"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.

3. M Bathurst (11/27/2017 10:45:15 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.

4. D Robb (11/27/2017 12:00:51 PM) 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.

5. M Bathurst (11/27/2017 12:10:07 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.

6. D Robb (11/27/2017 4:18:58 PM) Message ID #294288