Paul L. Caron

Friday, September 16, 2011


(Hat Tip: David Herzig.)

Tax | Permalink

TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference :


-b (+or-) the square root of be squared over 2a.

Posted by: Walter | Sep 22, 2011 8:02:47 AM

I am unsure how to fill out line 6 of the Negative Discriminant Worksheet, since I want to use a log table to determine the square root. Is there a toll-free number I can call which will give me incorrect advice on how to fill out the form?

Posted by: malclave | Sep 19, 2011 2:46:26 PM

Concerning the complex quadratic vs. the simplicity of the formula "Money Received x Tax Rate = Tax Payable"

EZ above said:
"If you have a set tax rate and a politician wants more, then the rate must go up."
And EZ is insightfully and historically right.
In 1913 Congress didn't bother to limit the tax rate to 9% as someone suggested because they said they would be kicked out of office before that happened.

However the paperless super flat FreedomIncomeTax
protects the certainty of both the set tax base and the set tax rate by requiring "a 100% majority of the
Senate for any tax base exclusion, or any tax rate

Posted by D. Senate, Private Sector

Posted by: D. Senate | Sep 19, 2011 3:29:45 AM

This is freaking hysterical!

Posted by: 11235813213455 | Sep 18, 2011 7:43:28 PM

Given that there is a concept in mathematics called a "quadratic form", there's a pun here that not all readers might appreciate at first.

Posted by: Vader | Sep 18, 2011 11:14:07 AM

Actually this is similar to how math was written before algebraic notation was invented. As much as you hate alphabet soup formulas they are way better than the alternative. Also in the IRS's defense can you think of a better way to write this which has to be followed by people who are not good at math.

Posted by: mike | Sep 18, 2011 10:59:20 AM

"Money Received X Tax Rate = Tax Payable"

These are a political problem not a math problem. If you have a set tax rate and a politician wants more then the rate must go up. Of course people will notice that and take action so why change the current system!

Posted by: ez | Sep 18, 2011 10:51:38 AM

Re: Negative Discriminant Worksheet

Does this mean we can start paying our taxes with imaginary dollars? (Admittedly, it does seem like filling out my taxes is an exercise in complex numbers.)

Posted by: Noah Nehm | Sep 18, 2011 10:32:54 AM

I'm with D.Senate. One rate. Then abolish automatic withholding and move tax day to November 1.

Posted by: TomB | Sep 18, 2011 9:17:58 AM

Daniel J. Velleman:
Concerning your approval of
my immediate previous post:
Please email me if you are
not sure the equation will
[email protected]
Posted by D. Senate, Private Sector

Posted by: D. Senate | Sep 18, 2011 8:46:02 AM

Vinny, that's not surprising. As the length of the tax code approaches infinity, the probability that [INSERT TOPIC] will be specifically referenced somewhere therein approaches 1.

Posted by: Francis | Sep 18, 2011 8:37:56 AM

But then again, why not go with the
income tax formula shown
"Money Received X Tax Rate = Tax Payable"

Then income taxes could be collected
in real time as money flows through
the banking system, saving $540 billion
in counterproductive tax code red tape.
That's $1,700 per year to you and me.
Posted by D. Senate, Private Sector.

Posted by: D. Senate | Sep 18, 2011 8:37:25 AM

LOL... Yet strangely it seems simpler than the current form 1040

Posted by: T. Kiergen | Sep 18, 2011 7:41:56 AM

You do know that the quadratic formula is used in the 861 regs as an option to compute excess related person indebtedness of a CFC. 1.861-10T(e)(1)(iv)(B) and 1.861-12T(j)(4).

Posted by: Vinny | Sep 16, 2011 2:00:43 PM