Talk:Consumption tax

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.
Assessment ratings and other indicators given below are used by the Project in prioritizing and managing its workload.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
High This article has been rated as High-priority on the Project's priority scale.
After rating the article, please provide a short summary on the article's comments page to explain your ratings and/or identify the strengths and weaknesses.

Contents

[edit] level 3 header

It really doesn't make any sense as a level 2 header I don't know why you people keep reverting it back--152.163.100.198 01:48, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sprotected

The first sentence or two the start of the article, then it branches into the separate parts. Due to the spamming and rude comments from IPs Sprotect has been added until an administrator arrives Cordially SirIsaacBrock 01:46, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Um, no, that's not how sprotect works--152.163.100.198 01:47, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Only admins can protect pages. Please see Wikipedia:Requests for page protection or the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents to find an admin. I don't think you can just put up the template. Also, I don't think this is not a justified use for it. There's a disagreement on this page, not vandalism.--Bkwillwm 01:52, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Read the edit comments SirIsaacBrock 01:56, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
I have. They're not a sign of good behavior, but not being cordial isn't listed as a justification for semiprotection.--Bkwillwm 01:58, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
User:152.163.101.9 This editor is a well known spammer named "Mr Treason" the notice advises that any contribution made by this editor has prior Wikipedia approval for deletion, which I did do.
The user(s) responsible for these edits are all banned, and all edits by them should be reverted on sight regardless of content.
Cordially SirIsaacBrock 03:11, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Well that's a stupid message to put on the talk page of a sharedip--205.188.116.201 03:52, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] not good, not good

It's generally not considered polite to blank other people's comments--152.163.100.198 01:49, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] VAT ?

I suppose, that if we are talking about consumption tax the theoretical point of view, than as an example we have to mention not only American version, but also Value added taxes and Excise taxes.

I agree. Morphh (talk) 15:01, 03 April 2007 (UTC)

Should this article discuss foreign consumption tax scuh as the Goods and Services Tax introduced to Canada byt he Mulruney government in 1991. BKnoss 12:52, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes - please add if you have information. Morphh (talk) 15:43, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Couple of thoughts

I commend the writers on a well written page. I offer my comments here instead of changing the page itself because I don't think I have the mandate. The section on housing is pretty complicated and seeks to suggest that the taxation on rent/mortgages must be inherently complicated. This isn't true. A one-time tax on the amount of sale price (whatever the tax rate) seems the most intuitive approach. After that, rent could either be excluded or housing would be double taxed. Nothing unnatural or complicated. Also I think the article under presents the idea that a tax on consumption reduces administrative burden and effortlessly finds tax revenue from undocumented immigrants, launderers, black market participants, evaders, etc. --Gtg207u 18:27, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Economics

>Economists generally favor consumption taxes over income taxes.

This is certainly not true. Sales and consumption taxes fly in the face of conservative economics and are not favored by so-called 'liberal' economists, each for their own reasons. While it is true that some professors and political economists have signed on to the FairTax, it's also opposed by many– if not most– economists.

If no reference can be provided, I propose deleting or correcting this statement.

--UnicornTapestry (talk) 22:02, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll reworded it and add a referenced from Money Magazine that states "Many mainstream economists and tax experts like the idea of some kind of consumption tax -- in fact, the superiority of consumption taxes is almost conventional wisdom these days." Morphh (talk) 15:08, 05 February 2008 (UTC)

From the source referenced it looks like economists say the benefits of a consumption tax are good, (since they have similar benefits to all taxes). That doesn't necessarily mean as a whole those taxes are good. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.204.83.156 (talk) 18:38, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand your statement. We're not talking about as a whole or the details of any particular plan, we're talking economics. The statement is in comparison to other tax systems and it is talking about economists - where not talking about politicians or special interest. Economically, the benefits of a consumption tax are superior. Morphh (talk) 20:26, 11 June 2008 (UTC)