Dedicated to restoring Constitutional government to the United States of America

- Originals
- Ask DP
- Video
- Project
- Idea
- Quicklink

◀

▶

- SteveMT
- TelFiRE
- PHREEDOM
- beesting
- papfu
- jruss133
- weebles
- jrd3820
- bdunn
- No1ButPaul
- has
- What's in a name
- Marc Clair
- Nonna
- SyrupBoy
- jobby
- Achilles
- RicheyG
- queenbetz
- niijii
- dailypauler
- jcavallo
- UberNeo
- mskellymac
- ATruepatriot
- bastu
- KongVault
- fyi2day
- paulbu
- karenabcde
- SusanneV
- RonPaul4President
- ezekiel25-17
- gptnomoney
- PaulWorldwide
- skipperjack
- bek76
- wolfe
- Cast.It.Into.The.Fire
- Chris Souptonutski
- fishyculture
- bethechange1
- tan
- Xerosumprime
- JSBach
- Colorado Sean
- Plantinseeds
- lonmoore07
- Rotondo352
- RPtriber

Content of posts and comments on the Daily Paul represent the opinions of the original posters, and are not endorsed, approved, or otherwise representative of the opinions of the Daily Paul, its owner, site moderators or Ron Paul. This site may contain adult language and adult concepts. If you are offended by such content, or feel you may be offended by such content, point your browser to a different siteimmediately. For more, read the Full Disclaimer

© 2007 - 2013 by The Daily Paul.Not paid for by, nor officially affiliated in any way with Ron Paul.

General Site Disclaimer | DMCA Disclaimer | Advertise here

## Comment: semantics wrong

## semantics wrong

as a mathematician, i know that misunderstanding basic logic and mathematical first principles is what is wrong with society as a whole.

assume the following:

n is the current tax rate.

now, let i = increase of tax owed (not increase in tax rate).

in your example, we let n = 34 / 100 = 34 % and i = 5 / 100 = 5%.

now, suppose i make $100,000 this year of taxable income, assuming that there is such a thing as taxable income. this comment is not a comment on whether or not that that taxable income exists. for the purpose of this exercise, we assume it does.

now, using the current rate of n, we can calculate the amount of tax owed. this is n * $100,000 = .34 * $100,000 = $34,000.

next, if we have an increase of the amount of tax owed by 5% (and not an increase in the rate) an increase of i of $34,000 is going to be (1 + i)*$34,000 = (1 + .05)*$34,000 = 1.05*34,000 = 35700. o, we see that the increase is $1700.

by the magic of algebra, $1700 / $34000 = .05 = i.

now, assuming that an argument of semantics is necessary, and the government officials pass a law for the increase of the tax rate by some fixed amount i, then we get the following scenario.

if we want to increase the tax rate by i, then, the new tax owed would be (i + n) * $100,000 = $39,000.

now, the difference in the new tax owed with the increase versus the old tax owed is $39,000 - $34,000 = $5,000.

surprisingly enough, $5,000 / $35,000 = 1 / 7 = 14.705...%.

so, we see that there is both a semantic difference as well as a logical difference between an increase in the tax rate or an increase in the amount of taxes owed.

i say we look at all the bills that call for an increase in taxes, and show the people the math as to how this works! if the language in the law calls for an increase in the tax owed, then our representatives have, perhaps unknowingly as the average american is so inept at basic algebra, lied to us. we must also compare the language used on the campaign trail and compare to the actual wording that is in the law.

i offer this math lesson to you, pro bono. fortunately, i can write this expense off, as this has taken me approximately 1 hour of my time to elucidate the math, as well as other base logic, to you and the rest of the DP. For other mathematical inquiries, questions, or consultation, I am Mathemagic Solutions, LLC. Feel free to visit my website: www.mathemagicsolutions.com for any other questions, comments, or concerns regarding mathematics, business, consulting, or solutions.

Replies to this comment: