Talk:Tax Foundation

message: I have added a listing of the board of directors, with links, indicating affilations and term of each. I think it's important to know who's running a nonprofit. Also added: a bit more history; links to public filings. Oldtaxguy (talk) 00:21, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added list of directors, more history 

message: Question, given Krugman's obvious and well understood biases, why is his OPINION cited as a valid criticism? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 
152.130.15.14 (talk) 13:15, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Because he is a notable figure, and because nearly all criticisms are opinions. The article does not imply that Krugman is unbiased.Nstrauss (talk) 22:28, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Krugman commentary 

message: The summary states that "it has been described as pro-business and conservative-leaning and has ties to various conservative groups."  None of the referenced articles actually prove that out.  The Newsweek article that is referenced has a Tax Foundation CRITICISM of a conservative group's claims.  The second article is a broken link, and the third article from "The Political Animal" is simply an editorial which simply states that the Tax Foundation is a conservative-leaning group (with no basis to back up that claim).  In none of these articles is there any evidence or even reference to "ties to various conservative groups."  Therefore I have removed.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.77.242.105 (talk) 17:42, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: If you think that's negative or biasing, move it somewhere less prominent - no problem with that.--E8 (talk) 15:12, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I moved the "pro-business" description next to the "non-partisan" one; they should be placed together, given the controversial nature of the subject.--E8 (talk) 17:47, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Pro-business" 

message: It makes no sense for this section to be called "Goals and Principles" when it contains neither. I'd also hate for everything to be dumped into "history." Right now the Tax Foundation's viewpoints are spread in both sections without any organization. How about pulling together third-party references to their analysis being premised on simplicity, neutrality, etc.? That exists, and they are even criticized for it. That way we're not just copying what they say. It seems weird to leave out this central stuff that that they reference in almost everything they put out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.93.220.33 (talk) 12:27, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: This could be expaned - I did add some basics in there. Tax Foundation is an acceptable source for their opinion about themselves. Morphh (talk) 21:10, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: This summarizes appropriately. What was present before (that I removed) was cut-and-paste from the TF site, which is not permitted.--E8 (talk) 03:46, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Goals and Principles 

message: Hello again. I'll start off with (again) full disclosure - I am an employee of the Tax Foundation and, as such, obviously have an agenda. With that caveat in mind, I'd like to make a (in my mind) quite reasonable suggestion. I don't think it's balanced to have a section for "Criticisms" and no such section for "Praise." I don't have a real problem with the Krugman criticisms being on the page somewhere, but it's biased to have only criticisms when the organization has received a fair amount of praise from other quarters (for example, Milton Friedman). Any of the following quotes from our website would be a worthwhile addition to the page (see right sidebar of this page: http://taxfoundation.org/support/scotthodgemessage/) Additionally, we were recently named "Organization of the Year" by trade publication State Tax Notes: http://www.tax.org/www/features.nsf/Articles/B758C1CAFE9CFE6A8525795D0056B982?OpenDocument
Again, I'm not going to make these changes myself. But I think the additions I've suggested are reasonable, verifiable, and relevant to the organization.Nkasprak (talk) 20:15, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticisms without Praise 

message: I removed this reference from the last paragraph of the goals and principles section. I did not see any information on where their funding comes from. May be in another journal entry though, so I placed the link here in case in can be of use.EncycloCritique (talk) 20:54, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: removed citation

message: This article has clear and longstanding WP:NPOV issues. First, criticism should be integrated throughout an article, not put into its own section (see WP:CRITS). The amount of critical content in this article compared to other content (about the organization's history, activities, or supporters) is WP:UNDUE and in violation of WP:BALANCE. The content in the criticism section is shoddy. It's basically a verbose accounting of how the Tax Foundation and the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities don't like each other, which is entirely unsurprising given the fact that the former is conservative, and the latter is liberal. The only sourcing about the tiff between the two organizations are the organizations' own studies. We need more than WP:PRIMARY sourcing to show that this content is noteworthy. Has a dispute between the organizations been the subject of coverage in reliable, secondary sources? I'm sure meaningful criticism has been leveled against this group, but a bunch of white papers from an ideologically opposed group is not it. Safehaven86 (talk) 02:28, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: First, note that WP:CRITS is an essay, there is no policy or guideline that suggests getting rid of criticism sections. Criticisms should be given coverage based on their notability, see WP:DUE and WP:BALANCE. Second, Krugman's criticism is direct, relevant and meaningful. Removal of half of it, and hiding the other half into the middle of an unrelated section is not appropriate. Third, it is entirely appropriate to use an organization's description of itself, as a source for how it describes itself. This is explicitly allowed (see WP:SELFSOURCE), and is not a case of primary sourcing. LK (talk) 16:01, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree Krugman's criticism should be in the article. My main issue is with the back-and-forth between the Tax Foundation and CBPP. Why is the white paper for white paper volley notable? I can find no secondary coverage of their disagreements with each other, and it just doesn't seem noteworthy. This is a WP:WEIGHT issue. On another note, I'm confused by this edit. The source only lists 6 board members as far as I can tell. I don't see Philip English, Stephen Kranz, Tom Roesser, or Scott Hodge listed. With regards to the "Criticisms" section, I can ask for a WP:3O if you like. I just don't see how a bunch of primary sources/white papers from two competing think tanks rises to the level of notability for taking up so much real estate here, especially when other content, Krugman, appears much more noteworthy. Safehaven86 (talk) 17:10, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK, I agree, that section is over done. However, a think tank doesn't usually go out of its way to criticize another. There's probably coverage of this somewhere, and there should probably be a couple of lines about it in the article. LK (talk) 00:16, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I found some coverage of the Tax Freedom Day dispute from a Canadian think tank and Forbes, and I added working links to primary sourcing from both think tanks and integrated this material into a new "activities" section. Do you think this works? I think we should also try to get more information on their activities through history. They've been around for many decades so I'm sure there is noteworthy stuff they've been involved with over time that's not currently in the article. Safehaven86 (talk) 01:56, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  Looks fine to me. LK (talk) 04:59, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

text: Good catch, thanks! I removed the inaccurate wikilink. It doesn't appear that we have an article on the correct person. Safehaven86 (talk) 16:36, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV issues 

message: email received Nov 3 2017;
Speaker Ryan Press Office <SpeakerRyanPressOffice@press.speaker.gov>
BREAKING: Analysis Finds House Tax Plan Would Create Nearly 1 Million New Jobs
November 3, 2017 | Speaker Ryan Press Office | http://spkrryan.us/2j2N8fW
This afternoon, the indpendent Tax Foundation released an initial analysis of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act introduced in the House this week. Their research shows the economy booming, leading to more jobs, higher wages, greater income, and a relative boost in tax revenue.
 
Specifically, the Tax Foundation finds the plan would result in:
975,000 more full-time equivalent jobs
3.9 percent increase in size of the U.S. Economy
3.1 percent higher wages for workers
They report, "The larger economy and higher wages are due chiefly to the significantly lower cost of capital under the proposal, which is mainly due to the lower corporate income tax rate.”
 
But that’s not all. When taking into account the tax cuts for individuals, incomes will rise even more. The report finds: "When accounting for the increased GDP, after-tax incomes of all taxpayers would increase by 4.4 percent in the long run."
 
As we’ve said—and this independent analysis confirms—the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act is all about more jobs, fairer taxes, and bigger paychecks.
--Wikipietime (talk) 01:45, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Corporate advocacy group