Talk:Lump sum

Untitled
Lump sum is the value given to whole life costing, developed by Sir Andrew Rae it is used in all construction nowadays.

"Lump sum principle" section moved here
The following section was moved from the article with the template added at the top:


 * In economics, the lump sum principle states that a tax on a person's general purchasing power is more efficient than a tax on specific goods. General purchasing power tax provides a non-distorted purchasing choice for the same amount of tax income; it leaves the consumer on a higher utility level than a tax on specific goods.
 * In economics, the lump sum principle states that a tax on a person's general purchasing power is more efficient than a tax on specific goods. General purchasing power tax provides a non-distorted purchasing choice for the same amount of tax income; it leaves the consumer on a higher utility level than a tax on specific goods.

It would be easy enough to make a separate article of the section. And that would make more sense than keeping "Lump sum principle" as a section (following a 1-sentence Lead describing a use of 'lump sum' as to insurance rather than economics). 'Lump sum' and 'Lump sum principle' are conceptually distinct terms. Keeping the section of Lump sum would be something like making Firefly a section of Fire on grounds that they sound similar  and have a resemblance in giving off light.

Alternatively, the uses of 'lump sum compemsation' in economics as to welfare amd trade theory could be stated. What's wrong is not necessarily the subject but its placement in this article. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 14:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC) Proofreading fix. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 03:12, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

This is one of the finest articles on wikipedia, short and sweet. Tells you the definition right of the bat... which is what many other articles should do. I'm not being sarcastic here either. 99.249.102.39 (talk) 01:43, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

hemmm, this happens in a country ... but how so can be applied globally? in all countries, now already implemented a free trade ... trade barriers are removed it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moris Greand Vernando (talk • contribs) 04:18, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Relevance?
I would point out that listing random mentions of lump sums in news reports does little or nothing to explain the concept -- it is basically just creating a examplefarm. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:23, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * As reflected in the AfD, your view is at odds with consensus. Of course those are not random, and of course they did more than "little or nothing" to explain the concept -- the spoke, in part, to the impact of lump sum payouts versus the alternatives, and demonstrate that this has been an issue affect large swaths of people for at least a century.  No need to tag-bomb the article with a badge of shame, simply because you have a view that is distinctly non-consensus.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:56, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:Complete bollocks: HrafnTalkStalk(P) 18:19, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) An argumentum ad populum argument. And one that doesn't even have a factual basis. No comment on the AfD addressed my examplefarm point -- not even your response to it (it was simply an ad hominem that failed to even mention the examples).
 * 2) Placing "of course" in front of a bunch of unsubstantiated assertions does nothing to substantiate them.
 * 3) The examples in question merely mention "lump sums", they in no way discuss or explain them -- so add nothing to the readers' understanding.
 * 4) "the spoke, in part, to the impact of lump sum payouts versus the alternatives, and demonstrate that this has been an issue affect large swaths of people for at least a century" = a bunch of waffle that basically says 'it doesn't matter that it doesn't tell the readers anything (beyond a WP:DICTDEF) about what lump sums are, as long as we can show them that lots and lots of VIPs use the jargon'.
 * 5) "No need to" lard the article up with irrelevant examples -- unless of course your sole reason for doing so is simply to attempt to give the article the appearance of notability, not to actually inform the reader. If the article is 'shamed' for this, then perhaps it will prevent such tendentiousness in the future.


 * Hrafn -- you were as non-consensus as you can get at the AfD. Even the nom has withdrawn his nomination, given the references added to the article.  Leaving you facing unanimous disagreement as to your subjective POV.  I understand that you think that everyone else is wrong, and only you are correct, but at some point it may be helpful for you to join the collaborative spirit of wikipedia and respect consensus.  What you are doing is flat-out disruption, ignoring the consensus of every other editor (who commented after the refs were added).  That's not appropriate.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:57, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

More WP:Complete bollocks: You seem to think that the fact that you won the AfD -- based on its withdrawal by an editor who admits that he doesn't "even know how a checking account works" -- means that I have to shut up about this article. In fact that withdrawal does not mean that editorial concerns do not remain that were not addressed there. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:20, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Does the title of this section say AfD? No. It says relevance.
 * 2) Did anybody other than myself discuss relevance in the AfD? No.
 * 3) Can the AfD therefore possibly count as a a WP:CONSENSUS on the issue of relevance? No.
 * Take your pick -- the tag bombing could accurately be viewed as POINTy, petulant, disruptive, bullying, failure-to-respect-consensus. In the wake of the AfD, and what people had to say there about the article and the refs added, and the fact that after they were added there was unanimous opposition to your POV, you tag-bomb the article?  That's completely inappropriate, and you have been around long enough to know that.--Epeefleche (talk) 14:43, 17 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Still more WP:Complete bollocks: after I raised the issue of relevance, there was ONLY ONE SINGLE 'keep' !vote, which appeared to be purely focused upon the original nominator, and gave no impression of having even read my comment. How "unanimous opposition" to my relevance concerns can be inferred from this, I don't know. But then I wasn't really expecting logic here. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 15:01, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The unanimous opposition to your POV is reflected in the fact that all other editors after the refs were added found then article met our notability standards. The POINTy aspect of your tag-bombing the article, directly after that overwhelming rejection of your POV, is self-evident.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:48, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Given that none of the editors involved gave any sign of have considered depth of coverage (I particularly liked your utterly vacuous WP:GHITS contribution), or the recent additions, your claim is just wishful thinking. Thank you for the gratuitous insults though. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 19:26, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why you are being insulting. If you have something to say, we might miss it in your incivility.  But as to the substance, the editors -- including the nom, who withdraw his nomination -- overwhelmingly rejected your POV.  It becomes similarly difficult to discern your good faith when you tag-bomb the article in the wake of such overwhelming rejection of your point of view.  Consensus is an important aspect of wikipedia; it is disruptive for you to try to bully those who adhere to the consensus view, when your arguments at the AfD have proven unconvincing to the community.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:09, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I was unaware of the AFD for this article. However, after reading the AFD discussion, the article and this talk page I think that Hrafn has a valid view of this subject. The current article does appear to be a dictionary definition and three examples of the use of the phrase. I cannot see how much else can be written on the subject. Clearly there is information about lump sums versus annuities for pensions or lump sum legal settlements versus continuing payments, but does anyone think this is the best article to contain that information? The three examples of usage do seem to me to be totally random, neither covering the range of uses of the phrase nor explaining it in any way further than the dictionary definition. There are innumerable uses of the phrase "lump sum", but it seems that any in-depth coverage of, for example, lump sum pension payouts belongs not here but in an article on pensions. And any other example I can think of fits the same pattern, so leaving no in-depth coverage of "lump sum" in isolation. Dingo1729 (talk) 21:52, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I understand that had you !voted at the AfD, you would have !voted delete. At the AfD, however, the clear consensus was contrary to that view.  Best, and welcome to the project.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:16, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * As is, I would have thought the same way. Useful – yes. DictDef – yes. Instead of examples maybe more history. When did the term first occur in the financial world. What issues are overcome or created by its use. Agathoclea (talk) 11:26, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

What is a "lump sum" and how is the best way to explain it?
A "lump sum" is simply the addition of a number of (usually monetary) amounts into a single-number total. In fact "lump sum" is simply a fancy way of saying "single total". This addition may be over time (in the case of the lump sum value of an annuity or perpetuity), or of costs (in an invoice giving only a lump sum total, rather than itemised costs). Regardless, the concept is very simple, and really quite trivial. I have seen (and used) the concept innumerable times in academic Finance, tutoring Maths for Business, working as a Business Analyst, and in Economic consulting -- but never seen anybody bother to discuss or explain the concept itself -- any more than we'd bother to discuss or explain the equals sign.

The best way to explain such a simple concept is thus briefly and simply. A couple of very brief and simple examples (along the lines of my second sentence above) may be informative, but I cannot see how the very tangential examples given in the article are helpful. I am forced to conclude that they were chosen for weight (how much bulk they added to the article) rather than light (how effective they were at enlightening the reader). HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:51, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Basically I agree with you. However equals sign is probably not the best comparison to make. It has a quite reasonable article Dingo1729 (talk) 14:41, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Symbolically, etymologically and so forth non-trivial perhaps, but not financially so -- but then there's also an article on addition, the mathematical concept that 'lump sum' is the trivial financial extension of. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 14:58, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Examples
Are the examples given in this article helpful to the reader's understanding of the topic? HrafnTalkStalk(P) 10:03, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Add simple examples – Those aren't as much "examples" as they are some sourced situations in which lump sum has been referenced. I think those are fine.  What may help the reader is a simple example above that in abstract (maybe even a section) that lists the typical situations in which lump sums are used.  Example (heh): "Harry just won $2 million in the lottery – he can either take 20 annual payments to equal $2 million, or a lump sum payment of $1 million all up front."  Something along those lines?  It also might be worth adding in some details about present value of money, as that is taken into consideration when opting for annuity or lump sum.  Leef5  TALK &#124;  CONTRIBS 12:30, 9 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes The examples provide a foundation for discussions where lump sums come into play. Also, I'm not sure this really merits a RfC. II  | (t – c) 04:13, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * yes I agree that an example or two would be nice. HominidMachinae (talk) 23:39, 19 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, I think there could be better examples in the article. Warren (talk) 21:19, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lump sum. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20130415001702/http://www.getcited.org/pub/101576711 to http://www.getcited.org/pub/101576711

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:40, 9 January 2018 (UTC)