Misleading Numbers?
I was on the mobile web the other day. (For those of you who do not know what that is, it is the text only web sites which you can access from you cell phone.) I was using abcnews.com for viewing news, and I read an article titled "Misleading Numbers." I have tried to find the article on the regular web, but have not been able to find it. If you know someone who works for abcnews and can help me find it I would appreciate it.
In this article the writer writes about how misleading it is for people to talk about the proposed 2% of social security going into private investment. He or she writes that most people believe that social security will still get 98% of the money it would have gotten, 100% - 2% = 98%.
In the article, he or she does their own math, showing that social security funding will actually be reduced by 32%. This person's math is this. I currently pay 6.2% of my income to social security. The reduction of 2% leaves me now paying 4.2%. Therefore, the reduction is 32% since 2 is 32% of 6.2.
After dazzling us with the brilliance of this math, the writer the explains that the reason others in the media don't explain this to you is that they do not have enough confidence in their own mathematical skills.
To the writer, before you break you arm patting yourself on the back for your own amazing mathematical skills, you may want to sharpen you pencil or check the batteries in your calculator.
The proper math is thus: though you only see the 6.2% taken from your check each week, your employer matches that to social security. This means that social security receives 12.4%, or 12.4 cents every time you earn a dollar. (This is only true up to a certain dollar amount of income which doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.) So, even though your 6.2% may be reduced to 4.2% your employer will still be paying his 6.2%. The correct math shows social security will be getting 10.4% when they were getting 12.4% this means that social security will have a 16.13% reduction in the taxes brought in, NOT the 32% suggested by the slightly math challenged writer of the abcnews.com mobile web article.
The 2% is misleading, but then again so is the 32% supposed to clear things up!
So, to the writer of this piece, before you complain about your fellow journalists not having enough confidence in their mathematical abilities (which may or may not be merited) you may want to make sure that you are not overconfident in you own math skills.
Think for yourself!
Make up your own mind!
In this article the writer writes about how misleading it is for people to talk about the proposed 2% of social security going into private investment. He or she writes that most people believe that social security will still get 98% of the money it would have gotten, 100% - 2% = 98%.
In the article, he or she does their own math, showing that social security funding will actually be reduced by 32%. This person's math is this. I currently pay 6.2% of my income to social security. The reduction of 2% leaves me now paying 4.2%. Therefore, the reduction is 32% since 2 is 32% of 6.2.
After dazzling us with the brilliance of this math, the writer the explains that the reason others in the media don't explain this to you is that they do not have enough confidence in their own mathematical skills.
To the writer, before you break you arm patting yourself on the back for your own amazing mathematical skills, you may want to sharpen you pencil or check the batteries in your calculator.
The proper math is thus: though you only see the 6.2% taken from your check each week, your employer matches that to social security. This means that social security receives 12.4%, or 12.4 cents every time you earn a dollar. (This is only true up to a certain dollar amount of income which doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.) So, even though your 6.2% may be reduced to 4.2% your employer will still be paying his 6.2%. The correct math shows social security will be getting 10.4% when they were getting 12.4% this means that social security will have a 16.13% reduction in the taxes brought in, NOT the 32% suggested by the slightly math challenged writer of the abcnews.com mobile web article.
The 2% is misleading, but then again so is the 32% supposed to clear things up!
So, to the writer of this piece, before you complain about your fellow journalists not having enough confidence in their mathematical abilities (which may or may not be merited) you may want to make sure that you are not overconfident in you own math skills.
Think for yourself!
Make up your own mind!
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home