Talk:Tax returns in the United States
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
.svg)
Revert apparent copyright violation
editOn 25 June 2006 certain material was added to the article, much of it apparently copied from http://www.papillonsartpalace.com/decoding.htm
for which copyright is claimed by WorldNetDaily.com
I removed the inserted material. Yours, Famspear 17:09, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
I came to the article page to try and figure out why a tax return is not a "tax report",why the word "return" is used. It still makes no sense.BrianAlex (talk) 19:52, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Public release
editThis article could probably use a section about the public release of tax returns by candidates. I will start same.108.18.174.123 (talk) 02:19, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
- That has very little to do with the topic of tax returns. Seems like just another excuse to insert POV. Belchfire-TALK 17:23, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- Belchfire, while I almost always agree with you, this is an exception. The best way (maybe the only way) to eliminate POV at Wikipedia is to insert information that is NPOV. The material that you've removed is clearly NPOV; it's simply historical information about how many tax returns have been publicly released by presidential nominees. This info seems very appropriate for Wikipedia, and there doesn't seem to be any article better than this one to put it. I'll put it back, and hope that you'll point out how it can be improved rather than wiped clean. Thanks. Incidentally, I'm the same person as 108.18.174.123. After I created this section, I pointed to it as a reason why the article on Mitt Romney's tax returns should be deleted. This is the proper way to cover the issue, not by a POV attack article. I'm concerned that by deleting this section, you're weakening the case against the attack article. See what I'm getting at? Cheers.64.251.57.34 (talk) 19:32, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- Can't there be a stand-alone article on the release of financial documents by US Presidential candidates? — goethean ॐ 19:43, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- There could be, but there doesn't seem to be enough information to justify it.64.251.57.34 (talk) 20:03, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- Can't there be a stand-alone article on the release of financial documents by US Presidential candidates? — goethean ॐ 19:43, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- Belchfire, while I almost always agree with you, this is an exception. The best way (maybe the only way) to eliminate POV at Wikipedia is to insert information that is NPOV. The material that you've removed is clearly NPOV; it's simply historical information about how many tax returns have been publicly released by presidential nominees. This info seems very appropriate for Wikipedia, and there doesn't seem to be any article better than this one to put it. I'll put it back, and hope that you'll point out how it can be improved rather than wiped clean. Thanks. Incidentally, I'm the same person as 108.18.174.123. After I created this section, I pointed to it as a reason why the article on Mitt Romney's tax returns should be deleted. This is the proper way to cover the issue, not by a POV attack article. I'm concerned that by deleting this section, you're weakening the case against the attack article. See what I'm getting at? Cheers.64.251.57.34 (talk) 19:32, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
The section on public release of tax returns by U.S. presidential candidates may be of interest to some people because of its relationship to the recent Mitt Romney-tax return news stories, but the material does appear to be a bit tangential to the article over all. Famspear (talk) 20:54, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- Yep, and it's got nothing to do with NPOV. This is a matter of simple relevance. This article is about tax returns. It's not about political candidates. The information that's been inserted here is nothing but a WP:COATRACK. Belchfire-TALK 21:35, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Belchfire, no one has suggested any Wikipedia article that would be more relevant for this information about candidates' tax returns. Likewise, no one has suggested that it belongs nowhere in the encyclopedia. So doesn't that mean that this is the best place in the encyclopedia, at least for now? If there's a better place, would you please identify it? Isn't it better to move encyclopedic content to a better place rather than just erase it? Presumably you would object to creating a new article about it, because there is not enough information about it. Here's the material that now seems to be completely deleted from Wikipedia:
| “ | Prior to 1967, many presidential candidates disclosed assets, stock holdings, and other information which might affect the public trust.[1] In that year, Republican candidate George W. Romney went a step further, by releasing his tax returns for the previous 12 years.[1] Although public release of tax returns is not required by law, many presidential candidates have done so, especially those candidates who are nominees of major political parties.[2] But several major party nominees have not gone as far as releasing so many as George Romney released in 1967.[3] Here are some of the numbers for major-party nominees:[4]
The issue of releasing tax returns became a particularly heated one during the 2012 campaign, when Mitt Romney declined to disclose more than two years of returns.[5][6] |
” |
You say that this is coatracking. Coatracking is defined like this: "A coatrack article is a Wikipedia article that ostensibly discusses the nominal subject, but in reality is a cover for a tangentially related biased subject" (emphasis added). How the heck is it biased to simply show the history of candidates releasing their tax forms? In fact, if you look at this list, you'll see that several candidates have released FEWER than Romney has released, and that even Obama released fewer in 2008 than the 12 years of returns that he has demanded from Romney. There is nothing biased about this. 64.251.57.34 (talk) 22:01, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- I have moved the section here.64.251.57.34 (talk) 22:44, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- "I can't think of any place else to put it" is not a very good reason to put it here. Yes, it's a coatrack. Belchfire-TALK 23:26, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- Instead of completely deleting neutral info from Wikipedia, you'd probably be better off suggesting the best place to put it. Anyway, I admire your editing, so I don't want to have any quarrel with you.64.251.57.34 (talk) 23:43, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- "I can't think of any place else to put it" is not a very good reason to put it here. Yes, it's a coatrack. Belchfire-TALK 23:26, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Dear user at IP 64.251.57.34: The burden of showing whether the material is appropriate for Wikipedia, and for showing the "best place" to put it, is on the editor proposing the material for inclusion in Wikipedia. Other editors are not under some sort of obligation to do that for you. Famspear (talk) 14:22, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, but at the same time you also have WP:Preserve.64.134.98.120 (talk) 03:06, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
- No, that Wikipedia guideline or policy deals with keeping good information and not deleting it "solely because it is poorly presented." The issue that other editors are talking about here is: Does this material even belong in the article? The salient points are (1) that you, as the person proposing to insert the material, have the burden of persuading other editors that the material belongs here, and (2) that other editors who are not so persuaded are not under some obligation to you to find a better place for it. That's your job, not theirs. Famspear (talk) 03:47, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
- WP:Preserve says: "Instead of deleting text, consider....moving text within an article or to another article (existing or new)". But the matter is moot, because I have moved the material. Cheers.24.181.178.235 (talk) 04:29, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
- No, that Wikipedia guideline or policy deals with keeping good information and not deleting it "solely because it is poorly presented." The issue that other editors are talking about here is: Does this material even belong in the article? The salient points are (1) that you, as the person proposing to insert the material, have the burden of persuading other editors that the material belongs here, and (2) that other editors who are not so persuaded are not under some obligation to you to find a better place for it. That's your job, not theirs. Famspear (talk) 03:47, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
References
- ^ a b “Income Tax Returns Released for Last 12 Years by Romney”, United Press International via St. Joseph Gazette (November 27, 1967).
- ^ Shaxson, Nicholas (August 2012). "Where the Money Lives". Vanity Fair.
- ^ “Debbie Wasserman Schultz’ claim about release of tax returns of major candidates is false, says PolitiFact Florida”, Amy Sherman, Miami Herald, August 19, 2012.
- ^ "Romney and the Tax Return Precedent", FactCheck.org (July 19, 2012).
- ^ Michael D. Shear; Trip Gabriel (July 18, 2012). "Romney Steadfast in the Face of Growing Calls to Release More Tax Returns". The New York Times. Retrieved July 19, 2012.
'In the political environment that exists today, the opposition research of the Obama campaign is looking for anything they can use to distract from the failure of the president to reignite our economy, And I'm simply not enthusiastic about giving them hundreds or thousands of more pages to pick through, distort and lie about.'
- ^ Bailey, Holly (August 16, 2012).Romney: ‘I never paid less than 13 percent’ in taxes.Yahoo news
refund check expiration
editIs there an expiration date for federal refund checks? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.94.96.117 (talk) 20:54, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
Assessment comment
editThe comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Tax returns in the United States/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
| ==WP Tax Class==
Start class because the article needs more content on context, impact, and history.EECavazos 21:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC) ==WP Tax Priority== Low priority because the article is on an administrative matter.EECavazos 21:37, 14 November 2007 (UTC) |
Last edited at 21:37, 14 November 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 07:41, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
History of the tax return
editIt would be very interesting if someone could research the history of tax returns - when was the first tax return ever? How did it differ? How did it change over time? Maybe I'll have time one day to do it myself...... Ariel. (talk) 17:30, 20 April 2023 (UTC)