Talk:U.S. 2004 tax rates lower for those earning over $10 million, Tax Policy Center says

The 4.8 billion number in the 2nd paragraph is by my calculations from here http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/TaxFacts/TFDB/TFTemplate.cfm?Docid=203 If anyone wants to check my work, I added individual income taxes (765,399 mil) to the social insurance and retirement receipts (732,792 mil). Then I multiplied that number (1,497,791) by 2.9%, the "share of total" from the original table to get the amount contributed by those earning over $10,000,000. I then multiplied that number by (2.2/20.1), the fractional increase of a 2.2% raise in taxes. - from Pencil Pusher (moved here by Dan100 (Talk) 09:06, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC))


 * By presenting your own "facts", based upon your own calculations, you tread dangerously close to "original research".


 * How would you feel if I selectively presented my own "facts" derived from these numbers to push my own political agenda?


 * The snide reference to funding the head start program using your calculated number is pushing a political agenda.


 * If you feel compelled to make editorial comments biased in favor of increasing the rate on upper-income taxpayers to achieve certain policy goals, please do so here on the talk page or on your user page, but not in the body of the article.


 * &mdash; DV 09:38, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * You have a point about the Head Start program, but other than that what is wrong with this article? This is wikinews, not wikipedia - original research is allowed and encouraged, and he clearly states the source of the raw data.

So fix it, DV. Obviously article should be written from a neutral point of view, but we do allow original research on Wikinews. Dan100 (Talk) 18:52, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I think that the aticle is fair except for the first sentence. The first sentnence isn't neccessarily misleading but is definetly an opinion. Muskoka 23:10, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * "original research is allowed and encouraged"? Really? Where is that policy stated? That's sure news to me. Is POV editing in vogue as long as it engages in class warfare?


 * As for "fixing it", I removed the sentence about the head start program, but I'm not about to debate conclusions drawn from selectively chosen statistics, which would only serve to start an edit war over an article which is serving a thinly-veiled political agenda to begin with.


 * Moving forward, if "original research" is allowed, can I start grabbing random statistics from a "nonpartisan" think tank of my choosing, and start publishing a new column called, "Lies, damn lies, and statistics"? Such a column might make for an entertaining read, but astute readers would quickly point out that such "original research" does not comport with "NPOV".


 * Original research, editorials, opinion columns, even reports from firsthand witnesses - they're all in conflict with "NPOV" to some degree, so it's amusing when wannabe policymakers on this site declare that some of these forms of opinion are acceptable while others are not.


 * Perhaps Wikinews will mature and eventually admit that the honest thing to do is to simply drop the pretense that an objective standard for "NPOV" is possible when reporting the news, and openly follow an editorial bias in its reporting. Readers with critical thinking skills see right through the facade of "NPOV". We're not fooling anyone by using "NPOV" as a rallying cry and then selectively publishing articles such as this one.


 * Cheers,


 * &mdash; DV 14:15, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * frankly, I don't understand your objection. I went too far with one sentance, and that sentance was deleted.  So what, exactly to you have a problem with?  That I took some numbers and hit mulitply on my calculator?  Why is this a problem for you?  Are you disputing the accuracy of the numbers?  Are you disputing the accuracy of the math?  The table told us that the uber-rich contributed 2.9% to the total receipts and were taxed at a rate of 20.1%.  This is 2.2% less than the not-quite-uber-rich group.  Any reasonably intelligent 7th grader should be able to tell you how to put the numbers together if you wanted to know how what % of extra cash you would get if the two groups were taxed the same. I really don't understand what you are complaining about, or what exactly is being "disputed".  Pencil Pusher 18:54, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I was going through the NPOV debates, and came across this article. Wikinews has a specific policy about original reporting at Wikinews talk:Original reporting.  It's specifically allowed.

Chipuni 03:55, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

correction
The row in the table that you referr to people making $1000 - $10,000 is actually (1000 - 10000) * 1000, which reffers to people making ($1 million to $10 million). The table does not state numbers for people between $1000 - $10000. The closest it comes is for people making less then $30,000 this is only 6.7% of income. This is actually 13.4% less then people making more then $10 million.


 * huh? I think you may have misread the article. Taxpayers making less than $75K/year were not discussed.

Removing dispute tag - adding OR
Article changes have not been challenged, article appears to include original reporting as explained on this page. - Amgine/talk 02:40, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)