A lot of people are having trouble with this math problem that requires some basic algebra

Posted by $ nickursis 7 years, 10 months ago to Culture
83 comments | Share | Flag

This is interesting and also shows you how basic skills need to be retained for life, and exercised somewhat. The fact we went from 80 percent to 60 shows our glorious education system is not working.
SOURCE URL: https://www.yahoo.com/news/lot-people-having-trouble-math-161950574.html


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by $ blarman 7 years, 10 months ago
    That's just downright frightening. Of course it's not like our current education system actually wants people to get the correct answers. With the introduction of Common Core, the process of getting the answer is more important than getting the correct answer, as if the deductive reasoning is more important than the validity of the answer!

    It's no wonder we have so many voters in this country who vote Democrat!
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Herb7734 7 years, 10 months ago
    I guess I did it the old fashioned way, with a pencil and paper. I could therefore express it any way my mind could grasp.
    "Math: I rely on my computer or calculator.
    Spelling: I rely on my spell-check."
    When do you rely on your brain?
    Do you even have a brain?
    Shouldn't you be able do simple stuff in your head? When I was in school during the Stone Age, we learned addition, subtraction, multiplication and division by rote. No consulting a device needed. Now, everything seems to be through the use of a device. Are you saving your brains for some other more esoteric function?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by dukem 7 years, 10 months ago
    Any good engineer who was educated before the idiots took over would simply define the order by the use of parentheses thereby allowing one to zip through the process without have to remember rules. Always seek clarity in lieu of obfuscation.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ CBJ 7 years, 10 months ago
      Back in the Pleistocene Era when I was a COBOL programmer, I encountered frequent math errors in programs that did not use parentheses. These days the order of operations can vary among spreadsheets, calculators and programming languages. The presence of chained exponents (such as 2^3^4) and unary operators such as "!" can add further ambiguity and confusion. Using parentheses, especially when dealing with electronic media, is always a good idea.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ 7 years, 10 months ago
      I consider myself a "good engineer", I have fixed some very icky problems, yet this defeated me. I would say that we should avaid getting to in depth with labels (not trying to sound leeftist here, please), but I have seen some engineers who could engineer a nuclear reactor to work, yet can't tie their shoes. Maybe the term savant applies?
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by Steven-Wells 7 years, 10 months ago
        Sorry Nick, but "good engineer" and failing this sample problem are mutually exclusive in my experience.

        [snark]
        What is it that you engineered? Pinto gas tanks? Chernobyl control systems? Modern math education curricula?
        [/snark]

        We covered all of what was necessary for solving the proffered problem in freshman high school math class. And it is all symbols, not words.
        Care to engineer something practical with words? A family is driving their car to visit Disneyland and coming home after several days. Their home is right near to the Applebee’s in Goodyear, Arizona, so it’s 350 miles each way. If they expect the gas cost in Arizona and California to average $2.50 per gallon and their vehicle gets 35 miles per gallon, how much will the gas cost for the trip?
        I kept the numbers simple enough (though totally realistic) to not need a calculator to work it out. If you can’t solve that in five minutes or less, don’t make any engineering claims. Answer hint: Ulysses S. Grant.

        How about this one from a story called Escape! in Asimov’s I, Robot book?
        If one and a half chickens lay one and a half eggs in one and a half days, how many eggs do nine chickens lay in nine days?
        I could show (clearly) how to answer that one in under a minute on an old school blackboard or a modern dry-erase white board. Your thoughts about this one? Okay, setting it up the first time is what makes this difficult.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by $ 7 years, 10 months ago
          Wow, what a hard audience...OK 50.00 to number 1 and who the hell engineered the defective chickens?
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by Steven-Wells 7 years, 10 months ago
            The great science and science fiction writer, Isaac Asimov engineered the egg, chickens, and days.

            Set it up and include the units, which multiply or divide just like everything else (most non-engineers don’t realize this—in case non-nerds are looking), the answer is:
            9 chickens × 9 days × (1½ eggs/1½ chickens)/1½ days

            Rewriting, bunching the numbers and bunching unit pairs together:
            9 × 9 × (1½/1½)/1½ × eggs × chickens/chickens × days/days
            Consider that a/a = 1 for all values of a, including units (non-zero, finite values).
            1½/1½ = 1, chickens/chickens = 1, and days/days =1

            So far:
            9 × 9 × (1)/1½ × eggs × 1 × 1
            Multiplying by 1 doesn’t change a value, and rewriting 1½ as an improper fraction of 3/2:
            9 × 9 × 1/(3/2) × eggs

            Consider that to divide by a fraction, you multiply by its reciprocal. Or 1/(a/b) = b/a
            We’re down to 9 × 2/3 of 9 in units of eggs. 2/3 of 9 is 6.
            9×6 eggs = 54 eggs.
            QED (Quite Easily Derived). Maybe its Quod Erat Demonstrandum.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by $ 7 years, 10 months ago
              Thanks Steven, I was aware of it being Asimov, I was tying back to the "good engineer" point, but thanks for the lesson, I just would not have had the patience to work it through, I was busy trying to re-engineer my grand daughters Ninentendo 3DXL whose screen broke. I bought a screen and was not daunted by the incredily small connectors and bits and pieces, but was finally defeated when it came to getting a size F tiny ribbon cable through a round hole, and found there is no one who has mastered it, and will confess to such knowledge. It is easy to see they use a slot in the factory, which is then masked when it is assembled and you cannot remove the pin. For the sake of expediency, I threw 250.00 at the problem and bought her a replacement, but kept all the pieces for future study. There must be a way to do it, just have to find it. Math doesn't help much in those scenarios...which is 90% of the engineering problems I normally deal with...
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by dukem 7 years, 10 months ago
        Yes, you are right, and my hasty declaration was less than charitable. Had just finished reading the news, was very depressed as usual, and meant it humorously.

        After finishing five years of engineering school, we all said: "Just think: five years ago I couldn't even spel enginer, and now I are one."
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by $ 7 years, 10 months ago
          Oh, I know exactly what you mean. I work in a factory for Intel, where we do the final phase of chip making. I have many "engineers" who have issues with basics. I also have some who are veritable geniuses, but also cannot tie their shoes, so they wear slip ons. To each their own, but I have found a degree smart does not make.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by shaifferg 7 years, 10 months ago
    I just keyed this problem into an HP 10B Business calculator. As expected with out parens the calculator evaluated the expression left to right subtracting first followed by division then the addition. Result? 19 as expected. Absent parens algebraic calculators tend to evaluate left to right through the expression PEMDAS requires parens to force these machines to alter order of operation . My mental answer was also 19, I went to the calculator after seeing your different answer....not exactly wrong, definitely different. BTW I taught PMDAS as part of beginning electronics for 30 years. Also required RPN calculators because of the better system only requiring working with two operands unless you (or the problem) required a delay. It is a shame that the math teachers couldn't get outside their math notation long enough to master a superior system. Even HP gave up and allowed the next generation to build algebraic machines.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by CircuitGuy 7 years, 10 months ago
      Some non-RPN calculators observe operator precedence. I prefer RPN because having the stack is useful. Also there's no ambiguity as to whether it observes precedence or not.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by mminnick 7 years, 10 months ago
    Solve as if written as follows
    9 - (3x3)+1. reason the fractional division rule: when dividing by a fraction invert the fraction and multiply. so 1/3 becomes 3
    this leads to 9 - 9 + 1 so the answer is 1.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ 7 years, 10 months ago
      Indeed, I think they were trying to point out that less and less young people are getting basic math skills, and so come up with a variety of answers. I plead old age and lack of need for it...but then, my math skills are rarely needed beyond 20% off= :)
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ AJAshinoff 7 years, 10 months ago
    I won't lie, I got it wrong off the cuff. My daughter, College student studying forensics, reminded me of the order of operations. I'm embarrassed by my forgetfulness (its been forever since I thought about non-financial math) but proud my daughter caught it.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ 7 years, 10 months ago
      Good for you, I got it wrong too, but at 58, and having not needed to worry about such things for 40 years, I wasn't too worried. I figured a kid out of school would be able to dredge it up.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by CircuitGuy 7 years, 10 months ago
    "our glorious education system"
    All industries that are systems that provide private goods are troubled: the healthcare system, education system. We don't have a grocery store delivery system, landscaping system, or electronics design/mfg system. So we have less problems in those areas. If we tried to have a grocery distribution system, it would turn into some variant of Venezuela's grocery distribution system.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ 7 years, 10 months ago
      However, CG, THEY have declared we have a "system". It is the conglomerated result of the Dept of Education, and individual Stae DOE's that have banded together "for the common good" to provide a "standardized" system of education, hence such wonderful crap programs such as "No Child Left Behind" and of course, the ultimate craziness: "Common Core".
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ 7 years, 10 months ago
        It seems anytime they fold something into a "system" it means they get more influence, and it is easier to break. Let's not even go into the inter-dependencies of these systems and the total inability of that to happen. That is why we are in such trouble, the more they "systemize", the more they can control, interfere and screw it up.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by CircuitGuy 7 years, 10 months ago
          Yes, what you said above is what I was about to say.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by $ 7 years, 10 months ago
            I am not too sure there are a lot of people around who really get that the "system" they talk about is actually many subsystems, and sub-sub systems, that allow groups to take them over and push their agenda. The socialists took over education years ago and have only tightened their grip. They have other systems as well. That is a lot of the problems we see today.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by CircuitGuy 7 years, 10 months ago
              I don't see these agendas and biases, at least in my interactions with a little corner of it. My problem is considering it a "system". Providing goods and services to people should just be a market of people offering and other people choosing to buy or not buy. A "system" implies central control. It's a back-door way of saying it. If we answer the question, "Is this system working?" IMHO by accepting that framing we're accepting centralized control.

              I've had an amazingly positive experience with the public school in my area. If it weren't a system, I'd keep paying them as long as they do what I want. You and I wouldn't need to discuss which school does a better job , any more than we need to discuss which mobile data carrier is best. We'd just pick what works and buy it. People wanting it to be a "system" really annoys me. It seems like they either want to abdicate their own choice, maybe b/c they feel life has too many choices, or they want to be the one running the system, telling everyone else what to do.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by $ 7 years, 10 months ago
                Exactly, and the good point is the difference between system and individual units. System does imply central control, and system also implies an agenda. A single unit with a mission should have the mission (or service) as it's "agenda" and would focus much better on it. Maybe an argument for charter schools?
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by CircuitGuy 7 years, 10 months ago
      Some people were talking about whether the very idea of systems is lazy or bad. I do not mean to say that at all. My complaint is whole industries being characterized as systems. I'm fine with a grocery store creating a system to distribute groceries. My problem starts if we talk about our nation's grocery distribution "system".
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ 7 years, 10 months ago
        I don't know if it is applicaple in that way. I would say systems within systems is a norm when you get above a certain size. Any grouping of causes and effects would generate a system, as long as they hold true and do not vary. That is what disrupts systems. I think the idea of stability and reputability define it more than size. Interesting concept.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by CircuitGuy 7 years, 10 months ago
          When I think of systems, there are inputs, outputs, and some transfer function that describes the outputs as a function of inputs and time. There are specs that describe how we want it to respond to changes in input. This whole area is often called "controls theory" in engineering.

          When they call the hoards of people wanting to buy something and sell something, aka a market, a "system" it sounds like the person talking wants to control it. It implies there are a set of specs that someone else wrote defining desires outcomes, rather than just whatever people feel willing to part with their money for.

          This is a pet peeve for me. Thanks for listening to my rant.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by $ 7 years, 10 months ago
            I can see your meaning here. There is no formative system in a lot of "systems", just the social movements, as in markets. Look at the Stock Market, it is a system, but responds to many different stimuli, and the controls seem mainly instigated by outside agencies to influence the amount of variation.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by lrshultis 7 years, 10 months ago
      And you seem to have claims to the everyone is in the we-cannot-change-system and will all hang around and drown if the seas rise. There seems to be an inability to deal with change, i.e., with time related actions. People get flooded out over and over but act as though the last time was really the last time it will happen and then when it happens again they adjust their beliefs in the wrong direction to a belief that that can't ever happen again. I cannot believe that when those living now are all dead that their offspring will not adjust their lives to any large changes in the local weather or as some want to call it climate change. Systems are just a way to make very complicated activities fit into lazy minds. Concepts work the same way in minds which just see them as being words without expanding them to see to what they refer in objective reality. 'System' is best left to engineering or physical descriptions and is too dangerous for use in the lay mind.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
      • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 7 years, 10 months ago
        A little refinement. Systems wouldn't be so bad if they were practical and useful and the term itself is not abusive and demeaning AS IS 'process.' Process is what happens to hogs at the slaughterhouse or chickens clucking their last for Tysons. Process is what happens to people unfortunate enough to have to ride on aircraft in the USA.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ 7 years, 10 months ago
        Well, then lets not get them more confused with the idea that it is all just cause and effect. Even then, causes can have different effects based on magnitude. Then it just seems easier to call it a "system".
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by lrshultis 7 years, 10 months ago
          If it has a different magnitude then it is a different cause. There is no A is not-A for any existent only an A may become non-A, but a time factor which is a change factor or motion factor or etc. which says that a cause is from some something at a particular time and can be different due to the cause being an effect of some other action at some other time. That is the trouble with particulars. Say the particular is John. He is considered to be just John all his life and in memory afterwards. But every instant of his being is different than all others in all his living parts which change constantly and in his mind which is continually being changed by processing sense data both automatically and the percepts from the data consciously. Chemical processes change the physical makeup of John.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by $ 7 years, 10 months ago
            IU would see that as a matter of how finite you want to define a cause and effect. Say we are talking about money in politics. A lot of money can cause a lot of corruption, but a little may cause a little. How much does a politician need to do your will? The cause is the money, the effect is the corruption. It is on a gross scale, but you could then render it down to individual examples, with the original relationship still valid. As a system, the money for play would still be valid, in that many players know the path to their will is to use money, not any of the trappings of society such as voter input, ethics and laws. It seems it is dependent upon your perspective.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
            • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 7 years, 10 months ago
              Apply the same vervbiage to 'money as free speech' and have it apply to accross the board income or wealth levels. Might also address winner take all vote changing as an effect of what cause?
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by lrshultis 7 years, 10 months ago
              If you want causality you had better damn well prove causality and not confuse correlation for it. While causality implies correlation, correlation does not imply causality. Most of what people believe to be cause and effect are correlations. You cannot get by with watering causality down to feel good beliefs to make yourself feel like you have discovered something really important. Correlations can point to further work to see if there is a cause and effect action going on. Your money example fails due to the result of large amounts of money not always producing the same effect. It it were causality, the same result would happen or be scaled with the amount of money and not fail in some cases. In politics that does not happen.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by $ 7 years, 10 months ago
                I see your point, there is not constant result, I would assume the with the human factor it makes it almost impossible to have a predictable state, just a probability.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by lrshultis 7 years, 10 months ago
                  The same happens in deciding whether climate is a causative something. Since climate is an averaging of weather in a geological area and in climatology is a type of probabilistic study of an area, it cannot have a causative effect. Only real things can be causes, averages or probabilities or measurements cannot. Thoughts cannot cause effects at a distance. Even thoughts in a mind are not causative since having a particular thought will not necessarily have the same effect in action each time it happens. That does not mean that a thought may not cause an emotion which if not inhibited will produce an action. Inhibition is part of the free will choice that most humans can learn.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by lrshultis 7 years, 10 months ago
                    Another way of looking at the law of causality is that it says, if you want to put an active nature into it, that nature is consistent. But nature is more a metaphor for stuff just acting with respect to its identity. No consciousness involved for the respect to part.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by $ 7 years, 10 months ago
                    I agree with you points, I would say that in the thought arena, you have the issue of intent, which in and of itself would not be causative but can lead to an action, and the emotional aspect would have to dove tail in. So how does that work, with someone like Hillary? When it comes to causative effects and people, I see having a hard time, as you never have good data except in large groups, and even then it s more than likely skewed by some other factor. The climate thing is exactly correct, and is one reason the whole climate change thing is a farce to assume it is man caused,
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by lrshultis 7 years, 10 months ago
                      It may be that the law of causation deals more with physical reality than with intention of a mind. In the short time period that a mind is able to initiate a body's action to shoot a 50 cal slug through a persons head would be the cause of the death of the person who was shot. It could even be said that such a shot will be the cause of a death. The properties of the shot are important to how one views it. Does one say the person who made the shot is the cause of the death? That is what happens in a court of law with various possibilities, the shot was by intent or by carelessness or by poor aim or by self defense or whether someone got your gun and took a shot of some type, etc. In today's world even the last is being considered as though the owner of the gun caused the death.
                      Maybe it is the difference between actual instance of some action which would be considered to be the cause in that instance as to a general situation where something occurs and something not involved in the action is considered to be the cause of the action, something like the cause of cancer is water since water is involved in every person who gets cancer but really is correlation.
                      To keep from going crazy, perhaps it is best in most cases to just say consistency is a necessary and sufficient condition for existence. If it exists it is consistent and if it is consistent it exists. A little difficult there for mental patterns though they too do not exist unless consistent whether chemical or some other process and must be non-contradictory.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by $ 7 years, 10 months ago
                        Ok, I can go with that. Reminds me of Heinlein's The Cat Who Walks Through Walls...
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Posted by lrshultis 7 years, 10 months ago
                          I just got that one. The local library was making space and discarded it. Also, got JOB: A Comedy of Justice which I read about 20 years ago.
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                          • Posted by $ 7 years, 10 months ago
                            I have loved every book he ever wrote, and have hardcopy as well as audio. I cannot go without rerunning Starship Troopers and The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, just for the object lessons he offered. I was so depressed when they made the movie and essentially trashed it. Made me realize that studios have no interest in preserving art, but manipulate it for their own ends.
                            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ sjatkins 7 years, 9 months ago
    The problem has nothing at all to do with algebra. It is about simple math, fractions and about operator precedence in math statements containing infix notation. No algebra present or needed. Precedence rules are a pain. In software I prefer prefix or postfix. In prefix notation using lisp (+ (- 9 (* 3 1/3) 1). One the proper grouping of operators in understood the rest is easy.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 7 years, 9 months ago
    Back to the half chicken can't lay an egg issue that's the fallacy of rounding up. instead of down. 50 of 100 is the lower half and not the upper half. Rounding up is therefore always wrong. 1-50 becomes zero and 51 to 100 becomes 100 in correct rounding. There fore one half chicken will not only not lay an egg neither will it's smiley face farmer owner/operater.

    Can you run a truck on nine tires instead of 18?

    If the vehicle is traveling at 50mph in relationship to the road how fast is the tire moving?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 7 years, 10 months ago
    The correct answer is both are required. One cannot accomplish A without B. Lack of B proves inability to accomplish A and a wrong understanding of A.

    In modern terms. The store clerk is handed a purchase at $21.95 two tens and a five. Sales tax is 7%. The cash register is broken.

    How long does it take to figure out the bill and make change of one dollar fifty cents and one penny.

    1.51.

    Best answer. I'll have to ask my teacher about that when I start Senior Year next fall.

    Not to be Pedantic and really don't want the useless penny but....you know how we nickle dime Nazi's are.

    The second part is - since the cash register is broken except for opening the drawer.....

    write it on a piece of paper.


    Item desciption and price

    $25 minus (21.99 x 1.07 = 23.5293. rounded up to the next highest penny. 23.54) = 1.46

    Easy way?
    21.99 round to 22. 2 x 70 plus 70+ 14 cents = 23.54 change is 1.46

    Two ways That second method used the Mark 1 Mod 1 brain. No waiting until September.

    It struck me we all have those little speed tricks squirreled away. Any additions? for practice I figure the bill at the supermarket. Keeps the brain cells limber.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ 7 years, 10 months ago
      Wow, you must be used to sales tax. Much easier with a greedy income tax, you get screwed once a year and all you have to do is make up a suitable set of fictions to try to wrestle your money back in the face of their suitable fictions of why you shouldn't.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
      • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 7 years, 10 months ago
        Are you comparing the two? The whole story is the end user consumption tax replaced all ALL the other taxes and the unfunded entitlement programs. and only was taken out of your check or bank account when you bought something. In the meantime it was available to back loans and investments

        the current system and I know I'm leaving stuff out is national debt is the sum total of all the T Bills of various varieties whee the government is the banker. and various other parking places. One is funded by savings and wealth in excess of current need. and loans for major items such as houses and by spending where a single tax occured. one time. and that with a single deduction variously called the Right To Life Exemption. The major difference was income tax was confiscatory and end user consumtion minus RTLE was voluntary.

        At that point in time the what was it called Fair Tax was computed at 30% to cover current government needs and obligatory payoffs such as military retirement and social security.

        It also relied on a real debt limit. Short of war and natural disaster - no phony declared emergencies - government could not go in debt and whatever could not be funded with current income flow was not done. Be it war, freeways, rapid transit, welfare etc. With the amount of obligated and unfunded programs now on the table it might be as much as fifty percent? I don't really know I'm doing a SWAG. Unless the debt was repudiated which is exactly what they did in 2008 and will do this next time around. So that's going to happen anyway.

        The main difference is control. One the citizens and their spending habits controlled government and in the other Government and it's spending habits controlled everything.

        Actually with income tax you get screwed every day of every year as taxes are embedded any time something is sold, bought, pay checks issued. It' all adds up until the final purchase of some goods or services. Then it comes due if not collected and transmitted along the way. Sales Tax. That's the Commie Mommie's favored VAT Tax. which subtracts value - iyou have to pay more to get the same thing.

        One is based ont the assumption the government owns everything and allows the citizens to earn a taxable portion called wages. The other is based on the assumption the citizens own everything and agree to pay a set percentage mnus the /Right to Life exemption to fund certain government programs.

        Two refinements are the No Funding No Mandate rule where government says all sewer systems must be replaced every 50 years and upgraded every ten but doesn't fund the requirement there fore it's not mandatory. OR funds it and it is mandatory.

        The second refinement is all spenidng bills must have the following ont he cover sheet and adhere to what is found there. Name, Description and Scope,. Constitutional cite that allows such an expenditure, Funding Source and funding limit.

        I guess a third refinement is No earmarks or anything not related to the story ont he cover sheet allowed as Christmas Tree add ons but in any case the whole pig trough is automatically under the No Funding No Mandate provision and the percentage of allowed end user consumption tax. Getting to long and I'm sure I forgot some important parts.

        I liked the citizen controlling by what he/she spends AND the anti pig trough/no funding no mandate provisions. Some of those were retirement funds, personal health insurance funds which added to the RTL exemption and some other odds and ends. Ahh yes the payoff and phase out of current entitlements.

        Inthe end it's all a sales tax anyway but paid for with after taxed (income) and added taxed (sales and VAT) collection methods.

        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by $ 7 years, 10 months ago
          Hmm..I am not sure where you wanted to go with this, I was just saying by your numbers it looked like you were adding in sales tax. Not fond of any tax in general but it seemed you were aiming at a flat tax in your above?
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
          • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 7 years, 9 months ago
            There is no adding in. All taxes are done away with and one end user consumption tax at final point of sale is used to replace the rest. Additional taxes VAT and other tax on taxes etc. are forbidden.

            Therefore there is no income tax at any percentage including Flat Tax.

            The major difference between a small reduction in gross tax paid is in the area of control.

            Income tax is confiscatory or as I put it fascist in nature Government decides and it varies only as a function of your salary as it changes.

            End User consumption tax citizen end consumer decides what and when to buy or not to buy and in what price range.

            Government is not allowed to go into deficit except for declared wars or natural katrina style disasters. Those two costs are automatically the top of the list for next years budget.

            Entitlements are phased out and the nearest thing go an income tax is phased in. 5% minimum for retirement NOT in a government controlled but in a controlled account. So no IOUs.

            One additional would be medical care account at 5% minimum

            The only deduction is the Right To Life the amount needed to survive. Government has zero right to take that which is needed to survive.

            That's it.

            Government takes what comes in through auto matic cash register transfers end of day, week month whatever.

            That's what they get to spend. If they want more money they have to improve the market place not put more chains on it.

            BUTthey retain the basic duties of military and police, judicial, and setting standards The unit that sets standards recommends congress approves, judicial handles any court issues, LEA enforces in separate branches.

            Nets out at an immediate 30% reduction in government employees. Watchi me cry ha ha
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by $ 7 years, 9 months ago
              The problem the politicos have with a consumption tax is that everyone says their stuff should be exempt (it's a necessity) and it varies with economic cycles. So politicos need to have a variety of ways to fleece us....
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
              • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 7 years, 9 months ago
                The problem is they are dealing with it as a control issue and not a budgeting issue and find themselves deeper and deeper into a situation which cannot be maintained. At some point a major crash is inevitable. The reality of their fiction will not serve and will not answer. Their problem will gave be have become too big not to fail.

                When inflation, devaluation and debt repudiation became so huge the French issued new money. One new franc was equal to ten old francs. Which still left the problem of the elderly and those on unfunded retirement programs. Waking up to find your $5,000 a month reitement income had become $500.00 but the loaf of bread at $2.00 new money wa still $20 old money. was a hard choice and it did bring on fixed prices on staple items. If $5.00 was chosen as the price for a loaf of bread it was still five times greater or put another way the buying power was now 20% of that planned for. So far ours has taken around a one third not an eighty percent cut with no COLA adjustment.

                That's just the first go round. At some point those debt notes will come due from the last bail out. The old folks still can't work even assuming there were jobs. Military get job preference for many situations. That 30% I mentioned in the initial presentation of the end user consumption tax will be forced up at least to 50%. When it reaches the same amount as the present system - why bother changing? At some point the debt will be so huge there will cease to be a point to even pretend to pay it off. other than by stealing from not only Grandpa and Grandma's retirement account but for the worker bees of ALL income levels as welll through inflation, devaluation and debt repudiation. That last means when they cause a decrease in buyiut they do not repay and do it openlyng power they don't count it in COLA. They steal but do not repay the theft knowing you will still vote for them.

                Therefore I propose anyone who votes for Trump or Hillary the two remaining socialists be dubbed the Dumb Ass Party the perfect name for the combination of Republicans and Democrats.

                Margaret Thatcher first said, "Socialism works until you run out of Other Peoplel's Money."

                Nancy Pelosi is thought to have said but some attribute this to Clinton and Reid - "Then you take the rest of what they have as long as we pay the Protective Echelon first. Homeland "Security is not for everyone."
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by $ 7 years, 9 months ago
                  I see your point, and I think it ties into what a lot of people see as issues in varying forms, some see the politics, some see the money side, some see the overall impact and impossibility of continuing on this way. It is the frustration of those that have no choice in the matter, from their perspective. The fact the masters gave us 2 idiots, and that the rest of them are not a winner either, leaves them frustrated and facing 4 more years of decay. If there was just some basic honor codes followed, a lot of this would not happen. People like we see flooding the Obamanations gang have no concern except for themselves and their cronies, and the same on the Repub side, leaving the 95 not in either camp to just shut up and dies.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ allosaur 7 years, 10 months ago
    I got it wrong. Hated algebra in high school, avoided related subjects at little ole Troy State and never had any use for it later. What I can do is shoot straight and put handcuffs on people.
    I have a younger brother who was a whiz at algebra, graduated magna cum laude from the University of Alabama and is now a retired Lockheed engineer and has more money than I do.
    A lot more money.
    Looks like our Commander-Of-(Other-Assorted)-Grief failed to in his own words to Joe the Plumber "spread the wealth around."
    I still marvel over how the media went way out of their way to pick on an unlicensed plumber due to what Candidate Obama said to that man.
    See? See how I steered away from the subject at hand?
    By the way, my moneybags little brother has for over two decades bought five tickets per home game so up to four people can tailgate with him and see the game for free.
    Moocher me quit going two years ago due to health problems.
    Do you want to know what they are? La, la, la!
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Temlakos 7 years, 10 months ago
    Sad. Very sad. Then again, in my test-prep teaching days, I found I had to review the precedence of mathematical operators and brackets. Meaning my trainers didn't expect our students to come in knowing any of this.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo