4 ms·

Not distinguishing between additive and multiplicative "more" makes this an unclear message. People constantly mix up rates (*) with absolutes (+), and reinter

Not distinguishing between additive and multiplicative "more" makes this an unclear message. People constantly mix up rates (*) with absolutes (+), and reinterpret statements made referring to one as referring to the other. "More people use the internet in China than in the US" - whether that's true depends on the interpretation of "more". This is intolerable and everyone with a mathematical background should strive to be clear on which "more" they are using.

Latty 9y ago
In this case, I'd argue both.
gt_ 9y ago
If you’re not joking, this one: > He is arguing for a relative more, the starting point at which is specified as the current state.
- monkeypizza 9y ago
  I don't feel that he has guaranteed that all readers of the article will come to the conclusion you have reached. Here is how I could interpret his brief quote: 1. more in absolute terms (which they already pay due to higher income) 2. more in relative terms (progressive taxes) 3. more than now (what you claim). I don't that it's clear what he means in in the story, though. It could easily be taken to mean "yes, we pay more, and we should pay more (than others) so I don't support the republican plan!". Your interpretation is also valid - "the rich should pay more (than we do now)".
  - maxerickson 9y ago
    Here's the original: https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/18/politics/bill-gates-taxes-cnntv/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/18/politics/bill-gates-taxes-cnn... "I need to pay higher taxes," Gates, who is worth over $90 billion, said in an interview with CNN's Fareed Zakaria on Sunday. "I've paid more taxes, over $10 billion, than anyone else, but the government should require the people in my position to pay significantly higher taxes," he said. That first sentence sort of simplifies the interpretation.
  - gt_ 9y ago
    I understand that, and am usually interested rigorous particularities but I find this one a stretch. I was comfortable eliminating 1 based on it being part of a well established status quo. An article about Bill Gates having expressing that opinion would have me pinching myself. And, 3 umbrellas 2.
- monkeypizza 9y ago
  There's also a similar problem in this case: When we start in this state: rich pay 10% on the margin poor pay 2% And then cut all tax brackets by 1% absolute (to 9% and 1%) This can be portrayed as both "most gains from the cuts go to the rich (because we were super progressive initially!)", and "poor get relative 50% cut, rich 10% (at the margin)". Anyway, I just am trying to guard against future misinterpretation and mixing up of absolute/relative terms.
the_cat_kittles 9y ago
pretty safe to assume that he means the tax rate for super rich people should be higher than it is.

Latty 9y ago

In this case, I'd argue both.

gt_ 9y ago

If you’re not joking, this one: > He is arguing for a relative more, the starting point at which is specified as the current state.

monkeypizza 9y ago
I don't feel that he has guaranteed that all readers of the article will come to the conclusion you have reached. Here is how I could interpret his brief quote: 1. more in absolute terms (which they already pay due to higher income) 2. more in relative terms (progressive taxes) 3. more than now (what you claim). I don't that it's clear what he means in in the story, though. It could easily be taken to mean "yes, we pay more, and we should pay more (than others) so I don't support the republican plan!". Your interpretation is also valid - "the rich should pay more (than we do now)".
- maxerickson 9y ago
  Here's the original: https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/18/politics/bill-gates-taxes-cnntv/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/18/politics/bill-gates-taxes-cnn... "I need to pay higher taxes," Gates, who is worth over $90 billion, said in an interview with CNN's Fareed Zakaria on Sunday. "I've paid more taxes, over $10 billion, than anyone else, but the government should require the people in my position to pay significantly higher taxes," he said. That first sentence sort of simplifies the interpretation.
- gt_ 9y ago
  I understand that, and am usually interested rigorous particularities but I find this one a stretch. I was comfortable eliminating 1 based on it being part of a well established status quo. An article about Bill Gates having expressing that opinion would have me pinching myself. And, 3 umbrellas 2.
monkeypizza 9y ago
There's also a similar problem in this case: When we start in this state: rich pay 10% on the margin poor pay 2% And then cut all tax brackets by 1% absolute (to 9% and 1%) This can be portrayed as both "most gains from the cuts go to the rich (because we were super progressive initially!)", and "poor get relative 50% cut, rich 10% (at the margin)". Anyway, I just am trying to guard against future misinterpretation and mixing up of absolute/relative terms.

the_cat_kittles 9y ago

pretty safe to assume that he means the tax rate for super rich people should be higher than it is.