tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5541500.post1942593018869899507..comments2024-03-28T18:35:54.237+09:00Comments on BigHominid's Hairy Chasms: at the TEF blogKevin Kimhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01328790917314282058noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5541500.post-67105011020123919252012-04-11T08:04:43.397+09:002012-04-11T08:04:43.397+09:00Ok, totally started over, and I am going to work t...Ok, totally started over, and I am going to work this a little at a time. Right now before I start, I am not sure where this is going.<br /><br />The problem says the income tax rates are assessed 'after' the exclusion amount has been subtracted from his income. I read this as meaning that the percentage is not applied until the range of values have been subtracted from his true income.<br />The range of values is from 5200 to 9800. <br />This has two impacts on the problem.<br />1) If you make somewhere between 5200 and 9800, you are only taxed for 5199. <br />2) 5199 times 15 percent is nowhere near 8700; he will make far more than 9800 then.<br /><br />The exclusion values now have only the meaning of an amount that is subtracted from his true income.<br /><br />So, subtracting the exclusion range from his income means he subtracts 4600 from his income.<br />****NOTE: this may be the error if I am making one ****<br /><br />8700 = .15 times (his real income - 4600)<br />8700 = .15 times (X - 4600)<br />8700 / .15 = X - 4600<br />58000 = X - 4600.<br />62,600 = X<br /><br />If the exclusion range had not existed, then he would have been simply taxed at 15 percent of 62,600.<br />.15 times 62600 = 9390, which is way more than 8700.<br /><br />This solution, if it is indeed one, requires that the way they calculate things is to subtract 4600 from his true income, which as far as I can see is what the problem says. But I could certainly be missing something.<br /><br />Now I need an aspirin because my head hurts, lol...<br />DaveDavehttp://mutzu501atgmail.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5541500.post-2179736465631429012012-04-11T02:05:20.049+09:002012-04-11T02:05:20.049+09:00Interesting and plausible. But--
Lower tax perce...Interesting and plausible. But--<br /><br /><b>Lower tax percentage of 15%:<br />.15 time X = 8700<br />X = 8700 / .15<br />X = 58,000</b><br /><br />Doesn't the exclusion need to be applied <i>before</i> you multiply by 0.15? I don't think you can apply the tax rate directly to unadjusted income. If you calculate the adjustment <i>after</i> you calculate the taxable income this way, you get a skewed figure-- or so it seems to me. Applying the exclusion rate retroactively doesn't correct for this skewing. <br /><br />Same goes for:<br /><br /><b>Upper tax percentage of 35%:<br />.35 times X = 8700<br />X = 8700 / .35<br />X = 24,857.14</b><br /><br />Here, too, X needs to be an adjusted figure before you try calculating income. Or am I smoking something, here? Maybe I'm just not following the logic.Kevin Kimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01328790917314282058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5541500.post-51940908497132994812012-04-11T00:58:19.463+09:002012-04-11T00:58:19.463+09:00OOps, I reviewed more carefully, and the $63,500 a...OOps, I reviewed more carefully, and the $63,500 answer does not appear to fall into the solution range. I think the only answers are $33,200, $43,300, and $53,400.<br />I have fired my proof reader.<br />DaveDavehttp://mutzu501atgmail.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5541500.post-35828411006562197532012-04-10T22:03:20.754+09:002012-04-10T22:03:20.754+09:00(Ed McMahon voice): You are correct, sir.
(sorry ...(Ed McMahon voice): You are correct, sir.<br /><br />(sorry if I am posting twice, not sure which place I should respond to)<br /><br />Lower tax percentage of 15%:<br />.15 time X = 8700<br />X = 8700 / .15<br />X = 58,000<br /><br />Upper tax percentage of 35%:<br />.35 times X = 8700<br />X = 8700 / .35<br />X = 24,857.14<br /><br /><br />Both amounts are higher than the exclusion range, so you add the total amount of the range to both the upper and lower tax rates:<br />9800 - 5200 = 4600<br /><br />58,000 + 4,600 = 62,600<br />24,857.14 + 4,600 = 29,457,14<br /><br />All choices between these amounts, inclusive, are possible income amounts that yield an $8,700 tax liability.<br /><br />That would be the ones you identified in your solution.<br /><br />DaveDavehttp://mutzu501atgmail.comnoreply@blogger.com