In your group, select one of the four problems below you want to work on together. Work together answering the provided questions and/or related questions you find interesting. Then, as a group, write a 1-2 (or more if you choose) page write-up presenting:
Make sure you edit your write-up to ensure it is readable with no grammar or spelling errors.
Each group will also make a short video presentation of their work, so keep in mind, that your work will be made public to other students to view and study.
Possible Group Member Roles:
ALL group members should participate in solving the problem!
Estimate each of the following, explaining the assumptions and conversions you use to arrive at your final estimate:
Then make up your own “How many?” question and answer it!
(If you are working by yourself, answer at least two of the above questions, then make up your own.)
Consider the following four sets of statements. Choose three of most interest to your group, and explain what these numbers mean and whether the two values can be directly compared or not. Pay special attention to what the base quantities might be.
“Guns have murdered more Americans here at home in recent years than have died on the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan. In support of the two wars, more than 6,500 American soldiers have lost their lives. During the same period, however, guns have been used to murder about 100,000 people on American soil”
You are exactly right that the statistics in the first example are not comparable, because the context is different! There are far more people domestically than abroad in Iraq.
In the 2012 presidential elections, one candidate argued that “the president’s plan will cut $716 billion from Medicare, leading to fewer services for seniors,” while the other candidate rebuts that “Our plan does not cut current spending and actually expands benefits for seniors, while implementing cost-saving measures.”
This is not so clear, but it does appear the first candidate is claiming that cutting spending automatically means less services which is not necessarily the case.
In 2012, “16.3% of Americans are without health insurance.” (http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/27/politics/btn-health-care/index.html) At the same time, “only 55.9% of adults receive employer-provided health insurance.” (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0712/78134.html)
You are exactly right on the third one. These are different populations of poeple - all Americans, vs. adults.
In 2016, GOP lawmakers claimed that about “75 percent of the federal health care law’s taxes would be paid by those earning less than $120,000 a year,” citing the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) a statement that “76 percent of those who would pay the penalty [health care law’s taxes] for not having insurance in 2016 would earn under $120,000.” (http://factcheck.org/2012/07/twisting-health-care-taxes/) Are these the same, or is the GOP lawmakers’ claim inaccurate?
(If you are working by yourself, choose at least two of the above statements to analyze.)
Search articles discussing the impact of gun ownership on public safety. Read ones that seem informative and trustworthy, taking note of any statistics that involve percentages until your group finds ten or more statistics describing the impact of gun ownership on public safety. Explain the significance of each statistic as well as what picture these statistics paint as a whole. Pay special attention to what the base quantities might be. Check the source of each statistic and then cite the original study the statistic came from. Below are some articles to start with, but feel free to use others as well.
Imagine the country is made up of 100 households. The federal government needs to collect $800,000 in income taxes to be able to function. The population consists of 6 groups:
households = c(20,20,20,20,15,5)
income = c(12,29,50,79,129,295)
total = sum(households*income)
total## [1] 6810800/total## [1] 0.1174743sum(households[-1]*(income[-1]-20))## [1] 4970This scenario is roughly proportional to the actual United States population and tax needs. You will determine new income tax rates for three proposals:
For Proposals 1 and 2, determine the tax rate needed to collect $800,000 (plus or minus $100). For Proposal 3, choose your own progressive tax rate system so that they add up to close to $800,000. In this case, you may decide to charge each household group the same rate on all their income, or in tax brackets as prescribed by the US tax system.
Discuss the advantages and disadvantages of each proposal, and present an argument for the advantages of your plan.
Calculate what your 2024 federal income tax would be for the following possible situations:
# scenario 1- $5216
income = (60000-14600)
11600*0.1+(income-11600)*0.12## [1] 5216# scenario 2 - $540
(20000-14600)*0.1## [1] 540# scenario 3 - $6946.20
(60000-14600)*0.153## [1] 6946.2Scenario 4: You are:
# scenario 4 - (-2688)
income = (60000-29200)
23200*0.1+(income-23200)*0.12## [1] 323223200*0.1+(income-23200)*0.12-5920## [1] -2688Use the 2020 tax tables, as well as any of the hints below.
| Filing status | 2019 tax year |
|---|---|
| Single | $12,200 |
| Married, filing jointly | $24,400 |
| Head of household | $18,350 |
| Income Range | Income Tax Rate | Long-Term Capital Gains Rate |
|---|---|---|
| $0 to $9,875 | 10% | 0 |
| $9,876 to $40,125 | 12% | 0%; 15% at $40,001 |
| $40,126 to $85,525 | 22% | 0.15 |
| $85,526 to $163,300 | 24% | 0.15 |
| $163,301 to $207,350 | 32% | 0.15 |
| $207,351 to $518,400 | 35% | 15%; 20% at $441,451 |
| $518,401+ | 37% | 0.2 |
| Income Range | Income Tax Rate | Long-Term Capital Gains Rate |
|---|---|---|
| $0 to $19,750 | 10% | 0 |
| $19,751 to $80,250 | 12% | 0%; 15% at $80,001 |
| $80,251 to $171,050 | 22% | 0.15 |
| $171,051 to $326,600 | 24% | 0.15 |
| $326,601 to $414,700 | 32% | 0.15 |
| $414,701 to $622,050 | 35% | 15%; 20% at $496,601 |
| $622,051+ | 37% | 0.2 |
Hints:
From these four scenarios, what are your impressions of how the income tax system treats these different forms of income and expenses? How does this inform how you will do taxes in the future?
Economic disparity in the United States has been continually increasing in the United States over the last 50 years. In other words, the rich are getting richer, the poor are getting poorer. One proposed way of addressing income inequality is through a wealth tax. (Currently, our tax system only taxes income, not wealth, or money that people already have.)
Read at least five articles discussing the proposed benefits or potential problems with implementing a wealth tax in the United States. Describe your findings, discussing specific plans and at least five statistics cited in these articles that involve percentages. Describe the significance of each statistic as well as what picture these statistics paint as a whole. Pay special attention to what the base quantities of comparative statistics might be. Be sure to check the source of each statistic and cite what study it came from. Below are some articles to start with, but feel free to use others as well.
Finally, based on your findings, explain what (if any) modifications to our current tax system your group thinks is best and why.