Talk:Americans for Tax Reform

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Conncections to Jack Abramoff[edit]

Why is the main point of this article to tell me about the group's connections to Jack Abramoff? 15:29, 18 August 2006 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.205.53.50 (talk • contribs) {{{2}}}.

You may be mistakenly thinking that wikipedia has editors who are responsible for posting complete and balanced articles. Or that an editor is not allowed (or supposed to) post information that is incomplete. Wikipedia articles almost always start out incomplete; they grow and improve as people (like you) add information to them.
If the article is incomplete, and you care about that, then spend some time adding to it. (I just added a couple of paragraphs, but that may be it for a while, since I'm working on other things that I consider more important.) John Broughton 16:04, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Structure[edit]

Added a sourced section on structure, membership, finances, and so on. Interestingly, none of that information is available on the ATR website. I also read an allegation that ATR began as an internal government (or possibly party) structure under Reagan before becoming independent -- does anyone have anything more solid on that? - Tenebris 01:27, 4 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.254.157.33 (talk)

breaking the pledge[edit]

there have been incidents which could (and have been) construed as breaking the pledge.

  • Boehner's Plan B increases taxes on Americans making more than $1 million a year [1][2]
  • letting bush-era tax cuts run out [3]

i would really appreciate someone writing a short paragraph on this. thank you in advance. -- ExpImptalkcon 02:36, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Donors Fund[edit]

Hello all! Thanks for anyone stopping by to check this out. Recently I removed a sentence reading "Americans for Tax Reform is a grantee of the Donors Trust, a conservative donor advised fund." Firstly, this just seems undue. It really does not add much substance to the page. Secondly, no one is denying that this group received funding from this conservative donor fund, but it does not seem unbiased and neutral to bring it up only on pages with a certain idealogical bias. From what I have seen, it only appears to be mentioned on conservative pages and not progressive pages. This does not seem to be in the spirit of Wikipedia. I think we can all assume that most groups are getting funding from major sources of money, regardless of ideology. DaltonCastle (talk) 06:48, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"no one is denying that this group received funding from this conservative donor fund" Why do you want to keep this from our readers? The content is neutral. Hugh (talk) 07:14, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"the spirit of Wikipedia" Please be more specific in citing Wikipedia policy and guideline. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 07:14, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"undue" Your deletion included Mother Jones, a noteworthy, reliable source, an important source for investigative journalism into non-profit advocacy groups, and a supplemental primary source document to address the verifiability concerns of some editors. The donor is notable. The recipient is notable. Inclusion of this content is as per WP:DUE. Donors Trust has a certain bias in their grant-making that may make fair coverage of their grant-making seem like it has an editorial bias. Hugh (talk) 07:14, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's not that I don't want to keep it from readers. Its that I dont't think it should be shown to readers without giving the same weight and attention to groups of all ideological biases. To me that registers as biased. And in the spirit of WP:NPOV, I believe it is biased to make these edits only to the one side. I am certain one could find similar details about progressive groups' funding.
And MJ appears to be more of an opinion editorial. On the surface I would say that is not reliable sourcing. Perhaps someone else can comment on this? DaltonCastle (talk) 07:27, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We agree we should let RS be our guide and note grantor-grantee relationships regardless of ideology. The author Kroll is one of the most important investigative journalists in the area of nonprofit funding. Hugh (talk) 07:34, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ha! Since we are having this discussion across several pages it is possible that my arguments are blending a little too much. But I was referencing this: "Americans for Tax Reform is a grantee of the Donors Trust, a conservative donor advised fund." It was undue and irrelevant. The only reason to have kept it in was if one wanted to deliberately make the funding for the organization seem shady. Most donors of major organizations regardless of ideology or mission want their identities disclosed. That wording, which is not present on any progressive pages despite the existence of progressive advisory funds, implies it is a uniquely conservative action. DaltonCastle (talk) 08:07, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot agree with DaltonCastle. 1) First of all he says explicitly that the source of funding for political advocacy groups is "irrelevant." That is, Wikipedia should not reveal correct & sourced info on who is funding a major operation such as Americans for Tax Reform. I'm sure if he thinks about that, he will withdraw that proposition. 2) More subtly, DaltonCastle says that if an unspecified article on progressive group X lacks important information on donors, then we should erase correct information on the donors from this article, which deals with a major conservative group, in order to achieve "fairness" of some sort. However this is not fair to our readers. I think his solution should be for him to add information to the mysterious article X--or at least to name article X so that some other editor can add the information on who provided X's money. In the real world of American politics, conservative donors have been much more generous to conservative political activity groups than have progressive donors--which is a fact about the world, rather than a commentary on Wikipedia editors. Progressives, on the other hand, have used somewhat different political strategies, such as relying on labor unions and large foundations like Ford, Rockefeller, MacArthur, etc. Rjensen (talk) 08:17, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The content is neutral. There is nothing "shady." Hugh (talk) 08:30, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While I appreciate the input, I believe that is supportive of POV-pushing. And I am not saying funding for political advocacy is irrelevant. I am saying 1. it is in this instance because it doesn't reveal who actually funded it, 2. it deviates from a position of neutrality to so strongly push for these edit. It doesnt make sense to add funding sources from selective donors of a particular ideology and not the other. DaltonCastle (talk) 08:47, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of complaining about good information, you should add information about the mysterious Progressive groups that you think have not been adequately covered. What are those groups, anyway? Rjensen (talk) 08:54, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please remain civil. While I appreciate the advice, I think there are several larger issues that need to be addressed when there has been a concerted effort to add donor details to only conservative pages. While I'm not saying that there is not a real-world wrong in this, I also don't deny that progressive groups receive similar funding and there has been no effort to bring to light their donors. That becomes a POV issue with such a topic. DaltonCastle (talk) 09:10, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There is no POV issue with this particular article, and therefore there's nothing to erase or hide from the readership. You have been unable to specify the mysterious Progressive articles from which the information is missing or censored or whatever. You assume such articles exist, and therefore you assume you are somehow entitled to erase good information from this article. That is the policy of editing-by-retaliation. It is a serious disservice to our readers, and violates the principle that each article should meet Wikipedia standards regardless of whether some other unknown article might fail to meet the standards. Rjensen (talk) 09:38, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I dont need to specify any particular article because I dont need to prove inactivity on progressive parallels to conservative pages. The fact is, there are several pages being edited to include details about their funding in a way that appears to be non-neutral. This problem does extend to other pages, but it is possible that there is a proper way to word things here. DaltonCastle (talk) 10:12, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
good i think we all agree that this article is what is at issue. To state that conservative body ABC funds conservative group XYZ is a factual statement and not a matter of pov. I think everyone assumes that conservative money goes to funding conservative groups. What is needed is specific information with a suitable source. Rjensen (talk) 11:02, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
okay.... I do agree with you. But that doesn't mean progressive groups do not do the same thing. And it is not neutral to push edits only depicting conservative funding, as has been done over the past few weeks. DaltonCastle (talk) 11:11, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
All political groups in America get funding-- it's the American way and it is not a matter of criticism or controversy. There is controversy about a different issue = unlimited spending for a candidate in an election campaign. That controversy is not at issue here. Rjensen (talk) 11:23, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, but that still does not address the concern that the manner in which this is presented makes it seem like only one ideological camp does it. DaltonCastle (talk) 11:27, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there is any suggestion that voluntarily giving money to a group whose policies you support is somehow immoral or illegal or unwise. (Forcing someone to give money is a no-no.) It was not always this way-- in the 19th century under the spoils system, the winners got the offices--which paid very well. The officeholders were expected, and in fact did, contribute generously to their party. That system was repudiated by the civil service reforms of the 1880s and 1890s. The parties then turned to outside funding, most famously in the 1896 presidential election. All the parties did it. On the left, for example, socialist parties always passed the bucket at rallies, and had booths selling pamphlets and ephemera as fund-raising devices. Today everyone has fund-raising dinners. Indeed there is an entire world of nonprofits, who spend much of their energy in raising funds. Rjensen (talk) 11:37, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge with International Property Rights Index[edit]

Insufficient content to justify a separate article. No independent references or evidence of notability Rathfelder (talk) 11:42, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose: while I see that there is an issue with much of the sourcing, they are not entirely lacking in independence or reliability. In fact there are plenty of good sources in there. Even more, I think the organization's notability is proven at this point. DaltonCastle (talk) 14:46, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Oops! my mistake, read that wrong. Yes, the International Property Rights Index index could stand to be merged onto this page. DaltonCastle (talk) 14:47, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Americans for Tax Reform. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 15:20, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Americans for Tax Reform. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 22:49, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Charts[edit]

Unclear why unsourced and long outdated charts would belong on mainspace. I'm moving them here. Bangabandhu (talk) 18:40, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

International Property Rights Index[edit]

It produces an annual International Property Rights Index. The Index scores and ranks countries worldwide based on three factors: the state of their legal and political environment, physical property rights, and intellectual property rights.

2015 Property rights index[edit]

Country Score Globally Regionally
 Finland 8.3 1 of 129 1 of 19
 Norway 8.2 2 of 129 2 of 19
 Germany 8.2 3 of 129 1 of 20
 Luxembourg 8.1 4 of 129 3 of 19
 Singapore 8.1 5 of 129 2 of 20
  Switzerland 8.1 6 of 129 4 of 19
 Sweden 8.0 7 of 129 5 of 19
 Japan 8.0 8 of 129 3 of 20
 Canada 7.9 9 of 129 1 of 2
 Netherlands 7.9 10 of 129 6 of 19
 Denmark 7.9 11 of 129 7 of 19
 Australia 7.7 12 of 129 4 of 20
 United Kingdom 7.7 13 of 129 8 of 19
 New Zealand 7.6 14 of 129 9 of 19
 United States 7.6 15 of 129 2 of 2
 Hong Kong 7.6 16 of 129 5 of 20
 Austria 7.6 17 of 129 10 of 19
 Qatar 7.5 18 of 129 1 of 20
 Republic of Ireland 7.4 19 of 129 11 of 19
 Belgium 7.4 20 of 129 12 of 19
 United Arab Emirates 7.3 21 of 129 2 of 20
 France 7.2 22 of 129 13 of 19
 Iceland 7.0 23 of 129 14 of 19
 Taiwan 6.9 24 of 129 6 of 20
 Malta 6.7 25 of 129 15 of 19
 Chile 6.6 26 of 129 1 of 22
 Estonia 6.6 27 of 129 1 of 19
 Malaysia 6.6 28 of 129 7 of 20
 South Africa 6.6 29 of 129 1 of 27
 Portugal 6.6 30 of 129 16 of 19
 Czech Republic 6.3 31 of 129 2 of 19
 Israel 6.2 32 of 129 3 of 20
 Oman 6.2 33 of 129 4 of 20
 Mauritius 6.1 34 of 129 2 of 27
 Cyprus 6.0 35 of 129 5 of 20
 Saudi Arabia 6.0 36 of 129 6 of 20
 Puerto Rico 6.0 37 of 129 2 of 22
 South Korea 5.9 38 of 129 8 of 20
 Botswana 5.9 39 of 129 3 of 27
 Uruguay 5.9 40 of 129 3 of 22
 Poland 5.9 41 of 129 3 of 19
 Rwanda 5.9 42 of 129 4 of 27
 Slovakia 5.9 43 of 129 4 of 19
 Lithuania 5.9 44 of 129 5 of 19
 Jordan 5.8 45 of 129 7 of 20
 Hungary 5.8 46 of 129 6 of 19
 Bahrain 5.8 47 of 129 8 of 20
 Costa Rica 5.7 48 of 129 4 of 22
 Spain 5.7 49 of 129 17 of 19
 Ghana 5.6 50 of 129 5 of 27
 Italy 5.6 51 of 129 18 of 19
 Latvia 5.5 52 of 129 7 of 19
 China 5.4 53 of 129 9 of 20
 Jamaica 5.4 54 of 129 5 of 22
 Romania 5.3 55 of 129 8 of 19
 Greece 5.3 56 of 129 19 of 19
 Panama 5.3 57 of 129 6 of 22
 Turkey 5.3 58 of 129 9 of 19
 Trinidad and Tobago 5.2 59 of 129 7 of 22
 Kuwait 5.2 60 of 129 9 of 20
 Slovenia 5.2 61 of 129 10 of 19
 India 5.2 62 of 129 10 of 20
 Morocco 5.2 63 of 129 10 of 20
 Brazil 5.1 64 of 129 8 of 22
 Philippines 5.1 65 of 129 11 of 20
 Macedonia 5.0 66 of 129 11 of 19
 Swaziland 4.9 67 of 129 6 of 27
 Bulgaria 4.9 68 of 129 12 of 19
 Thailand 4.9 69 of 129 12 of 20
 Indonesia 4.9 70 of 129 13 of 20
 Croatia 4.9 71 of 129 13 of 19
 El Salvador 4.8 72 of 129 9 of 22
 Sri Lanka 4.8 73 of 129 14 of 20
 Colombia 4.8 74 of 129 10 of 22
 Mexico 4.7 75 of 129 11 of 22
 Zambia 4.7 76 of 129 7 of 27
 Tunisia 4.6 77 of 129 11 of 20
 Tanzania 4.6 78 of 129 8 of 27
 Peru 4.6 79 of 129 12 of 22
 Senegal 4.6 80 of 129 9 of 27
 Russia 4.5 81 of 129 14 of 19
 Montenegro 4.5 82 of 129 15 of 19
 Kenya 4.5 83 of 129 10 of 27
 Malawi 4.5 84 of 129 11 of 27
 Viet Nam 4.5 85 of 129 15 of 20
 Kazakhstan 4.5 86 of 129 16 of 20
 Guatemala 4.5 87 of 129 13 of 22
 Gabon 4.4 88 of 129 12 of 27
 Honduras 4.4 89 of 129 14 of 22
 Dominican Republic 4.4 90 of 129 15 of 22
 Uganda 4.3 91 of 129 13 of 27
 Sierra Leone 4.3 92 of 129 14 of 27
 Guyana 4.3 93 of 129 16 of 22
 Armenia 4.3 94 of 129 12 of 20
 Georgia 4.2 95 of 129 13 of 20
 Bolivia 4.2 96 of 129 17 of 22
 Mali 4.2 97 of 129 15 of 27
 Cote d'Ivoire 4.2 98 of 129 16 of 27
 Mozambique 4.2 99 of 129 17 of 27
   Nepal 4.2 100 of 129 17 of 20
 Burkina Faso 4.1 101 of 129 18 of 27
 Egypt 4.1 102 of 129 14 of 20
 Azerbaijan 4.1 103 of 129 15 of 20
 Algeria 4.1 104 of 129 16 of 20
 Nicaragua 4.1 105 of 129 18 of 22
 Ethiopia 4.0 106 of 129 19 of 27
 Argentina 4.0 107 of 129 19 of 22
 Iran 4.0 108 of 129 17 of 20
 Ukraine 3.9 109 of 129 16 of 19
 Serbia 3.9 110 of 129 17 of 19
 Cameroon 3.9 111 of 129 20 of 27
 Madagascar 3.8 112 of 129 21 of 27
 Mauritania 3.8 113 of 129 22 of 27
 Paraguay 3.7 114 of 129 20 of 22
 Albania 3.7 115 of 129 18 of 19
 Moldova 3.6 116 of 129 19 of 19
 Chad 3.6 117 of 129 23 of 27
 Pakistan 3.6 118 of 129 18 of 20
 Lebanon 3.5 119 of 129 18 of 20
 Nigeria 3.4 120 of 129 24 of 27
 Burundi 3.3 121 of 129 25 of 27
 Zimbabwe 3.2 122 of 129 26 of 27
 Yemen 2.8 123 of 129 19 of 20
 Libya 2.7 124 of 129 20 of 20
 Venezuela 2.7 125 of 129 21 of 22
 Haiti 2.7 126 of 129 22 of 22
 Angola 2.6 127 of 129 27 of 27
 Bangladesh 2.6 128 of 129 19 of 20
 Myanmar 2.5 129 of 129 20 of 20

Charts and graphs[edit]

  • International Property Rights Index
    International Property Rights Index

2014 Property rights index[edit]

Rank[1] Country Score Globally Regionally
1  Finland 8.5 1 of 97 1 of 19
2  New Zealand 8.3 2 of 97 1 of 16
2  Norway 8.3 2 of 97 2 of 19
2  Sweden 8.3 2 of 97 2 of 19
5  Singapore 8.2 5 of 97 2 of 16
5  Switzerland 8.2 5 of 97 4 of 19
7  Luxembourg 8.1 7 of 97 5 of 19
7  Netherlands 8.1 7 of 97 5 of 19
9  Canada 8.0 9 of 97 1 of 2
10  Denmark 7.9 10 of 97 7 of 19
11  Australia 7.8 11 of 97 3 of 16
11  Austria 7.8 11 of 97 8 of 19
11  Germany 7.8 11 of 97 8 of 19
11  Hong Kong 7.8 11 of 97 3 of 16
11  Japan 7.8 11 of 97 3 of 16
11  United Kingdom 7.8 11 of 97 8 of 19
17  United States 7.7 17 of 97 2 of 2
18  Belgium 7.5 18 of 97 11 of 19
18  Ireland 7.5 18 of 97 11 of 19
20  France 7.3 20 of 97 13 of 19
21  Iceland 7.2 21 of 97 14 of 19
22  Malta 7.0 22 of 97 15 of 19
23  Taiwan 6.9 23 of 97 6 of 16
24  Chile 6.8 24 of 97 1 of 20
24  Portugal 6.8 24 of 97 16 of 19
26  South Africa 6.7 26 of 97 1 of 23
27  Czech Republic 6.5 27 of 97 1 of 10
27  Israel 6.5 27 of 97 1 of 7
27  Malaysia 6.5 27 of 97 7 of 16
30  Cyprus 6.4 30 of 97 2 of 7
31  Botswana 6.3 31 of 97 2 of 23
31  Mauritius 6.3 31 of 97 2 of 23
31  Spain 6.3 31 of 97 17 of 19
34  Saudi Arabia 6.2 34 of 97 3 of 7
34  Slovakia 6.2 34 of 97 2 of 10
36  Hungary 6.1 36 of 97 3 of 10
36  Lithuania 6.1 36 of 97 3 of 10
36  Poland 6.1 36 of 97 3 of 10
36  Uruguay 6.1 36 of 97 2 of 20
40  Costa Rica 6.0 40 of 97 3 of 20
40  Italy 6.0 40 of 97 18 of 19
40  Jordan 6.0 40 of 97 4 of 7
43  Ghana 5.8 43 of 97 4 of 23
44  Panama 5.6 44 of 97 4 of 20
44  Turkey 5.6 44 of 97 6 of 10
46  Brazil 5.5 46 of 97 5 of 20
46  China 5.5 46 of 97 8 of 16
46  India 5.5 46 of 97 8 of 16
46  Jamaica 5.5 46 of 97 5 of 20
50  Bulgaria 5.3 50 of 97 7 of 10
50  Greece 5.3 50 of 97 19 of 19
50  Romania 5.3 50 of 97 7 of 10
50  Thailand 5.3 50 of 97 10 of 16
54  Mexico 5.2 54 of 97 7 of 20
54  Morocco 5.2 54 of 97 5 of 7
56  Malawi 5.1 56 of 97 5 of 23
56  Tanzania 5.1 56 of 97 5 of 23
56  Zambia 5.1 56 of 97 5 of 23
59  Colombia 5.0 59 of 97 8 of 20
59  Ecuador 5.0 59 of 97 8 of 20
59  Indonesia 5.0 59 of 97 11 of 16
59  Peru 5.0 59 of 97 8 of 20
59  Sri Lanka 5.0 59 of 97 11 of 16
64  Dominican Republic 4.9 64 of 97 11 of 20
64  El Salvador 4.9 64 of 97 11 of 20
66  Benin 4.8 66 of 97 8 of 23
66  Guatemala 4.8 66 of 97 13 of 20
66  Mozambique 4.8 66 of 97 8 of 23
66  Russia 4.8 66 of 97 9 of 10
66  Vietnam 4.8 66 of 97 13 of 16
71  Burkina Faso 4.7 71 of 97 10 of 23
71  Guyana 4.7 71 of 97 14 of 20
71  Senegal 4.7 71 of 97 10 of 23
71  Uganda 4.7 71 of 97 10 of 23
75  Egypt 4.6 75 of 97 6 of 7
75  Kenya 4.6 75 of 97 13 of 23
75  Nicaragua 4.6 75 of 97 15 of 20
78  Bolivia 4.5 78 of 97 16 of 20
78  Honduras 4.5 78 of 97 16 of 20
78  Mali 4.5 78 of 97 14 of 23
78  Mauritania 4.5 78 of 97 14 of 23
78  Nepal 4.5 78 of 97 14 of 16
83  Argentina 4.4 83 of 97 18 of 20
83  Ethiopia 4.4 83 of 97 16 of 23
83  Madagascar 4.4 83 of 97 16 of 23
86  Cameroon 4.3 86 of 97 18 of 23
86  Pakistan 4.3 86 of 97 15 of 16
86  Ukraine 4.3 86 of 97 10 of 10
89  Algeria 4.1 89 of 97 7 of 7
89  Ivory Coast 4.1 89 of 97 19 of 23
89  Paraguay 4.1 89 of 97 19 of 20
92  Chad 3.9 92 of 97 20 of 23
93  Zimbabwe 3.8 93 of 97 21 of 23
94  Nigeria 3.7 94 of 97 22 of 23
95  Burundi 3.6 95 of 97 23 of 23
96  Bangladesh 3.4 96 of 97 16 of 16
97  Venezuela 3.2 97 of 97 20 of 20

2013 Property rights index[edit]

Rank Country/Territory Score
1  Finland 8.6
2  New Zealand 8.4
2  Sweden 8.4
4  Norway 8.3
5  Netherlands 8.2
5   Switzerland 8.2
7  Luxembourg 8.1
7  Singapore 8.1
9  Canada 8.0
9  Denmark 8.0
11  Australia 7.9
12  Austria 7.8
12  United Kingdom 7.8
14  Hong Kong 7.7
14  Japan 7.7
14  Germany 7.7
17  United States 7.6
18  Belgium 7.5
18  Ireland 7.5
20  France 7.3
20  Qatar 7.3
22  Iceland 7.2
22  United Arab Emirates 7.2
22  Taiwan 7.2
25  Malta 7.0
26  South Africa 6.8
26  Portugal 6.8
26  Chile 6.8
29  Estonia 6.7
29  Israel 6.7
31  Oman 6.6
31  Cyprus 6.6
33  Czech Republic 6.5
33  Malaysia 6.5
33  Spain 6.5
33  Bahrain 6.5
37  Saudi Arabia 6.4
37  Puerto Rico 6.4
37  South Korea 6.4
40  Hungary 6.3
40  Botswana 6.3
40  Mauritius 6.3
40  Slovakia 6.3
44  Uruguay 6.2
44  Poland 6.2
44  Rwanda 6.2
47  Italy 6.1
48  Jordan 6.0
48  Lithuania 6.0
48  Slovenia 6.0

2012 Property rights index[edit]

Rank Country/Territory Score
1  Finland 8.6
2  Sweden 8.5
3  Oman 8.3
3  Slovakia 8.3
3   Switzerland 8.3
6  Macedonia 8.2
6  Denmark 8.2
6  Nicaragua 8.2
9  New Zealand 8.1
10  Canada 8.0
11  United Kingdom 7.9
12  Hong Kong 7.8
12  Austria 7.8
12  Australia 7.8
15  Germany 7.7
15  Japan 7.7
17  Ireland 7.6
18  Belgium 7.5
18  United States 7.5
20  France 7.4
21  Iceland 7.2
21  Taiwan 7.2
23  Romania 7.1
23  United Arab Emirates 7.1
25  Cyprus 6.9
26  Puerto Rico 6.8
26  Mauritania 6.8
28  Chile 6.7
28  Bahrain 6.7
28  Estonia 6.7
31  Senegal 6.6
31  South Korea 6.6
31  Israel 6.6
31  Pakistan 6.6
35  Spain 6.5
36  Hungary 6.4
36  Mali 6.4
36  Czech Republic 6.4
39  Botswana 6.3
40  Mexico 6.2
40  Qatar 6.2
40  Slovenia 6.2
40  Uruguay 6.2
40  Portugal 6.2
40  Kuwait 6.2
46  Italy 6.1
47  Luxembourg 6.0
47  Saudi Arabia 6.0
49  South Africa 5.9
49  Jordan 5.9
49  Latvia 5.9

References

  1. ^ "International Property Rights Index 2014". International Property Rights Index. Property Rights Alliance. Archived from the original on 23 November 2014. Retrieved 13 January 2015.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Americans_for_Tax_Reform&oldid=1204809002"