Talk:Stealth tax

Stealth tax was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
February 15, 2007	Good article nominee	Not listed

Taxation Start‑class (inactive)

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Taxation, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.TaxationWikipedia:WikiProject TaxationTemplate:WikiProject TaxationTaxation articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Untitled[edit]

I'm not sure the thrust of this article is correct. I'd say that the concept of a "stealth" tax is more to do with taking money from taxpayers without them realising it, than taking money in an overt fashion, regardless of what you then spend the money on. Here's an article that seems to agree. Note that they mention parking fines as being a "stupidity tax", I think you could include speeding fines in a similar bracket. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frumious (talk • contribs)

I agree, I have used a definition I got from the OED online. I have also added a few references for verifiability. I have changed much of the article. I do not think Francis Maude coined the term, if we do not get a source to support this assertion I will remove it. I am also unconvinced that the increase in National Insurance by the Labour government costitutes a stealth tax, surely it is simply a broken promise, and then only if one assumes the de facto position that NI is an income tax. One can equally claim that technically they did not break their manifesto commitment because it is not an income tax. But I digress because if it is not a stealth tax then it doesn't belong here anyway. One could argue that Thatcher's increases on VAT from 8% in 1979 to 15% when she left office is a true stealth tax. Alun

All of the taxes levied by G.Brown that have been described (usually by Tory supporting media, rather than the Tory party themselves) as "Stealth taxes" were actually announced in pre-budget or budget speeches, and are therefore not "stealth" at all. They were often announced at least 6 months before they were due to be imposed, so by the time they were actually imposed people had forgotten about them, but people's poor memory doesn't equate to the tax being brought in without an announcement! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.198.33.252 (talk) 16:32, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The examples of stamp duty and council tax are the very opposite of stealth taxes. In fact even though property taxes are very efficient they are very unpopular with politicians because they are so "in your face".

I will therefore delete those examples as they are pretty stupid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.72.144.215 (talk) 23:19, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Origin of the term[edit]

I presume the term stealth tax is by analogy with wealth tax (the idea that rich people should be taxed a percentage of their total wealth). If this is correct, perhaps someone could put that in the article. Man with two legs 16:33, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Failed "good article" nomination[edit]

This article failed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of February 15, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Overall a well written and well organized article. It does rely heavily on words that should be avoided, see NPOV below.

2. Factually accurate?: Well sourced, but it would be nice to see some secondary sources on, why stealth taxes are implemented, etc.

3. Broad in coverage?: This and NPOV are the main reasons it failed. Should talk some about why stealth taxes exist, whether both parties feel these are stealth taxes, etc.

4. Neutral point of view?: Does not seem to overly endorse the Conservatives' position, but Labor's position is not presented at all.

5. Article stability? Seems so. I don't see any problems now.

6. Images?: It might be hard to come up with images for this, so it passes.

When these issues are addressed, the article can be resubmitted for consideration. Thanks for your work so far. --Selket ^Talk 17:06, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
It is stable.
It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
a (tagged and captioned): b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
Overall:
a Pass/Fail:

Assessment comment[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Stealth tax/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Comment(s)

Press [show] to view →

==WP Tax Class==

This article needs expansion in content, the article pretty much covers a country's national politics in such a way as to give a history of a present political issue. It should be expanded beyond that to give the general history, impact, and theory of stealth taxation.EECavazos 20:45, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article also needs to be globalized.EECavazos 20:45, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

==WP Tax Priority== High priority because this is a basic approach to taxation and would likely have high traffic.EECavazos 20:48, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

== Passing spectrum auction costs on to customers ==

I am not aware of any verifiable economic evidence that auctioning broadcast licences results in the costs being passed on to the consumer. That point of view contradicts Ricardo's Law of Rent, a generally accepted economic theory.

If, for example, the UK Government had just given the 3G licences away on a "first come, first served" basis, the person/people who obtained the licences could have simply auctioned the licences to the mobile phone companies, which would have resulted in the companies facing the same costs.

The following paper gives some background to the UK 3G auction and outlines some of the reasons why the licence costs impact the mobile phone operators profits, not the price paid by the consumer:

http://www.nuff.ox.ac.uk/users/klemperer/biggestsept.pdf

--Paul-lockett (talk) 12:05, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Last edited at 12:05, 12 May 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 06:58, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Possible new sources[edit]

79.76.233.42 (talk) 16:01, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]