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.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-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.

Who initated this bill, and was it part of thr Presidents plan?

Is it just coincidence that this page has the exact same words: http://www.tutorgig.com/encyclopedia/getdefn.jsp?keywords=Kemp-Roth_Tax_Cut

???

[edit] =

Well, someone was copying! It does look like "tutorgig" is pulling from Wikipedia since not all of the links lead to real pages at tutorgig, and ones that do are also copies of Wikipedia (minus the graphics!).

I changed the structure of the page since one paragraph was too bulky, and changed some of the wording to be more precise.

Kemp and Roth originally proposed an across the board tax cut in 1977. Various bills in Congress were submitted but it was not until Reagan endorsed the tax cuts as part of his 1980 platform did they have a chance of passing.

Stupendous Man 04:07, 2004 Feb 16 (UTC)

---

Just a question: what is the controversy over whether or not the tax cuts increased govt. revenue? Wouldn't this be a fairly easy thing to check out? I'm not advocating here, just saying it needs a better explanation. Meelar 03:52, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

[edit] ==

The problem is that there were a number of tax changes and not all government revenues can be tied to a specific tax.

For example, income taxes increased after the tax cuts, and at a faster rate than prior to the tax cuts. Proponents point to that as proof that the tax cuts worked. Critics maintain that the economy improved (but not due to the tax cuts) and thus income taxes increased, and some critics claim that revenues would have been even higher without the rate cuts.

There have been studied, such as lawrence Lindsey's The Growth Experiment, but it's virtually impossible to isolate a specific reason for revenue increases/decreases.

Other taxes, such as the capital gains tax, are easier to isolate and analyze.

Stupendous Man 04:07, 2004 Feb 16 (UTC)

---

Got it. If you don't mind, I'll merge that into the article. Meelar 04:09, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Table removed

An anonymous editor removed a table from the article, with the following in the edit summary:

Removed table: it was not a "nonpartisan" study and was not an official study by the Treasury Department. As clearly stated in the article cited it is the *opinion* of the author only

The article should have been changed to remove the word "nonpartisan" IF it was not clear from the source document whether the material was "nonpartisan" or not (or if the "nonpartisan-ness" could not be otherwise verified). However, the fact that the study was the opinion of the author -- as stated in the source document -- has nothing to do with whether the table should be in the Wikipedia article. Also, whether the study was an "official study" by the Treasury Department is not material to whether the table should be in the article.

Actually, the paper probably would be considered an official study by the Department. The name of the study is OTA Working Paper 81, "Revenue Effects of Major Tax Bills," by Terry Tempalski, Office of Tax Analysis, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Tax Policy, U.S. Department of the Treasury (Rev. Sept. 2006). Although it's "official" (in the sense that it was apparently issued by the Department, not merely by Mr. Tempalski alone), the paper is not necessarily representative of an "official Treasury position or policy" -- and the paper does say that. However, whether the paper was officially issued by the Department and whether the paper represents the official policy or position of the Department are two different things. There are lots of official Department releases that do not necessarily represent an official policy or position OF the Department.

The table is arguably a bit tangential to the article, but perhaps not overly so. Also, the language introducing the table (i.e., the introductory language that was removed along with the table) might be prohibited original research -- but I'm not sure. At any rate, I don't have a strong personal view pro or con as to whether the table should be put back into the article.

We just need to understand what makes stuff objectionable -- and what does not -- under the rules of Wikipedia. Famspear (talk) 20:30, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Correction: I should have said that the author of the Treasury document is "Jerry Tempalski," not "Terry Tempalski." Famspear (talk) 15:11, 18 April 2008 (UTC)