SUBSCRIBE NOW WELCOME BACK. Do you want to continue reading where you left off? New Republic subscribers can pick up where they left off no matter which device they were previously using. SUBSCRIBE NOW

Go Home Ask Mister Math Person

JONATHAN CHAIT SEPTEMBER 6, 2011

Ask Mister Math Person

BY JONATHAN CHAIT

Dave Barry had a running bit called "Ask Mister Language Person," in which he would dispense grammatical advice as if the rules of grammar were the common uses of the language rather than the real ones. So, for instance, he would dispense advice like this, under "Tips for Writer's":

Dear Mister Language Person: What is the purpose of the apostrophe?

Answer: The apostrophe is used mainly in hand-lettered small business signs to alert the reader than an S is coming up at the end of a word, as in: WE DO NOT EXCEPT PERSONAL CHECK'S, or: NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY ITEM'S.

Via Dean Baker, I see that USA Today is trying out the same concept in a column called "Math tips for the rest of us." Only it's not satire:

That raise actually might not be as good as it looks. The extra money is nice, but it could very well bump you into the next tax bracket, possibly leaving you with less money than you had before the raise. Better benefits, such as medical, can save you money while keeping you in the same tax bracket.

Good God, no. This is completely false. The income tax bracket is graduated, meaning that when you move into a higher bracket, only the income above that level is taxed as a higher rate. It is not "possibly" the case that a raise will leave with with less money after taxes. It is never the case.

Lots of people fail to understand this concept, which is understandable. Even many political reporters fail to understand it. But in a column devoted to correcting misunderstandings about math? I don't know what to say.

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 29 comments

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

29 comments

wimper..... The above is a perfect example of why many call that rag "Useless Today". What to say JC? You've done the best you can to counter the lie. Luckily in their comments section the "reporter" is shown to have it all wrong. And it only adds to the perception that reporters are ignorant, lazy or liars too often. Can we clone you and spread your DNA across the news rooms of the USA, Sir Chait??

- tmmats

September 6, 2011 at 12:06pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The Idiocracy is coming. Resistance's is Futile

- Tristan

September 6, 2011 at 12:09pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I've pointed this out on several occasions here at TNR. While I'm glad to know that fact about how the tax code works (having learned it in discussions here), commenters shouldn't lose sight of the reality that it is 100% opposite the general understanding of taxes. Many tax advisors now depend on this misunderstanding, after all; quite a few now offer special services to help you get your taxable income to $249,999.99 or below, at very reasonable fees. To be fair, the average citizen can hardly be faulted for thinking this, as the way withholding often works makes it appear true. I remember working overtime on several occasions, eager for that extra cash, only to be pretty pissed come paycheck time when my take-home pay really was lower than if I hadn't worked extra hours. Sure, I got it back come tax time, but how many people forget the anger and remember the correction that quietly came months later? Pretty much none.

- janus

September 6, 2011 at 12:20pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

McArdle must be moonlighting again.

- rayward

September 6, 2011 at 12:27pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Maybe they were thinking in terms of take-home pay versus net taxes due in April? Withholdings are done such that if you earned that amount every paycheck, they would have withheld enough tax for the year. There have been several years where my pay raise resulted in me owing taxes in April because of jumping a bracket (unless my employers were just screwing the pooch on my withholdings).

- GSpinks

September 6, 2011 at 12:50pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Your employers don't "screw the pooch" on your withholding. You fill out a form W-4, which tells your payroll person exactly how you want taxes withheld on your earnings. Owing money in April after a pay raise is a direct result of your not adjusting your W-4 for higher withholding. They do what you tell them to do.

- ReganaD

September 6, 2011 at 1:00pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The last time Chait covered this story, ratnerstar had a brilliant idea: advertise that any income over the bracket threshold should be sent to him. http://www.tnr.com/blog/the-plank/does-anybody-here-understand-what-tax-bracket

- rozenson

September 6, 2011 at 1:04pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

How about, "AAAAACCCKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK." Lately this has become my favorite expression. It sums up the situation perfectly.

- Sophia

September 6, 2011 at 1:17pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Try this math. Under the Bush Tax Cuts, as currently in effect, a married couple who makes 86,000.00 in dividend income pays zero taxes (dividend income from the husband's wealthy grandparent's trust, for instance). But the same wage earner pays $15,840.00 in total taxes (including $6,579.00 in self employment taxes). If you earn money, you pay taxes, but if you don't earn money you don't pay taxes? Shouldn't this be fixed?

- Nusholtz

September 6, 2011 at 1:49pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I am a glutton for punishment in the form of being financially worse off and I get psychic benefit from others' material well being. So I have this simple proposition: all those who desire a lower tax bracket can request their employers to put me on the payroll and direct deposit their excess income to my fund. Send all those W-2s my way too. Did I mention how much I enjoy filing tax returns?

- maryvasu

September 6, 2011 at 1:54pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Well done, Tristan. Well done.

- Jonas

September 6, 2011 at 2:22pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

What's truly frightening is that I've heard this nonsense spouted by people -- mathematicians and physicists of a libertarian bent -- who actually know their math cold. It's not that they *can't* do the math, it's that they *don't even bother to think about it*. Rush said it, the guys on Fox say it, so why even check the math? When I pointed out the problem, they understood the math error instantly. But instead of rethinking their position in the face of facts, they removed numbers from the discussion and fell back on the vague talking point about how progressive taxation is immoral because it punishes hard work, blah blah blah. Facts are irrelevant to these people.

- krlong014

September 6, 2011 at 2:37pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Dave Barry also said, "I can win an argument on any topic, against any opponent. People know this, and steer clear of me at parties. Often, as a sign of their great respect, they don't even invite me." I'm not sure how that's appropriate here but it humors me nonetheless.

- Konstantin

September 6, 2011 at 3:01pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Owing money in April after a pay raise is a direct result of your not adjusting your W-4 for higher withholding"
I don't know what W-4's you've filled out, but I've never specified anything but the number of exemptions on my W-4, except for once when I knew my tax liability would be higher and deliberately withheld extra pay. So, unless my W-4 was automatically changed from 1 exemption to 2 without my approval after a raise, assuming the tax scale is graduated, my employer had to have forgotten to recalculate my withholding.

- GSpinks

September 6, 2011 at 3:04pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Well, you adjust your exemptions. For example, last year, I ended up owing money, because I didn't adjust my W-4, because I didn't realize my compensation would be too high to take the interest deduction for student loans. Otherwise, I would have come out even, which is what I try to achieve by using the estimater on the IRS website. I thought most people did it that way...

- ReganaD

September 6, 2011 at 3:41pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Er...how many people do you think actually use the IRS' tax estimator website? I'd think that the vast majority of people fill out a W-4 when they get a job, then never think about it again. The only time I've ever tried to get a payroll document (my W-2) adjusted for tax purposes (last year), I had to jump through quite a few hoops just to get ahold of the right person to talk to-who then told me that they'd never even heard of trying to make such an adjustment, and declared it impossible. Methinks they don't deal with too many people tweaking their documents on a regular basis.

- janus

September 6, 2011 at 3:59pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Oh...I really did think most people did. But I work in the HR/Payroll/Compensation and Benefits arena, so I probably have a skewed idea of it. But hey, it is a good idea to use it!

- ReganaD

September 6, 2011 at 7:04pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

USA Today has revised its online page to more accurately depict reality.

- dsimon

September 7, 2011 at 12:36am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I thought there might be a problem, but on the lower end of the wage scale. That is, poor people may lose benefits such as food stamps, housing vouchers, and medicaid if they cross over a particular income. Those aren't taxes of course, but I did think that that affecting thinking about getting a better job.

- polijunky

September 7, 2011 at 10:04am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Looks like their correction today is a real one. Yesterday's correction was more obfuscation than correction, it did not directly address the fact that the piece was just flat out false, and said some people "feel" like they're earning less after a raise. Today's correction gets to the heart of the matter: "An earlier version of the story below misstated the impact of tax brackets on raises....A hefty raise might not be as big as it looks. Extra money could bump you into the next tax bracket, which means you’ll pay a higher tax rate on earnings above a certain threshold. Relax: Your earnings below that threshold are still taxed at the previous, lower tax rate."

- Attrill

September 7, 2011 at 11:22am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

ReganaD, I think I just realized why I kept owing when I got raises. I haven't been able to deduct student loan interest in quite some time. But it occurs to me that when I got the raises, they withheld what they would need if I were to have gotten the raise on Jan 1. They don't base the calculation of withholding on an estimate of what I'm going to have made for the fiscal year.

- GSpinks

September 7, 2011 at 12:22pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I guess Chait is gone, no posts of any kind as of today. Or else he's prepping his farewell address. Sigh.

- tmmats

September 7, 2011 at 12:53pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Double sigh.

- Fishpeddler

September 7, 2011 at 1:43pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Like all good JCs, he will disappear for 3 days, then rise from oblivion to become the greatest life-giving force of all time. Until yesterday, our cups runnethed over with the great Chait, and we took it for granted. Now he cruelly withholds his gift from us the unworthy. Or he might be busy right now transferring his TNR desk trinkets to his new office.

- Konstantin

September 7, 2011 at 4:15pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Sounds right (moving to the new digs).

- tmmats

September 7, 2011 at 4:33pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The word is that he's headed to New York Magazine. I feel badly for TNR. I'm sure I'll still visit, but it won't be nearly as often.

- Jonas

September 7, 2011 at 4:33pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Cross posted from the Richard Just announcement thread: http://www.politico.com/blogs/onmedia/0911/Jonathan_Chait_to_New_York_Timothy_Noah_to_New_Republic.html Chait confirms the move to NY Magazine.

- tmmats

September 7, 2011 at 5:03pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Well, that's a relief! I was afraid something had happened to Chait, his family or the U. of Michigan football team! I couldn't imagine what else might have kept him from posting. On an unsettling note: in the link above Chiat quotes a friend as saying 'New York' is the best magazine in America. I fear Jon missed the "-er" that comes at the end of "The New Yorker," the best magazine in America." Man, is Chait going to be in for a disappointment when he finds himself at a magazine that only today has Gwyenth Patlrow (evidently she's starring in a new movie about sex addiction), Kim Kardashion (at some party) and Rachel Zoe (she's making the transition from "stylist to reality star to celebrity designer"!) on their front webpage - rather than at the great 'New Yorker'! Though it probably serves him right for not listening closer.

- mtinora@me.com

September 7, 2011 at 5:46pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Brilliant, Grimes!

- ironyroad

September 7, 2011 at 6:19pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close