Talk:Lucky duckies

CBO numbers

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)[reply]

Sentence should be reworded

"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)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:LuckyDuckyComic.gif

The image Image:LuckyDuckyComic.gif is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:

File:LuckyDuckyComic.png

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --09:01, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Mr. FairuseBot, there is a fair-use rationale given on the Image's page. Take a look. This is the only wikipedia page on which the image is used.

47% meme

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)[reply]

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Lucky duckies/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.

==WP Tax Class==

I put this at start class initially but it should go up to good article, maybe B article. I didn't put it up that high because I believe a few other editors have to agree for that level of promotion. It should be classed at such a level because it encompasses the entire universe of the topic and provides many references and hyperlinks.EECavazos 00:20, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

==WP Tax priority==

Low priority because it is a political quip limited to USA.EECavazos 00:26, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Last edited at 00:26, 1 November 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 22:35, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:44, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]