Talk:Progressive tax/Archive 3

Source excerpts per the closed RFC
Regarding the RFC closed against inclusion of the graph because it and the historical facts it represents "suggest a correlation" (that's a new one; for crying out loud, what is this, some kind of an anti-logic crusade? And by people who should obviously know better!) does anyone have any problem with including these excerpts: This should be good. EllenCT (talk) 14:25, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) "Taxes are a leakage from the income stream in the same sense of saving. Equilibrium requires that leakages in the form of net taxes plus saving must be offset by investment expenditures and government purchases of goods and services.... 'our fiscal policy targets have been recast in terms of "full" or "high" employment levels of output, specifically the level of GNP associated with a 4-percent rate of unemployment.'" &mdash; Quoting Walter Heller.
 * 2) "inequality in land and income ownership is negatively correlated with subsequent economic growth.... there will be a strong demand for redistribution in societies where a large section of the population does not have access to the productive resources of the economy.... rational voters have to internalize this dynamic problem of social choice." &mdash;
 * 3) "high unemployment rates...have a negative and significant effect when interacting with increases in inequality.... increasing inequality harms growth in countries with high levels of urbanization, as well as in countries with low levels of urbanization in which there is high and persistent unemployment.... High and persistent unemployment is likely associated to increasing inequalities. Furthermore, there are sensible reasons to expect that this process of high and persistent unemployment, in which inequality increases, has a negative effect on subsequent long-run economic growth.... In sum, unemployment may seriously harm growth not only because it is a waste of resources, but also because it has serious distributional effects: it generates redistributive pressures and subsequent distortions; it depreciates existing human capital and deters its accumulation; it drives people to poverty; it results in liquidity constraints that limit labour mobility; and finally it erodes individual self-esteem and promotes social dislocation, unrest and conflict. Hence, the experience of the 1980s, and the subsequent cycle of low long-run economic growth is a cautionary tale about the future risks for growth of high unemployment and increasing inequality in our current times. «The economic slowdown may entail a double-dip in employment... exacerbating inequalities and social discontent... and further delaying economic recovery» (ILO, 2011). Policies aiming at controlling the dramatic rise in unemployment associated to the current crisis, and in particular at reducing its inequality-associated effects, are not just pressing for the obvious current difficulties that they represent for society today, but also because of the handicap that they represent for future long-run growth." &mdash;
 * 4) "A Yale professor who was among three Americans who won the Nobel prize for economics said Monday, 'The most important problem that we are facing now today, I think, is rising inequality in the United States and elsewhere in the world,' Shiller said." &mdash;
 * Are you asking whether we should include these excerpts, fully, as written above? If that's the case, I'd say that's a bit too much for an encyclopedic article. This is particularly true for the third excerpt. A better approach might be to find relevant portions of the existing article, and provide a takeaway sentence or two, or use them as an additional reference if needed.Mattnad (talk) 14:54, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Here is an example of how I think they should be used. The first one is probably far too technical, but was necessary to explain something months ago, so I just left it out of that US-specific edit, even though it is very specific to the US. EllenCT (talk) 06:18, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I think it's still a bit text heavy. Also, food for thought, some of the content around inequality of land ownership as well as impacts on employment are details that probably exceed the scope of a progressive tax article.  These relate more to income and asset distribution policy.  Progressive income taxes do not per se alleviate entrenched wealth disparities.  Those tend to be address by other taxes (inheritance, gift) or by other government steps like nationalizing companies or acquiring land via eminent domain.  And then we come back to a practical element of progressive taxation previously discussed - reducing income inequality depends greatly on how the taxes are spent.  Rent seeking in the U.S. draws away tax dollars to entrenched interests like the military from poor people.Mattnad (talk) 16:03, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Ellen, your recent addition of inequality does not discuss the impact relating to Progressive Taxes. Arzel (talk) 16:47, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The Castells-Quintana source supports all of material it's supposed to. There's nothing wrong with using a source on income inequality for statements about income inequality. MilesMoney (talk) 16:53, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
 * milesmoney, you are correct, but it does seem a bit off topic for an article on progressive taxes. Income inequality and its impacts should be covered in this much detail in the article dedicated to it.  Progressive taxation is about government policy to fund its operations. The only viable point that should be made in this article is that progressive taxes are based on the fact that income equality exists. Another on topic point is that progressive taxation can help reduce income inequality, particularly where the top marginal tax rates are high. Mattnad (talk) 17:09, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It would seem as though income inequality is the central distinction between progressive taxes and other kinds, so it should be given adequate space.
 * On a side note, thanks for responding as opposed to edit-warring. I much prefer conversation. MilesMoney (talk) 17:41, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
 * That's not what this paragraph does though - it even jumps to unemployment. It's not appropriate to include a paragraph with the purpose of trying to convey this synthesis theory (progressive taxes can improve inequality, equality can improve growth, thus progressive taxes improves growth and employment).  If that's not the purpose, then the verbose economic inclusion serves no purpose on this article.  This is intended to lead the reader to the conclusion that progressive taxes will improve economic growth via equality, without having sources that directly support that assertion (as we discussed above in the RFC), particular when empirical evidence to the contrary.  Morphh   (talk) 21:36, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Milesmoney, the content of the paragraph is quite appropriate for the Income inequality article in that it details the implications of income inequality. That's one step removed IMHO from the progressive tax article which should address the implications of progressive taxation policy, of which income inequality is a facet.Mattnad (talk) 21:57, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

How can the topic be "one step removed" when the section is about the economic effects of progressive taxes, and the subsection is about income inequality? Both of the sources discuss progressivity of taxation in the exact same way that the beginning of that section does. EllenCT (talk) 23:29, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
 * therein lies the problem. We should be minimizing that section, not expanding it. There is a main article on income inequality already.  We do not need two.  Just because there is a subsection, it is not an invitation to become expansive on the impacts or obscure theories on inequality.  So in the article on automobiles, we do not have a detailed section on tire makers and the pros and cons of different rubber compounds. Mattnad (talk) 23:48, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
 * There are many articles on economic inequality, but there is no one article on income inequality in general, sorry. Obviously if we are describing its effects in the context of tax policy, actual evidence and causal pathways serve the reader. The idea that the information you've deleted is as far removed from the effects of income inequality as the pros and cons of rubber compounds is removed from the topic of automobiles is absurd and wrong. It saddens me to see such arguments used like that. EllenCT (talk) 00:08, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry to disappoint you, but your continued inserting an obscure academic paper on land ownership in agrarian economies is so far from the point of this article that my analogy is more than apt.Mattnad (talk) 00:14, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Both of the papers are peer-reviewed, and neither of them are about agrarian economies. What are you talking about? EllenCT (talk) 00:18, 2 January 2014 (UTC)


 * The refs for the section are largely not relevant to the article. Capitalismojo (talk) 01:36, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

As an FYI to all involved, EllenCT has been adding material and graphs (such as the one rejected in this RFC and others rejected elsewhere) to Tax policy and economic inequality in the United States article (which I didn't even know existed until searching for some additional material). Nice attempt to get around the consensus, move articles. Morphh  (talk) 15:14, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * That article has/had a lot of WP:COATRACK material and needs some serious NPOV work. Please take a look - I've made a bit of changes myself today on it, so feel free to review those - at this point, I felt it needed more of a chain saw approach than a scalpel.   Morphh   (talk) 21:10, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Bogus graph, original research
is cited as the source yet the graph does not appear in the paper. also, the graph cites the 2000 tax year, the paper was written in 1999. i will remove the graph without objection in 24-48 hours. Darkstar1st (talk) 18:35, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
 * the graph is consistent with tables 6 and 8 in the source paper. It's simply a graphical representation of  the numeric data and the paper refers to the year 2000, likely a projection. It's dated, but more recent representations I've seen show a similar pattern.  Mattnad (talk) 22:38, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

RFC on income inequality effects
Instead of edit-warring over this excerpt, we clearly need an RFC.
 * Inequality in land and income ownership is negatively correlated with subsequent economic growth. A strong demand for redistribution will occur in societies where a large section of the population does not have access to the productive resources of the economy. Rational voters must internalize such issues. High unemployment rates have a significant negative effect when interacting with increases in inequality. Increasing inequality harms growth in countries with high levels of urbanization. High and persistent unemployment also has a negative effect on subsequent long-run economic growth. Unemployment may seriously harm growth because it is a waste of resources, because it generates redistributive pressures and distortions, because it depreciates existing human capital and deters its accumulation, because it drives people to poverty, because it results in liquidity constraints that limit labor mobility, and because it erodes individual self-esteem and promotes social dislocation, unrest and conflict. Policies to control unemployment and reduce its inequality-associated effects can strengthen long-run growth.

Should that be included in the Economic effects/Income inequality section? EllenCT (talk) 02:25, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Survey

 * Support inclusion of the passage as a separate paragraph, to explain why income equality is a positive economic effect. EllenCT (talk) 02:25, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Omit the paragraph in its entirety, as it does not even approach the subject of taxation, progressive or otherwise. Obviously off-topic and superfluous. Roccodrift (talk) 02:29, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Omit - this is related to income/economic inequality and off topic.Mattnad (talk) 03:05, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Omit The source does not discuss the topic of this article. The source makes no mention of Progressive Taxation or the effect of Progressive Taxation on income equality.  It appears to be an attempt to synthesize material.  Arzel (talk) 03:18, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Omit As stated above, the material expands on effects on reducing inequality with no direct link to progressive taxes being the reason. This belongs in the Income inequality article, not here.  It leads the reader into a conclusion not directly supported by the material.   Morphh   (talk) 13:40, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Omit - per Mattnad.--NK (talk) 16:16, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Omit - This looks like a coatrack. It should have its own article. Capitalismojo (talk) 21:29, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Omit The proposed content is off topic. In addition, though this could be repaired and is not a reason for omission, it's written in a declarative style that is an inappropriate reflection of the sources and suggests an editorial POV. Joja  lozzo  04:49, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Do Not Include Even though there seems to be something of an agreement that the section of text should not be included, I also want to note that the referenced citations are rather obscure and would not be considered to be academic or encyclopedic in scope so should be excluded on such grounds as well as the other reasons noted previously. Damotclese (talk) 17:52, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

New attempt

 * I made an attempt to add language to the existing section, using some of Ellen's sources above, that I thought was more in line with what was discussed in the RFC. I briefly described some of the negative effects that income inequality can create, then went into a sentence on how progressive taxation can reduce inequality.  I then included information specific to taxes and points of view on the debate.  Hopefully this will be palatable and gain a consensus.   Morphh   (talk) 16:50, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Your approach provides balance, but does it get to the nub of the issue that income inequality is a much broader topic best dealt with in another article? I feel this section growing is akin to Scope creep.Mattnad (talk) 17:18, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't disagree - it was an attempt at compromise and I wouldn't object to trimming. My preference would be to remove the subsection and that of "educational choices" for a single section on "economic effects", where we include a couple sentences on progressive taxes reducing income inequality.   Morphh   (talk) 17:54, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Edit-warring
MilesMoney, left the following comment on my (NK's) talk page: This revert constitutes edit-warring, particularly as you left no edit comment and did not participate in the subsequent talk page discussion. Please do not edit-war. MilesMoney (talk) 19:09, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It is a damn lie. I have made one edit to the Progressive tax page.  One edit for the whole time the article has been in existence.  You just did not like the edit that I made.  You saw my edit and then you went to my talk page and left the above lie. Please stop lying about those who simply disagree with you on edits.  Please stop being an edit warrior.  It will get you banned from all of Wikipedia eventually--not just topic banned as you are now.  Please review all of Wikipedia's rules before it is too late.  There is an article on Economic inequality, please push your position over there.If there is no article on "Income Inequality" then make that article and stop attempting to use the progressive tax article as a coathanger to add POV about income inequality.--NK (talk) 16:13, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Probably something that should have been left on your talk page. Morphh   (talk) 16:31, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * No. The comments are completely relevant to this article.--NK (talk) 16:45, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I appreciate you feelings (an instance of the pot calling the kettle black, and not technically edit warring on your part), but I agree with Morph that this is not really germane to the article talk page.Mattnad (talk) 17:13, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Once again, I responded to MileMoney's reasoning for his edit and I gave my reasoning for my edit. Yes, it is absolutely relevant to this page.  There are other places for the discussion on income inequality than in the Progressive Tax article.--NK (talk) 18:03, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Compromise attempts
There are some substantial differences between and. In particular, the link to Gross fixed capital formation was changed to Redistribution of income and wealth. Can both be included? Also, a single non-peer reviewed OECD report which represents a very small minority position and one which hardly even exists in the peer reviewed literature is described as "OECD empirical research". Shouldn't you apply your own standards of attribution for minority reports used to provide NPOV balance? EllenCT (talk) 05:24, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure where Gross fixed capital formation#Economic would fit, but if you find a good term to link it.. ok. Here are additional sources if needed which could support that conclusion.   Morphh   (talk) 06:08, 5 January 2014 (UTC)


 * 1) Ergete Ferede & Bev Dahlby, The Impact of Tax Cuts on Economic Growth: Evidence from the Canadian Provinces, 65 National Tax Journal 563-594 (2012).
 * 2) Karel Mertens & Morten Ravn, The dynamic effects of personal and corporate income tax changes in the United States, American Economic Review (2012).
 * 3) Norman Gemmell, Richard Kneller, & Ismael Sanz, The Timing and Persistence of Fiscal Policy Impacts on Growth: Evidence from OECD Countries, 121 Economic Journal F33-F58 (2011).
 * 4) Jens Arnold, Bert Brys, Christopher Heady, Åsa Johansson, Cyrille Schwellnus, & Laura Vartia, Tax Policy For Economic Recovery and Growth, 121 Economic Journal F59-F80 (2011).
 * 5) Robert Barro & C.J. Redlick, Macroeconomic Effects of Government Purchases and Taxes, 126 Quarterly Journal of Economics 51-102 (2011).
 * 6) Christina Romer & David Romer, The macroeconomic effects of tax changes: estimates based on a new measure of fiscal shocks, 100 American Economic Review 763-801 (2010).
 * 7) Alberto Alesina & Silvia Ardagna, Large changes in fiscal policy: taxes versus spending, in Tax Policy and the Economy, Vol. 24 (Univ. of Chicago Press, 2010).
 * 8) International Monetary Fund, Will it hurt? Macroeconomic effects of fiscal consolidation, in World Economic Outlook: Recovery, Risk, and Rebalancing (2010)
 * 9) Robert Reed, The robust relationship between taxes and U.S. state income growth, 61 National Tax Journal 57-80 (2008).
 * 10) N. Bania, J. A. Gray, & J. A. Stone, Growth, taxes, and government expenditures: growth hills for U.S. states, 60 National Tax Journal 193-204 (2007).
 * 11) Young Lee & Roger Gordon, Tax Structure and Economic Growth, 89 Journal of Public Economics 1027-1043 (2005).
 * 12) Randall Holcombe & Donald Lacombe, The effect of state income taxation on per capita income growth, 32 Public Finance Review 292-312 (2004).
 * 13) Marc Tomljanovich, The role of state fiscal policy in state economic growth, 22 Contemporary Economic Policy 318-330 (2004).
 * 14) Olivier Blanchard & Robert Perotti, An Empirical Characterization Of The Dynamic Effects Of Changes In Government Spending And Taxes On Output, 107 Quarterly Journal of Economics 1329-1368 (2002).
 * 15) F. Padovano & E. Galli, E., Tax rates and economic growth in the OECD countries (1950-1990), 39 Economic Inquiry 44-57 (2001).
 * 16) Stefan Folster & Magnus Henrekson, Growth effects of government expenditure and taxation in rich countries, 45 European Economic Review 1501-1520 (2001).
 * 17) M. Bleaney, N. Gemmell & R. Kneller, Testing the endogenous growth model: public expenditure, taxation, and growth over the long run, 34 Canadian Journal of Economics 36-57 (2001).
 * 18) R. Kneller, M. Bleaney & N. Gemmell, Fiscal Policy and Growth: Evidence from OECD Countries, 74 Journal of Public Economics 171-190 (1999).
 * 19) Howard Chernick, Tax progressivity and state economic performance, 11 Economic Development Quarterly 249-267 (1997).
 * 20) Stephen Miller & Frank Russek, Fiscal structures and economic growth: international evidence, 35 Economic Inquiry 603-613 (1997).
 * 21) John Mullen & Martin Williams, Marginal tax rates and state economic growth, 24 Regional Science and Urban Economics 687-705 (1994).
 * 22) Reinhard Koester & Roger Kormendi, Taxation, Aggregate Activity and Economic Growth: Cross-Country Evidence on Some Supply-Side Hypotheses, 27 Economic Inquiry 367-86 (1989).
 * 23) Jay Helms, The effect of state and local taxes on economic growth: a time series-cross section approach, 67 Review of Economics and Statistics 574-582 (1985).
 * You are saying these all agree? Romer & Romer are on record saying the optimal marginal tax bracket is above 70%. EllenCT (talk) 06:26, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Certainly Obama’s first Chair of his Council of Economic Advisers and her husband are not the best source for such a viewpoint, but what their 2010 research concluded was that for every 1% that taxes rise (as a percent of GDP), this causes GDP to fall about 2.2% to 3.6% over the next 10 quarters, mostly through negative effects on investment. She stated “In short, tax increases appear to have a very large, sustained, and highly significant negative impact on output.”  During the recent election she came out with her NYT non-correlation argument, if that's what you're talking about.  Not sure if new research was published or if she was just endorsing Piketty and Saez.  As for above 70%, that sounds like an estimate for the hump in the Laffer curve, not a recommended tax rate for economic growth.   Morphh   (talk) 13:36, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Essentially none of these sources are about progressiveness of taxation. They are all about tax as a proportion of GDP. Are you forgetting our discussion about the difference between progressivity and total proportion taxed? EllenCT (talk) 03:27, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Some address progressiveness, but many discussed particular taxes, of which we tend to place the incidence on higher income, and their economic growth effects, such as harm on investment. The point was, we had additional academic sources to pull from if need be.  Morphh   (talk) 14:26, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm missing something here. The rfc above clearly indicates that most editors see expansion of this section as off-topic. EllenCT, it's not good wiki etiquette to call for an RFC, and then ignore it completely within a couple of days when it doesn't go your way. The insertion of the graph is a good example of pushing forward with your desired changes without even a token attempt at gathering consensus. Mattnad (talk) 13:24, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry you think that I'm going to stop trying to find a compromise solution to correctly describing the historical outcomes just because a lot of editors with political predispositions causing them to be offended by historical outcomes are in fact offended by them. I am not. I will continue to try to reach a compromise here and on the other articles where the information is pertinent. EllenCT (talk) 02:54, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * A compromise is bringing material here for discussion and coming to a common agreement. It is not simply adding additional off-topic information and then demanding a debate about this information.  Arzel (talk) 04:00, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree. It appears the section on income inequality is being used as a coatrack to introduce material not related or only tangentially related to the topic of progressive taxation. Insofar as the extraneous topic actually exists, perhaps a separate article would be appropriate, but packing all of that stuff into this article is scope creep and it needs to stop. Roccodrift (talk) 04:47, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * EllenCT, I suggest you seek compromises on talk pages when the material you'd like to insert is controversial - in this case because many editors think it's not within the article's scope.Mattnad (talk) 08:40, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * If the material I'd like to insert is controversial with people who disagree with the peer reviewed secondary literature, then proposals should go directly to article space. EllenCT (talk) 06:53, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The controversy is not with a disagreement with "peer reviewed secondary literature." It's that the literature you've selected is not topical to the article. I will create another RFC.Mattnad (talk) 12:41, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Economic growth graph
I question the inclusion of this graph, which several other editors have also removed. I have no issue with the source itself or the graph for presenting a pov, but does inclusion create one-sided NPOV issues and does it meet Image_use_policy, which states "They should be relevant and increase readers' understanding of the subject matter. In general, images should depict the concepts described in the text of the article." For one, the inclusion of U.S. specific content regarding capital gains is not anything that the graph depicts. We already have example content in the article with regard to U.S. tax policy and it creates duplication and issues for worldview writing. Second, as mentioned above, the graph presents a pov regarding equality driving economic growth, which one could source that economic inequality is a result of economic growth or, as described in the article, that progressive taxation could hurt growth. The graph doesn't depict progressive taxation effects though, what the image depicts is Ostry and Berg's analysis that income distribution is a major factor for economic growth. It sort of serves this WP:SYN gap to make the conclusion that progressive taxation increases economic growth, which is not supported by the sources. I'm concerned that the take away presented to the users based on it's inclusion is (C) that Progessive taxes improves economic growth, without actually saying or sourcing it. "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. If a single source says "A" in one context, and "B" in another, without connecting them, and does not provide an argument of "therefore C", then "therefore C" cannot be used in any article. The graph's inclusion is associated with this sentence in our content "High levels of income inequality can have negative effects on long term economic growth, employment, and class conflict." I think that sentence provides context for the section, but it's not what the section is about, so even if the graph was neutral, does it deserve to be included per WP:WEIGHT? Many questions and issues - please discuss. Morphh  (talk) 16:40, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Progressive taxation reduces inequality (A)
 * Graph depicts equality improves growth (B)


 * No, it should not be included. I think it is clear that it is both SYN and a bad fit with this article. Capitalismojo (talk) 22:14, 24 January 2014 (UTC)


 * After specifically asking that the transfers be specified as progressive in order to benefit from progressivity, that you want to whitewash the actual benefit is not surprising. The graph should be included because it is supported by the sources cited and is therefore not a synthesis. Have you decided to abandon your replacement of "progressive" with "redistributive" or is this encyclopedia written by those who would lead readers to believe that there is no such thing as a regressive after-tax transfer, or a regressive pre-tax transfer brought about by policy? EllenCT (talk) 05:05, 25 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you should address the WP:SYN issue that has been raised above. Capitalismojo (talk) 05:53, 25 January 2014 (UTC)


 * WP:SYN says that if sources A and B imply statement C, then you can't include C without a source directly supporting it unless it follows per WP:CK. It does not say that if A and B are related because they both deal with facts pertinent to the article, you can delete B because you personally don't like the mutual implication C. In this case, C is also supported by the peer reviewed literature in sections above and in the sources in the graph's caption, so WP:SYN doesn't even begin to apply. EllenCT (talk) 07:32, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
 * EllenCT: Personal attack, again. For the third time, I did not say that transfer payments were necessary in order increase equality.  How many times do I have to say it before you stop repeating it?  Please, acknowledge this, because repeating it in the future should be considered as intent to mislead other editors.  I've noted a pattern of misrepresenting the words of others, not only Wikipedia editors, but that of your sources.  Please be more careful in the future.  As for WP:CK, you should reread it because it absolutely does not apply, in fact, it states the exact opposite right up front.  If you have sources that directly conclude without interpretation that progressive taxation increases economic growth, then please provide it, because no such source has been put forward.   Morphh   (talk) 14:06, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
 * As I said in the first post, I don't have an issue with the source supporting the graph for what the graph states. My concern is that inclusion may imply WP:SYN and that it presents a POV that is not balanced in an article where it's WEIGHT is minor.  As for the term "redistributive", I believe the context of the section and sentence clearly indicate a transfer from high to low income.  As I explained on my talk, "progressive spending" is not a common term and we should try to use language that the general public will understand.  I did revert my edit of that term though until we can agree to something better.  Morphh   (talk) 14:27, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
 * What sources support the idea that income inequality doesn't support growth? The Economic inequality article sections go into the history of the question in great detail, and while the idea that income inequality supports growth enjoyed non-fringe status due to Art Okun's regression mistakes, it's now thoroughly discredited while the Berg & Ostry work is cited widely and favorably in the WP:SECONDARY literature. Have you studied the secondary peer reviewed literature on the subject or not? EllenCT (talk) 07:12, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I have to agree that this particular graph should probably not be included. However, there is a wide literature on the connection between income inequality and a wide variety of societal ills. This literature often points to tax progressivity as a mitigating factor. This article should include a section about how progressive taxation is often suggested as a way to mitigate the societal ills associated with higher income inequality. LK (talk) 07:47, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Not included why specifically? It was a groundbreaking result to look at run lengths for variables that filter through in closer to decades than year-over-year results. Of course I agree that we should include a section about how progressive taxation mitigates social ills, but question whether the editors recently active here would ever allow such a dissonance with their personal political views. EllenCT (talk) 07:12, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * We already have a section on how progressive taxation reduces income inequality and I have no issue with including that progressive taxation is often suggested as a way to mitigate the societal ills associated with higher income inequality in that section, the lead, or mentioning it in the historical section. I could also see providing examples by naming / linking the primary societal ills it suggested to mitigate.   What would concern me with an additional and separate section or paragraphs is that it would become a coatrack about economic inequality and the social programs and redistribution policies for reducing inequality with the peg being progressive taxation as a method to fund it.  That would not be appropriate for this article and we've had sufficient RFC input for a consensus regarding this scope issue.   Morphh   (talk) 15:01, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * EllenCT, per Morphh, the RFC has been open for quite some time, and the indications from a majority of editors is that it's off-topic when taken to the level of detail you want. It's not about politics but good writing. You may have noted that most challenges to your editing has to do with scope and sourcing, not your political views. Please provide others with the same courtesy.  You will have more success if you keep your contributions on topic and ensure you have clear sources that state what you are inserting into articles.  Mattnad (talk) 15:22, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Income inequality
There has been some back and forth recently with regard to the first sentence in the income equality section. Thought we could discuss an improved version. The wordy and overly technical sentence states: Some first thoughts come to mind without digging through the sources. We use the term "absolute income inequality" - is that a real term? It would seem to me that equality is always relative, but can be measured on absolute or relative income. I can understand that it's possible to decrease absolute income while increasing relative income (progressive taxation reduces inequality, but the effects may not always improve the poor's income and standard of living), but I'm having trouble understanding what absolute income equality means here. Perhaps someone can clarify and reword it - while I think the distinction of relative equality vs absolute income is worth noting, it's hard to understand. We then conjoin it with a requirement of low evasion and spending, which would seem unnecessary for reducing inequality via the tax structure. It would seem that progressive taxation by itself reduces inequality and that reduced evasion and progressive spending would improve equality effects. I question if the evasion statement is self evident - maybe we could footnote it? We also need to reduce the WP:TECHNICAL - I have a short discussion on my talk regarding the uncommon term "progressive spending", which sort of seems like a neologism and could be more easily understood as redistributive spending. We also have links to Gross fixed capital formation, which may not be something helpful for the average reader on a high level article. I also have concerns about the second sentence: It's stated as a fact when we should probably be phrasing this as an opinion and condition it (example: at what point does increases in equality negatively effect this trend as it would seem socialism wouldn't apply). I haven't had time to review the sources and verify the content. Morphh  (talk) 18:05, 27 January 2014 (UTC)


 * The wording "absolute income inequality" is from the source. I too am unsure about what absolute vs relative means in this case. As for that bit about tax evasion, it's from another source that points out that a more progressive tax system can increase evasion at the top end, hence reducing the actual progressiveness of taxation and hence reversing some of the income equalizing effect. As for the second sentence on Aggregate demand, I agree that it's problematic. I haven't touched it cause I haven't read the sources, but off-hand my impulse is to axe it. LK (talk) 12:54, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Axe it why? It's easy to find sources in support of the statement. comes up at the top of a Google search for the two terms.  is another looking at different data. Does anyone seriously contend that income equality decreases aggregate demand? For the other clause there's the classic  and more recent work like  and . I don't think either statement is terribly technical, but I agree "absolute" can go with no loss of its source's meaning. EllenCT (talk) 07:06, 3 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I guess I'm doing OR here, but speaking as an economist, I don't see a permanent increase in Aggregate Demand as a necessarily good thing. It's good now, since we're a middle of a depression, but once we're out it may actually be a bad thing since it depresses savings - unless Larry Summers is right and we are in danger of secular stagnation, in which case it would be a good thing. So, in short, I feel it's kinda an iffy thing to put as a justification for progressive taxation. LK (talk) 05:08, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * It doesn't say greater consumer demand is always good, but the best practices for amortization suggest to me that it is likely decades before inflation is a problem, even at 4% unemployment. Actually I have reason to believe that 4% unemployment reduces inflationary pressure relaitve to 6% because the private sector is more efficient, and I believe there is an analogy to how more progressive tax requires less total tax all else equal. Do you see it? There is support in the literature, but someone would probably call it synthesis unless I get two more overlapping citations. EllenCT (talk) 02:39, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Outcome comparison of very regressive, flat, and very progressive tax
I would like to include a comparison of outcomes of very regressive, flat, and very progressive taxation. I know what the most reliable sources say. I would like to know what other editors think the second most reliable differing sources say. EllenCT (talk) 20:03, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The outcomes or effects of tax incidence is a very broad topic that can impact many areas, both short and long term. The primary intent is already described in the lead paragraph.  You're not making clear what you intend to include and I have no idea which sources you consider the most reliable that we're suppose to counter.  This is not productive.  If you're aware of additional sources that offer differing views, you should just include that balance when presenting the material.  Then we can discuss any additional sources, weight or verifiability issues.   Morphh   (talk) 21:57, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The peer reviewed literature reviews are the most reliable in disciplines such as math and forecasting which have them, as WP:PSTS states. Which do you think are the top three most reliable sources on which economic models are most correctly predictive including the New Keynesian DSGE models, among those which study the effect of different tax incidence all other things equal? EllenCT (talk) 03:34, 8 March 2014 (UTC)


 * EllenCT, I'll give you points for starting the discussion here. Put something in writing, with sources and we can comment/participate if needed.Mattnad (talk) 01:21, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

RFC on graph linking top marginal tax rates to job growth
right|thumb| An editor, EllenCT, would like to include the graph to the right, or the juxtaposition of the data in prose, in various articles to make the point that US job growth rates declined as the top marginal tax rates declined.

Several editors have concerns that the graph suggests correlation, and perhaps causation, between US top marginal tax rates and job growth history from 1940 to present without a reliable source stating that.

When asked for sources, EllenCT, has provided the following: ,, pages 362-70 in Peterson, W. and Estenson, P. (7th ed., 1992) Income, Employment and Economic Growth, Chapter 9, "Public Expenditures, Taxes, and Finance" and Berg and Ostry (2011)

Are the sources sufficient to support inclusion of the graph?Mattnad (talk) 13:01, 19 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes of course I think so, and would point out that there is further discussion of the topic at Wikipedia talk:ECON. Thank you for the RFC and I hope you will please indicate that you started it there at WT:ECON as well. EllenCT (talk) 13:12, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * No - The sources are primarily related to income inequality but none provide any specifics that draw a direct correlation as depicted by the graph. The graph, as is with the supplied sources, constitutes synthesis and therefore violates WP:OR.Mattnad (talk) 16:05, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * No - The sources do not support the material. The graph and the suggested prose are WP:SYN and WP:OR.  The sources (which are primary) discuss opinions regarding positive economic effects of improving income equality. There are also sources that say that progressive taxes can decrease income inequality (when combined with proper progressive spending).  From there, we make a giant leap to a 75% tax rate is better for economic growth than a 35% tax rate.  There are no sources here that suggest this or that higher progressive tax rates improve economic growth, through income equality or otherwise.   Morphh   (talk) 23:08, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes - The editors claiming WP:SYNTH do not appear to understand what that means. It's not original research for Ellen to use a reliable source that draws these inferences. MilesMoney (talk) 23:13, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Drawing "inferences" that are not explicitly stated in the sources is SYN. This is exactly what she's doing:  "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. 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.[8] "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. If a single source says "A" in one context, and "B" in another, without connecting them, and does not provide an argument of "therefore C", then "therefore C" cannot be used in any article."  Morphh   (talk) 23:32, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Am I drawing inferences, or am I inserting facts which in your opinion suggest an inference which would be incorrect to insert without a directly supporting reference? That inference is supported by sources already in the article, even without causal chaining. And for causal chaining to be invalid, there would need to be a reason that the first part of the chain specifically precludes the end of it. No such reasons have been offered. EllenCT (talk) 06:33, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You're inserting historical facts but correlation them together, which leaves the only point of it being to infer a direct relationship and degree of causality. I don't see anything in the article or the sources that infer a 75% tax rate produces greater economic growth than a 35% tax rate. There are many reasons the chain could be invalid, with the most obvious being that taxation has direct effects on economic growth.  As a point of compromise, I think we'd be fine with including some prose in the article that tries to make your point without drawing those direct correlations, like "Income equality is an important component of economic growth,[ref][ref] and when coupled with public spending, progressive taxes can have positive effects on reducing income inequality.[ref][ref]"   Morphh   (talk) 13:49, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Let's try that and see how it works. MilesMoney (talk) 14:40, 20 October 2013 (UTC)


 * No a graph from the same data could show the growth was double at 28% compared to 38%, in fact, the original image before being redrawn by a now banned sock did, see: http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/tax-reform/news/2011/06/27/9856/rich-peoples-taxes-have-little-to-do-with-job-creation/. those who wish to include the graph appear to be making the case taxes are related to job growth, when the title of the original article states ...little to do with job creation Darkstar1st (talk) 15:04, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * That blog post isn't peer reviewed like the journal sources under discussion are. The graph is a more accurate representation of the reality of many countries over many time periods than the original graph at americanprogress.org. And if we don't include the text comparison of 1950 to today, readers won't realize that more progressiveness can do more job creation and economic growth with less total taxes, which is a hugely important take-away fact for readers to understand. EllenCT (talk) 16:32, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * A higher marginal tax rate for the rich does not imply more progressiveness. Which of the following two examples are more progressive?  (Income levels where the bottom 90% pay 5% in taxes and where the top 10% pay 25% in taxes or where the bottom 90% pay 50% in taxes and the top 10% pay 60% in taxes.)  There is a higher marginal tax rate in the second example, but the first example is more progressive.  Also, by your language I suggest you don't use WP to promote a point of view.  Arzel (talk) 16:47, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Ellen, did you know the highest rate of job growth occurred before the income tax? a chart including those numbers it would look much different. Darkstar1st (talk) 18:28, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Not relative to population size. EllenCT (talk) 10:57, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * yes relative to population, in fact we had negative unemployment, Increasing industrialization outpaced the supply of laborers able or willing to work in dangerous, low-paying, and dead-end jobs. However, the demand for low or unskilled jobs drove wages up and attracted waves of Irish, Italian, Polish, Russian, and Jewish immigrants who could earn more in America than in their homelands. Darkstar1st (talk) 12:58, 21 October 2013 (UTC)


 * No As others have stated the graph tries to imply a cause and effect relationship.  Those in favor are too clever by half by trying to say that they are not making the correlation.  Arzel (talk) 16:29, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree the graph suggests a cause-and-effect relationship, which is supported by the sources as being the historical facts in many countries over many different time frames. I do want to suggest it, because it is supported by the highest quality peer reviewed sources. EllenCT (talk) 16:32, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Taking your words for it "many countries" "different timeframes", is not the United States, and not with the specificity in the graph. After reading your sources supplied, they still don't cut the mustard.  Mattnad (talk) 16:40, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * One thing I have learned about statistics over my many years is that you can pick a specific time frame and/or range of values to provide any point of view you would like. Furthermore as I stated just above, a high marginal tax rate is not directly correlated with progressiveness.  Arzel (talk) 16:47, 20 October 2013 (UTC)


 * The graph is not appropriate as presented, Showing it as an X vs Y, using broad categories, is a misuse of statistics. The proper way to present the data is as a time series, with two lines representing marginal tax rate and employment growth, The reader can then draw their own conclusions (their conclusions might possibly be similar, but at least they will have the actual data). It could stil not be used to draw a conclusion--there are many other possible variables,, and it would  be much better to show additional variables also besides job creation, which is not the only measure of economic growth. (Even so, it does not prove causation for any of them. (Empirical data without an underlying model does not prove causation of anything, in any domain.)    And I agree with the comment  that a graph for the US would belong in a section on the US, unless similar time series from multiple countries were shown.
 * And,while we are discussing graphs, the graph on income as a function of educational attainments is irrelevant to this article. The legend is particularly inappropriate--whether "Government spending on college tuition subsidies can pay for themselves many times over in additional tax revenue." is itself a conclusion, and, though certainly compatible with this data, is not proven by it.  The graph is so irrelevant that I have boldly removed it.  DGG ( talk ) 17:47, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * No Per DGG. This doesn't work as presented. Capitalismojo (talk) 15:24, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * No, exclude. Remember that Wikipedia is supposed to be encyclopedic, information that gets provided should be relevant and as accurate as possible, and the juxtaposition proposed simply is not supported strongly enough by the citations to warrant the suggested causuality. Damotclese (talk) 16:54, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes - re "Several editors have concerns that the graph suggests correlation" - The sources provided seem to suggest that there is a correlation. I'm a tad confused by the objections here. Do people feel that the sources aren't reliable, or that the sources don't support the idea that there is a correalation? NickCT (talk) 22:28, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It is the second - the sources don't support a direct correlation. None of the sources provide this conclusion or are even about comparing progressive tax rates to economic growth.  They're about income equality.  What do you see in the sources that directly supports the conclusion that a 75% tax rate is better for economic growth than a 35% tax rate, or any scale with regard to how progressive rates effect economic growth?   We're looking at the exact definition described in WP:SYN - there couldn't be a clearer example of the policy, though the material is technical.   Morphh   (talk) 23:57, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * NickCT, the leap from the source material and the graph is more than tax rates in general, it's that it suggests the higher the top marginal tax rate, the higher the job growth in the United States from 1940 to the present. Did you see anything like that in the sources?Mattnad (talk) 02:43, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * NickCT, the leap from the source material and the graph is more than tax rates in general, it's that it suggests the higher the top marginal tax rate, the higher the job growth in the United States from 1940 to the present. Did you see anything like that in the sources?Mattnad (talk) 02:43, 25 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Prose at least. Regardless of whether that particular graph of the data is included or not, prose making the general negative point should definitely be included. The negative point being that higher marginal tax rates does not historically preclude job growth. This is an important point to make since there is a very widespread, even dogmatic misconception in America that this is impossible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.209.98.21 (talk • contribs)
 * We have to keep in mind the topic, which is a global article about a type of tax structure. By definition, a progressive tax is about effective rates, which are always lower than the marginal rate - it's about how the effective rate progresses.  So describing the marginal rate while ignoring the effective rate seems counter to the entire point of the article.  While your conclusion may be correct dependent on the tax and base compared (and all the other variables), the historical data used to make your point is not an empirical example.   In the U.S. historical data, we're looking at lower effective rates in those high marginal periods (as a percentage of GDP), either via a decreased tax base, less tax streams or through evasion.  It all depends on the tax structure and government spending, but all things being equal, raising tax rates usually doesn't produce increased economic growth.   Morphh   (talk) 13:54, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

So here's the tally. 3 in favor, 7 against, and one IP Address, who has only made a single Wikipedia edit (I'm going to discount that one for reasons I'm sure I don't have to go into). While we do not have a consensus, the majority of editors who have commented object to a lack of connection between the source material and the graph or equivalent prose. One compromise, offered by Morph, and endorsed by MilesMoney, is as follows:
 * I think we'd be fine with including some prose in the article that tries to make your point without drawing those direct correlations, like "Income equality is an important component of economic growth,[ref][ref] and when coupled with public spending, progressive taxes can have positive effects on reducing income inequality.[ref][ref]"

Think we can close this RFC, with the finding that the graph cannot be derived from the sources, and should therefore be excluded? Mattnad (talk) 21:44, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, let's go with the compromise. MilesMoney (talk) 15:47, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. Want to take a crack at it?  EllenCT has got us started on source material, but if we can get secondary reliable sources, better from a WP:RS guideline perspective.Mattnad (talk) 18:25, 5 November 2013 (UTC)


 * NoIt is WP:SYNTH at best. The sources do not justify such a politically charged graph. So now  3 in favour, 8 against. Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:25, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Section on Psychological effects
Sorry I don't have time to work on this, but much has been written on the psychological and social effects of inequality and progressive taxation, so that section should be expanded (perhaps section title should also be changed.) These papers can be mined for sources to expand the section on psychological and social effects: Also these: And, of course, the book The Spirit Level, attributes all kinds of ills to income inequality, and suggests progressive taxation as one way to improve social outcomes. Review of the book here: --LK (talk) 11:40, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Educating Ourselves Towards a Progressive (and Happier) Tax: A Commentary on Griffith's Progressive Taxation and Happiness, Marjorie E. Kornhauser, Boston College Law Review, Vol. 45, No. 5, 2004;  Progressive Taxation And Happiness, Thomas D. Griffith, Boston Law Review
 * Are Positional Externalities Different from Other Externalities? by Robert H. Frank; Positional Externalities Cause Large and Preventable Welfare Losses by Robert H. Frank
 * I expanded the article (the Lead and the Psychology section) to include some of these sources and ideas. Morphh   (talk) 09:40, February 7, 2014‎ (UTC)
 * those are all excellent. Thank you! Regarding the questions about inflation in the previous section, and considering contractionary policy as a de facto tax on the poor (possibly meaning that employment is the ultimate private sector transfer payment for working class consumers), do you think it is possible to use to extend the basic ideas in  to unemployment rate targeting in developed countries to advantage wealthy fixed-income earners earning less than inflation (both individuals and the management of stagnating firms)? The policy response that comes to mind is to make sure that government securities are competitive with (because they are invested in or hedged to be equivalent to) multisector bonds. EllenCT (talk) 03:03, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * My only comment Lawrencekhoo is that we should make sure that whatever ideas we bring in are a) mainstream, b) related to progressive taxes, and c) do not require synthesis. The papers introduced here by EllenCT focus on corruption and rent seeking issues which are at best obliquely related to a progressive tax topic (in as much as progressive taxes can mitigate unfair gains.) However, neither of them mention progressive tax policy in any way shape or form.  Perhaps EllenCT can provide a quote? Mattnad (talk) 18:19, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * A quote that involves progressive taxation in those refs, not likely. Capitalismojo (talk) 20:56, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Don't tell me that you two think monetary policy doesn't amount to an effective tax. The effect of banks multiplying their money by loaning more than is on deposit is the same as a government devaluing their currency by printing more. In any case, please read . EllenCT (talk) 00:27, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * No, that's not it. I, for one, just never see responses that actually quote from refs. Not yet at least. One can always hope of course. Capitalismojo (talk) 00:46, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I would note again that the ref (not quote) provided says literally nothing about progessive tax. Capitalismojo (talk) 00:49, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * EllenCT, are your aware that this article is about progressive taxes?Mattnad (talk) 01:49, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * "Psychological effects" ought to have similar outcomes across equivalent state actions. My question is about how reliable sources characterize the transfers of inflation targeting, including the extent to which lowering the inflation target may or may not be characterized as equivalent to a progressive tax on management and capital with transfers to labor and consumers, asked because I am looking for sources supporting the hypothesis that a lower unemployment rate can create less inflationary pressure because the private sector is more efficient than government. That was suggested by the abundant empirical evidence that more progressive tax requires less total tax, all else being equal. Would you prefer I copy the discussion to WT:ECON? Gladly. EllenCT (talk) 02:53, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Go for it.Mattnad (talk) 04:04, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * It sounds like you're describing an Inflation tax which some think of as regressive or proportional. If you reduced inflation, I don't think it would make it progressive, just less regressive per say.  Likewise the same proportional effect would apply to deflation.  As I understand it though, these monetary changes significantly effect the value of savings, much more than income.  Such devaluation of wealth tends to be held by higher income earners and retirees, while higher relative debt is held by the young and lower income.  So, the effects are likely more pronounced as intergenerational equity.  In any case, inflation effects are outside normal definition of a tax, which is why it has its own ancillary article, so we'd need something to directly attribute.   Morphh   (talk) 13:47, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

What is your source for the assertion that currency devaluation is not a tax? EllenCT (talk) 00:27, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The definition of a tax which is a non-voluntary levy imposed by law on an individual or corporation in order to fund government function. There is no statutory rate, no law defined, no enforcement, no revenue increase to government in the form of payment.  It's not even clear that the government would be the cause of the inflation, unless you're now siding with the Austrians and all inflation is caused by the monetary authority.   Morphh   (talk) 01:04, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Currency devaluation is a non-voluntary levy imposed by law on all individuals and corporations holding cash or cash-equivalent securities, in order to print money for the government. There may or may not be a statute setting the rate, but the rate is well defined and the devaluation is enforced the same way as non-devaluing issues of money or striking of coinage. It does not necessarily cause inflation, but it often does. EllenCT (talk) 08:17, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * So wouldn't this be more pertinent to an article on inflation (and am I making a baseless accusation per your note below)?Mattnad (talk) 17:38, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not the one who raised the idea that currency devaluation is not a tax. I reserve the right to address accuracy problems that occur in the course of discussions about other subjects. EllenCT (talk) 03:21, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I understand the viewpoint and agree there is a burden, but such a broad interpretation of the definition would apply to any law that has an economic effect on personal income or standard of living. It's not a law that directs a levy to be administered and enforced by the executive to fund government., what's your opinion?  Does any court or law recognize this as a tax? A progressive tax has an increase in tax rate as the the taxable base increases, and it's difficult to say either one is defined as tax policy for currency devaluation.  Morphh   (talk) 20:36, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * See p. 13 of if you're interested, but Mattnad is right. We should be talking about progressive taxes. Do you have any sources which suggest that more progressive taxes do not require less total tax all else being equal? EllenCT (talk) 03:21, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I read p. 13, but that describes fiscal devaluation via tax reform. I'm not following your last question.  All else being equal, we're just factoring revenue neutrality.  I'm not understanding the context of the question / request.   Morphh   (talk) 03:45, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Did you read all of the sentences in this review's abstract? Do you know of any other peer reviewed literature reviews or papers with literature review sections that cast any doubt on those conclusions? EllenCT (talk) 06:46, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The conclusion that, up to a point, the majority of people would be happier if they paid less tax and shifted the burden to someone else doesn't seem like a profound insight. I feel like you're asking me to defend something, but I don't know what the dispute is about.   My comment above was in regard to monetary devaluation being defined as a progressive tax - next thing I know I'm being asked to find sources for revenue neutrality and doubts for happiness.  What exactly are you wanting to include in the article?   Morphh   (talk) 14:54, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * How would you characterize the difference in outcomes between a very regressive, flat, and very progressive tax collecting the same amount of money? EllenCT (talk) 02:29, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * , what might be more productive is less of a platonic dialectic (your asking a question to prompt the response you hope will make your argument clear), and more of your stating what you'd like to add to the article, with reliable sources supporting it.Mattnad (talk) 14:20, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * My question to User:Morphh was a direct answer to his question: I would like to include his characterization of the outcomes, but only if he agrees with the reliable sources. Therefore the question is not about platonic ideals, but about concrete improvements to the article, because I need to know the answer before I can confirm that it is what I want to include. What is your answer to the question: How would you characterize the difference in outcomes between a very regressive, flat, and very progressive tax collecting the same amount of money? EllenCT (talk) 08:05, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Morphh asked "What exactly are you wanting to include in the article?". Your "question" in reply is not a "direct answer". I propose you write what you have in mind, with sources. That's a direct answer.Mattnad (talk) 11:07, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

WT:ECON is a page for discussion about the WikiProject Econ page. I've left a note about moving the discussion there, which is inappropriate. Please continue the discussion here or post an RfC directing editors to this page. Thank you. – S. Rich (talk) 05:37, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * What is the appropriate place to report tag-teams of editors who don't like certain articles making baseless accusations that editors working on improving those articles are out of scope? EllenCT (talk) 00:27, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * If everyone disagrees with you there is very little that you can do. The majority disagreed with me over negative content in the BP article.  All you can do is leave the article, or WP in general.  WP is a giant ouija board; nobody really knows who is driving it. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:29, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Everyone doesn't disagree at all, but some people have better things to do with their time than argue with those who think pamphleteers are more accurate than anonymous peer review. EllenCT (talk) 03:21, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * In your case I think pretty much every editor has disagreed with you. Charaterizing your failure to hear consensus as "tag-team" opposition is not a positive development. Capitalismojo (talk) 03:57, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * You obviously aren't counting pretty much every economist with credentials. EllenCT (talk) 06:46, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Kakwani index
It would really help those of us who are ignorant in these matters if someone could expand Kakwani index, to give a simple useful definition. The maths from the German article would be useful too. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 01:48, 28 April 2014 (UTC).


 * Thank you. You may be interested in the suits index. How many other such indices are there? EllenCT (talk) 12:32, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Gini coefficient, and Hoover index are also related to inequality of income. I asked for improvements on Kakwani index because they are used by one of the studies cited in the article.  All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 15:24, 30 April 2014 (UTC).

Additional sources
How do other editors think that the sources at, , , , , , its source book, and should be summarized? I don't have time to summarize them at the moment, so please don't ask me how to say how I would summarize them first. I will be happy to summarize them later. EllenCT (talk) 05:48, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The proof of the pudding is in the eating. You have proposed sources with no indication on how you will use them. If you think they are relevant, write what you have in mind so we can take a look.Mattnad (talk) 12:23, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * As is clear from the comments on this page, I did not propose those sources. Moreover, my reply to the editor who proposed them makes it clear how I think they should be used. What is your opinion of their conclusions, and if you doubt them, what alternative sources with different points of view do you propose? EllenCT (talk) 01:42, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Are you circling back to monetary devaluation being a progressive tax? That's not a summary that the sources draw if you read their synopsis or conclusions.  The article contains several of the points made in these publication's conclusions.  If there is something specific in a source that you think should be included, then please specify, be specific by quoting or presenting the intended prose, along with the attributing verifying text from the source.  Let's avoid another synthesis dispute - "do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material" - it should be something that any educated person without specialized knowledge can verify.   Morphh   (talk) 02:42, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Monetary devaluation isn't necessarily progressive, it's an exactly flat property tax on those who hold cash, with the total incidence depending on the proportions who do. If you tell me something is a synthesis because A and B are reliably sourced, together A and B obviously imply C, and you don't like C, then I will debate you until you admit your mistake. But if you don't accuse me of synthesis, then I won't upset you when I act according to logic instead of your opinion. Fair enough? How would you summarize the sources? EllenCT (talk) 03:48, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 * If there's an obvious implication of C, then you should have no difficulty finding a source that says that. Otherwise it's original research.Mattnad (talk) 11:30, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Ellen, you just described the exact definition of synthesis (a core policy of Wikipedia), which specifically rejects that logic.  Morphh   (talk) 14:39, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 * No, stating C is against the policy. Telling people that they can't state A or that they can't state B because of the fact that A and B obviously imply C and you don't like C is attempted POV-pushing censorship. Do you intend to state how you would improve the article by summarizing the sources? EllenCT (talk) 07:21, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * This is not productive. If you want to add something to the article from these sources, spend the time to read them, write the content, and show the direct connection between what you write and what the source says. If this is important to you, then spend the time.  Don't admonish other editors for not doing your homework.  Mattnad (talk) 07:46, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree Mattnad. Ellen, I've already included content and most of the sources in the article based on the synopsis and conclusions of the publications.  If there are additional viewpoints from the material that you want to include that directly reference a progressive tax and are verifiable, then state it.  As Mattnad stated above, if C is obvious, then you should have no difficulty finding a source.  These are primary sources and must be used "only with care" to "make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts".  Writing to imply C, even if not directly stated, is still against policy.  See the first example of SYN "Both parts of the sentence may be reliably sourced, but here they have been combined to imply that the UN has failed to maintain world peace. If no reliable source has combined the material in this way, it is original research."  So you could state A and state B, but if no reliable source has combined the material that way to imply C, then it's still original research.  Your conclusion may be true, but wikipedia only publishes what is attributable, so let's avoid any debate and just stick to material that is directly verifiable and not imply any conclusions that are not already directly stated (preferably in secondary sources).    Morphh   (talk) 14:06, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Some editors claim that the sources in question do not show a causal relationship from greater progressivity of taxation to job and economic growth, but each of them clearly do. Why do some editors contradict the plain language of these WP:SECONDARY sources? EllenCT (talk) 05:31, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Which secondary sources - the ones above are WP:PRIMARY sources. You've been here long enough to get your terms correct unless you're actively trying to mislead other editors - I even stated it in the last paragraph.  So start with getting your terms correct.  Secondly, which plain language - I've yet to see you quote something and the summaries and conclusions don't support that take away.   Morphh   (talk) 11:09, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I think this is classic tendentious editing with a theme of WP:Ididnothearthat. Mattnad (talk) 14:18, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * What do you think the word "Review" in Boston College Law Review means? It is a literature review, which makes it WP:SECONDARY. It is also peer reviewed, which together makes it the most reliable of all classes of sources per WP:PSTS. All of the others are either reviews or have large literature review sections supporting their conclusions directly. You're the one clearly trying to mislead; or you simply have no basic understanding of the WP:RS policies whatsoever. Which is it? EllenCT (talk) 15:51, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It's difficult to figure out what sources you're talking about because you toss out these blanket statements out of left field (first mention of job and economic growth for these sources). Most of the sources that you've put forward above and on the economics topic are primary - the boston law review covers happiness (so why would I think you referenced that?) and it depends on what your talking about (context) in the publication when determining if it's primary or secondary, but since you won't quote what you're talking about, we won't know.  If I go on your history with these issues, then you're drawing syn from a primary source - that's your modus operandi.  So, are you saying the Boston Law Review "Progressive Taxation And Happiness" was your reference which you think supports the assertion of "a causal relationship from greater progressivity of taxation to job and economic growth"?  I can't find it - it seems to go with the premise that progressive taxation reduces growth, but their point being that economic growth doesn't equate with happiness, where equality does.  So, quote the text, quote the text, quote the text - let me say it again - quote the text.  No - I'm not accepting "each of them clearly do".  If it is "plain language" - quote the text.   Morphh   (talk) 00:52, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Page 1392: "High unemployment also reduces the welfare of those who are employed .... increased spending (funded by higher taxes) on nonrivalrous social programs may be optimal." EllenCT (talk) 02:16, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Putting aside the missing content between the start and end of that sentence (so who knows what lurked in there), I did not see a reference to progressive taxation. Sounds like another snipe hunt.Mattnad (talk) 02:41, 11 April 2014 (UTC)


 * "...who are employed, perhaps by increasing their fear of becoming jobless.[149] The social costs of these indirect fears can be larger in the aggregate than the direct costs to the unemployed because they affect a much greater number of people.[150] Government programs to reduce unemployment or to provide support for unemployed workers thus may increase social welfare.[151] More generally, if much of private spending is wasteful because it is motivated largely by positional concerns, then increased spending (funded by higher taxes) on nonrivalous social programs, such as environmental clean-up and better police and fire services may be optimal." – S. Rich (talk) 02:55, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks S. Rich. In context, this source is unrelated to progressive taxation. Not at all relevant to this article.Mattnad (talk) 10:53, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You have got to be kidding me. When an article about progressive taxation (the first two words of its title) talks about higher taxes, you honestly expect people to believe it could mean higher flat taxes? No. And you should be ashamed for even suggesting such an absurdity. But moving on, how about all of the other corroborating sources? EllenCT (talk) 02:09, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Your quoted source doesn't mention the kind of taxes. Years ago Canada, for instance, instituted a VAT of 8% across the country (a flat tax) that was designed to fund public goods like healthcare and infrastructure. That tax, and its purpose, is consistent with your source. States and communities all over the US have increased sales and property tax rates pay for police, schools, and other public services. None of those are necessarily progressive taxes. Mattnad (talk) 03:24, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Ellen, thanks for providing the quoted content. I understand both points here.  As you point out, the title presents the larger topic of progressive taxes to happiness and I'd certainly agree that the taxation they describe would include progressive taxes.  On the other side, as Mattnad stated, the content applies to any tax and is not inherently a function of the tax progressivity. These functions could be (and often are) funded via many tax types and the text doesn't deviate from that truth.  The primary funding in the U.S. for such services include Federal Unemployment Tax Act, and often local sales and property taxes, which are all debatably proportional or regressive taxes.  It could also include funding to federal things like the EPA or "shovel ready jobs" which are funded via a progressive income tax.  Or it could apply to monetary inflation and quantitative easing.  The point of the section is the spending or government action - the re-appropriation could have a positive effect on social welfare by reducing fear of unemployment.  I don't think it supports your original contention, but it's a decent psychological argument for taxing to fund certain social programs.  I guess the question is what makes this pertinent to progressive taxes vs other types. Would it make sense to write "Less fear of becoming jobless and increases to social welfare may be gained by government programs that reduce unemployment or provide support for unemployed workers, which can be funded by progressive taxes (or any other type)."?  It seems to me this would be better left for an article like social spending or just generic taxation.  I've mentioned before that we should be cautions when the content would expand the scope of this article into topics on spending.    Morphh   (talk) 15:38, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * No, the quoted excerpt doesn't mention taxes at all, just spending. "In context, this source is unrelated to progressive taxation" is so completely absurd nobody should even dignify it with a reply. The titular subject of the article explains how that spending is paid for, at least for claims of optimality to hold in history, simulation, or logic. So, how do you feel about all the other directly corroborating sources? EllenCT (talk) 13:20, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * This article is not about spending. There are lots of great government services and functions that could be funded (progressively or otherwise), but this article is not the place to cover them.  We already give a general statement with regard to progressive taxes being used as a way to mitigate the societal ills associated with higher income inequality and that it is used as a method to fund government social programs, which also increases happiness.  This article is not the place to break down the effects of this or that spending policy.  This is about revenue generation - which could be spent wastefully or optimally.   If it's not talking about a direct effect of a progressive tax structure, then we're moving beyond the scope of the article.  I think the other sources corroborate that progressive taxation has an effect on happiness, which we already cover in the article.   Morphh   (talk) 15:39, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The most reliable sources on horseshoes focus on protection of the hoof. Would you exclude those because they too discuss a mere adjunct to the topic? Nonsense! The sources say what they do because the subjects overlap, and arguing for their exclusion because your personal political point of view is offended by scholarship is POV-pushing devoid of any intellectual honesty. AND WHAT ABOUT ALL OF THE OTHER CORROBORATING SOURCES? EllenCT (talk) 11:54, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * EllenCT, you continue to push for topics that are outside of the scope of this article, notwithstanding our new and profound understanding of equine foot health. Even though the material you quoted relates to government spending and not progressive taxes, you seem fixated on this article.  This is an article that should be focused simply tax systems that increase the burden as people or corporations increase their incomes/wealth.  As Morphh pointed out, that's revenue.  How they spend it is covered quite extensively in other articles.Mattnad (talk) 12:14, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * So do you agree or disagree with ? EllenCT (talk) 22:23, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * That source is already included in the article:
 * I don't care to agree or disagree, but I think the sentence gives a decent summarization of the viewpoint.  Morphh   (talk) 22:58, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

For Wikipedia editors, the question is not one of personal agreement or disagreement with any particular source. How the source is used in context is the important question. We must do so in a non-POV manner. There are many people who write agreeable stuff and disagreeable stuff, as well as stuff we agree with and stuff we disagree with. What do we do with the stuff, whether or not we agree with it? "In some areas there may be just one well-recognized point of view; in others, we describe multiple points of view, presenting each accurately and in context rather than as 'the truth' or 'the best view'." – S. Rich (talk) 23:28, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * What improvements based on these observations would you suggest? EllenCT (talk) 11:49, 6 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Let me note that in regard to this discussion, I consider these personal attacks by EllenCT: "devoid of any intellectual honesty" and "vested interests who use it for a veneer of respectability". Morphh   (talk) 23:44, 14 April 2014 (UTC)