Talk:Dividend tax

message: 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)
replies: text: The line previous to yours was written by an anon.--Silverback 05:34, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: NPOV

message: 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)
replies: text: The line previous to yours was written by an anon.--Silverback 05:34, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Anonymous one, it is a non-linear world 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  npov tag

message: 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)
thread_title:  Merging? Cross referencing? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Double Taxation 

message: 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)
thread_title:  NPOV, about abolition 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  "United States" section 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Withholding tax in the UK? 

message: I count three  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Using "attribution needed" tag: Wikilawyering? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Arguments in favor 

message: Substituted at 13:31, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110514214046/http://www.newaccountantusa.com/newsFeat/wealthManagement/TaxPaperDividends.pdf to http://www.newaccountantusa.com/newsFeat/wealthManagement/TaxPaperDividends.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040204191706/http://www.cato.org:80/research/articles/edwards-030108.html to http://www.cato.org/research/articles/edwards-030108.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101226091208/http://economy.cbh.com:80/2010/12/two-year-extension-of-bush-era-tax-cuts-becomes-law/ to http://economy.cbh.com/2010/12/two-year-extension-of-bush-era-tax-cuts-becomes-law/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080910031807/https://www.taxmann.com/bookstore/product/4773-direct-taxes-law-and-practice-2019 to https://www.taxmann.com/bookstore/product/4773-direct-taxes-law-and-practice-2019
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090208180034/http://law.incometaxindia.gov.in:80/DitTaxmann/IncomeTaxActs/2002ITAct/ITACT2002/section115O.htm to http://law.incometaxindia.gov.in/DitTaxmann/IncomeTaxActs/2002ITAct/ITACT2002/section115O.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090207021154/http://law.incometaxindia.gov.in:80/DitTaxmann/IncomeTaxActs/2002ITAct/ITACT2002/ftnsec115oft91.htm to http://law.incometaxindia.gov.in/DitTaxmann/IncomeTaxActs/2002ITAct/ITACT2002/ftnsec115oft91.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090207020246/http://law.incometaxindia.gov.in:80/DitTaxmann/IncomeTaxActs/2002ITAct/ITACT2002/ftnsec115oft92.htm to http://law.incometaxindia.gov.in/DitTaxmann/IncomeTaxActs/2002ITAct/ITACT2002/ftnsec115oft92.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090207020610/http://law.incometaxindia.gov.in:80/DitTaxmann/IncomeTaxActs/2002ITAct/ITACT2002/ftnsec115oft91a.htm to http://law.incometaxindia.gov.in/DitTaxmann/IncomeTaxActs/2002ITAct/ITACT2002/ftnsec115oft91a.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090207020736/http://law.incometaxindia.gov.in:80/DitTaxmann/IncomeTaxActs/2002ITAct/ITACT2002/section115R.htm to http://law.incometaxindia.gov.in/DitTaxmann/IncomeTaxActs/2002ITAct/ITACT2002/section115R.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090207020251/http://law.incometaxindia.gov.in:80/DitTaxmann/IncomeTaxActs/2002ITAct/ITACT2002/ftnsec115rft95.htm to http://law.incometaxindia.gov.in/DitTaxmann/IncomeTaxActs/2002ITAct/ITACT2002/ftnsec115rft95.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090207020615/http://law.incometaxindia.gov.in:80/DitTaxmann/IncomeTaxActs/2002ITAct/ITACT2002/ftnsec115rft96.htm to http://law.incometaxindia.gov.in/DitTaxmann/IncomeTaxActs/2002ITAct/ITACT2002/ftnsec115rft96.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090207015600/http://law.incometaxindia.gov.in:80/DitTaxmann/IncomeTaxActs/2002ITAct/ITACT2002/ftnsec115rft95a.htm to http://law.incometaxindia.gov.in/DitTaxmann/IncomeTaxActs/2002ITAct/ITACT2002/ftnsec115rft95a.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090207020348/http://law.incometaxindia.gov.in:80/DitTaxmann/IncomeTaxActs/2002ITAct/ITACT2002/ftnsec115rft95b.htm to http://law.incometaxindia.gov.in/DitTaxmann/IncomeTaxActs/2002ITAct/ITACT2002/ftnsec115rft95b.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090207015635/http://law.incometaxindia.gov.in:80/DitTaxmann/IncomeTaxActs/2002ITAct/ITACT2002/section10.htm to http://law.incometaxindia.gov.in/DitTaxmann/IncomeTaxActs/2002ITAct/ITACT2002/section10.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090206184912/http://law.incometaxindia.gov.in:80/DitTaxmann/IncomeTaxActs/2002ITAct/ITACT2002/ftnsec10ft396.htm to http://law.incometaxindia.gov.in/DitTaxmann/IncomeTaxActs/2002ITAct/ITACT2002/ftnsec10ft396.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090206184912/http://law.incometaxindia.gov.in:80/DitTaxmann/IncomeTaxActs/2002ITAct/ITACT2002/ftnsec10ft396.htm to http://law.incometaxindia.gov.in/DitTaxmann/IncomeTaxActs/2002ITAct/ITACT2002/ftnsec10ft396.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090207021749/http://law.incometaxindia.gov.in:80/DitTaxmann/IncomeTaxActs/2002ITAct/ITACT2002/ftnsec10ft395a.htm to http://law.incometaxindia.gov.in/DitTaxmann/IncomeTaxActs/2002ITAct/ITACT2002/ftnsec10ft395a.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090214105352/https://www.taxmann.com/research/direct-tax-laws/all-about/all-about-income-tax-act to https://www.taxmann.com/research/direct-tax-laws/all-about/all-about-income-tax-act
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090214122905/https://www.taxmann.com/research/direct-tax-laws/all-about/all-about-income-tax-act to https://www.taxmann.com/research/direct-tax-laws/all-about/all-about-income-tax-act
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090208180629/http://law.incometaxindia.gov.in:80/DitTaxmann/IncomeTaxActs/2004ITAct/section115R.htm to http://law.incometaxindia.gov.in/DitTaxmann/IncomeTaxActs/2004ITAct/section115R.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090207015820/http://law.incometaxindia.gov.in:80/DitTaxmann/IncomeTaxActs/2004ITAct/ftn91_1_563.htm to http://law.incometaxindia.gov.in/DitTaxmann/IncomeTaxActs/2004ITAct/ftn91_1_563.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090207022152/http://law.incometaxindia.gov.in:80/DitTaxmann/IncomeTaxActs/2004ITAct/ftn91a_1_563.htm to http://law.incometaxindia.gov.in/DitTaxmann/IncomeTaxActs/2004ITAct/ftn91a_1_563.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090207020545/http://law.incometaxindia.gov.in:80/DitTaxmann/IncomeTaxActs/1997ITAct/itac3zzh.htm to http://law.incometaxindia.gov.in/DitTaxmann/IncomeTaxActs/1997ITAct/itac3zzh.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090207020220/http://law.incometaxindia.gov.in:80/DitTaxmann/IncomeTaxActs/1997ITAct/itac4q5w.htm to http://law.incometaxindia.gov.in/DitTaxmann/IncomeTaxActs/1997ITAct/itac4q5w.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090207021743/http://law.incometaxindia.gov.in:80/DitTaxmann/IncomeTaxActs/1997ITAct/itac2iht.htm to http://law.incometaxindia.gov.in/DitTaxmann/IncomeTaxActs/1997ITAct/itac2iht.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090207015636/http://law.incometaxindia.gov.in:80/DitTaxmann/IncomeTaxActs/2003ITAct/Act2003/Section80m.htm to http://law.incometaxindia.gov.in/DitTaxmann/IncomeTaxActs/2003ITAct/Act2003/Section80m.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090207021200/http://law.incometaxindia.gov.in:80/DitTaxmann/IncomeTaxActs/2003ITAct/Act2003/ftn55p469.htm to http://law.incometaxindia.gov.in/DitTaxmann/IncomeTaxActs/2003ITAct/Act2003/ftn55p469.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090207022107/http://law.incometaxindia.gov.in:80/DitTaxmann/IncomeTaxActs/2003ITAct/Act2003/ftn54Ap469.htm to http://law.incometaxindia.gov.in/DitTaxmann/IncomeTaxActs/2003ITAct/Act2003/ftn54Ap469.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131008010901/http://www.impotsdirects.public.lu/legislation/LIR/Loi_modifi__e_du_4_d__cembre_1967_concernant_l_imp__t_sur_le_revenu_-_texte_coordonn___au_1er_janvier_20131.pdf to http://www.impotsdirects.public.lu/legislation/LIR/Loi_modifi__e_du_4_d__cembre_1967_concernant_l_imp__t_sur_le_revenu_-_texte_coordonn___au_1er_janvier_20131.pdf#page=96
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071128090709/http://tscpa.com/Journal/articles/dividend_tax_cut_traps.pdf to http://tscpa.com/Journal/articles/dividend_tax_cut_traps.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:59, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cato.org/research/articles/edwards-030108.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090815005121/http://www.kiplinger.com/features/archives/2008/11/tax-planning-tax-law-changes4.html?kipad_id=44 to http://www.kiplinger.com/features/archives/2008/11/tax-planning-tax-law-changes4.html?kipad_id=44
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://law.incometaxindia.gov.in/DitTaxmann/IncomeTaxActs/2002ITAct/ITACT2002/ftnsec115rft95a.htm
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://law.incometaxindia.gov.in/DitTaxmann/IncomeTaxActs/2002ITAct/ITACT2002/ftnsec115rft95b.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090206184912/http://law.incometaxindia.gov.in/DitTaxmann/IncomeTaxActs/2002ITAct/ITACT2002/ftnsec10ft396.htm to http://law.incometaxindia.gov.in/DitTaxmann/IncomeTaxActs/2002ITAct/ITACT2002/ftnsec10ft396.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090214111901/https://www.taxmann.com/research/direct-tax-laws/acts/income-tax-act-1961 to https://www.taxmann.com/research/direct-tax-laws/acts/income-tax-act-1961
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090214141158/https://web.archive.org/web/20090214111901/https://www.taxmann.com/research/direct-tax-laws/acts/income-tax-act-1961 to https://www.taxmann.com/research/direct-tax-laws/acts/income-tax-act-1961
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) 14:41, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Arguments against

message: 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)
thread_title:  Replace "debate" section with an "impact" section