Talk:Dividend tax

Statisics

Where did those statistics regarding the effect of the dividend tax cut come from? I prepare tax returns for a living, and I think the effects on high-income ( > $300K) returns are overstated, and the effects on moderate-income returns (for retired people, not for working people) are understated. Maybe my clients aren't a good statistical sample. Anyway, I'd sure like to see a cite to the source for those numbers. -- gbroiles 19 Aug 2003

NPOV

I think this article comes across as pure advocacy for elimination of double taxation, rather than information as to what it is. There appears to be a one-sided debate contained within the article, with no small bias evident behind the argument for its elimination. The article needs to be toned down, and a more thorough explanation of the different positions is necessary. There are such animals as "rich" people, and they do earn a lot of money from dividends. People who have little understanding of commerce and economics will come here looking for a reasoned explanation, perhaps in order to decide whether they support such a tax. Anyone who is sensitive to biased language will dismiss the information out of hand, and in fact such an evident bias may have the opposite of the desired effect. This sort of treatment of the subject detracts from its credibility, and dilutes the value of wikipedia.

Anonymous one, it is a non-linear world

The article could probably use some wordsmithing, but feel free to present the argument for double taxing of dividends and thus having a tax system that favors debt financing of corporations if you can make a case for it. All I've ever heard is the short-sighted class warfare rhetoric, which not only is simplistic linear thinking, but is wrong because it is the working poor and not the rich that get hurt by the layoffs cause by the inflexible rigidity of debt financing.--Silverback 07:21, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The fact that this article's neutrality is not called into question by Wikipedia and the article for the "Working Poor" is, seems to be further proof that Fox News has bought the Wikipedia. --

The fact that you haven't been pointed out as an idiot is disturbing to me. On the whole, Wikipedia is inherently biased toward liberal viewpoints as people who are of the more academic type tend to read/contribute. It is still a great resource though. Any writing or news source has some inherent bias due to the people who are contributing to it - there's nothing that can be done about that. But to say that the people who contribute to Wikipedia are more biased toward a 'Fox News' viewpoint, is simply incorrect. If we could poll all of the Wikipedia contributors, you would almost certainly find that the majority of them that voted last election went Democrat.

Regardless, this article has many pro-dividend-tax biases as shown in paragraphs like this: "Additionally, there is also the argument[who?] that dividend tax is completely voluntary..." This is a distraction because you could argue that any tax is completely voluntary with that logic. You could say that higher brackets of income tax are voluntary because I chose to earn more money. Or that I chose to live in this country and so the taxes I pay are merely a cost of living that I choose to pay. These statements might be true but the argument in the article is a complete distraction because its goal is to distinguish dividends as voluntary taxes when they are no more voluntary than any other tax.

Also this: "it is argued that an entity has no intrinsic right to those benefits and dividend tax is merely the cost to access those benefits." This is borderline idiotic. It's not as if the dividend tax was created to offset some greater cost to society resulting from a company paying out dividends to shareholders as opposed to reinvesting the money within the company.

Wow! Who wrote this? The Cato Institute? Ewlyahoocom 11:34, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The line previous to yours was written by an anon.--Silverback 05:34, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SB, my comment was actually referring to the article itself and its POV, before the rewrite. (I'll add a linebreak up there to try and make that more clear.) Ewlyahoocom 16:29, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

npov tag

Why exactly is the NPOV tag on this article? The only specifics I see mentioned thus far on the talk page are calls for citations and "more thorough explanation." There are separate tags for those things....

Thoughts? Ur Wurst Enema 05:17, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you missed the comments starting "I think this article comes across as pure advocacy..."? I agree with that! The page has barely a description of what the tax is (e.g. what is "taxed at the shareholder's level" supposed to mean?) then launches into a screed. Ewlyahoocom 16:21, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

None of that is specific. If you are so sure that this article is pure "advocacy" or a "screed," surely you could explain why. "I don't like it" ipso facto does not constitute POV. --Ur Wurst Enema 23:13, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

what was gutted?

The discussion of a double tax on dividends favoring debt over equity financing was gutted, and the resulting implications for layoffs and business cycles. Perhaps you can explain why you deleted that.--Silverback 09:28, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the original:

Supporters pointed out that the bottom 60% of wage-earners already pay little in taxes but are probably harmed the most by the double taxation. When corporations decide how to raise their capital, they see that the interest payments on debt are taxed only once while the dividend payments on equity are taxed twice, thus the tax system favors going into debt and becoming highly leveraged. Highly leveraged companies must layoff or furloough more workers more quickly at the first signs of an economic downturn. The double tax on dividends thus increases the depth of recessions in the business cycle. It is the bottom 60% of wage earners that suffer more than the "rich" from layoffs and deeper recessions. Given the negative impact of leverage on the business cycle, from a macro-economic perspective, it would be wiser to double tax interest rather than dividends by reducing the deductability of interest.

Here's the rewrite:

Abolitionists claim that more than half of all wage-earners already pay little in income taxes (not counting social security "taxes"[1]) and are "probably" harmed the most by double taxation: a company wanting to raise capital must decide between issuing new debt or issuing new equity; the differing tax treatment encourages the company to issue debt and the company becomes highly leveraged. Later during an inevitable economic downturn, the company -- not being able to bear the risk of missing an interest payment -- will be quick to lay-off workers. By comparison, abolitionists claim, a company has more flexibility with regard to dividend payments.

Again, I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "gutted". Can you be more specific? Ewlyahoocom 12:21, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The first explanation is better and more detailed. Many readers will not be economically literate, and whole sectors of the electorate don't understand indirect and non-linear effects. Note that even the more extensive original explanation, does not get into the growth benefits from lowering the cost of capital and the effects that has on business evaluation of the value of future returns for a project or expenditure. Deeper recessions does convey a sense of loss of economic growth, but even that does not capture the growth lost even in prosperous times due to a higher cost of capital.--Silverback 10:19, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, please! If you're so worried about the readers level of economics literacy why would you even use words like "capital", "equity", "leveraged", "depth of recessions", "macro-economic perspective", "deductability[sic.] of interest". In any case, most companies are not exactly known for optimizing their gearing ratios in the first place. So I think either you're either trying to turn this back into an advocacy piece -- or upset about having someone edit your writing (in which case see the note at the bottom of every edit page that reads If you don't want your writing to be edited...) Ewlyahoocom 14:55, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is information even in words that the reader doesn't understand. That information is that perhaps if they don't understand them, their opinion on the subject may not be that well informed. Of course, the advantage of wikipedia, is that those terms can be wikilinked, making remedying that ignorance easier. If a clear explanation of the impact of tax policy makes the article appear like an advocacy piece then perhaps you should reconsider your own position. Of course, companies don't optimize their gearing ratios, there is a natural tendency of "owners" to value debt financing over equity financing, since equity financing means that their power or control is diluted. Unfortunately, double taxation of dividends only reinforces and excuses this tendency. There is also a constituency the prefers highly leveraged companies because the volatility and possible growth in stock value are magnified, turning the stock markets into more of a casino. I'm sure even you can see that the ordinary working man is being duped if he falls for the class warfare rhetoric that says that only the wealthy are benefitted by eliminating this double tax.--Silverback 06:50, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, by "class warfare rhetoric" are you now suggesting that your revert on this article was because it currently exhibits a non-neutral point of view (WP:NPOV)? Could you please be more specific, perhaps citing an example? And while your comments about turning the stock market into a (Heaven forefend!) casino are interesting I'm not sure that a page about dividend taxes is the most appropriate place for that information, nor do they appear in the verision of this text that you reverted to. Ewlyahoocom 08:09, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, it doesn't appear in the version I reverted to, but that is how I could have made it arguably POV. What is your wikipedia excuse for gutting a perfectly good and neutral explanation?--Silverback 10:14, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with your characterization that anything was "gutted". Can you be more specific? Ewlyahoocom 11:17, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the mechanism for deepening recessions and business cycles was deleted.--Silverback 12:32, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merging? Cross referencing?

We have:

Double Taxation United States tax reform Dividend tax

That have common elements. US Tax Ref seems pretty sparce as well. What are the merits of keeping these separate?--Duemellon 14:25, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Double Taxation

Is a loaded term. It completely mischaracterizes dividend payments as if they are a rare instance of the same "money" being taxed when it changes hands. To highlight this as "double tax" but not apply the term to sales taxes, employee/employer wage income tax, & inheiretance tax, is a political ploy. The phrase itself was coined to be loaded, almost rhetorical, but not properly applied. Simply using the term without the qualification that is it a misleading phrase makes this whole article NPOV. --Duemellon 14:30, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. --Bluerattle 29 May 2006

I will edit this article not to use that term in exception of to explain it's loaded nature & how it is being used in the financial-political landscape if there is no one here who disagrees & doesn't defend it's usage in this fact based article.

Edited & updated. Also went through & changed the heading from those "oppossed to the elimination" as that phraseology is also biased. Altered it to read a more neutral depiction of those who want to keep the dividend. Added some other reasons for the resistance. Removed all subsequent references to "double tax". Specifically for the Romanian one which had a conflictory statement of: THey pay a 5% tax but there's no double tax. If they paid 5% after the company paid before paying dividends, its what's referred to as the dreaded "double tax". --Duemellon 13:53, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV, about abolition

Because the header of that section says it's about the view of the abolitionists, it is alright to say it's biased & POV. I think the information, although technically correct but inaccurate in it's completeness, should remain. The idea that the poorer people pay so much taxes is true, but mischaracterized & used as a rallying point. I would like it returned, but maybe a caveat or disclaimer for the skewed information. --Duemellon 15:00, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Double taxation bias

I edited the page to eliminate the inaccuracy. The term is NOT used exclusively for the dividend tax. Economists have been applying the term to the income+sales tax for much longer than the recent debate over the dividend tax. It is often a central argument for a consumption tax to replace the income+sales tax.

In recent years it has been used in popular political debates to exclusively refer to dividend taxation. To apply the "double tax" nomenclature to the dividend tax is a clear misrepresentation of reality considering there are multiple transactions taking place. The literal translation of "dividend tax" would be appropriate if it were used more widely for all points of taxation on a cash stream/asset transfer through the life of the cash/asset. However, it's limited use is what makes it an inaccurate use. --Duemellon 16:58, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Its"

"United States" section

This section needs to be rewritten. It launches straight into political campaigning with making any attempt to explain what the current law says first. I would expect something like what I have written for the UK. --Red King 21:37, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be interested in knowing the exact definition of "low-income" as it pertains to the 5%/15% dividend tax levels. GreenReaper 16:21, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since Bush argues that dividends and capital gains should not be subject to "double taxation" (whereby a company pays tax on its profits and then the shareholder pays tax on the dividend they receive), why doesn't he also apply this argument to taxation on labour wage income? The same principle applies: a company pays tax on its profits, and then distributes a portion of these profits as wages to its workers. Why then should the workers be "taxed again" in the very same sense as the shareholder? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.170.90.4 (talk) 06:31, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wages are not double-taxed: they are a cost, not part of profit. The company does not pay corporate income tax on the portion of revenue that goes towards wages. Same thing with interest. Only dividends are double-taxed. Tomek81 (talk) 21:19, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A corporation that faces an increase in corporate tax may choose to (partially or completely) pass on the cost to parties other than the shareholders: consumers, employees and suppliers come to mind. It's perfectly possible for wages to be lowered in the long term (the full effect only takes hold when older contracts have expired) by a higher corporate tax rate. Even if this wasn't the case it's hard to see a problem with double taxation as long as in most countries (probably all countries, but I'm being careful here) effective corporate tax + effective tax is lower than effective income tax over the same amount of income would be, which is why hedge fund managers, sportstars, popstars and executives try so hard to make as much of their income as possible look like income from capital rather than labor. Pundits who claim otherwise apparently know less than the average accountant.195.169.213.92 (talk) 20:58, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to know what proportion dividends tax is of all tax receipts in the US. Is this part of "Income Tax", which in 2010 accounted for 40% of all tax receipts ($2.2T) ? If so what is the percentage? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.209.110.109 (talk) 16:02, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Withholding tax in the UK?

The article currently says "In the UK, companies pay corporation tax on their profits and the remainder can be paid to shareholders as dividends. Basic rate tax payers have no further tax to pay as the dividend is deemed to have been received net of 10% tax." I have been under the impression that the company pays corporation tax and a 10% withholding tax on each divided payment, and that the "tax credit" chitty that companies send out is a receipt for tax already collected. Can anyone knowlegeable confirm or deny this? (with citation). --Red King 19:29, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Using "attribution needed" tag: Wikilawyering?

I count three ^[who?] tags in the arguments section. In the arguments section? Demanding attribution for statements that attempt to prove the underlying assertion is an appropriate use of the tag. Demanding attribution in a section describing arguments for and against is not. Each point has been repeated thousands of times in classrooms around the world. A google search will yield hundreds of names repeating each point, but what possible utility is there to randomly attaching a single name to each argument? Or maybe this is all stylistic. I noticed there was no attribution tag following "Another aspect that is argued." Should it all be written in the passive voice? Pencil Pusher (talk) 19:59, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would be enough to cite a single University-level text book. Otherwise it looks (and reads) like an uninformed polemic. We don't do assertions and we don't editorialise. Let the facts and real-world proponents speak for themselves. --Red King (talk) 22:07, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV: Controversy

This section is biased in both language and fact.

Language such as "Abolitionists" is deliberately used to marginalize those against double taxation, whereas the "arguments in favor" read as an essay rather than a statement of fact (a badly written one at that, using a quote that is not relevant to the subject matter plus various other persuasively structured statements).

Statements such as "It can be argued that...", "It might be said in defense...", "...wealthy individuals who can afford...", "There are also worries that..." and "...their full share of income tax..." has no place on Wikipedia. This is a medium for fact, not political debate.

Arguments in favor

The "Arguments in favor" section is unclear. If the corporation is treated as an entity separate from its shareholders then any its gains are offset by equal growth of its liability to the shareholders (whom it owes all its assets). Thus net income is always zero and any tax would not be an income tax. If not separated from the shareholders, then corporate income tax is a sort of early withholding against expected future shareholders liability. Then the shareholders should get a deduction (from dividends and capital gains) for income taxed at the corporate level. This section needs a revision. 71.174.252.102 (talk) 23:17, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Dividend tax/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.

==Class==

I rated this a stub because the arguments against the tax exceed the amount of content devoted to tax itself. Organization itself is also an issue because the article has margainal content on a lot of different countries but they are pretty much organized as "other."EECavazos 03:39, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I upgraded this article to start class because there has been a substantial expansion in content and organization. However, it needs a history section.EECavazos (talk) 22:44, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

==Priority==

I rated this a high priority article because dividend tax is something that exists throughout the world and yet it also has broad exposure in the consciousness of the larger population.EECavazos 03:40, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Last edited at 22:44, 12 May 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 13:31, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 30 external links on Dividend tax. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:59, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Dividend tax. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:41, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Arguments against

Please do not remove "arguments against" even if you are in favor. Someone removed "arguments against" claiming they are opinions and un-sourced at that. Neither claim is true. There are no opinions there, and there are references. What is probably going on is that this editor does not want to see "arguments against" as he is "in favor". Then he should add to arguments in favor rather than removing arguments against. He can also enter his criticism to this talk page. 108.26.227.246 (talk) 00:52, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wp:Wikipedia is not a platform for political polemic. Nobody is interested in your personal view of this form of taxation (or mine either). You cannot write a personal essay on what you believe are the reasons it should not be used. See policy wp:no original research. The only material that may be added is an honest summary of what a wp:reliable source says, one that represents a significant body of opinion (ref wp:false balance). This is a rule that applies throughout Wikipedia, especially on articles where readers§ expect a coherent treatment in encyclopedic style. The material you have been adding has not met this standard: that is why it has been reverted, not because we do or do not agree with your philosophy. Please study the article and similar quality articles to see what is expected: you could leave a draft here and other editors will give you a sentence by sentence critique of where and how it can be improved to make the cut. --Red King (talk) 19:10, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Red King: you are completely arbitrary and unspecific in your objections. I do not see what relation your objections have on the text you object to (as opposite to just relations to your political philosophy). If you have actual reasons please say specifically which statements seem un-grounded and as you say political or subjective. 108.26.227.246 (talk) 19:49, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The majority of the content added doesn't seem to appear in the sources cited. This seems to be a classic case of WP:OR - you need to find a source and then summarize that source, not just write what you know to be true. - MrOllie (talk) 23:30, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MrOllie: could you please specify which statement or statements there you think require additional support. All said there is just to indicate which concepts explained in the given links are relevant to the issue at hand and how. If some statement seems unsupported please specify: generic words give nothing. If you want others to do so, please restore the text and give them a chance. Thanks. 108.26.227.246 (talk) 00:07, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think every statement should be cited, except for the one sentence that is already cited to Kao and Chen. I'm not sure if the taxnotes.com source is reliable - I can't seem to find information on their editorial process so I'm thinking not right now. Wikipedia can't be used as a source for itself, so wikilinking terms does not help. We need sources that give the appropriate context as used on this article. - MrOllie (talk) 00:51, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MrOllie: "I think every statement should be cited,"

There are no articles in wikipedia where every sentence is supplied with a citation. Such article would be unreadable. Citations make sense only for statements that would not be obvious to reasonable readers in their context.

"I'm not sure if the taxnotes.com source is reliable"

TAX NOTES FEDERAL is the main forum for US tax policies. If you are not sure, look at the credentials of their authors or ask the tax policy experts. Otherwise please refrain from judgment.

"Wikipedia can't be used as a source for itself, so wikilinking terms does not help. We need sources that give the appropriate context as used on this article."

The links given are to well developed articles with many external sources cited in them. The concepts they describe are elaborate: readers desiring a deeper understanding beyond the intuitive notion could read them, and some of them would also read sources cited in those articles. The section "Arguments against" just cannot afford to duplicate all this info and remain readable. 108.26.227.246 (talk) 01:22, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please do read over Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability#Responsibility_for_providing_citations. These are core policies and you aren't going to get anywhere on Wikipedia as long as you are disregarding them. At this point your content has been challenged so you are required to provide citations that support it. These must be inline citations that directly speak to the content - simply making a wikilink and asserting that your content is supported by some unidentified citation in that other article is not sufficient. - MrOllie (talk) 12:34, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, MrOllie, for clarification. I am well aware of this policies. Let me quote from them:

 " `original research' [...] refer to [...] facts, allegations, and ideas"
 "the statement `the capital of France is Paris' needs no source,"

The text in question carefully avoids any unsourced material that may not be obvious in its context. In particular, in describing the issues involved in taxing or not taxing dividends it refrains from offering any opinions on which would present greater problems. If any of the statements will be challenged (in good faith, not like "add proofs that Paris is in France") I, with much gratitude, will correct or clarify if it is inaccurate or unclear, or provide grounds if it is not obvious. (At least in the talk page discussion. Whether those grounds would be useful or ridiculously trivial in the article, could also be discussed.) But it needs be something specific, not just "whatever is said is no good". So far only one such challenge has been made: due to a broken link in an earlier version (fixed in a later version). Please indicate sentences that look ungrounded to you. Thanks!

Everybody knows that the issue of Dividend Tax is controversial. The remaining in the "Controversies" section description of the issues involved is skeletal superficial and provides no understanding. This resulted from editors eliminating explanations of the side other than the one they favor. This is not a good way to give support to their side: just drives away people, not gains any supporters. The useful and harmful aspects of Dividend Taxes should be clearly explained, so that the remaining differences would really be based on political disagreements rather than just on lack of comprehension.

The benefits and problems of taxing and of not taxing dividends are not straightforward. They involve a number of concepts described in other wikipedia articles. The details of these concepts cannot be duplicated in the section "Arguments against", can only be linked to those other (elaborate and well sourced) articles.

We should avoid edit wars. So, I will wait a few days so that other editors have a chance to look at the "arguments against" in

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dividend_tax&oldid=949313417

and check if there are problematic statements there: biased, un-grounded, or partisan. If some are indicated they will be discussed here. PLEASE REFRAIN FROM STATING GENERICS THAT GIVE NO SPECIFIC RELATION TO THE GIVEN TEXT. After that I will restore that text with necessary corrections (some, like annoying linebreaks and broken links, have been already suggested).

Furthermore, I suggest (though will not do it myself without support of others) to restructure the section "Controversy" (clearly inadequate at present). It should focus on the problems and benefits of taxing or not taxing dividends rather than on its political sides. I suggest something like the following:

"The issues of Dividend Tax involve controversies.
One is whether taxing dividends is rightful." [Here goes what is presently in `Arguments In Favor'. Someone may also consider adding `arguments against' on this issue.]
"Another issue is whether dividend taxes are fair." [Here goes what is presently left out of `Arguments Against'. Someone may also consider adding `arguments in favor' on this issue.]
"And an issue is whether taxing dividends (if rightful and fair) is wise, i.e. what are its economic effects." [Here goes the text we have been discussing, possibly with what other people may add.]

108.26.227.246 (talk) 16:14, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is not up to you to handwave that everything you wrote is obvious - you were reverted, so that ship has sailed. If you don't want to source this content you should not expect that it will last very long in the article. - MrOllie (talk) 16:46, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MrOllie: The text was reverted by Red King without challenging any "facts, allegations, or ideas" in it. He gave no indication of which of those are unverified in his view. It might be just something partisan or personal on his part. You are more cooperative than him, but still give no specifics.

As I said, I would be eager to provide corrections, clarifications, and/or verification of any "facts, allegations, or ideas" that are challenged in good faith. If you see some such, please indicate. Otherwise I will wait for others to do that if they find problematic statements. Unfortunately, this article (at least its "Controversies" section) is not followed by many, probably due to its poor state. So those few who do, should cooperate and not engage in edit wars. 108.26.227.246 (talk) 17:57, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Replace "debate" section with an "impact" section

Wikipedia is not for compiling arguments for debate club. Arguments for and against dividend taxes can be added to a "politics of dividend taxes" section. 14:06, 31 August 2022 (UTC) Thenightaway (talk) 14:06, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]