via increased income tax revenue.Mattnad (talk) 11:47, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you are referring to the article on Manufacturer Training, yes I did. In fact User:Ubikwit and I discussed it here on your talk page. It's simulated example in the context of a skilled trade where vocational training has a better return than a general college degree. It make no reference to macro benefits the way you have been proposing.Mattnad (talk)
@EllenCT: It should be apparent that i would like to see the material in the article if a consensus could be reached on it. I think that Mattnad's request for some direct citations (or at least page numbers) to the source is probably inline with policy regarding consensus building building. We all can't be expected to read every source in its entirety for all issues. Providing quotes and page numbers also serves to focus the discussion, saving everyone time and effort.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑12:30, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'll note that this is not a new discussion and additional background and source review (with request for quotes) for the education topic can be found in Subsidy of college as well as other article talk pages on the exact same content. I wrote the Education section in this article as a point of moving on from that issue. The scope of content was also a problem in the past, where the article was being used as a coat rack to income inequality unrelated to taxation and vise versa. Morphh(talk)16:15, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Tsk tsk. I guess WP:WRONGCOATRACK applies! All the best: RichFarmbrough, 22:52, 26 May 2014 (UTC).
The article discusses higher education funding and its impact on inequality in the context of tax policy earlier. If there is some reason that providing the whole story is a WP:COATRACK instead of reasonably WP:COMPREHENSIVE, then please state it. EllenCT (talk) 03:58, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We're discussing multiple issues. The issue with this education sentence is SYN. The issue with other content has often been scope and we did have scope issues with the education section at one point in the past. The issue is often that the content covers income inequality (or social spending) without direct relation to tax policy influencing the inequality. For this article, each section should directly cover and focus on this relationship. Morphh(talk)14:30, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't you just have a detailed discussion with Prof. LK about how economists include transfer payments in tax discussions involving inequality? Do you believe it is possible to segregate a discussion on tax and inequality from a discussion of the transfer payments resulting from collected taxes without substantially disadvantaging the reader? If so, why? EllenCT (talk) 04:09, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a stand alone publication segregated from a larger topic - it is a sub-article of economic inequality in the United States that covers the component of tax policy. LK and I were discussing transfer payments as a way to compare nations with regard to income inequality (tax being a component in that measure), since different countries use differing methods to reduce inequality. The larger topic was income inequality and it is appropriate on an income inequality article to view the policies as a whole, but when you get to the specifics of what the tax policy itself does to reduce inequality, which is what this article covers, that's a sub-topic. If we cover any social spending as you suggest, then there is no sense in even having this article as it just becomes another Income inequality in the United States article. As you know, reducing income inequality in a nation is made up of several components. The point of this article is to specifically cover what the U.S. tax code itself does to reduce inequality, not after-tax transfer payment spending, not minimum wages, etc - it covers the tax component as a sub-article for the overall topic of economic inequality in the U.S, similarly it covers the economic inequality component as a sub-article for the overall topic of Taxation in the U.S. Thus, the scope does not include transfer payments. Morphh(talk)13:25, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe we should merge this article with Income inequality in the United States, but until then, the focus is the tax code, not spending. As for your SYN, that's clear from the vast discussion above, but here is a quote from 15:10, 19 January 2014 that specifically addresses your question. Morphh(talk)00:13, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ellen, I'm not sure how to respond to that. We've discussed WP:SYN many times with your edits. But let's go through it again, "if one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be a synthesis of published material to advance a new position, which is original research." Concluding C would be a logical fallacy, because B could also simultaneously lead to D, E, F, which could alter the conclusion C. Your mathematical reasoning postulates that: • Higher education leads to increased income tax revenue (verified with the source). (A) • Subsidization increases enrollment in higher education (assumed to be true - no objection). (B) From this, it appears you make the hypothesis that subsidization increases income tax revenues and pays for itself multiple times over (C) without a direct source making that conclusion. Per SYN, "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article. What could possibly mitigate that conclusion: • Subsidization (taxation) could directly decrease economic growth reducing income tax revenue. (D) • Large subsidization could cause inflation of college costs, negating or reducing the subsidy's intent. (E) • Increased college attendance could have effects on academic inflation and educational devaluation, something we've seen in the economic downturn. (F) • The increased supply of college educated individuals pressed against the demand could decrease the average income of that group. (G) • Decreased or negative ROI for those that don't graduate. (H) • Opportunity cost of public dollars subsidizing education of wealthier students who would have been willing to pay more or go to a private institution. (I) I'm not saying these possible adverse effects do or do not change the outcome. I don't reject the idea presented in your hypothesis. I'm just saying we need a direct source that makes that conclusion, as I don't see that it is WP:CK as you suggest. Morphh (talk) 15:10, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
You captioned that to an image that doesn't demonstrate or source it (it just shows the mean income of U.S. families by education of head). And you added this in the Education section: "Public subsidy of college tuition increases the net present value of income tax receipts because college educated taxpayers earn much more than those without college education." In either case, I haven't seen a source that states that college subsides increase net tax revenue. Morphh(talk)11:35, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
EllenCT, we've asked you for source quotes on this topic many times. You can prove your position by simply providing it/them. Thanks. Mattnad (talk) 11:43, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I added back the image that was captioned in your last post, but modified the caption to something I can support based on the sources, which is essentially that government education incentives can increase family income. I also included a couple of brief sentences from Gary Becker for additional context. I hope this compromise is sufficient to move us past the "it pays for itself" contention. Morphh(talk)13:45, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose, but so can government prisons (for prison guards), defense spending (for the defense industry), Farm subsidies, NSA etc. etc. What's not clear is whether it's a net benefit. With student debts rising, graduations rates falling.... what do we really have here related to tax policy?Mattnad (talk) 15:10, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ya.. [sigh]. If it creates more contention or doesn't help move us past the issue, I'm fine with reverting it. What I linked in the caption was tax incentives, which was a reference to the tax credits, exemptions, and deductions for tuition, scholarships and grants. Morphh(talk)15:41, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's completely appropriate to include mention that the government supports education through tax policy (including not-for-profit status of higher education, tax deductions for university expenses). It comes back to EllenCT's insistence in including a graph that suggests the policies have a net positive impact on tax revenue as well. Your revised caption is accurate, but combined with the graph suggests something that is supported by any of the sources. Yes an individual can benefit from public support, but EllenCT has not found a source that indicates that in aggregate we have an overall tax benefit. For something as large as education support, you'd think someone would have written what she assumes if true. I'm going to remove the graph pending a reliable source on the topic.Mattnad (talk) 12:52, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's a nonsense comparison, but indeed we have sources for the history of the number zero. If you can't find a reliable source making this statement, "Government investment in college tuition subsidies usually can increase tax revenue", then it doesn't belong in Wikipedia per WP:RS. Attaching that caption to a chart, which comes from a source that makes NO mention of increased tax revenue from government subsidies is original research.Mattnad (talk) 15:32, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Are you suggesting that greater income doesn't lead to greater income tax revenue isn't WP:CK? Even if you are, the suggestion that a source can't be found for that is so preposterous that it at least borders on intentional disruption. EllenCT (talk) 04:17, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That is not what the other editors are saying. You are saying "Government subsidies of college tuition increase tax revenue", they are asking for a ref. It seems quite simple. Your mischaracterization of the reference request is not helpful. Capitalismojo (talk) 05:06, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This article has become bloated again with economic inequality sections that are not tied into tax policy, and some sections of tax policy that have no content about inequality. General sections on inequality, such as Inequality by race or education attainment, belong in the Income inequality in the United States (country specific) or Income inequality articles or specific articles such as Educational attainment in the United States or Institutional racism. Let's keep this article within scope or alternatively we could merge the article with Income inequality in the United States, where more editors can assess the content. The section "Changes in economic inequality" needs review, as most of this has no mention of the word "tax", so inclusion is questionable. Morphh(talk)18:10, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I'd say keep them separate since there's a lot of tax policy details that could go in here which would be overkill in the income inequality article.Mattnad (talk) 18:56, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As I reread this thing, big items like the EITC aren't even mentioned - one of the most successful tax-related programs designed to help the least advantaged. Forest for the trees......Mattnad (talk) 19:04, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Lawrencekhoo: I'm sorry to bother you about something you already explained elsewhere, but could you please try again to explain why economists consider transfer payments and government spending part of tax policy? EllenCT (talk) 09:01, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
EllenCT, it's a moot question. Obviously tax policy and spending are related. What's at issue here is the level of detail that you tend to want. I'm open to selective, and small, mentions of related spending where appropriate like healthcare, welfare, education, but refer to those articles rather than be as expansive as you have been. Mattnad (talk) 13:35, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
EllenCT, taxes and transfers are two sides of the same coin, in that both are about transferring money between households and the government. Taxes are negative transfers; or equivalently, cash supplements to households are negative taxes. Government spending, on the other hand, involves the purchasing of goods and services by the government, and is a use of the productive capacity of the economy. The government budget can be divided into three categories, Government Spending on Goods and Services, Taxes, Cash Transfers. Economists usually consider divide it into two categories, Government Spending on one side, and Taxes and Cash Transfers on the other side. Accountants may lump it together another way, Government Spending and Cash Transfers on one side, and Taxes on the other. The US system is particularly confusing in that a major welfare transfer program (EITC) is written as part of the tax code. Economically though, it's pretty clear, there's government spending on buying stuff, and there's cash moving between government and households. LK (talk) 02:45, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
After careful consideration, I have found that each one of these deletions was either not correctly justified, or not justified at all. I intend to replace all of them. I understand that doing so will be controversial, so I propose that we negotiate a compromise: Which re-insertions would be considered most objectionable? EllenCT (talk) 21:13, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My sense is that the article is better focused now, with less biased POV. Some of the deleted items, for instance your push to make the case that public subsidies have a net revenue increase, represents OR and has been discussed extensively, but you continue to push it.Mattnad (talk) 21:28, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Which of the specific public subsidies in those deletions do you believe have not been shown to have a net revenue increase in the peer-reviewed secondary literature reviews? EllenCT (talk) 01:06, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Mattnad, much of it, while relating to economic inequality, was not about tax policy in the United States resulting in a WP:COATRACK. The public subsidy for education issue was discussed heavily above and the sources provided didn't support the statements in the article. But we've already discussed this and my opinion has not changed. Morphh(talk)15:22, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have presented multiple peer-reviewed academic journal literature review sources in support of the compromise proposal statement, "Public subsidy of college tuition increases the net present value of income tax receipts because college educated taxpayers earn much more than those without college education." What are your best sources for doubting the veracity of that statement? EllenCT (talk) 19:24, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose it's sort of accurate, although I don't know why you'd write, "the net present value of tax receipts" instead of just "tax receipts". But I'm left with a "so what." Any government spending increases income tax receipts by virtue of the direct or indirect jobs. So we could write, "The military industrial complex, including the drone program, increases income tax receipts because employed workers pay more income taxes than those on welfare." That written, can you show me a single source that makes your point above? Or are we back to WP:Synth.Mattnad (talk) 10:47, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
EllenCT, That's not a compromise proposal statement. It's the original broad unattributed statement quoted and discussed in Subsidy of college. It's clear from that discussion that the sources you provided were considered insufficient to support the statement and reasons were presented as to why it could be false and not WP:CK. "State Investment in Universities: Rethinking the Impact on Economic Growth" was referenced in that discussion, which researched the topic and concluded "Sometimes it does, and sometimes it doesn’t." So you can see how this repeated persistence of the same argument looks like WP:REHASH and WP:IDHT and frustrates other editors, particularly when you request sources to disprove something which has not yet been supported. Even though the burden is on the editor wanting to add content, I'll offer this Oct 2013 study What’s The Value Of An Associate’s Degree? The Return On Investment For Graduates And Taxpayers page 21, which shows that most states have a negative annualized ROI on taxpayer investment. It lists three main factors that lower ROI, which, I'll note, were possible mitigating factors we raised. It then goes on to discuss institutional characteristics associated with higher ROI for taxpayers and ways to improve ROI. An earlier study, May 2011, by the same groups "Who Wins? Who Pays? The Economic Returns and Costs of a Bachelor’s Degree" shows a positive taxpayer ROI for Bachelors degrees, with varying return depending on the institution. So the orginal statement is not true or false - it's just inaccurate, vague and unattributed, which I think is summed up nicely by "Sometimes it does, and sometimes it doesn’t." If we wanted to include something, I'd consider something like "Studies by the Nexus Research and Policy Center and the American Institutes for Research show that certain public subsidies in college education can have a positive return on investment for taxpayers, which can be increased by reducing dropout rates and focusing resources." It might also be worth mentioning how much institutions are subsidized, which "ranges from around $8,000 to more than $100,000 for each bachelor’s degree awarded, with most public institutions averaging more than $60,000 per degree".[14]Morphh(talk)15:18, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've reviewed the revert you object to. They bring the article back to a more neutral tone and remove much of your unsupported POV edits.
The ITEP graph comes from a partisan non-reliable source.
Your addition of a section on the net tax benefit of college subsidies is not at all supported by the source and this was discussed extensively in the past.
The many language changes you introduced violated NPOV.
Just because past some past editors stopped monitoring your blatant POV edits, doesn't mean when another comes along he or she is wrong.Mattnad (talk) 20:21, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I also found many of the edits to be POV. Easy example, in making a point "Voters may internalize such issues" was changed to "Rational voters must internalize such issues". Lots of WP:WEASEL words, problems with WP:SAY, pov graphs, etc. The new sections added for "Inequality by race" & "Political outcomes relative to public transfer preferences" have no mention of taxation, which is what this article is about (the effects of tax policy on economic inequality). If they belong in Wikipedia, it would be in a higher level article, such as Income inequality in the United States. Morphh(talk)17:37, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Tax policy and economic inequality in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
(A) "the additional earnings from two or four years of college (relative to only high school) were $2.4 trillion"[15]
(B) "the state receives a $4.5 net return for every dollar it invests to get students through college."[16]
Can everyone see how A implies B? (Hint: you can use the two figures to determine what the Treasury thinks working life expectancy and interest rates are going to be.) EllenCT (talk) 19:31, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure that A was ever an issue - college increases earnings, which increases tax revenue. In the past, the problem was making a conclusion on net return that wasn't stated in the sources. B is a good source and references a study that should be reviewed. Morphh(talk)21:26, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:52, 26 May 2014 (UTC).
![[10]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Average_US_Federal_Tax_Rates_1979_to_2013.png){kind=link}