Talk:Taxation: Difference between revisions
imported>Subpagination Bot m (Add {{subpages}} and remove checklist (details)) |
imported>Nick Gardner (→Redraft: new section) |
||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 24: | Line 24: | ||
That's too intellectual for me. I am just a simple soul who has problems with people who lack the courtesy to discuss my drafting before deleting it. | That's too intellectual for me. I am just a simple soul who has problems with people who lack the courtesy to discuss my drafting before deleting it. | ||
[[User:Nick Gardner|Nick Gardner]] 11:47, 14 November 2007 (CST) | [[User:Nick Gardner|Nick Gardner]] 11:47, 14 November 2007 (CST) | ||
== Inadequate and irrelevant? == | |||
The subject deserves serious treatment, with the careful presentation of what is known about the effects of various forms of taxation. I assume that the reference to the fancifully obscure "Corvée labor" is a piece of scholarly showmanship? I am not impressed. And the reference to "taxation without representation" is so ridiculously irrelevant that I have felt bound to delete it. [[User:Nick Gardner|Nick Gardner]] 16:47, 12 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
== Redraft == | |||
My intention is to make a fresh start, drawing upon the evidence and findings of the Meade and Mirrlees reviews and using the tentative paragraph structure that I have indicated. I propose to confine this article to microeconomic and social effects, reserving the treatment of macroeconomic effects for a proposed new article on [[fiscal policy]]. Comments are welcome.-[[User:Nick Gardner|Nick Gardner]] 10:13, 24 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 04:13, 24 September 2009
Intro
"Taxation is the imposition of a transfer of money to the government." This is a poor intro for many reasons (I wrote it), not the least of which is that I can't think of a better term than "money" which seems inaccurate (taxation can exist without money, right?). Anthony 20:19, 21 January 2007 (CST)
History (basically resolved)
- "The oldest tax system that we know about was set up 6,000 years ago at a place called Lagash." - http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/0899taxrel.htm
- need a better source to prove or disprove this.
I would be inclined to leave the factoid in, flagged here on the Talk page, and remove the source simply because the source is inappropriate; the sourced info might be correct, though. We do, will, and arguably must have all sorts of unsourced claims.
Anyway, though, do as you like; I am writing as contributor here, not as editor. --Larry Sanger 19:46, 21 January 2007 (CST)
- The place seems to be correct, and the date is fairly close to the beginning of recorded history anyway, so I've mentioned that rather than definitively saying it is the oldest. Anthony 20:09, 21 January 2007 (CST)
Deleted!
I was once told that I must not delete things without prior discussion - there are strict rules against he said. Who do you suppose said that? Nick Gardner 07:25, 14 November 2007 (CST)
- I'm not sure, but I think he meant to discuss the edit rather than discussing discussion :-) --Matt Innis (Talk) 07:46, 14 November 2007 (CST)
That's too intellectual for me. I am just a simple soul who has problems with people who lack the courtesy to discuss my drafting before deleting it. Nick Gardner 11:47, 14 November 2007 (CST)
Inadequate and irrelevant?
The subject deserves serious treatment, with the careful presentation of what is known about the effects of various forms of taxation. I assume that the reference to the fancifully obscure "Corvée labor" is a piece of scholarly showmanship? I am not impressed. And the reference to "taxation without representation" is so ridiculously irrelevant that I have felt bound to delete it. Nick Gardner 16:47, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Redraft
My intention is to make a fresh start, drawing upon the evidence and findings of the Meade and Mirrlees reviews and using the tentative paragraph structure that I have indicated. I propose to confine this article to microeconomic and social effects, reserving the treatment of macroeconomic effects for a proposed new article on fiscal policy. Comments are welcome.-Nick Gardner 10:13, 24 September 2009 (UTC)