Math...for the wallet
By Allen A. Raymond, Publisher

Driving to work this morning I was mentally calculating how many seconds I'd save if I switched lanes on I-95. At lunch, I wondered if I'd spoil the waiter if I gave him a tip bordering on 20% for a job well done.

It should take only a modicum of math intelligence to calculate a tip, but you probably already know there are wallet-size cards available (99¢ each) for the mathematically-challenged that list the amount to tip for meals at various prices and various percentages. Want to tip generously as a "thank you" for good service? Look at the card.

None of us should need that card.

In the Financial Section of The New York Times on October 16, 2003, Alan B. Krueger stated, "Conservative and liberal political commentators alike have wondered why most Americans have enthusiastically supported two of the largest tax cuts in history, even though most benefits will flow to upper-income families."

Larry Bartels, a political scientist at Princeton, had a simple answer… "unenlightened self interest."

"It is evident," Mr. Krueger wrote, "that they failed to connect the tax cuts to rising inequality, their future tax burden, or the availability of government services."

He indicated that while those surveyed by Professor Bartels wanted more government services, they nevertheless supported the tax cut which, he wrote, endangered the possibility of increased funding for those same government services.

"Those who were better informed," Mr. Krueger added, "were much less likely (than the uninformed) to support the 2001 tax cut."

Norbert Schwartz, a cognitive psychologist at the University of Michigan, was quoted in Mr. Krueger's article as stating that a study by the Kaiser Foundation in 2003 pointed to "a good deal of ignorance and uncertainty about the workings of the tax system and provided a powerful illustration of how the combination of low factual information and good political spin creates preferences that aren't in people's interests."

When Professor Schwartz mentioned that the majority of citizens approach the workings of the tax system with "low factual information" he was, of course, talking about low mathematical information (which is, of course, factual).

Mr. Krueger mentioned a September 2003 Alabama referendum aimed at correcting a severely regressive existing tax program which, among other changes, "would have raised the threshold for paying state taxes to $17,000 – from $4,600 – for a family of four and increased the tax rate for higher earners." Backed by Republicans and Dem-ocrats, it was defeated.

It is tempting to speculate that if voters had understood the math the referendum might have succeeded.

The money from the new taxes, incidentally, was "earmarked for a reading program for elementary-school children, higher tea-cher salaries in at-risk schools, and college scholarships."

"Lower income families," Mr. Krueger commented, "clearly would have benefited. Yet, only 36 percent of voters in the bottom half of counties ranked by median household income supported the referendum."

All over the country, the lack of mathematical understanding hurts where it hurts most – in the wallet. So? Do math. Lots of it.

Allen Raymond is the Editor/Publisher for Teaching Pre K-8.

January, 2004, Vol.34, No.4