This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

I strongly object to this edit attempting to restore extremely biased Heritage Foundation and Peter G. Peterson Foundation sources to support the absurd assertion that U.S. taxes are "among the most progressive in the developed world." EllenCT ( talk) 01:41, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

It is not an absurd assertion that "U.S. taxes are among the most progressive in the developed world." If you look at a list of OECD countries (generally equivalent to the term "developed world") sorted by percentage of taxes paid by the top earners, you will see that the US is at the TOP of that list. The statement that U.S. taxes are AMONG the most progressive in the developed world is, if anything, an understatement.

The fact that US taxes are very progressive isn't just made up by the Heritage Foundation and Peter G. Peterson Foundation. It is extensively documented in news media and respected organizations, ranging from Forbes ( http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2015/01/08/the-us-tax-system-just-keeps-on-getting-more-and-more-progressive/) to the Washington Post ( http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonkblog/wp/2013/04/05/americas-taxes-are-the-most-progressive-in-the-world-its-government-is-among-the-least/) to the Atlantic ( http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/02/us-taxes-really-are-unusually-progressive/252917/). I'm sure you can agree that these are valid sources and most certainly not biased in favor of conservative politics. It's also noteworthy that in the Atlantic source, it's mentioned that the OECD has explicitly stated that the high percentage in taxes paid by America's highest earners is due to the unusually progressive tax system (in addition to being caused in part by the high share of income of the top earners).

Not to mention, you keep altering a statement that is absolutely, 100% indisputable: that the U.S. tax system is "generally progressive." This is a graph that shows what a progressive tax distribution looks like: http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/background/distribution/progressive-taxes.cfm If it were even remotely flat, then you could make an argument that our tax system isn't "generally progressive." But you are just wrong on this one. Plokmijnuhbygvtfcdxeszwaq ( talk) 17:14, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

U.S. taxes are generally progressive the same way the plains are generally sloped. http://www.itep.org/whopays/executive_summary.php EllenCT ( talk) 17:45, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Your mathematical analogy is incorrect. Please see these definitions on regressive, [1] proportional, [2] and progressive taxation. [3] The tax system in the USA is progressive. This is a mathematical definition used to describe the economic situation; it has very little relationship to the term progressive politician. Bernie Sanders is a progressive politician, and thus he favors mathematically-progressive taxation system such as the IRS, but plenty of "conservative" politicians (using the American lexicon not the worldwide view of what it means to be "conservative") are also in favor of mathematically-progressive taxation systems to one degree or another.

In any case, though, before we can discuss the mathematical degree to which the USA is a progressive-taxation-regime, relative to France and other countries, first we have to define our terms: progressive-taxation is a mathematical concept, used by economists, and is only vaguely correlated with Progressive political views. Wikipedia should state the facts succinctly and in a neutral tone, and explain how the terms are defined and used, so that the readership is not confused about what the meaning of mainspace prose actually is. 75.108.94.227 ( talk) 22:36, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

How many kilobytes do you think it would take to support the contention that U.S. taxes are among the most progressive in the developed world? EllenCT ( talk) 10:23, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Your source is dealing exclusively with state taxes. It should be noted that the size and scope of state taxes pales in comparison to that of federal taxes. On the whole, the U.S. tax system is very progressive. Yes, you can cherry pick for tiny components of tax revenue that are not progressive (e.g. FICA tax, certain state income taxes), and I could respond by cherry picking for components that are extremely progressive (corporate income tax, estate tax, capital gains tax, etc.), but at the end of the day, that gets us nowhere. Instead, why don't we just mutually acknowledge that when taking everything into account, the affluent pay a significantly larger share of their incomes than the lower-classes, and to a degree that exceeds just about every other developed country on earth. Plokmijnuhbygvtfcdxeszwaq ( talk) 19:36, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Ah.... good old ITEP.org. It's an advocacy group and not at all a reliable source and makes absolutely no comparison between countries. OECD doesn't have an axe to grind and provides context relative to other nations. States vary, and frankly ITEP uses a black box calculation which they use to push their agenda. We cannot accept it for the basis of changing the article. Mattnad ( talk) 19:42, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Which OECD characterization do you like? One of them treats taxes and transfer payments differently than the other countries. EllenCT ( talk) 10:25, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Progressiveness of taxes is separate from how a country spends. You like to conflate them to confuse the discussion. We've been through this before. Not biting. And don't bring back ITEP again please. Not a reliable source. Mattnad ( talk) 13:53, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Since EllenCT misrepresented the sources she was removing and failed to provide anything close to resembling a valid basis for disputing the material, I propose that the garish factual accuracy disputed box tag she decorated the article with be removed. This has been discussed to death over the years with EllenCT across multiple articles and she refuses to get it. Even her lone ITEP source doesn't dispute the fact that US taxation is progressive, nor does it make any international comparisons (so it can't dispute that portion of the well sourced segment either). The fact that ITEP/CTJ is a lobbying outfit with an opaque methodology and its results are dramatically contradicted by more reliable sources like the CBO, Tax Policy Center, and Tax Foundation is almost beside the point. The fact that EllenCT spent over a year misrepresenting ITEP's methodology on corporate tax incidence in an attempt to spin away this discrepancy (she claimed they treat corporate taxes regressively when they actually treat them extremely progressively, one of the few relatively transparent aspects of their process) is also almost beside the point. Even her source acknowledges US taxation is "progressive" (ITEP/CTJ publications regarding overall taxation; as was pointed out above, the specific page she links to here doesn't even comment on federal taxes). Case closed. Since she's identified me in the past as her chief opponent on this issue she may have thought that because I was away from this talk page for a while she could sneak this ridiculous, baseless change in. Fortunately there were responsible editors like Plokmijnuhbygvtfcdxeszwaq, Mattnad, and Capitalismojo paying attention. VictorD7 ( talk) 20:09, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

I have not misrepresented ITEP's findings or methodology, and their findings are far more accurate than the discredited supply side trickle down contention that taxes should be less progressive. http://www.itep.org/whopays/ is far more accurate than opposing sources from the Heritage or Peterson foundations. EllenCT ( talk) 09:52, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

<INSERT> Yes you have, and you're still misrepresenting the sources disputing you on this. For example, neither the CBO, the Tax Policy Center, a joint creation of the left leaning Brookings Institute and Urban Institute, nor the academic Oxford Journal study used to source the segment advocate "supply side trickle down" economics. VictorD7 ( talk) 22:59, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

There's a well-known OECD report attesting to this; surely you're not really asserting that IETP is more neutral or a better source than the OECD? Rwenonah ( talk) 13:57, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

There are several OECD reports on the topic, but one of them is often misrepresented. Is that the one you meant? I would gladly replace all 2,000 characters of Heritage and Peterson foundations' sources with an unbiased characterization of those OECD figures. EllenCT ( talk) 14:41, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Even your link doesn't dispute the basis of OECD report, it just says that the US does "less to fight inequality" than other countries. Progressivity of taxes and these spending of those taxes (on welfare, etc.) are totally separate issues, and I don't know why you're trying to pretend they're the same. Rwenonah ( talk) 15:01, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

So that was indeed the specific OECD report to which you were referring? Please see tax expenditure for the symmetrical equivalence of taxes and transfer payments. EllenCT ( talk) 15:15, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

EllenCT, that's apples (progressive taxation) and oranges (social welfare spending). To other editors, EllenCT repeatedly uses the same arguments, has received pushback over the years, and when things go quiet, she tries again to push her POV. Be warned, you're in for a whole lot of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT Mattnad ( talk) 18:29, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

The sources that say the tax system is among the most progressive in the world are all unreliable, either they are "conservative" think tanks or columnists. It is very easy to take selective information to come to any conclusion one wants. We need a reliable source to support this. TFD ( talk) 19:20, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

How's OECD for a reliable source? Rwenonah ( talk) 21:36, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

TFD, please tell me you're joking. Forbes, the Washington Post, and the Atlantic have all explicitly stated that US taxation is among the most progressive in the world. Don't try to tell me that the Washington Post and the Atlantic are conservative. I'll post the links again here, because clearly you didn't look above:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2015/01/08/the-us-tax-system-just-keeps-on-getting-more-and-more-progressive/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonkblog/wp/2013/04/05/americas-taxes-are-the-most-progressive-in-the-world-its-government-is-among-the-least/

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/02/us-taxes-really-are-unusually-progressive/252917/

If you have a problem with the current sources in the article, you could perhaps replace them with one of these. Plokmijnuhbygvtfcdxeszwaq ( talk) 22:01, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

And indeed the article already covers the US having a proportionally smaller welfare state elsewhere. Tax progressivity is a separate issue. VictorD7 ( talk) 22:59, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Forbes does not "explicitly state that the U.S. taxation is among the most progressive in the world." Rather, it published an opinion piece by a fellow of the Adam Smith Institute, a right-wing think tank, that says that. Opinion pieces are not reliable sources for facts. "Wonkblog" although hosted by the Washington Post is actually a blog, providing opinion reports. The Atlantic Journal report is also an opinion piece. Notice that the last opinion piece sets out to rebut another opinion piece that says U.S. taxes are not progressive. Notice that it also mentions that Paul Krugman, who is an economist, also does not think U.S. taxes are progressive. None of your sources meet rs standards. TFD ( talk) 23:04, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Actually opinion pieces can be reliable sources for facts depending on circumstance. In this case they're just reflecting underlying facts produced by groups like the OECD, CBO, and this academic study published in the journal Socio-Economic Review that you apparently missed. I doubt even Krugman, who's widely known as a wild eyed partisan fire breather (some might say lunatic, but I'll refrain here), would deny that taxation per se is progressively structured (he might try to conflate taxes with another issue, like spending, as EllenCT did above). Regardless, if you actually read the Krugman piece linked to in the article you mention it's just a few lines of name calling and vague, disjointed claims about inequality, not tax progressivity per se. I'll add that Washington Post writer Dylan Matthews is an admitted liberal writing to liberals in his piece acknowledging that US taxes are more progressive than in Europe, citing facts from the aforementioned study, since you were so eager to tag an ideology to the Forbes article. Some don't like to emphasize the fact that US taxes are among the most progressive in the developed world, preferring instead to focus on spending or income inequality (both also amply covered in this article), but as far as the facts are concerned, this isn't controversial. VictorD7 ( talk) 00:09, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

See "News organizations": "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces...are rarely reliable for statements of fact." And the abstract to the paper you mention says, "Our study supports the argument others have made that the USA has more progressive taxes." That U.S. taxes are more progressive is a statement of fact not opinion. Opinions do not become facts just because they fit in with one's preconceptions. TFD ( talk) 16:09, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure what to make of your comments. When you look at the sources provided by VictorD7, they are a mix of news and research reports that qualify as reliable sources. While every news org has some political bent, I'm not seeing any disagreement that US taxes are progressive. So are you agreeing with the basic point that the US tax system is more progressive than its peers or not? EllenCT has only ITEP, and it deals only with state taxes with no international comparison, or that little problem that state and local taxes are deducted from federal tax owing for lower income households. On the other hand, there are several newspapers, magazines, and reports that address the specific topic that say yes indeed US taxes are more progressive than its peer nations. If you disagree with the many sources that address this, what source do you have that says the opposite? Mattnad ( talk) 17:08, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Again, none of the sources meet rs. We should use common sense too. No capable author writing an encyclopedia article would use newspaper columns as a source for public finance issues. I do not know whether U.S. taxes are more progressive, but would not assume they were because some columnist says that in his opinion they are. TFD ( talk) 17:56, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Established news outlets covering the fact (as you call it) that US taxes are more progressive than other developed nations, as found in studies by groups like the OECD and the academic paper I posted, and the underlying academic and OECD sources themselves, are most certainly RS. Even your editorial quote said "rarely" reliable, not never reliable for facts. In this case the sources support each other, and the facts covered in the media sources are verifiable through the other sources. Again, this isn't controversial. No contradicting sources have been presented. VictorD7 ( talk) 18:33, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

You mean interpretation of (frequently selective) facts by partisan writers whose opinions are published in news media that publish reliable news stories. Again it does not meet rs and if you think that articles in Wikipedia should be based on what your favorite columnists write rather than what is published in expert sources, then get the policy changed. Or do you have trouble distinguishing news reporting and opinion pieces? TFD ( talk) 02:44, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

No, the sources span the political spectrum and most of them lean left if anything. Again, the comprehensive academic study and OECD reports aren't opinion columns. Your above claim that these sources are "all" either "'conservative' think tanks or columnists" is blatantly wrong. Period. If you're struggling with this because English isn't your first language then let us know and perhaps a translator can be found. That's without getting into the fact that policy allows the use of "opinion pieces" (and even facebook posts by experts, if they can be verified) in certain contexts. The ones used here, like the liberal Dylan Matthews writing in his regular spot in the liberal Washington Post, is analytical news coverage and included because they clearly lay out the results of studies in ways that might be easier for readers to understand than the original sources themselves, which are also included. They're supplemental sources. You still failed to provide a contradicting source. VictorD7 ( talk) 19:41, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

See WP:NEWSORG: "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds)...are rarely reliable for statements of fact." Having been written by a "liberal" does not make Wonkblog any more reliable than if it had been written by anyone else. Instead of searching for anything that supports your views, please consult reliable sources and distinguish between facts and opinions. Also, we should not choose sources because they "might be easier for readers to understand." Editors should be able to use reliable sources written by experts and express them in terms that are easy for readers to understand. BTW just because someone does not agree with you does not mean they have trouble understanding standard English. TFD ( talk) 01:30, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

You already quoted that above, and I already pointed out that "rarely" doesn't mean "never", and in this case the analysis is only complementing the scholarly sourcing used (which it covers, complete with verifiably accurate visuals and direct links), so we aren't relying on "opinion pieces" to source the facts. I only mentioned the liberal ideology of the Washington Post writer as part of my refutation of your claim that these were "conservative" sources. I offered to help find a translator since you repeatedly made false claims about these sources even after being corrected. VictorD7 ( talk) 20:36, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Of course rarely does not mean never. But you need to explain why you think these sources should be used. In some cases for example the writer may have qualifications in the subject. But clearly you are going the wrong way - rather than consulting the best sources and reflecting what they say, you have decided what should be said and then looked for sources. That explains why your sources are weak - you are more interested in what they say than in how reliable they are. TFD ( talk) 06:13, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

<INSERT>Every claim you just made is false. I started off with the best sources on the issue because I wanted to be accurate, they're strong sources with extremely robust results leaving no dispute on the conclusion, and I explained why it's worth adding supplemental sources. VictorD7 ( talk) 19:38, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Even partisan sources on the other end of the spectrum agree that the OECD makes the point that US Taxes are very progressive, but they complain that it doesn't help inequality due to spending priorities. Here's a source offered by EllenCT as a counterpoint. In it they write:

"Critics of proposals to make the tax system more progressive or to take other steps to help lessen widening income inequality sometimes cite a 2008 Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD) report stating that the United States has the most progressive tax system among developed countries. The implication is that, with a progressive tax system, the United States is already taking very substantial steps to address income inequality. But to cite the report’s finding on the progressivity of the U.S. tax system while ignoring its other findings amounts to cherry picking and distorts the report’s overall findings."

You will note they do not dispute in the least the point that US taxes are very progressive. They just bring in the other side of the equation on spending which does not help with inequality. Mattnad ( talk) 13:02, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

It is not reasonable to use the OECD report. It is a 310 page report on inequality that discusses tax progressivity in one paragraph. A reasonable approach would be to use a source about the topic rather than one that mentions it in passing. It would be like using a book about Albania for this article because it said something about the U.S. we could not find in books about the U.S.

The OECD report draws its conclusion by comparing taxes paid by the top tenth of income earners in 2005 with the lowest 90% and compares this with other OECD countries. The data was obtained from questionnaires sent to each country. This approach raises several questions: Was the U.S. return accurate? Were the definitions of income and taxes the same? Would the results be the same had they used the top 1%, top quartile or top half? Was 2005 a typical year?

TFD ( talk) 14:27, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it matters whether or not you personally believe the report. That's really WP:OR at best. It's a reliable source that's been commented extensively on by secondary reliable sources (even if opinion pieces) on both sides of the political spectrum. They all agree what it says, and there are no other sources that you have presented that says otherwise. You've tried to disqualify some sources as partisan opinion pieces, but when other opposing partisan opinions agree with the premise, then we have enough in my opinion. Mattnad ( talk) 15:14, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

In fact it has not been commented upon in any reliable sources. It's just cherry-picking a primary source that says what you happen to believe, rather than identifying the best, most relevant and up to date secondary source and reflecting what it says. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia article, not a Sun column, and the standards are different. TFD ( talk) 12:20, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Even your basic use of language here indicates a misunderstanding of policy. As has been explained to you before, source reliability is always context specific. Sources aren't either inherently "reliable" or "unreliable". All these sources are reliable in this context, and you never did provide a disputing source. VictorD7 ( talk) 16:10, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

IOW you consider yourself free to determine what is reliable without reference to any set criteria. There are two basic approaches: (1) determine the best sources and report what they say. (2) determine what you want the article to say and find sources. Professionals who write mainstream textbooks use the first approach. Advocates of fringe theories and conspiracy theories use the second. TFD ( talk) 16:27, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

No, these are the best sources on the topic, their findings are clear cut and robust, and you failed to provide a disputing source. We aren't required to use textbooks (just glance at the page's reference list; the vast majority of sources aren't textbooks), and implying an association between peer reviewed research published in prestigious academic journals and comprehensive OECD reports with "fringe theories" and "conspiracy theories" is ludicrous. VictorD7 ( talk) 18:34, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

FICA (social security) is not a tax for employees (it is to employers who match employee contributions), but a retirement and disability insurance plan and it is progressive because it redistributes from high income earners/contributors to the low. The net effect of FICA is that,over their lifetime, it is a negative tax for most employees. Phmoreno ( talk) 13:14, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

The CBO is quite explicit on Social Security which they say overall is progressive, particularly for lower income households, and I quote, "For people with lower than average earnings, the ratio of the lifetime benefits they receive from Social Security to the lifetime payroll taxes they pay for the program is higher than it is for people with higher average earnings. In that sense, the Social Security system is progressive. For people in the bottom fifth of the earnings distribution, the ratio of benefits to taxes is almost three times as high as it is for those in the top fifth." Mattnad ( talk) 16:20, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

FICA is considered a tax. As a tax it is universally considered regressive - everyone pays the same percentage on the first $118,500 of income and nothing on earnings above that amount. The fact that people receive the same benefits from Social Security makes the tax progressive in a "sense", because low income people who pay less than max yet receive the same benefits as people who pay the max. But it ceases to be progressive for people earning over $118,500 whose additional income is not taxed. And of course the progressivity does not help anyone below retirement age. In any case all OECD countries have similar programs, and the quote does not explain how progressive FICA is relative to other OECD countries. TFD ( talk) 16:54, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Well then my 401K savings are a tax, which also has a cap. Social Security caps the contributions because it also caps the benefits which demonstrates how it's not a tax. You can take it up with the CBO since they disagree with you on whether or not it's progressive. It's no different in function from pension plans except that it gives you much more benefits than you contribute if you're low income. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattnad ( talk • contribs) 18:12, 20 September 2015

But economists and the OECD report consider it a tax, while your 401K is not. And payments are classified as government spending, rather than a rebate of taxes. It is included, rightly or wrongly, in tax comparisons. TFD ( talk) 20:10, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

The progressive thinktank, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, has an article, "What Do OECD Data Really Show About U.S. Taxes and Reducing Inequality?" Apparently this report is popular with some people who wish to prevent further progressivity in U.S. taxes. It points out some of the limitations of the report, for example the age of the data and the fact that it omits regressive taxes and employers' portions of payroll taxes. TFD ( talk) 21:26, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Ironically after falsely claiming above that only conservative sources state that the US has a relatively progressive tax structure (most sources posted here that do so lean left if anything), the one source you contribute is a far left think tank. And even it doesn't dispute the premise that US taxation is progressive, a fact it acknowledges as it reports on the OECD's findings, underscoring everything editors have been explaining to you. The page you linked to, in accordance with its ideological bias, just wants to emphasize that the US does less to redistribute income than European governments do (because it supposedly spends less on welfare). Of course it takes someone with ideological blinders on to only view tax progressivity through an "income equality" prism, as tax progressivity is relevant to other topics, including revenue volatility and economic growth, and therefore is a worthwhile stand alone topic in its own right. The issues CBPP raise are arguably important too, which is why this article already covers both income inequality and the fact that the US government redistributes less income than European nations tend to (I added the latter segment myself). So relax. All these issues are covered. Deleting one would leave an ideologically biased skew. As for "regressive" sales taxes not covered in the OECD report, those are counted in the journal study I linked to above. Counting consumption taxes makes US taxation even more progressive vis a vis other developed nations, since European systems rely far more on VAT and other consumption taxes than American government does (at all levels), and American sales tax regimes are typically more progressively structured to boot. VictorD7 ( talk) 18:53, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Just so we are clear, "far left" is the term you use to refer to the section of the political spectrum occupied by the Demcratic Party of the U.S. The only reason I used this source was that it was the only one I could find outside the echo chamber. No academic writing or mainstream news reporting have mentioned it. At least the CBPP is written by people who have expertise in the subject. So if it is not a rs secondary source then we do not have any. In fact the CBPP article does not say the OECD's conclusion is accurate and the figures in the OECD report do not include regressive taxes. One would actually need to do more than guess that regressive taxes are less regressive in the U.S. The U.S. does have sales tax, property tax etc. and some OECD countries return VAT to low income earners and many do not collect in on rent and food, which is the major expense of low income earners. It would be helpful if you found an actual source that made a systemic comparison. TFD ( talk) 01:32, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you took me up on that offer to help find you a translator. I just said this academic study I already posted for you above does count consumption taxes. No "guess" is required. In fairness I just realized the link I posted earlier may now be behind a paywall, though the abstract is still visible. The new link I posted should go to a full free access version. Visuals from this study are also clearly displayed in this Washington Post piece. They go out of their way to first show the comparison without consumption taxes counted, where the US is more progressive, and then the comparison after consumption taxes are counted, where the gap expands and the European systems are downright regressive. That article also links to an Economist article ( Taxing the poor to pay the poor) covering the regressive nature of European taxation, and reinforcing the fact that Europe relies more on consumption taxes than the US does to fund its massive welfare states. This Economist piece also discusses the negative impact of tax progressivity on growth, reinforcing what I said above about tax structure being relevant to topics other than just income equality. Then there are many supplemental academic source like this Canadian journal article on the regressive, "neoliberal" structure of Scandinavian taxation, that cites the study I linked to above (among others) and states that tax progressivity is less important to income redistribution than welfare spending is. No, I said the CBPP, which occupies the left wing of the Democratic party, is far left, not the whole party. That doesn't disqualify it from use, but even it doesn't dispute what the other sources say about US tax progressivity (it certainly doesn't claim the OECD study is inaccurate), so this discussion appears to have reached its productive end. It's unclear what "echo chamber" you're referring to unless you're claiming that the academic journal articles, the Washington Post, The Atlantic, the Economist, the CBO, and the OECD are all part of a vast right wing conspiracy. VictorD7 ( talk) 18:19, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Your academic study, "Taxation and the worlds of welfare" says, "Our study supports the argument others have made that the USA has more progressive taxes than the European countries." Do the authors mean that they are more progressive (1) in their opinion, (2) in the opinion of some writers, (3) in the opinion of most writers, or (4) in the consensus of experts? You conclude (4) but the source does not say that. If you want to assert that, then please find a reliable secondary source that says that. That is really a simple task if in fact your conclusion is true. It would also save other readers, who may not be interested in butchering through copious op-eds and isolated primary studies. Incidentally no one has claimed there is a "vast right-wing conspiracy." It's just that U.S. conservative columnists often repeat right-wing talking points just as liberal columnists repeat liberal talking points. But the talk page is not supposed to be a debate between people who get their views from Fox News talk shows and those who get it elsewhere. We are supposed to followed weight and reliability policies. TFD ( talk) 01:36, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Oh so you were referring to an ideological "echo chamber", and you somehow remain ignorant of the fact that most of the sources we've spoon fed you here are left wing (though some are conservative) even after I just pointed that out again. Got it. Actually if you read the whole scholarly article and comprehend it it's clear they're saying that's the consensus of those who have actually studied this issue with any seriousness. They review other studies and add their own using a wealth of information from the LIS database that produces findings so robust they hold up even when extremely unlikely variables pushing in the other direction are assumed. Their findings "support" the position that US taxation is more progressive in the same way that analysis of the earth's curvature supports the claims of those who argue the world isn't flat. To add yet another reliable source, here's an economics textbook ( Principles of Economics; N. Mankiw; Cengage Learning; 2014; p 428): "Many Americans may find this hard to believe, but the United States already has one of the most progressive tax systems in the world, according to several studies, raising proportionally more money from the wealthy than other countries do. Taxes on American households do more to redistribute resources than the tax codes of most other rich nations." It goes on to repeat much of what I've already said here about how the US redistributes less on the spending side, in part because the progressive tax system doesn't raise enough money, and cites the OECD and University of California economics researcher Peter Lindert (who's cited by numerous publications on this topic; I don't link to his influential 2004 book here because google books hides some of the most pertinent pages). Here's an article in Harvard Business Review: "The U.S. already has about the most progressive income tax system around. European social democracies tend to have flatter income taxes, plus value-added taxes that hit all consumers. They tax capital gains and dividends at lower rates than regular income, just as the U.S. does, but they also all have lower corporate tax rates than the U.S." Here's a book by an economics researcher at Leiden University in Holland that cites both Lindert and the academic study I linked to earlier ( Coordination in Transition: The Netherlands and the World Economy, 1950–2010; Jeroen Touwen; Brill; 2014; p. 300): "In fact the United States had a more progressive tax structure than most European welfare states" (only past tense because he's referring to the period studied, so everything is past tense). Here's another topical book ( Making the Modern American Fiscal State; Ajay K. Mehrotra; Cambridge University Press; 2013; p 17): "When other Western industrialized democracies began experimenting with broad-based, regressive consumption taxes as a way to finance modern social-welfare spending, the United States resisted this seemingly global trend. Other modern democracies were willing to try crude forms of consumption taxes as supplements to income taxation; together these taxes generated tremendous revenue that was spent to counter the regressive incidence of consumption taxes. By contrast, the United States refrained from moving beyond income as the primary base for national taxation. As a result, rather than develop a comprehensive view of the fiscal state’s tax-and-transfer powers, policymakers in the United States became mired in a preoccupation with the progressivity of the American income tax system, with the process of extracting revenue, with “soaking the rich.” They failed to see how the regressive incidence of broad-based consumption taxes could be countered by progressive state spending on social-welfare provisions."

So now you've been provided sources ranging from high quality studies to scholarly economics books to business/economics media reporting to government reports, many of them secondary sources (not that primary sources are prohibited). Most of these sources are left wing (none are "Fox News"; BTW, thanks for demonstrating a point I made earlier to someone elsewhere on this page). Many of their more expansive opinions about causality and proper policy direction are speculative and disputed (some are frankly idiotic). But comparative American tax progressivity vis a vis Europe is a basic, clear cut, underlying fact that these "copious" sources agree on. I went out of my way to use left leaning sources and am commenting on their ideology here not just to show how wrong your (still unretracted) claim about them all being "conservative" was above, but to underscore that this fact is established and accepted across the political spectrum by those who study the issue at the expert level. You haven't provided a single disputing source. VictorD7 ( talk) 05:31, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Although you provided a link to Principles of Economics (Cengage, 2014), it has no preview. I notice though that the passage you cite appeared in a NYT op-ed in 2012. [5] It reads more like an op-ed - can you double check? I will look at the rest of your posting after you get back to me. TFD ( talk) 06:53, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

The link works for me and takes me directly to a preview starting at the front page (the link even includes the words "front page") from which I can scroll down to page 428. Maybe there's a glitch happening. Try this alternative link. I know the segment also appeared in the NY Times, though it's not an "op-ed", which typically applies to guest writers. Eduardo Porter is an economics writer for the NY Times. In the textbook the piece appears as a page long box headlined "In The News", a type of recurring feature one commonly finds in textbooks. If the above link doesn't work try googling (sans quotes) "eduardo porter principles of economics". The pertinent page should pop up about five spots down and be accessible. VictorD7 ( talk) 18:11, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I do not think that being reprinted in an "In the News" section in a textbook elevates an opinion piece to a reliable source. Porter does not have a degree in economics and does not teach it. Textbooks will frequently print columns representing a wide variety of views, that does not mean they endorse any one of them. (BTW while Porter writes about economics, he does not hold any qualifications in the field.) So he is not an "established expert" as defined in rs. They provide a good starting point for classroom discussions. Does the author, Greg Mankiw, comment in the book about the relative progressivity of U.S. taxes? (Sorry but I cannot access books.google.com where I am and therefore sometimes get a different level of access to books.) TFD ( talk) 23:53, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Of course the textbook endorsed it. I saw no counterpoint offered. It was presented as supplemental factual info. Porter isn't conducting primary research himself, but he covers economics professionally for the NY Times, and is therefore RS for statements about the state of knowledge in that field. Of course any single reliable source or even a small group of such sources could be balanced with disputing sources, but in this case many sources of diverse types have been presented and no disputing sources have been found. VictorD7 ( talk) 00:23, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Use common sense. FICA is a redistribution of income system. How can that not be progressive? Phmoreno ( talk) 01:09, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

How are most of the cross country comparisons in these studies conducted; do they add up all the types and layers of taxes, net deductions, tax credits, etc. and look at and marginal rates where they apply or do they look at the total percent of taxes to income at various levels of income? The latter seems the only sensible way to make comparisons due to the number of taxes and their complexity. Phmoreno ( talk) 03:23, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

The studies presented have all looked at actual taxes paid. TFD ( talk) 03:38, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

"Taxation" on the University of Rhode Island website explains it. Taxes collected are proportional (neither progressive nor regressive - everyone pays the same % of income) to income up to the insured amount, but then become regressive. Someone who earns $1 million per year pays a lower percentage of income than someone who earns $10,000 per year. Some writers, like you, take into account cash transfers which would make the program progressive. But then for comparison purposes the same must be done for other countries. When that is done, the U.S. rates 28 out of 31 for progressivity, as shown in the CBPP article (link above). TFD ( talk) 16:27, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

The Goergist view deserves more attention. Rents are a major source of income to capital and it is hard to make a case for investment in land (excluding improvements) as being productive (hence the idle landlord in classical economics). Georgist are aware of the tendency for land prices to increase at a disproportionately higher rate than wages with development and population growth. Couple that with the fact that mortgage and business interest is deductible and we have unsound money, so the tax code gives a massive incentive to borrow money and bid up land prices. Further complicating the issue is that property taxes are also deductible. This also benefits the finance and real estate sectors and is also one factor causing increases in the money supply (currency debasement) because real estate serves as collateral. Also note that the owner's equivalent of rent is treated as income in calculating GDP. Georgists favor replacing other taxes with land taxes, but not taxes on structures. In high housing cost areas of the U.S. (CA, NYC and exclusive neighborhoods everywhere) the land value exceeds the structure value by a factor of several times the depreciated value of the structure. Example San Francisco Home price= $1,234,794, structure value=$248,175, land value=$986,619. [6]. The high cost of land in many areas, which in turn drives other living costs and taxes, causes those places to be uncompetitive in attracting and keeping business. Georgists also note that excessive land prices are a cause of depressions (USA 1838-34, 1929..., 2008..., Japan 1989...). Phmoreno ( talk) 16:04, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Who Doesn't Pay Taxes.. Earned income tax credit means some low income earners pay negative tax. Percent paying no federal income tax is now 49.5%, up from the low 20% range from the 1940s-mid 1980s. State and local income taxes added in make overall taxation less progressive (incentivized by deductibility of state and local taxes). Phmoreno ( talk) 00:42, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

• It's important to focus on the specific statement being made here; nobody is denying that US taxes are progressive (it says that in both versions.) But the statement that they're among the most progressive in the world seems clearly controversial; the only sources people have linked to for it are either opinion pieces or WP:BIASED in that they come from one clear political perspective. This doesn't mean that we can't cite them, but we can't uncritically repeat what they say as fact, especially not for such a sweeping term. If you want to say "so-and-so has said that the US tax code is among the most progressive in the world" or "the following people have said that it's among the most progressive in the world" or whatever, that might be workable, but it's clear from the sources that it's too controversial for us to state it as fact (indeed, many of the sources, above, that people are relying on to justify it are clearly taking part in an ongoing argument -- they're worded as if they're addressed to political opponents who disagree.) We can cover what such sources say, but we can't uncritically repeat it as a fact. -- Aquillion ( talk) 00:27, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

• Adding to what I said above: It's important to note that the US tax system has become significantly less progressive since 1980 (compared to what it historically was); this is something that most of the sources I've come across seem to highlight, so it should probably be part of this paragraph. (I would argue that that is more important than debates between economists over which superlatives to use; it certainly seems to have more coverage in reliable sources.) -- Aquillion ( talk) 01:11, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

• Everything you just said is false. That US taxation is among the most progressive in the developed world is not controversial. Editors have gone out of their way to cite sources from across the political spectrum, including comprehensive studies, government reports, textbooks, and media analysis pieces, and they all agree on this basic fact. In fact no sources have been produced disputing it, so by definition it's not controversial. By contrast your assertion that US taxes have become less progressive since 1980 is disputed (especially given the millions of low income people taken off the income tax roles altogether by the Bush tax cuts), but that's an irrelevant tangent since we don't say anything about that here one way or the other. VictorD7 ( talk) 02:23, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

I've reverted the statement that taxes have become less progressive since 1980. Aquillon's source was 2012 and completely missed the 2013 changes to the tax code that rolled back the Bush Tax cuts for the wealthier households (while leaving them intact for others) plus the various surcharges that were added on investment income. The sources were not difficult to find and I've made the relevant updates to that section with sources. Mattnad ( talk) 15:57, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

I've reverted his change to the long standing consensus opening. As was already discussed above, the CBPP source doesn't dispute that the US tax system is among the developed world's most progressive, but prefers to shift the discussion to including spending, a different topic already covered elsewhere in this article (along with income inequality). He did add this working paper from 2006 by Saez and Piketty, a French socialist whose reliability has come under fire recently, but I didn't see where that paper contradicted the segment either. It focuses on trend lines over time. It does include international comparisons with two countries, the UK and France, and says at one point that US taxes, which have traditionally been more progressive, are now less progressive than France's (it also says the UK's progressivity has declined the most of the three), but that hardly disputes the cautious, firmly sourced claim that America has "among the most progressive" in the developed world. The paper also admits it only looks at (most) federal taxes, and doesn't count regressive VAT taxes, which form a major part of European taxation. It indicates that its estimates are tentative and more comprehensive study is required. Well, more rigorous research has occurred in the decade since that dated piece was written, and has consistently found that both the US income and overall tax structures are among the most progressive in the developed world.

I added this sentence myself several months ago: "It (the US) has a smaller welfare state and redistributes less income through government action than European nations tend to.[404] It's sourced to an OECD secondary source that states: "Various studies have compared the progressivity of tax systems of European countries with that of the United States (see for instance Prasad and Deng, 2009; Piketty and Saez, 2007; Joumard, 2001). Though they use different definitions, methods and databases, they reach the same conclusion: the US tax system is more progressive than those of the continental European countries." And says earlier: "And household taxes are more progressive in the United States than in most EU countries.16" This is currently accepted as non-controversial fact by researchers.

As for the US only progressivity trend from some arbitrarily chosen historical date, this issue (including the same 2006 Piketty paper linked to above) has been discussed extensively before on other articles. The paper doesn't even use a scientific, precise measure of progressivity (like the commonly used Kakwani index), but conducts an ad hoc survey focusing mostly on tax rates paid by the top 0.01% of income earners over time. Table 2 (early in the appendix) doesn't even show the bottom 20% of income earners. While explaining why its results differ from outfits like the CBO, the paper acknowledges that, "First, CBO focuses primarily on quintiles and breaks down the top quintile in the top decile, and top percentile but does not study smaller groups within the top percentile. Hence while our analysis is primarily focused on progressivity within the top decile and especially the top percentile, CBO focuses more on overall progressivity. Here's a piece criticizing the Piketty method used. Yes, it's from a conservative think tank, but I'm just using it to illustrate the different POVs on this issue (which is disputed). Basically the ultra top's tax rates have declined significantly, but that's true for tens of millions at the bottom of the income scale too, many of whom have been taken completely off the income tax roles in recent decades, and most middle class taxpayers have seen bigger tax rate drops than most in higher deciles. There are different ways to measure progressivity, but the US system is so progressive vis a vis Europe that the method chosen matters less to that question (especially if it at least somewhat covers the entire population) than it does to the question about whether taxes within a nation have become somewhat more or less progressive since a particular date. The Income Tax in the United States article sums it up well. "While there is consensus that overall federal taxation is progressive, there is dispute over whether progressivity has increased or decreased in recent decades, and by how much.[90][91] The total effective federal tax rate for the top 0.01% of income earners declined from around 75% to around 35% between 1960 and 2005.[90] Total effective federal tax rates fell from 19.1% to 12.5% for the three middle quintiles between 1979 and 2010, from 27.1% to 24% for the top quintile, from 7.5% to 1.5% for the bottom quintile, and from 35.1% to 29.4% for the top 1%.[92]" I don't see the need to get deeply into these details in this article. VictorD7 ( talk) 19:10, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

I think you've made the case via multiple sources from both sides of the ideological spectrum and in the middle . TFD doesn't seem to care what any sources says if it conflicts with his or her desired language and will simply say "not a reliable source" even though they clearly are. At this point, I'd say it's not productive time unless you like it. Mattnad ( talk) 22:22, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

But people have also presented multiple sources that unequivocally contest the ones Victor presented; we're required to cover that. We can't present the conclusions of some sources as if they're universal. Also, please stop referring to the 'consensus version' in your edits! It's reasonably obvious at this point that the version you're reverting to doesn't enjoy consensus, as you can probably tell from the number of people objecting to it! We can try and work out a compromise -- as I've been trying to do! -- but just saying "rv. to consensus version", when you lack a clear consensus, is unproductive. Your arguments above aren't helpful, either -- what you're doing is committing WP:OR by dismissing sources that disagree with your conclusions by debating their points (eg. "they're not talking about the same kind of progressivity; they're changing the context, etc.) Those things don't matter. What matters is that several of these sources (which seem to be reliable and significant enough to include) don't seem to agree with the ones you're citing. Therefore, we must cover both. -- Aquillion ( talk) 09:05, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Please provide a quotes. VictorD7 has extensively. My understanding of those sources your is that they are examining taxes AND transfers, and often exclude NATIONAL VATs which are regressive. Since the section deals with Taxes (transfers are addressed elsewhere in the article) the sources you cite do not address the point. VictorD7 has provided ample quotes, now you should. Mattnad ( talk) 11:16, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

I have started a discussion thread at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#United States for the one of the sources. I really do not understand why Mattnad and others, while claiming that there is consensus among experts that U.S. taxes are more progressive have yet to provide an academic article or textbook that supports their claim. Why are we being asked to read through countless newspaper columns, which according to policy, are not reliable sources for facts? Why do just provide a statement from a source that meets rs? TFD ( talk) 16:16, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Why is TFD stubbornly repeating falsehoods? I've quoted an academic paper, a textbook, an OECD report summarizing the field's conclusion, and various other high quality sources above, all stating as fact that US taxes are more progressive than European taxes. Zero disputing sources have been produced. VictorD7 ( talk) 10:02, 28 September 2015 (UTC)