Talk:Taxation in the United States/Archive 2

Segments of the tax base who pay little or no taxes
I've reverted this section (again), and I want to specify my reasoning: — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:15, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) It should not be under "Types of taxpayers". It might be appropriate somewhere in the "tax rates" section, if it could be sourced.
 * 2) Reference (1) (IRS statistical report for 2009) is not specifically pointed to a page, and is an interpretation of what is in the document. Even if the specific datum from the document could be identified, the IRS goes out of their way to note that what they call "income" is not what anyone else (including tax computations) calls "income", but a statistic which can be evaluated more-or-less uniformly over 1981-2009.
 * 3) Reference (2) [ITEP 2000] is not a reliable source, as they go out of their way to note that they are not reporting what is actually on the tax returns, but their interpretations of the companies' annual reports. Furthermore, the report shows a clear bias, and we're reporting their interpretation. In particular, "paying no taxes" may refer to have their tax liability wiped out by a past or future NOL (Net Operating Loss), requiring a negative profit in that year.

Segments of the tax base who pay little or no taxes

 * 1) Why should it not be under "types of taxpayers" ? Are "segments of the tax base who pay little or no taxes" not a "type" of taxpayer?
 * 2) I'll do my best to find the specific page. Data, however, are not interpretive to the extent that they are evidence. How the IRS defines "income" is irrelevant to these discussions as the source material is merely a data point indicating that in 2009, 1,470 individuals earning over $1,000,000 paid no income tax. If anything, getting into a discussion about the definition of income is far more interpretive than merely indicating the number of individuals who paid no taxes.
 * 3) In what area of the report do the authors "go out of their way" to say that they are not reporting what is actually on the tax returns? Did you read the report? To quote the first line of the report, "This study examines the federal income taxes paid or not paid by 250 of America's largest corporations in 1996, 1997, and 1998." Additionally, they indicate very clearly in their methodology section how they computed the net effective tax rates for the companies. To quote their methodology section "Conceptually, our method for computing effective corpo- rate tax rates was very straightforward. First, a company’s domestic profit was determined and then current state and local taxes were subtracted to give us net domestic pretax profits before federal income taxes. (We excluded foreign profits since U.S. income taxes rarely apply to them after credits for taxes paid to foreign governments.) We then determined a company’s federal income taxes currently payable. (Current taxes are those that a com- pany is obligated to pay during the year; they do not in- clude taxes “deferred” due to various federal “tax incen- tives” such as accelerated depreciation.) Finally, we divided taxes currently payable by pretax profits to determine effective tax rates." These are not interpretive or exotic mathematical contortions that render the source unreliable. From the sound of your argument, all that needs to be changed is the wording of the article to include "net tax liability" in describing the tax calculation cited.

Finally, the report does not show a clear bias; they are merely reporting tax data...as am I. In what way is this biased? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.16.91.116 (talk) 17:32, 6 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I am reverting the entire edits for the following reasons:


 * 1) This article is about ALL taxes in the USA, not just income taxes. The entire discussion is about just income taxes. Anyone who buys a pack of cigarettes, earns any wages, pays any wages, owns any realty (house, factory, etc), buys any of a wide variety of imported goods must pay tax. This applies to individuals, corporations, etc. The statements as made are demonstrably false, and not supported by the citations.
 * 2) The citations are, for the most part, by lobbying organizations advocating elimination of income taxes, and thus not RS for income taxes.
 * 3) Under this editor's arguments, there would be thousands if not millions of "types" of taxpayers. Such a non-definition is meaningless. Oldtaxguy (talk) 20:05, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

response from 99.16.91.116

 * 1) To your first point, you are simply incorrect. By that logic we should remove the section in the article entitled "income taxes" because, within that section, taxes other than income taxes aren't discussed. Creating a subsection is simply a method of organization that allows one to discuss the subject within that subsection. I would happily include information regarding taxation other than income tax that individuals or corporations do not pay by offsetting their liability under the section entitled "Segments of the tax base who pay little or no taxes". The statements, as made, are not demonstrably false. If you had actually read the source material, you would understand that. Additionally, the points made are substantially supported by the source material. Your claims are simply false. Nevertheless, I invite you to actually demonstrate how my edits are not supported by the source material instead of merely claiming demonstrability.
 * 2) To the second point, the sources are not lobbying organizations. One source is the IRS itself. So, your statement is patently false. Lobbying organizations are interested specifically in advocacy whereas policy institutions conduct research. The sources I've cited are, very simply, research. And, if you spend enough time wading though the mountains of research on the websites of the policy institutions cited, you would find that, in the rare instances in which policy recommendations are made, they are made with precisely the opposite recommendation: not to eliminate taxes but to prevent individuals and corporations from being able to eliminate their tax liability or, worse, to attain a net negative tax liability. Thus, your second point is, obviously, not based in reality or, at the very least, not based on understanding or even having read the sourced material.
 * 3) To the third point, there are millions of "types" of taxpayers. If you think the word "type" denotes a non-definition, perhaps the discussion should move to what language should head the section titled "types of taxpayers" as opposed to attacking an editor for adding reliably sourced material that you don't even have the fastidiousness to read, much less consider, before removing it unwarranted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.16.91.116 (talk) 22:59, 6 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Still wrong.
 * People and/or corporation who pay no income tax are not a type of taxpayer. Types of taxpayers include individuals (and possibly married couples), corporations, partnerships, homeowner associations, and non-profits. (In fact, the entire "types of taxpayer" section probably should be under "income tax", as for example, fuel taxes and sales taxes are paid regardless of the type of entity.)
 * The IRS report mentions people with 2009 1982-modified AGI over $1,000,000 who paid no taxes. The reason they paid no taxes might be because of NOL carryback, people who lost over $1,000,000 to Madoff, or for various reasons which no one in their right mind would consider "loopholes". Your other sources (the Tax Foundation, and ITEP) are absurdly biased, to the point where they could not even be used for apparently factual statements, without crosschecking. What you're quoting is clear opinion for the second, and WP:UNDUE weight for the first. The 43.4 million who pay no taxes may very well have no income.
 * —Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:49, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Arthur & Oldtaxguy, I think you're stepping over the line to suggest the supposed bias of well known organizations and use it as a method of exclusion. All sources have bias, even the IRS and secondary accounts in mainstream media. NPOV does not mean using non-bias sources (impossible task); It means providing proper weight, balance, and attribution to the opinions express in bias sources. The opinions regarding the number of taxpayers that allegedly pay no income taxes is not a tiny minority view, nor is it a new opinion. The notion that because an organization advocates against income taxes or changes in tax policy thus makes it an unreliable source for an income tax article is absurd. You can't exclude critical opinion by stating the sources of that opinion are bias against the article topic - that's the point. I'm not suggesting this information belongs, where it belongs, or doesn't belong based on other merits - the other positions are still valid. I just object to this specific argument regarding bias sources as it's a misapplication of policy. Morphh  (talk) 17:38, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The problem with the non-IRS sources provided is that it is WP:POV to imply there is something wrong with a taxpayer with a large amount of income, but also a large amount of losses, not paying tax. Even if the sources were reliable, it would be questionable to imply that any of the definitions of "income" are related to a normal definition. The IRS specifically notes the definition was adjusted to make it possible to compare incomes from different years, without regard for it being related to the accounting definition of income.
 * As for bias, I'm seeing distortions (not just interpretations which I find questionable) in some of the statements made in ITEP's editorial voice. This makes me wonder whether a similar problem relates to other statements treated as "fact". However, if the statements were noted as opinions and attributed, I wouldn't have as much of an objection.—Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:10, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that if these statements are presented as fact, that's a different situation. Opinions need to be attributed to those holding that point of view. Morphh  (talk) 21:02, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

A very short essay
It seems that in matters concerning death or taxes, opinions count more than facts to many people. Wikipedia strives to be scholarly and based on reliable sources. Opinions may be quoted, if attributed and if it is stated that they are opinions, subject to WP:UNDUE. But many opinions about death and taxes are clothed as "fact" by the authors. Morpph's deleted commentary was particularly insightful in this regard.

WP requires that a source be reliable, and preferable a secondary source. Published scholarly research is given high priority in the reliability pecking order. Newspapers are given high priority when reporting events, and no priority when expressing an editorial comment. We as editors are to decide what is WP:RS and what is not. How do we tell the difference?

Scholarship traditionally requires that research details must be documented, available, verifiable, and replicable. Failure of any of these generally results in the research being considered unreliable, no matter how sound it may seem. For example, Jean-Baptiste_Lamarck proposed, researched, published, and made available extensive research on genetics. Others verified his data. Much of his work is the foundation of modern genetics. However, no one was ever able to replicate his work on one theory, because they could not get the type of lizard he used to breed. His Inheritance of acquired characteristics theory was discarded in favor of another theory. Neither has been proven, but the other theory met the four standards. Lamarck now warrants only 2 sentences in Genetics.

What, then, should we make of work by Urban Institute, Tax Foundation, and others who openly espouse particular views on tax? They publish extensive papers purporting to be research. They often do not make any details of their research available to anyone; they state openly that they have modified key measures of key items; we are asked to just trust them. Is their work scholarly? Who knows. Are details available, verifiable or replicable? Clearly not. I therefore posit that they should not be considered reliable sources. They are just opinions.

I have opinions, too. After 35+ years advising clients on detailed tax matters, I think mine are pretty good. However, I refrain from expressing them. They are, after all, just opinions.

As a final note, we should be discussing what is, not what could, might, or should be or have been. Respectfully, Oldtaxguy (talk) 03:03, 8 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I think you may be crossing the line between what is a low quality source vs an unreliable source, but that depends on what the material is trying to reference. It may be a great source to reference a critical opinion, but a poor source to reference a fact regarding revenue collections. I agree that we assign priority and use the most reliable and scholarly sources to reference content, though that's not to say they're without bias - scholarly research is also often commissioned by special interests. We use weight in determining what should or should not be included. We also give a higher priority to secondary sources. So if the WSJ reported the Urban Institute's opinion, that would be a reliable source for presenting both weight and opinion. If an opinion regarding tax policy is due weight, then it is perfectly acceptable, though not preferred, to use such an organization to substantiate that opinion. They're not a blog site or something that just popped up. Whether I agree with them or not, they are respected organizations and their opinion is part of the country's discourse. We should not use them as a primary source for an opinion if it has no prominence in other reliable sources though.


 * We don't exclude the opinion because we disagree with the methods used in presenting the argument. Critics always modify the proposals, rules, argument to fit their agenda. I include government research all the time that provides no methodology for their findings vs such organizations that do - reverse problem. It is our job to make sure the reader understands the differences in points of view and the proper comparison, not exclude them based on our own bias. If the opinion is of sufficient weight to include, we can use such sources to reference that opinion. This is common Wikipedia practice and policy. As far as what we should be discussing, is not the could, might, and should be a critique of what is? We're required to include such critique based on prominence. You're statement of "Newspapers are given high priority when reporting events, and no priority when expressing an editorial comment." is questionable (see WP:RS) - it's fine for opinion.


 * Tax policy is not science but, to address your lizard example, that would likely be an issue of weight (not RS), giving it two sentences due to the prominence and coverage in the overall topic. It's not because the published research was an unreliable source, it's because it was not due weight because of the other competing theories and overall topic coverage within Genetics. Similarly, our topic might also only be worthy of a sentence or two. I didn't comment on weight or the content itself. I objected to one of the reasons given for exclusion, which is based on a misuse/misunderstanding of policy regarding sources. Again, I'm not sure how productive this is since I don't dispute the content arguments, which is why I deleted my prior post. We're going to spend more energy debating policy points then actually addressing the content. Morphh  (talk) 11:43, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

resource
More Firms Enjoy Tax-Free Status by John D. McKinnon 10.January.2012 Wall Street Journal; excerpt ... 97.87.29.188 (talk) 00:10, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * As often is the case with the press, the story tries to sensationalize the ordinary. From the article, it appears that the corporation in question is an S Corporation. As such, the shareholders are taxed on corporate profits, just like partners in a partnership. Such treatment is limited to corporations with only 100 shareholders, all of whom must be U.S. resident individuals or citizens. No special treatment here, just the ability of a closely held corporation to be treated the same as a partnership. The article's tone and misleading nature indicate that the article is not a reliable source. Oldtaxguy (talk) 04:37, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * As often is the case with the press, the story tries to sensationalize the ordinary. From the article, it appears that the corporation in question is an S Corporation. As such, the shareholders are taxed on corporate profits, just like partners in a partnership. Such treatment is limited to corporations with only 100 shareholders, all of whom must be U.S. resident individuals or citizens. No special treatment here, just the ability of a closely held corporation to be treated the same as a partnership. The article's tone and misleading nature indicate that the article is not a reliable source. Oldtaxguy (talk) 04:37, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Employment growth by top tax rate image
I've started a centralised discussion here regarding File:Employment growth by top tax rate.jpg, which is used in this article. Gabbe (talk) 09:59, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

CRS report on taxation of business types
The recent report "A Brief Overview of Business Types and Their Tax Treatment" looks like a promising source for the article. II | (t - c) 00:17, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Chart that needs to be removed


If you look at the creation history of this chart (by clicking on it) you can see that it was created by VictorD7 and is sourced to an unreliable right-wing organization known as the Peter G. Peterson Foundation. If the material is reliable and worth mentioning, it needs to be directly sourced to a weighted organization, which includes scholarship coming out of academia. VictorD7 has been insistent on pushing his right-wing agenda, which is harmful to creating a neutral presentation of data.

The reason for not being able to find a reliable source presenting this chart is because there isn't one that exists. The Tax Policy Center created no chart; the Peter G. Peterson Foundation did. By leaving out the dollar figures from Footnote #1 there is no context in relation to the tax rates, which creates a highly biased presentation. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 11:08, 5 November 2013 (UTC)


 * The PGPF is a perfectly fine source (they just drew the chart anyway) and the chart's numbers come from the Tax Policy Center (feel free to compare the figures), a perfectly fine liberal source widely cited by media and scholars. I'm not sure why me being the one who gained permission for the chart's use is relevant. The CTJ/ITEP chart it replaced was drawn by a Wikipedia user (reliable source?), and its data was produced by a leftist think tank with a liberal lobbying arm. Even if one accepted your off the mark premises, the more appropriate, up to date chart should be the least of your concerns. Also, why does it need dollar figures? How is it "biased" for an effective rate chart to not have dollar figures? That would be extra information, and they change significantly over time anyway.  Your comment is irrational. It's more important that it contains informative component breakdowns, which the previous (disputed, truly biased) chart didn't. Finally, your hypocritical, off the mark personal attack against me isn't conducive to a productive discussion. VictorD7 (talk) 11:24, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure it makes sense to discuss this in both places... so I'm just going to point to the other discussion thread as most of the points are the same. Talk:Progressivity_in_United_States_income_tax  Morphh   (talk) 14:07, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I moved the graph that EllenCT added to the section "Levels and types of taxation" and restored the federal graph. They show different things.  As for corporate tax incidence, that can be measured (modeled) in many ways (some split the burden with shareholders and some pass it all to the consumer) - there is no defined "correct" way to measure that, just better models that reflect reality.  The TPC is a more neutral source than the CTJ/ITEP.  Since the TPC graph breaks down the components and covers federal taxes, it should be included.  I'm not sure how useful the CTJ graph is with bundling all the burdens of the 50 states, which have a wide range of tax rates and progressivity, into a single graph.  So I question its inclusion but in any case, it's not a replacement for the other graph.    Morphh   (talk) 14:49, 18 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I would agree that the chart does a decent job of taking complex and boring tax data and showing it graphically. The Tax Policy Center as a source is certainly a standard verifiable source for the data itself.  The chart should stay in the article.  N2e (talk) 00:31, 21 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Remove for the reasons at . The chart is propaganda intended to try to continue to lower taxes on the rich, which are more accurately illustrated by the ITEP chart. EllenCT (talk) 01:03, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * There is little basis for that assertion. The TPC is well respected and considered neutral.  If anything, they fall center-left.  Your objects thus far have been inaccurate and the graph you're trying to insert is bias on multiple accounts.   Morphh   (talk) 05:46, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Do you know of any peer reviewed source which agrees with those unreviewed TPC numbers? All of the peer reviewed WP:SECONDARY sources agree with the ITEP graph. Here is an example WP:SECONDARY peer reviewed source which agrees with the ITEP corporate tax incidence. Note that not all documents on the ITEP or CTJ web sites are peer reviewed. EllenCT (talk) 12:51, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I see no mention of the ITEP figures in that publication or that the TPC are incorrect. Also, that's not a secondary source.  You're trying to source a model of tax incidence on corporate taxes.  It's not even clear ITEP uses that model based on their FAQ and I haven't seen their original publication.  You're failing verifiability.  You can't take a graph that combines over 100 tax systems, pull out one tax in that graph, suggest that one tax uses an incidence model that is peer reviewed and thus superior as justification for the entire graph.  That paper does not make that data peer reviewed.  As for the TPC data, they use the Urban-Brookings microsimulation model which is peer reviewed. The model is similar to those used by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT), and the Treasury's Office of Tax Analysis (OTA).  In addition to those, the PolitiFact secondary source I linked to below uses the TPC data in their fact check, suggesting that it is a trusted source over more partisan publications.   Morphh   (talk) 13:57, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The source is secondary because it's a meta-analysis of authenticated data sets. Just because you are unable to recognize publication categories or unable to do the verification math doesn't mean I'm failing verification. Do you think Geithner's tables include sales tax? It's the most regressive. EllenCT (talk) 16:34, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * That publication makes no mention of the ITEP or the CTJ, so how is it a secondary source for the graph? It's about the corporate income tax, so how is it a secondary source for the other 100+ taxes in that graph?  You're not making any sense.  Geithner's tables didn't include state level taxes and neither does the TPC graph - it's the same data.   Morphh   (talk) 16:59, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

I am confused about two things shown on this chart: Cheers! bd2412 T 02:31, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) First, it has separate lines for "Top 1 Percent" and "Top 0.1 Percent" - is the first of these lines actually representative of those between 1% and .01%, or does it include everyone over the top 1%, including the top 0.1%? If the latter, then it seems that people in the last group are being counted twice, which does not occur anywhere else on the chart. Is there a difference if they are separated out?
 * 2) Second, I notice that "estate tax" is included in the last few lines, but it is my understanding that people do not pay an estate tax in years in which they don't die, and that the estate tax is not connected to "cash income" for the year. For example, a person could have made a billion dollars over a fifty year period, end then retired and made no cash income for several years; their estate tax on death would be against their billion dollar estate, even if their actual cash income for that year placed them in the lowest quintile. Does this chart reflect this?
 * Are you referring to the chart in the previous section, or the ITEP chart? EllenCT (talk) 12:37, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Sounds like the previous section. On the first question, I believe they are similar to the other percentiles, but it doesn't specifically state that.  The TCP data for the graph is here but   here is the breakout of percentiles which include 20, 40, 60, 80, 90, 95, 99, 99.9.  So I think the label "Top 1%" was just a cosmetic choice as oppose to saying the "99-99.9 percentile" in the chart/graph.   As for the second question, other publications from the TPC state that they measure estate tax if the person dies that year.  Morphh   (talk) 14:52, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I meant the previous section. I am still leery of presenting estate taxes in a way that gives the impression that they are connected to cash income for the year in which the tax is paid, and I would be quite surprised if income-earning taxpayers in the fourth quintile and the lower portion of the and lower fifth quintile were not paying at least some estate taxes, since most small business owners reside there. bd2412  T 18:30, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The estate tax measure for the lower percentiles is less than .05 according to the data, so the TPC doesn't include it in their chart. I understand your concern, but at least in this graph, each tax is clearly indicated and the methodology for the tax is known.  Here is their methodology for the estate tax.  It is described in full here: Burman, Lim, and Rohaly (2008). "Back from the Grave: Revenue and Distributional Effects of Reforming the Federal Estate Tax."   Morphh   (talk) 19:03, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I see where the disconnect is occurring. According to the paper, the economic income against which the estate tax is measured is "a broad measure of income that includes economic returns to capital regardless of whether they are realized or not", which is something a bit different from "cash income". Assessment of the estate tax forces all property to be assessed under the stepped-up basis, thereby generating cash income for the decedent on paper wherever property values have increased since the purchase of the property. Under that measure, even someone whose actual cash income in any given year never exceeded, say, an inflation-adjusted hundred thousand dollars, could jet up to the top five percent based on the combined value of all of their property. Of course, their estate would only be susceptible to the estate tax in the first place if it was worth over $5.25 million, and this status would only be achieved following their death. bd2412  T 20:47, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Summary - It looks like EllenCT is objecting to the corporate tax in this graph, suggesting it is not peer reviewed or that the ITEP graph model is better. The TPC uses the same method as the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and the Treasury's Office of Tax Analysis (OTA). Their model is peer reviewed in many publications. Their figures are considered neutral and used to fact check other tax assertions. Here is what the TPC actually does with Corporate income taxes:  In addition, it looks like the ITEP, based on their FAQ, places all of the burden on capital holders (the reverse of what it seems EllenCT is arguing): So it's not even clear that the publication that EllenCT is using as a secondary source for the ITEP, which suggest a high burden attributed to labor, is the methodology the ITEP uses. See the section below for additional reasons why the ITEP graph is not suitable for inclusion. In conclusion, this graph is supported by TPC data, which is considered a non-partisan source. They use standard models that have been peer reviewed and are generally accepted. Morphh  (talk) 17:59, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, Ellen has been confusing "consumers" with "labor" as demonstrated by this discussion: . I was ready and willing from the beginning to refute her claims about the state of "peer reviewed literature", in part by quoting from her own sources, but her failure to support her premise regarding ITEP's corporate attribution methodology, especially in the face of proof debunking it, made the tangent irrelevant to that particular discussion. Fortunately you've gone a long way toward doing that here, lest other posters come along and get partially misled by her claims. VictorD7 (talk) 00:11, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * You have obviously not found a single peer-reviewed publication which agrees with you, although you have apparently made Morphh believe that the TPC website is peer reviewed. Are your urges to boast stronger than your desire to show taxes as progressive for the top 1% when you know corporations pass about half to their customers? EllenCT (talk) 07:11, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Your own meta-analysis, along with some others I found, disagree with your alleged survey of "peer reviewed literature" (even ITEP does, as I quoted). You don't know the difference between "consumers" and "labor" (you misunderstood the study you linked to), you refuse to address facts like ITEP attributing all of its measurable state corporate incidence to the top 5% (especially the top 1%. Half to consumers? You mean high end jewelry shoppers?), you continue to dishonestly portray my personal comments on the matter despite me correcting you with linked quotes numerous times, and you continue to falsely project your own, explicitly stated POV "desire" onto me when I'm simply citing the most prominent sources (the TPC being left leaning at that). Ellen, you outright said in the below section that your motivation was to show that the top 1% pays less in taxes than the rest of the top 20%, even citing Warren Buffet. Wikipedia is not the venue for crusading. VictorD7 (talk) 08:46, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The meta analysis says corporations pass about half to three fourths of their taxes to consumers, and you're pushing charts and sources that say zero when you know it's nowhere near zero. But by all means, keep digging. EllenCT (talk) 11:33, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * That meta analysis has no WP:WEIGHT. It was just released in March of this year - it's a published model that has no accepted use.  Compared with the vast use and acceptance of models by the CBO, Treasury, and other tax policy research institutes - it's still WP:FRINGE research.  That model is not even used by the ITEP graph you're trying to include as a replacement.   Also for clarification, the meta analysis discusses a greater share attributed to labor, not consumers, and that attribution in the TPC data is not zero.  To play on your last statement, there is no digging left for this argument - the hole has been dug.   Morphh   (talk) 14:33, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * That was the data set review on page 17 here which VictorD7 called a meta-analysis, which it is not. The paper you linked to is also a WP:SECONDARY source because it is the latest in a long line of actual meta-analyses, all of which are generally in agreement because none of which say corporations don't pass any taxes to consumers. Both are secondary sources, but only the Altshuler paper is peer reviewed. The Harris paper, like almost all of the rest of the TPC publications, was not peer reviewed, but its table on page 17 lists peer reviewed sources. The fact remains that, as VictorD7 has said, corporations do not pass 0% of their taxes on to their consumer customers, but closer to 50%, which means the ITEP graph is correct and the Peterson graph is intentionally misleading in this case. There is simply no counter-argument to these established facts which are applicable to the WP:V policy preferring peer reviewed sources from academic journals in the mathematical sciences and historical arts. EllenCT (talk) 02:24, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I think we may need outside review. I'm not sure how to continue this discussion.  What is in the charts, the models, and the Wikipedia policies is not as you state.   Morphh   (talk) 16:40, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Do we actually need any chart? bd2412  T 17:15, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
 * If it comes down to it, no I guess we don't. I do think the graph enhances the article and it seems wrong to remove a legitimate graph (rewarding) for what appears to be illogical reasons, repetition of disproven assertions, and misapplication of verifiability policy, thus encouraging similar conflicts in the future based on the same reasoning and tactics.  I rather see a consensus reject the arguments made.  But yes, if we wanted to come to agreement that the article would be better served with no graph of tax rates, I'd be fine with that discussion (just not based on the reasons EllenCT has put forward).   Morphh   (talk) 19:48, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Are we going to remove all the page's other charts too? Because I strongly object to removing a perfectly legitimate chart, one of the most informative and unbiased charts in the article, simply because a disruptive editor who has consistently behaved irrationally at best is spiteful. She hasn't even bothered to start a section about it or construct a coherent argument. I think the chart should be re-added so such behavior isn't encouraged in the future. VictorD7 (talk) 22:26, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Ellen said: "The meta analysis says corporations pass about half to three fourths of their taxes to consumers". False. I challenge Ellen to quote where anything she's linked to says that.

Ellen said: "...as VictorD7 has said, corporations do not pass 0% of their taxes on to their consumer customers, but closer to 50%". False. I never said any such thing, which is why she hasn't directly quoted me either.

Ellen said: "which means the ITEP graph is correct and the Peterson graph is intentionally misleading in this case". False on both counts. The ITEP graph attributes corp. taxes to capital, even approvingly citing the CBO position and railing against the notion of attributing it to consumers. The "Peterson graph" is simply a faithful and visually informative representation of Tax Policy Center data. Presumably Ellen actually has a beef with the TPC, though she has yet to offer a coherent, rational critique of it or even start a Talk Page section for the purpose of ostensibly doing so.

The TPC analysis of analyses Ellen linked to (which doesn't even mention the word "consumers" on page 17, contrary to her claims) cites several attempts to empirically study the issue that reach wildly divergent conclusions, along with criticisms of some of the studies by other studies. TPC adopted the various results as assumptions, tested them each, and reached this conclusion: "''Most economic studies of corporate tax incidence acknowledge that capital will bear the bulk of the burden in the short run, but there is little consensus about the long-run incidence of the tax....This paper reaches three related conclusions. First, because wage and capital income are highly correlated, higher-income taxpayers will pay a relatively larger share of the tax, regardless of whether the corporate income tax falls on labor or capital. Second, even if capital income is broadly defined to include income accrued to tax-preferred retirement accounts, this conclusion is little-changed. Third, the incidence of the corporate tax has only a modest effect on overall progressivity simply because the tax collects only a small fraction of federal revenues....The paper uses the Tax Policy Center microsimulation model to estimate the progressivity of the corporate tax—and the tax code in general—under the alternative assumptions that capital bears 20 percent, 50 percent, or 80 percent of the corporate tax burden. Under all three assumptions, average corporate tax rates generally rise with income, indicating progressivity... Furthermore, because the corporate income tax is small relative to other tax sources, assumptions about corporate tax incidence have little effect on the overall progressivity of the tax code. This paper illustrates this point by estimating average corporate tax rates under the assumption of doubled corporate tax revenue relative to the baseline. This scenario only modestly changes the tax code’s overall progressivity. These conclusions form a single lesson about corporate tax incidence and progressivity: while corporate tax incidence may affect the allocation of resources across sectors and borders, it has little impact on the corporate tax’s progressivity. Even under drastically differing assumptions, the corporate tax is a progressive aspect of the tax code.''"

That's from Ellen's own source. Here's a reminder of what her primary source, ITEP, has to say: "How does ITEP estimate the incidence of corporate income taxes? It is generally agreed that corporate income taxes, at both the state and federal level, fall primarily on owners of capital. In accordance with this theory, ITEP’s incidence analyses of state corporate income taxes typically distribute the incidence of the tax according to nationwide ownership of capital assets such as stocks and bonds.....The incidence of the tax in ITEP’s analyses is generally quite progressive, because the vast majority of capital income nationwide is held by the very best-off Americans." And ITEP's lobbying arm, CTJ (Ellen's actual graph source): "The Corporate Income Tax Is Borne by Shareholders and Thus Very Progressive....'Corporate leaders sometimes assert that corporate income taxes are really borne by workers or consumers. But virtually all tax experts, including those at the Congressional Budget Office, the Congressional Research Service and the Treasury Department, have concluded that the owners of stock and other capital ultimately pay most corporate taxes.'''[5] Further, corporate leaders would not lobby Congress to lower these taxes if they did not believe their shareholders (the owners of corporations) ultimately paid them. (In contrast, corporations do not lobby for lower payroll taxes, which are borne by workers)."''

Here's a survey of peer reviewed literature by a CBO employee, which is far more credible and authoritative than Ellen's shaky personal opinions: "For years following the publication of Harberger’s seminal paper in 1962, his conclusion—that the burden of the corporate tax tends to fall entirely on capital—has largely withstood modifications to his model’s underlying assumptions...''Perhaps because of the early uncertainty about how to estimate corporate tax incidence, research initially turned to new methods of empirical analysis. Krzyzaniak and Musgrave (1963) used emerging regression techniques to explain rates of return on capital as a function of tax rates. They found that more than 100 percent of the tax was shifted to consumers in the short run. This result was inconsistent with theoretical models of profit maximization in competitive markets. In several studies, economists tested Krzyzaniak and Musgrave’s results, some finding contradictory results and some confirming the analysis. Cragg, Harberger, and Mieszkowski (1967) cautioned that one should be skeptical of a framework generating fragile and volatile outcomes. Around the same time that Krzyzaniak and Musgrave were conducting their empirical analysis, Harberger (1962) was developing his general equilibrium model of corporate tax incidence. Ultimately, because of the non-robust results the empirical studies offered, the research community appeared to have abandoned the empirical line of research in favor of Harberger’s model. Harberger’s model employed a drastically different approach to the direct empirical analysis by constructing a theoretical two-sector general equilibrium model to trace the effects of a tax on capital income in one sector. A primary contribution of his model to the early analysis of corporate tax incidence was that the burden of the tax is borne by factor income—capital and labor—and is not shifted forward to consumers....Based on his model specifications and his estimates for the values of the relevant elasticities, Harberger concluded that the majority of the tax burden fell on capital. Following the introduction of Harberger’s model, numerous studies made further refinements and adjustments to the original model. Although those studies sometimes yielded different results, none of the studies ruled out the possibility that, under largely reasonable assumptions, capital would bear a large share of the corporate tax burden." (after analyzing four more recent studies with divergent results...) "Taken together, these results, albeit imperfect, suggest that an assumption that 40 percent of the corporate tax burden falls on labor and 60 percent falls on capital is consistent with open-economy models and with the current empirical evidence regarding the appropriate parameter values for those models"...(after reviewing further studies and approaches...) "This review suggests that the assumption of an open economy is not sufficient to conclude that much of the burden of the corporate tax is shifted to labor. Indeed, assumptions of highly mobile capital and highly substitutable products, internationally, are needed to ensure that the majority of the tax is borne by labor. Relaxing the assumptions of perfect mobility changes the burden allocation to indicate that, even in an open economy, a majority of the corporate tax burden, perhaps 60 percent, is still borne by capital. In addition, concerns arise over the reliance on these empirically-based general equilibrium models, extensively developed as they are, because they cannot fully reflect important aspects of the U.S. corporate tax or the nature of global interactions with other countries. Existing evidence of the linkage between U.S. tax policy and that of other countries suggests, at least with regard to the burden of the corporate income tax, that the United States operates in more of a closed economy than these models assume, even with the imperfect international mobility assumptions, suggesting capital would bear the bulk of the corporate tax. The nature of these models is to measure changes in the corporate tax and may not be appropriate for allocating the full amount of an existing tax. Given that the worldwide corporate tax should fall on worldwide capital, an alternative approach to determining the incidence of the current corporate tax may be to allocate the worldwide average to capital and to allocate country deviations from that average as changes in the corporate tax, using the open-economy model’s estimates. Under this approach, more than 90 percent of the burden of the corporate tax should be allocated to capital. Even when using the standard open-economy models, it is clear that minor additions of rigidity through immobile capital or imperfect product substitution can result in capital bearing a major portion of the tax. The open economy assumption should not be synonymous with the conclusion that labor bears more of the burden of the corporate tax than capital does.''"

Ellen's Altshuler paper also starts by acknowledging the 1962 Harberger study that found "the corporate tax is likely borne by all owners of capital" and that has held sway for decades, calling it "seminal". The paper goes on to analyze some recent studies finding that labor bears a large portion of corporate taxes, but cites some other recent studies that disagree. The word "consumers" doesn't appear in the Altshuler piece. It also features industry specific wage burden impacts. Obviously people don't just shop at the company they work for.

So we've got the experts agreeing that the model showing capital bearing most or all of the corporate tax burden has held sway in scholarly research for decades. In recent years there's been an increase in studies exploring the possibility that under different assumptions labor might bear at least a significant minority of the burden (though the ranges differ sharply), at least in the long term, though those studies have been criticized by other studies and the long term empirical situation lacks a clear consensus.

Meanwhile all three tax incidence sources have traditionally attributed all corporate taxes to capital, though very recently the CBO and Tax Policy Center have modified their methodologies to attribute most to capital and a minority to labor, including in the TPC chart being discussed. ITEP apparently still attributes corporate taxes solely to capital. Ellen's own link points out that corporate taxes are still progressive under even drastically differing capital/labor incidence assumptions (by contrast, consumption taxes are generally considered considered to be regressive), and are too small a component of federal revenue to significantly impact overall progressivity anyway. Even then the TPC/PGPF chart helpfully color codes the component breakdown so readers can see the corporate tax and set it aside if they want to. This entire corporate incidence tangent by Ellen is a red herring, and her statements have proved false on multiple levels. VictorD7 (talk) 01:31, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * VictorD7 said, "I tend to agree with you that corporate income taxes are passed on to consumers." I will no longer cooperate with this transparent pathetic attempt to try to disrupt Wikipedia to push his political point of view. EllenCT (talk) 02:41, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * It's dishonest of you to add the period inside the quote, as I've warned you before . Here's my actual quote: "I tend to agree with you that corporate income taxes are passed on to consumers and others, but then I think other taxes are at least partially passed on in various ways too, as I illustrated earlier with my income tax hike on the rich guy comments. That said, if one is going to develop effective tax rate incidence charts, then corporate taxes should be imputed to the owners, since they're the ones most directly paying them." It was all the same post, Ellen; not even a later update. In the past you've even falsely accused me of stating that consumers bear "half" the corporate tax burden, and your repeated mischaracterizations despite me repeatedly setting the record straight demonstrate bad faith. It's unclear why my personal views are even important to you.  You should invest more time into actually constructing an argument for your position. The context of the first exchange is also instructive in highlighting your poor reading comprehension and general incompetence, since that very quote was part of a corrective reply to you after you somehow misinterpreted the TPC page to the point where you claimed that group attributed taxes to "employees, and not even the owners". I had to spoonfeed you the pertinent sentences saying otherwise, at which point you exhibited surprise and indicated you'd study the matter later. VictorD7 (talk) 04:50, 26 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Still waiting for your source quote about "consumers", and for you to address the actual surveys of peer review literature I posted above that refute your claims.  VictorD7 (talk) 04:42, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I note that VictorD7 has still been unable to find any peer reviewed sources which agree with his newfound belief that corporations don't pass any of their taxes to their customers. I remain as unconvinced and disapproving as ever. EllenCT (talk) 05:43, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Still waiting for Ellen's "peer reviewed" quote about "consumers" bearing "half to three fourths" of the corporate tax burden. Or anything pertinent about "consumers". VictorD7 (talk) 07:21, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Victor, while I know this discussion is extremely hair pulling - please WP:NPA. Morphh   (talk) 14:51, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Ellen, since you keep repeating several things which I find contrary to the evidence, could you please answer these questions: Morphh   (talk) 14:58, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Why do you believe the ITEP attributes corporate incidence to consumers when their documents seem to suggest otherwise? Do you have a source from ITEP that describes their methodology for that graph as different from what their FAQ states?
 * Considering WP:WEIGHT, why do you believe the graph should attribute incidence to consumers, when in practice, none of the leading governmental organizations and independent tax policy centers, who use generally accepted peer-review methodologies, attribute the incidence directly to consumers (though they may be represented to some extent in the other groups)?
 * What type of evidence are you looking for that would convince you?
 * Gladly! (1) Because the ITEP's paper series and website is not peer reviewed, and they clearly have been slacking off letting people who can't get their ideas through peer review edit their website. (2) Because economic models which do not attribute about half of corporate taxes to consumers make less accurate predictions than those that do. (3) If you were to phone or email the ITEP people in charge of their graphs, and ask them to publish a clarification of these issues, that would convince me that you are interested in the truth. I've reached out to them but I don't want you to take my word for it if I have to do it again. I am sure they will help. Please let me know if that is something you are willing to do. EllenCT (talk) 03:20, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll respond in reverse order. (3) I have emailed ITEP asking for clarification.  (2) I understand that's your opinion, but it's not the current consensus of mainstream economics.  (1)  I don't think you answered the question, unless emailing ITEP was the response.  The ITEP website and regular publications, like most tax policy institutes (I expect you meant to say TPC), is not what we would generally call peer reviewed.   Few websites or paper series that provide statistic updates using existing models are considered for peer-review publications.  Peer-reviewed journal publications are usually for new methodologies and research.  Here is the corporate tax analysis that is the next article in that same March 2013 NTJ you posed earlier, which concludes 82% capital, 18% labor.  Here is the previous article in that same March 2013 NTJ which places more than 90% of the corporate tax on domestic capital.  And the one prior to that, which finds labor has thus far remained insulated from the corporate tax.  Point being, peer-review in itself does not make scholarly consensus.   New stuff comes out all the time - it will be reviewed by the CBO, Treasury, and tax institutes who may adjust their future models based on the totality of research.  What you will often see in new publications is a previous published model being sourced and used, which is the case with the TPC model.  So while I wait for my email response from ITEP, I'll add another question.


 * Why do you believe that the Urban-Brookings microsimulation model is not peer-reviewed? There are lots of National Tax Journal hits and it's similar to the assumptions made by the CBO and Treasury. Morphh   (talk) 16:21, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Now do you understand why I think trying to push a propaganda chart saying 0% is so pathetic? The rich abuse the trust of libertarians. EllenCT (talk) 01:40, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't understand what you're talking about. Please tell me what you think the breakdown is of the TPC corporate incidence and that of the ITEP (listed above in block quote).  TPC attributes 20% to labor, if that's what you're referencing, it's not 0%.  I don't even want to know how libertarians got pulled into this.   Morphh   (talk) 03:48, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I have never said that the peer reviewed literature does not present a range of figures, only that the most recent and reliable peer reviewed secondary literature is usually just over 50%. The rich all too often manipulate statistics to try to falsely appeal to libertarians and the protestant work ethic. Arguing that corporations never pass taxes on to their consumers when you know that they do is a symptom of having fallen for it. EllenCT (talk) 03:56, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Does the ITEP use over 50%? Based on their FAQ, they're the one at 0%. In any case, of the four articles published in the 2013 NTJ, only one suggested labor was a major factor (the one you referenced). None of them suggested consumers. While they may be the most recent, that works against them as they've not had any impact yet on mainstream economics - they fall into a tiny minority - newly published theories and models. What makes them relevant is practical use by organizations like the CBO, Treasury, and tax policy institutes after they review all the latest research. As for most reliable, that's pure speculation - they can't all be the most reliable. We're not here to cherry pick what you think is the most reliable. We'll use the industry consensus, which the TPC does. Morphh  (talk) 04:30, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * How do you get 0% as a consensus after citing several papers, none of which are near 0%? EllenCT (talk) 06:51, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * It sounds like you're confusing labor with consumers. Several of those studies show incidence on labor, but I don't see any of them concluding incidence on consumers.  Only one of those papers mentions consumers (Gravelle) while discussing the work of Harberger (1962) and Krzyzaniak and Musgrave (1963).  So I'm not sure what you're talking about.  Based on those four NTJ publications, they tend to place incidence on capital and labor to varying degrees.  The point though is that these publications are not relevant - they represent new research in the field, not the current scientific consensus.  We shouldn't look to them for the basis of weight.    Morphh   (talk) 15:22, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Labor and consumers have a huge overlap in the U.S., more than 85% on a per-dollar basis if I remember correctly. I forget what the two per-person subset ratios are, but the point is that they are both mostly the same populations. EllenCT (talk) 01:04, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Even if we take a 50% labor / 50% capital model, which doesn't appear to be used outside of research papers, it's still highly progressive with over 50% of the burden falling on the top 10% and half of that falling on the top 1%. So, you're not going to see some dramatic regressive new picture.   Morphh   (talk) 13:31, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Consumers are about 69% of the economy per dollar and labor is 58.5% per capita. The number of unemployed people who are consumers is relatively small per dollar. And the number of employed people who aren't consumers is very close to zero too. I don't understand how the tax rates you made me word so carefully on Income tax in the United States would lead you to believe that reality is anything more progressive than what the ITEP graph shows, because sales, payroll, and property tax are all more regressive than income tax. EllenCT (talk) 14:51, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Ellen said: "Labor and consumers have a huge overlap in the U.S.". I'll say. 100% of people with jobs (and at least most without) are consumers (many are also investors/corporate owners). But there's still a huge difference between taxing consumption (consumers) and taxing income (labor). The studies are referring to the mechanics of incidence. VictorD7 (talk) 19:07, 31 December 2013 (UTC)


 * As I've said before, even if ITEP does quietly attribute half to consumers, since all their public stances do the opposite, it would only undermine their credibility as a source. It would mean they've been publicly supporting the corporate tax as "very progressive" and railing against the notion of attributing to consumers while secretly scoring otherwise to make overall taxation look less progressive than it really is; dealing off both sides of the deck. Then there's the matter of why their state numbers (linked in various places on this page) only attribute corporate taxes to the top 5%, with the highest rate going to the top 1%, if they're attributing half to consumers. VictorD7 (talk) 19:55, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * If Ellen refuses to answer the questions we should restore the legitimate chart. VictorD7 (talk) 19:26, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Victor, you need to answer the questions about this exact issue you said you would answer weeks ago. Are you true to your word? The Peterson Foundation chart is certainly not legitimate, the ITEP chart is the legitimate one. EllenCT (talk) 06:49, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Is it possible to create a chart that reflects the points upon which everyone agrees; or conversely, to present both views and point to the sources contesting each? I'm a big fan of teaching the controversy. If there are groups out there who believe different things, then we should explain both sets of beliefs, and explain why each thinks the other is wrong (so long as there are sources for the propositions and counter-propositions at issue). bd2412  T 20:49, 29 December 2013 (UTC)


 * No, because there aren't two different coherent points of view here, as evidenced by one editor refusing to answer vital questions or addressing posted evidence. VictorD7 (talk) 05:25, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Bullshit. Victor is the one who has been avoiding answering questions for weeks now. EllenCT (talk) 06:49, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with your philosophy, but this is probably not the best article to dig into varying models of corporate tax incidence. It's a high level article and I think we're dealing with WP:VALID. But let me pose this, which would be necessary to implement that idea; if we were to create a new graph of the corporate tax across these percentiles, can Ellen provide a source that specifically presents the data for federal corporate tax burdens using the methodology she suggests?  To be clear, I don't want a link to the ITEP graph.  I'd like actual data that is specific to (or specifically breaks out) corporate taxes with a clear explanation of the methodology.     Morphh   (talk) 16:08, 30 December 2013 (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) 18:43, 1 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't have any objection to updating this graph with a newer graph, but I looked at the source and the data does appear to be supported via Table 14 on page 24 (section As a Percent of Income) for "Distribution of Federal Taxes Under Current Law in 2000". Seems we're cleaning house on several graphs, so it shouldn't be hard to update this one as well in the process.   Morphh   (talk) 20:36, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Employment Graphs
I noticed these two graphs in the article. The seem POV and I don't see how they're helpful to the average reader. Morphh  (talk) 20:23, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia has an article on Effect of taxes and subsidies on price. I would propose that we separate out materials like this into an article on Effect of taxes on employment, and let that be the venue for presenting the various claims about the taxation/employment relationship. Of course, that issue is not unique to the United States anyway. bd2412  T 20:34, 31 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Clearly POV and a dubious conclusion at that. Those charts should go. They're sourced to a NY Times opinion piece attacking Romney's tax plan during the height of the 2012 campaign. One author, Zidar, is just a Berkeley grad student and the column's coauthor worked for Bill Clinton's Council of Economic Advisers.  Zidar also claims to have "recently" worked on the Council of Economic Advisers, presumably under Obama.  The chart I'm adding to the right should go too. Its labeled source is the Congressional Research Service, but it was written by Thomas Hungerford, an Obama donor, also during the height of the 2012 campaign, and was retracted by an embarrassed CRS after widespread criticism of its shoddy methodology, and for being a transparent, low quality partisan joke. I think it was re-released in 2013 in an altered form (the graph is sourced to the original version), but that has received widespread criticism too, and this page shouldn't be about making political arguments on complex, hotly disputed issues. VictorD7 (talk) 22:14, 31 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree that this page is not the place for such arguments; however, complex, hotly disputed issues are usually notable topics worthy of encyclopedic coverage, and we should therefore have an article on the issue somewhere else. Obviously, Wikipedia can't champion one position or the other, but we can explain the arguments that have been made by partisans for various biases. bd2412  T 22:19, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't necessarily oppose that, but in the meantime we should delete the graphs here. Apart from being totally one sided, they're just inserted randomly and don't even have anything to do with the text. I'm adding a fourth one that should be removed that's also sourced to the same retracted Hungerford "report".VictorD7 (talk) 22:30, 31 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I have created Draft:Effect of taxes on employment, incorporating these charts but describing them as claims, not necessarily as facts. bd2412  T 23:08, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Nice - I didn't even know we had that "draft" capability.  Morphh   (talk) 20:37, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It's new - the namespace was created within the past month. bd2412  T 20:56, 1 January 2014 (UTC)