This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sweden, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sweden-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SwedenWikipedia:WikiProject SwedenTemplate:WikiProject SwedenSweden articles
@Mccapra: Hi, check if it's "understandable" right now..--Mcapdevila (talk) 12:09, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Mcapdevila:} not really! The paradox as stated isn’t a paradox. Mccapra (talk) 12:49, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Guessing at what it might mean - countries achieve higher levels of equality if they have lower levels of formal income redistribution through taxes? Not sure if that’s what is intended but it’s not clear what the actual paradox is. Mccapra (talk) 12:51, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
i will try to get the origiginal work, understand it, and compress it i two lines.. but you should change the label to "clarify", because now the text it's very readable & understandable, the only thing it's that what it describes are the two sides of a controversy not a parodoxal fact..----Mcapdevila (talk) 13:29, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Mccapra: Welw, at the end.. I have removed the text in conflict and added a Jstor link, so there is no reason for the label..------Mcapdevila (talk) 13:56, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
