Talk:Transfer payment

The move is a good idea but I don't think the definition from the other article was better because: it didn't include transfers to other orders of government; the terms "household" and "firm" were too restrictive; and I don't think that a transfer payment can be a good or a service. But I'm willing to be proven wrong about all of this. Greyfedora 22:45, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I suppose one could argue that food stamps are transfer payments that are of a type of good as opposed to money, although economists have been known to consider them a particular type of money, especially as they're sometimes used inappropriately in barter, IIRC. If you want something that's a bit more direct, consider school lunches. Even in the Canadian health care system example, while the original transfer payments are from the federal government to the providences, they're a subsidy of the providences' own transfer payments of medicals services, correct? Given that money ultimately goes toward the purchase of goods and services, I'm not sure it's too important; the current version may be "good enough" in any case. - RedWordSmith 08:28, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)

I certainly understand the reasoning behind taking it out, but I put the part of Canada back in because the term "transfer payment" has a very specific meaning in Canadian politics and the phrase is heard quite a lot. I can easily imagine someone looking up "transfer payment" expecting to find the specific Canadian usage rather than the general one which is, to my mind at least, rather technical. What I mean is that the Canadian case is not included just to provide examples but because in Canada that's what "transfer payment" usually means. I'm not sure if this is also the case in Australia. - Greyfedora 04:54, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Australian terminology includes only transfer payments to individuals, which I think is standard. I've tried for a version that is useful to those looking for the Canadian term, but doesn't mislead others.JQ 08:14, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think your changes work quite well. Greyfedora 18:08, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Pyat rublei 1997.jpg[edit]

Image:Pyat rublei 1997.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 11:36, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sentence need work[edit]

"Transfer payments are not a part of the national income so they are cut from national income to get n.n.p. in order to arrive national income such payments are bad debts incurred by banks, payments of pensions, charity, scholarships etc."

This sentence needs work. -- Dough34 (talk) 01:14, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism[edit]

Why is there a section on criticism of transfer payments? Is that not inherently non-nuetral? -- Adastra1960 (talk) 17:40, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]