Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT
Johnny, my undergraduate degree (from UCONN) is in statistics. This is NOT statistics, it is elementary school mathematics. A 33 percent tax decrease is larger than an 11.6 percent tax decrease. Sorry if that ruffles your political feathers.
I'd also argue that giving an extra $1,000 to a guy making $20k a year, means more to him than giving $11,500 back to a guy making $250K. Why? Something called "diminishing marginal returns". Simply puit, a $100 raise means more to someone earning minimum wage than a $1 million raise to Bill Gates.
Every time someone proves you wrong, you just keep telling yourself that they are "taking it out of context". The other kook here keeps accusing me of "spin" for making the outrageous claim that 33 is, in fact, greater than 11.6.
|
Ah, a fellow Husky, I was a senior when the men's and women's teams won the championships in the same year.
You're right. I keep typing statistics and that's the completely incorrect term. I'm a jackass in that aspect. You aren't ruffling my political feathers at all... mostly because, like usual from very partisan people, you think I'm a liberal because I disagree with you.
And every time someone proves you wrong, you change the context of your original statement. First, who benefited more from the change in policy, then it's who appreciates it more, now it's whoever pays more overall is screwed? Benefits can be quantified, appreciation cannot.
If I give a bum on the street a $100 bill, he'll certainly appreciate it more than someone on Wall Street that cashed in a $1M deal. But the bum certainly didn't benefit more.
Threaded Mode