Talk:Lucky duckies

message: Moved old talk to Talk:Lucky duckies/archive; mostly discussion of earlier drafts of article with NPOV problems. Sdedeo 05:06, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: archive

message: The CBO "effective tax rate" calculations are not NPOV because they  deduct from the actual tax payments of low income earners all the costs of programs for the poor, while not making similar deductions from other classes of taxpayers for the federal services that benefit other segments of the population, for instance those programs that primarily benefit the rich. (Many government contracts fall into the latter category.) Also these figures count the employers' portion of FICA as a deduction from the contributions of workers, rather than an additional contribution of the worker, which it in effect is.
Quite often the total tax burden for single low earners is 25%- 35% when counting payroll taxes (even excluding the employer portion), income taxes, state income and sales taxes, excise taxes, and local sales taxes - even without counting the fees charged or mandated for things usually necessary to having a job at all, such as phone taxes, licenses, certifications, car insurance and tags. Many if not most low-income people receive few or no government benefits, whether from ineligibility, the difficulty of applying, or  their pride in their independence. These CBO numbers are thus grossly distorted, and do not meet Wikipedia's standards for objectivity. Enon (talk) 05:19, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: CBO numbers

message: "Just because somebody does not pay any federal income tax does not mean that they are part of a “non-taxpaying class,” or even that they pay a smaller percentage of their income in taxes than someone who does pay federal income tax."
This is a true statement, but should be reworded - as it stands it sounds more like an opinion.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pittsburghmuggle (talk • contribs) 22:49, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sentence should be reworded 

message: I've expanded the article considerably. I think that while the term has faded from use over the last few years, the topic - are people paying no taxes and receiving benefits moochers or poor people deserving help from the government? - remains a huge part of political debate that deserves a place on Wikipedia. I've tried to make the article even-handed while clearly summarising the arguments made by both sides. Comments and input welcomed, though. Blythwood (talk) 14:20, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  47% meme 

message: Substituted at 22:35, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Lucky duckies. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060529165518/http://www.gregsopinion.com/archives/002640.html to http://www.gregsopinion.com/archives/002640.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:44, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified