Comments on: Hermann Weyl, tax accountant http://bit-player.org/2007/hermann-weyl-tax-accountant An amateur's outlook on computation and mathematics. Fri, 29 Aug 2008 05:10:22 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=1.5.2 Comment on Hermann Weyl, tax accountant by: Evan Hutcheson http://bit-player.org/2007/hermann-weyl-tax-accountant#comment-1611 Thu, 07 Feb 2008 18:53:21 +0000 http://bit-player.org/2007/hermann-weyl-tax-accountant#comment-1611 I just started in a CPA firm, and I am trying to get a grip on health insurance, life insurance, and HSA's, and when they are deductible or exempt on the 1040. Also, does anyone know of any books that might be of assistance being a beginner tax accountant. Thanks -Evan Also, I have made a blog website: http://beginnertaxaccountant.blogspot.com I am a beginner, the only one of the blog right now, so it is pretty worthless. Hoping to get people on there, if any one wants on or has any advice for me, including to telling me I do not have a clue what I am doing, feel free, I just started in a CPA firm, and I am trying to get a grip on health insurance, life insurance, and HSA’s, and when they are deductible or exempt on the 1040. Also, does anyone know of any books that might be of assistance being a beginner tax accountant.
Thanks -Evan

Also, I have made a blog website: http://beginnertaxaccountant.blogspot.com

I am a beginner, the only one of the blog right now, so it is pretty worthless. Hoping to get people on there, if any one wants on or has any advice for me, including to telling me I do not have a clue what I am doing, feel free,

]]> Comment on Hermann Weyl, tax accountant by: Jess Austin http://bit-player.org/2007/hermann-weyl-tax-accountant#comment-1461 Sat, 05 May 2007 03:13:37 +0000 http://bit-player.org/2007/hermann-weyl-tax-accountant#comment-1461 It has been some time since I examined these matters, but I'm sure that at least some of the flat-tax proposals involved expansions of the earned-income tax credit, and so really were not adverse to a "negative tax". However, the EITC in such a proposal probably wouldn't be a near-linear monotonic continuation of the overall tax curve, as that would have bad effects on incentives. Incidentally, if Form 1040 annoys you with its obfuscation of the actually quite simple expressions used in taxation, don't look at Part IV and Schedule AI of Form 2210, which are used to calculate underpayments and penalties for payers with varying income and withholding. It took me over an hour to figure out that I owed a penalty of $6. I consoled myself with the intuition that if I hadn't filled out those sections of the form my penalty would have been hundreds more. It has been some time since I examined these matters, but I’m sure that at least some of the flat-tax proposals involved expansions of the earned-income tax credit, and so really were not adverse to a “negative tax”. However, the EITC in such a proposal probably wouldn’t be a near-linear monotonic continuation of the overall tax curve, as that would have bad effects on incentives.

Incidentally, if Form 1040 annoys you with its obfuscation of the actually quite simple expressions used in taxation, don’t look at Part IV and Schedule AI of Form 2210, which are used to calculate underpayments and penalties for payers with varying income and withholding. It took me over an hour to figure out that I owed a penalty of $6. I consoled myself with the intuition that if I hadn’t filled out those sections of the form my penalty would have been hundreds more.

]]> Comment on Hermann Weyl, tax accountant by: Barry Cipra http://bit-player.org/2007/hermann-weyl-tax-accountant#comment-1447 Mon, 16 Apr 2007 23:56:23 +0000 http://bit-player.org/2007/hermann-weyl-tax-accountant#comment-1447 Re: "If a function is defined in one piece, is it necessarily analytic? What about f(x) = ¦x¦?" It depends on how you define "defined".... If you allow f(x)=¦x¦ as a one-piece definition, then you can get any piecewise linear function with breaks at points x1, x2, x3,..., xn in one fell swoop in the form f(x) = a0 + b0x + b1¦x-x1¦ + b2¦x-x2¦ + b3¦x-x3¦ + ... + bn¦x-xn¦ where the coefficients a0, b0, b1,..., bn are computed from the same sort of straightforward linear algebra that lets you find a polynomial of degree n that passes through n+1 given data points. (I'll let you puzzle over why there are n+2 coefficients for what seems to be only n data points in the piecewise linear case.) It might be amusing to compute these coefficients for the IRS tax table. I still doubt Weyl would care for the resulting formula, though! Re: “If a function is defined in one piece, is it necessarily analytic? What about f(x) = |x|?” It depends on how you define “defined”…. If you allow f(x)=|x| as a one-piece definition, then you can get any piecewise linear function with breaks at points x1, x2, x3,…, xn in one fell swoop in the form

f(x) = a0 + b0x + b1|x-x1| + b2|x-x2| + b3|x-x3| + … + bn|x-xn|

where the coefficients a0, b0, b1,…, bn are computed from the same sort of straightforward linear algebra that lets you find a polynomial of degree n that passes through n+1 given data points. (I’ll let you puzzle over why there are n+2 coefficients for what seems to be only n data points in the piecewise linear case.) It might be amusing to compute these coefficients for the IRS tax table. I still doubt Weyl would care for the resulting formula, though!

]]> Comment on Hermann Weyl, tax accountant by: brian http://bit-player.org/2007/hermann-weyl-tax-accountant#comment-1446 Mon, 16 Apr 2007 20:58:44 +0000 http://bit-player.org/2007/hermann-weyl-tax-accountant#comment-1446 Re: "analytic." The concept I'm trying to put my finger on is not really about the properties of the function but about the syntax of the definition. I want a name for the class of function definitions that don't involve case analysis, or, as Weyl put it, "pasting ... functions together, each valid in another interval...." I can see how every analytic function could be defined in this nonpiecewise way, but does the converse hold? If a function is defined in one piece, is it necessarily analytic? What about f(x) = ¦x¦? Re: “analytic.” The concept I’m trying to put my finger on is not really about the properties of the function but about the syntax of the definition. I want a name for the class of function definitions that don’t involve case analysis, or, as Weyl put it, “pasting … functions together, each valid in another interval….” I can see how every analytic function could be defined in this nonpiecewise way, but does the converse hold? If a function is defined in one piece, is it necessarily analytic? What about f(x) = |x|?

]]> Comment on Hermann Weyl, tax accountant by: randomwalker http://bit-player.org/2007/hermann-weyl-tax-accountant#comment-1445 Mon, 16 Apr 2007 20:18:54 +0000 http://bit-player.org/2007/hermann-weyl-tax-accountant#comment-1445 @Barry: I think the kind of logical inconsistency you point out is one of the real problems with the tax code, far more than the minor inconvenience of computing a piecewise linear function (especially since we have software to automate it.) There's also the cognitive load: we have to evaluate how each little financial decision we take will affect our taxes and this leads to a lot of distress. That's on top of the distress involved in actually doing your taxes. @Barry: I think the kind of logical inconsistency you point out is one of the real problems with the tax code, far more than the minor inconvenience of computing a piecewise linear function (especially since we have software to automate it.)

There’s also the cognitive load: we have to evaluate how each little financial decision we take will affect our taxes and this leads to a lot of distress. That’s on top of the distress involved in actually doing your taxes.

]]> Comment on Hermann Weyl, tax accountant by: Barry Cipra http://bit-player.org/2007/hermann-weyl-tax-accountant#comment-1444 Mon, 16 Apr 2007 16:43:22 +0000 http://bit-player.org/2007/hermann-weyl-tax-accountant#comment-1444 You say: "The [income-tax] function ... is monotonically increasing. There is no income level where you can earn more money and pay less tax." There is one other related property: The *after-tax* function, A(x) = x - T(x), is also monotonically increasing. That is, there should presumably always be some incentive to work harder and thereby earn more money. In fact, the current tax code violates this property by setting income thresholds above which certain tax credits or deductions are disallowed - there are cases where a one-dollar increase in income triggers a tax obligation increase of hundreds of dollars, creating a discontinuous nosedive in the after-tax function. This actually happened to me a couple of years ago when I had to advise my son to quit his summer job before his income exceeded the level at which I could still claim him as a dependent. He missed out on about a hundred dollars income, but between federal and state taxes, the deduction was worth nearly a thousand. (We had a lively debate over who that money belonged to. He thought he should be paid for quitting his job to stay home and play computer games. I thought otherwise.) As for terminology, the best name for "not piecewise" is probably "analytic." You say: “The [income-tax] function … is monotonically increasing. There is no income level where you can earn more money and pay less tax.” There is one other related property: The *after-tax* function, A(x) = x - T(x), is also monotonically increasing. That is, there should presumably always be some incentive to work harder and thereby earn more money. In fact, the current tax code violates this property by setting income thresholds above which certain tax credits or deductions are disallowed - there are cases where a one-dollar increase in income triggers a tax obligation increase of hundreds of dollars, creating a discontinuous nosedive in the after-tax function. This actually happened to me a couple of years ago when I had to advise my son to quit his summer job before his income exceeded the level at which I could still claim him as a dependent. He missed out on about a hundred dollars income, but between federal and state taxes, the deduction was worth nearly a thousand. (We had a lively debate over who that money belonged to. He thought he should be paid for quitting his job to stay home and play computer games. I thought otherwise.)

As for terminology, the best name for “not piecewise” is probably “analytic.”

]]>