Talk:Excess burden of taxation

Diagram of deadweight loss
Does anyone have access to a free diagram showing deadweight loss? --Explodicle (talk) 16:20, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * There is one on Deadweight loss. --pfctdayelise (talk) 14:56, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

70-80%
But in some real-world cases, people like Jane move from the welfare system to the tax system if they take the job, effectively being taxed 70% or 80% of the dollars they earn.

70-80% strikes me as a bit much for a plausible real-world example. Income tax in most places is no higher than 50% or 60%, and even that rate is usually only charged on the top slice of income of the top earners. Can someone explain where the 70-80% figure came from?-- The_socialist talk? 06:45, 8 February 2009 (UTC)


 * She would lose access to means-tested benefits at such a rate. Larklight (talk) 11:52, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Neo-liberal bias
This article needs a POV tag until the arguments become more nuanced. Currently it only includes references with a clear neo-liberal economic standpoint, and while the arguments might be sound their do not reflect that this position (along with the arguments) is disputed. For example, the US and UK examples can be countered by examples from Scandinavia, where the progressive tax burden is much higher. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.225.198.198 (talk) 09:58, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Merger Proposal
Over on the Deadweight Loss page, there was a merger proposal five years ago, with no great dissention, but no resolution. The idea still has merit, so I think we should make it happen.--Graham Proud (talk) 04:08, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Dr. Dai's comment on this article
Dr. Dai has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:

"1) in the sentence "The cost of a distortion is usually measured as the amount that would have to be paid to the people affected by its supply, the greater the excess burden.", the last part ", the greater the excess burden" seems strange. Something is missing? One solution is cut this part of the sentence.

2) "The second is the tax rate:" to be changed as "The second measure is the tax rate:"

3) "should be increased according to the marginal cost of funds" to be changed to "should increase according to the marginal cost of funds"

4) " these taxes raise the price to the exact level " to be changed as "these taxes should raise the price to the exact level"

5) "often resulting in crime and other social costs, but no revenue" to be changed as "often resulting in crime and other social costs, but no fiscal revenue""

We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.

Dr. Dai has published scholarly research which seems to be relevant to this Wikipedia article:


 * Reference : Dai, Meixing & Sidiropoulos, Moise, 2011. "Fiscal disciplining effect of central bank opacity: Stackelberg versus Nash equilibrium," MPRA Paper 29843, University Library of Munich, Germany.

ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 18:30, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Fiscal neutrality
Fiscal neutrality redirects here, but isn't explained in the article. -- Beland (talk) 02:47, 29 July 2021 (UTC)