No, Thomas, we have acknowledged that there are some good gimmicks in the tax bill which would simplify the tax code. What we oppose is the reality that it will, as you acknowledged, balloon the deficit. Noel did an excellent job of laying out the many problems we need MORE money to handle, not less. Voodoo economics has NEVER worked. Deficits have ALWAYS increased after cutting tax revenue when the government is already in deficit. No amount of double talk can change that.

2. Thomas C (11/27/2017 7:54:43 AM) Message ID #294274

"1.9% for 200% increase could be said to be 3.8% - 4%"

Sorry bout that -

1.9% for 200% increase could be said to be 5.7%% . An increase of 3.8% above 1.9%. but then I am trying to use voodoo economics and it sometimes hard to do so.

5. M Bathurst (11/27/2017 10:15:49 AM) Message ID #294282

Clearly you don't know how to do percentage increases. If you have 1.9% and increase to 3.0%; that represents a 92.437% increase from 1.9% (for journalistic reasons - that rounds up to 100%).

The math: 1.1 / 1.9 = .92437.

Mr. C; and, the WSJ, are correct.

6. D Robb (11/27/2017 10:45:15 AM) Message ID #294284

No, the problem is not with the math. It is with your and WSJ deliberately trying to confuse the issue. Noel is correct. 1.9/3.0=1.58 or a 158% increase not 100%. To have a 100% increase you would have to have 1.9+1.9=3.8% Glad you are retired and no doing taxes anymore.

7. M Bathurst (11/27/2017 12:00:51 PM) Message ID #294286

The increase is from to the final point; not from the final result. And, a decrease would be the amount of decline divided by the starting point. The key is the starting point. The statement regards the increase (or decline).

"To calculate the percentage increase: First: work out the difference (increase) between the two numbers you are comparing. Then: divide the increase by the original number and multiply the answer by 100. If your answer is a negative number then this is a percentage decrease. Percentage Change | Increase and Decrease - Skills You Need https://www.skillsyouneed.com/num/percent-change.html" - This is a real cite to a real fact. Maybe you can get a twofer here in terms of education.

Thanks for proving my point about your lack of financial sophistication. It will be interesting if you actually have the ability to admit a mistake - I doubt it.

No, the WSJ is not trying to confuse anyone; you are simply confused by definition.

8. D Robb (11/27/2017 12:10:07 PM) Message ID #294288