Here’s a tweet from Democratic Party State Representative found on Illinois Review:
Math is obviously not the strong suit of State Rep. Chris Welch (D-Chicago).
All Legislative Democrats Can’t Be This Dumb
Here’s a tweet from Democratic Party State Representative found on Illinois Review:
Math is obviously not the strong suit of State Rep. Chris Welch (D-Chicago).
And we rely on these idiots…
Common Core math
It’s a common error.
He does not understand the difference between absolute change and relative change (percentage increase).
Absolute change: 4.95% – 3.75% = 1.20%.
Relative change (percentage increase): (4.95 – 3.75) / 3.75 = .32, which is 32%.
Calling him an idiot is an insult to all the stupid people.
You’ve got to understand that this is a very specialized area of mathematics.
known by it’s developers as DEMOCRAT math.
Got it now ?
32% of 3.75 is 1.2.
They just added the 1.2 to the 3.75 and came up with 4.95.
But how did they pull the 32% out of the air?
Common core strikes again.
Here’s the online calculator. Do it yourself. http://www.marshu.com/articles/calculate-percentage-increase-decrease-percent-calculator.php
Nearly half of the Republicans supported the budget.
About 1/3 voted for the tax hike.
What’s even dumber than legislative Democrats?
The group of Republicans who voted for the budget but against the tax hike.
These people want to spend more money and not raise taxes when we already have unbalanced budgets.
I wasn’t a math major and my skills have considerbly fallen off, but I do think the numbers are correct for what we have given.
Cal?
Where did the number 4.95% come from?
That is the problem that I have to start with.
BUT.
Given that original value is 3.75% and new value is 4.95% – when you subtract you will find you have 1.20%.
Now divide that by the original 3.75% and it comes out to 32%.
Where am I going wrong on this?
Don’t forget to multiply by 100 to get your whole number.
Current personal income tax = 3.75%.
Proposed personal income tax = 4.95%.
Mr. Welch subtracted to obtain the difference: 4.95% – 3.75% = 1.20%.
The difference is the absolute value.
++++++++
Percentage increase is a different calculation: (4.95% – 3.75%) / 3.75% = .32 which is 32%.
If passed the bill would hike personal income taxes by 32%.
++++++++
In “absolute” terms, the personal income tax would increase 1.20%, from 3.75% to 4.95%.
That is different from “percentage increase” which is a “relative” term.
In relative terms, the personal income tax would increase 32%.
++++++++
Search on “absolute v relative” in YouTube for videos describing the concept.
One side talks percent because it sounds huge. One talks actual increase because it doesnt. It’s politics as usual. The real question is does it solve the problem?
1.2 percentage points.
32% increase.
Joek is right on the money there.
Illinois Policy Institute has an online calculator which determines the $ amount of the tax hike based on ones income.
+++++++++++
Illinois Policy Institute
How Much Will the $5 Billion Tax Hike Cost Your Family?
Use Our Tax Hike Calculator to Find Out How Much the Permanent 32% Income Tax Rate Hike Will Cost You
July 3, 2017
by Craig Lesner
http://www.illinoispolicy.org/how-much-will-the-5-billion-tax-hike-cost-your-family
You can call it 1.2 percent, 32 percent, or a muskmelon…
We saw the same thing when the temporary tax hike sunsetted.
It went down by 1.25 percent or 25 percent, depending on how the conversation was being framed.
It doesn’t really matter, it’s all the same thing.
You’re going to pay more money, 12 dollars for every thousand earned.
Now, did anything get reformed?
It is not the same.
There is a difference between percentage points and percentage.
Nit picky rock throwing today for politcal gain?
All that matters is more will come out of our wallets, 1.2%.
Why worry it doesn’t effect your pension anyway.
If you think only 1.2% more will come out of paychecks, you are wrong.
Run, sunshine blogger, run, and stop this madness in Springfield! I think I have the perfect campaign slogan for your campaign: “The sunshine blogger, a different kind of free loader.” Or perhaps, “With the sunshine blogger in the Executive Mansion, no paid lunch goes to trash.” Tic, tock, tic, tock…
You’re not going to pay 1/3 of your money to a state income tax.
I’ve read your articles on the topic of percent vs percentage before.
It just depends on what your starting point is.
Are you asking how much more you pay in absolute terms or relative to the old rate?
See Mark’s comment.
Doesn’t matter, everybody knows what it means.
How are people wrong to say only 1.2 percent more will come out of their check?
That’s exactly what the bill does.
Are you speculating about further increases or what are you referring to?
Just grade school math.
The Dems’ starting point was the current 3.75% income tax.
Let’s say Taxpayer A has personal annual income subject to state income taxes of $100,000.
Hiking the state income tax from 3.75% to 4.95% is a difference of 1.20%.
Thus income taxes paid are hiked from $3,750 to $4,950, a difference of $1,200.
That is absolute.
+++++++++++
In relative terms that is a 32% hike in the tax rate and the amount of income taxes paid, as defined by percentage increase.
(4.95% – 3.75%) / 3.75% = 32%.
$4,950 – $3,750 / $3,750 = 32%.
That is relative.
+++++++++++++
Skimming operations, such as state income taxes, benefit greatly from the interplay of absolute and relative.
1.20% more out of taxpayer wallets in absolute terms results in 32% more in State revenues in relative terms.
++++++++++++
This proposed income tax hike provides a lot more revenue to the state with little reform.
It is not a sustainable solution.
++++++++++++
As an analogy as to one cause of what has transpired to get us into this mess, the state has for decades been charging various credit cards:
– pensions
– bonds
– past due bills
– budget gimmicks
That credit card debt has been, and to a large extent remains, hidden to the taxpayers.
Add up all the credit cards, which the state doesn’t bother to do for the taxpayer, and we have massive problems that are not solved by this tax hike.
The state will be back at some point asking for a greater percentage of taxpayer money and / or reforms.
Likely both.
And if history is any indication, there will be more tax hikes than reforms.
It’s odd that you’re using 3.75 as a reference so that you can keep repeating the scarier claim that taxes are going up by 32 percent, but when Franks says he wants to cut 10 percent you point out how the county’s portion of the tax bill is only ten percent so the cut would only save one percent of the total bill. When I went on Franks’ website it seemed very clear to me that he was talking about cutting the county’s portion of the tax. This tax hike is equally easy to comprehend. The rate will go from 3.75 to 4.95 percent.
The state personal income tax rate has been 3.75% since January 1, 2015.
If the 3.00% rate that was in place before the “temporary” personal income tax hike of 2011 is used, the percentage increase would be even greater.
(4.95 – 3.00) / 3.00 = 65% tax hike.
+++++++++++++
Illinois Department of Revenue
Tax Rate Database
Individual Income Tax Rates
Tax year Ending: Rate
2015 – current: 3.75%
2011 – 2014: 5.00% (this was promoted as a “temporary” income tax increase)
1999 – 2010: 3.00%
1989: 2.75%
1985 – 1988: 2.50%
1984: 2.75%
1983: 3.00%
1969 – 1982: 2.50%
Prior to 1969 there was no personal state income tax.
+++++++++++++
Following is one example of how state income tax dollars are expended by State government.
+++++++++++++
Illinois Policy Institute
Illinois State Workers Highest Paid in Nation (when adjusted for cost of living)
by Ted Dabrowski and John Klingner
Spring 2016
12 page report
http://www.illinoispolicy.org/reports/illinois-state-workers-highest-paid-in-nation
typo, should be
1990 – 2010: 3:00%.
http://www.revenue.state.il.us/TaxRates/IndividualPriorYears.htm
Please lead me to any image used in the campaign that says the 10% cut was only going to be on the county portion of the tax bill.
This is a ton of irony when a blogger calls a state REPRESENTATIVE dumb, while the blogger calls him a SENATOR. #JustSaying
Medical professionals find none of this amusing.
There is an ethical question forming, about expending personal resources (time, money, soul, quality of life, time with family, emotional equilibrium )
in order to extend the quantity and quality of life of organisms who would demand this much MORE economic sacrifice on the part of those educated and willing to offer services which extend quality and quantity of life.
Is THIS the sort of organism which should be nurtured and propagated?
This self-serving, self-entitled, sociopath?
This organism which does not bother to consider the impact on those in professions which supply life-saving services, as well as life-blood-tax-money for their daily feedings?