User talk:Paul Hield

Tax incidence

The article on Taxation appears to be biased in that the language and examples used create the impression that taxation is bad and the less of it there is the better or more efficient an economy will be. The examples and arguments cited are simple applications of highly idealised models often presenting only one side of a balanced picture. Specifically in the section on "Tax Incidence" the conclusion of the simple argument was that taxation affects many economic agents...

"this includes workers (in the form of lower wages), capital investors (in the form of loss to shareholders), landowners (in the form of lower rents) and entrepreneurs (in the form of lower wages of superintendence)."

This appears to be an attempt to argue for minimising taxation by deliberately ignoring the converse of the argument which is government spending will have the opposite effect and could be described as affecting economic agents...

"this includes workers (in the form of higher wages), capital investors (in the form of gains to shareholders), landowners (in the form of higher rents) and entrepreneurs (in the form of higher wages of superintendence)."

Taxation and government spending are broadly the opposite of one another and to present an argument which ignores half the equation creates a wholely negative impression, not a balanced view. Paul Hield (talk) 22:54, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand your edits

Dear Paul, perhaps you could explain the changes a bit more on the discussion pages of articles you edit. I'm not an economist, and I just don't understand what point you are trying to make. Perhaps using different words, or explaining "converse of this argument"? Are you arguing that taxation is unrelated to government spending?? Citations would be good; for talk pages it's good but not critical to point to them using links in brackets. I tend to agree that some of the economics arguments may be poorly supported, or may not be completely neutral. But adding more unsupported (and hard to understand) language isn't the solution. Regards, Oldtaxguy (talk) 01:59, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

3RR warning

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Tax. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:38, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 19:49, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]