Talk:Stealth tax

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Stealth tax was a good article candidate, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. Once the objections listed below are addressed, the article can be renominated. You may also seek a review of the decision if you feel there was a mistake. Date of review: 2007-02-15

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Taxation, an effort to create, expand, organize, and improve Tax related articles to a feature-quality standard.

I'm not sure the thrust of this article is correct. I'd say that the concept of a "stealth" tax is more to do with taking money from taxpayers without them realising it, than taking money in an overt fashion, regardless of what you then spend the money on. Here's an article that seems to agree. Note that they mention parking fines as being a "stupidity tax", I think you could include speeding fines in a similar bracket. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Frumious (talk • contribs).

I agree, I have used a definition I got from the OED online. I have also added a few references for verifiability. I have changed much of the article. I do not think Francis Maude coined the term, if we do not get a source to support this assertion I will remove it. I am also unconvinced that the increase in National Insurance by the Labour government costitutes a stealth tax, surely it is simply a broken promise, and then only if one assumes the de facto position that NI is an income tax. One can equally claim that technically they did not break their manifesto commitment because it is not an income tax. But I digress because if it is not a stealth tax then it doesn't belong here anyway. One could argue that Thatcher's increases on VAT from 8% in 1979 to 15% when she left office is a true stealth tax. Alun

[edit] Origin of the term

I presume the term stealth tax is by analogy with wealth tax (the idea that rich people should be taxed a percentage of their total wealth). If this is correct, perhaps someone could put that in the article. Man with two legs 16:33, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Failed "good article" nomination

This article failed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of February 15, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Overall a well written and well organized article. It does rely heavily on words that should be avoided, see NPOV below.

2. Factually accurate?: Well sourced, but it would be nice to see some secondary sources on, why stealth taxes are implemented, etc.

3. Broad in coverage?: This and NPOV are the main reasons it failed. Should talk some about why stealth taxes exist, whether both parties feel these are stealth taxes, etc.

4. Neutral point of view?: Does not seem to overly endorse the Conservatives' position, but Labor's position is not presented at all.

5. Article stability? Seems so. I don't see any problems now.

6. Images?: It might be hard to come up with images for this, so it passes.

When these issues are addressed, the article can be resubmitted for consideration. Thanks for your work so far. --Selket ^Talk 17:06, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is well written.

   a (prose): b (structure): c (MoS): d (jargon):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (inline citations): c (reliable): d (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   a (fair representation): b (all significant views):

5. It is stable.

   

6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.

   a (tagged and captioned): b (lack of images does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):

7. Overall:

   a Pass/Fail: