Deletion of Expenditure incidence

Comment: no evidence of substantive coverage, no sources in article, just a small amount of incomprehensible jargon. That it is WP:IMPERFECT (which is just ''one section'' of diting policy) is the least of its problems -- there is the fact that it is in pervasive violation of  &  -- and last I checked that is "a reason to delete
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Editing policy (WP:E||WP:V||WP:NOR)

Comment: Tell us why #DICTIONARY does not apply to this rather thin and, to me, rather vague article
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: the recent additions appear to be a small and scattershot collection of loosely connected factoids (?), the largest of which appears to be more than a little . It does not amount to a coherent exposition of the subject (even at a stub level), which may, as Dingo1729 suggests, be better explained as part of Fiscal incidence
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:INDISCRIMINATE||WP:HOWTO)

Comment: per . No meaningful context
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)