The Awl http://www.theawl.com/ Be Less Stupid Wed, 08 Feb 2012 11:00:36 +0000 en hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.2 How Much Can You Expect As A Return On That $2 Powerball Ticket? http://www.theawl.com/2012/02/powerball-ticket-expected-return http://www.theawl.com/2012/02/powerball-ticket-expected-return#comments Wed, 08 Feb 2012 11:00:36 +0000 Ryan Glasspiegel http://www.theawl.com/2012/02/powerball-ticket-expected-return As has been widely advertised, the jackpot for tonight's Powerball drawing is $250 million. Later today, I'll head out to a store in my Chicago neighborhood to buy a $2 ticket, then spend the rest of the day as I always do before a drawing, daydreaming about what I would do with all that money: A house across the street from Lambeau Field (perhaps attainable without winning the lottery), villas on the beach, bottles of Pappy van Winkle 23-year. The works. Top shelf everything. Living easy.



While I know that my odds of actually winning the jackpot—1 in 175,223,510 to be exact—are essentially zero, I never bothered to calculate what my expected return is. That is, how much money am I expecting to get back after multiplying the odds and the prize money and subtracting out taxes? Spoiler alert: it’s a lot less than $2. In fact, the actual expected return is far worse than I would have guessed.

Because I'm acutely aware that the odds are stacked against me, I’ve made compromises with my lottery purchases. I will only buy tickets when the Mega Millions or Powerball jackpots are over $150 million (anything less would, theoretically, constrain my ability to live the dream); I only buy one ticket at a time; and I only buy tickets with the dimes and nickels that accumulate in between acceptable jackpots. (Needless to say, convenience-store clerks love that last part.) 

In the last year or so, since I've started playing, I've probably bought about 20 tickets—until recently, they were only a dollar.

When I buy a ticket, I choose my own numbers because it makes me feel as though I have some sort of control over the outcome. I roll with the numbers of important Packers; Aaron Rodgers’ 12 or Charles Woodson’s 21 always occupies the moneyball slot. Last week, I picked #4 on my ticket (in the pick-5 category, of course), a sign that I'm ready to forgive Brett Favre for his Vikings transgressions. 



So if the jackpot is $250 million, how much of a return can you expect on a $2.00 ticket? My conclusion was harrowing. After federal and state withholding taxes, my expected return is less than 94 cents. Ouch. Still probably worth my dimes and nickels as it’s not like they have a practical application that extends beyond sitting in a jar on my desk, but it was even less than I thought it’d be. Here's how I figured it out.



METHODOLOGY
The $250 million advertised jackpot is a little misleading. The jackpot is actually an annuity with 30 even payments of “just” $8,333,333.33 over 29 years (the first payment is immediate). The lottery also gives you the option of taking a lump sum payment, which, in this case, would be $156 million. Because only sissies would take the annuity payment, we will use the lump sum as the basis for our calculations.

 The $156 million is immediately subject to a 25% federal withholding tax, which brings us to $117 million. This is now subject to state (and, in New York City and Yonkers, municipal) withholding taxes. To calculate an average, I used the state tax withholding data from USAMega.com.

Because we want to figure out a representative average for the population who might be playing, an arithmetic average of the states’ rates would not fully account for the true proportions that each state contributes. To reconcile this issue, I used the electoral college as a guideline for proportions.

Using 270 To Win's electoral map, I subtracted out two electoral votes from each lottery-eligible state (42 of the 50 states + Washington D.C. have Powerball) to eliminate Senate equality, and calculated a weighted average (see Appendix 1 for Excel formulas) state withholding tax of about 4.6%. 

This now brings the lump sum payout to $111,611,351.58. Via Powerball's website, the odds of winning the jackpot are 1 in 175,223,510. Multiplying the payout and the odds together, we get an expected return of about 64 cents.



However, the jackpot is not the only way to win a prize on a Powerball ticket. This graph from the website shows other prizes that you can win and the odds of winning them:

Using the same methodology from above, the expected returns of the other prizes are, respectively, 14 cents, 1 cent, 1 cent, 1 cent, 2 cents, 1 cent, 4 cents, and 7 cents. Please see below for the Excel macro that details the calculations and places them in a table.

CONCLUSION
Add it all together and your average expected after-tax return on a $2 ticket (bought with after-tax income) is about 94 cents. It’s actually even a little bit lower because if multiple people win the jackpot, the prize is split evenly among them.

Simply put, a Powerball ticket is an absolutely terrible investment, far worse than any casino game. Via Insider LV, the house has a .6% advantage in a six-deck game of blackjack, 1.41% on Pass/Come Craps, and 8.1% on dollar slots.

In Powerball—when the jackpot is much higher than it is normally—you are relinquishing more than 53 cents per dollar in expected return after taxes.

I still don’t know that I have a particularly better use for dimes and nickels, but after this analysis, I’m likely almost completely done spending dollar bills or valuable laundry-eligible quarters in return for little more than the ability to daydream about what I’d do with the winnings.

(Download the Excel spreadsheet and appendices here.)



Ryan Glasspiegel is a freelance writer based in Chicago. He writes Sports Rapport. Follow him on Twitter @RGSpiegel .

---

See more posts by Ryan Glasspiegel

24 comments

]]>
As has been widely advertised, the jackpot for tonight's Powerball drawing is $250 million. Later today, I'll head out to a store in my Chicago neighborhood to buy a $2 ticket, then spend the rest of the day as I always do before a drawing, daydreaming about what I would do with all that money: A house across the street from Lambeau Field (perhaps attainable without winning the lottery), villas on the beach, bottles of Pappy van Winkle 23-year. The works. Top shelf everything. Living easy.



While I know that my odds of actually winning the jackpot—1 in 175,223,510 to be exact—are essentially zero, I never bothered to calculate what my expected return is. That is, how much money am I expecting to get back after multiplying the odds and the prize money and subtracting out taxes? Spoiler alert: it’s a lot less than $2. In fact, the actual expected return is far worse than I would have guessed.

Because I'm acutely aware that the odds are stacked against me, I’ve made compromises with my lottery purchases. I will only buy tickets when the Mega Millions or Powerball jackpots are over $150 million (anything less would, theoretically, constrain my ability to live the dream); I only buy one ticket at a time; and I only buy tickets with the dimes and nickels that accumulate in between acceptable jackpots. (Needless to say, convenience-store clerks love that last part.) 

In the last year or so, since I've started playing, I've probably bought about 20 tickets—until recently, they were only a dollar.

When I buy a ticket, I choose my own numbers because it makes me feel as though I have some sort of control over the outcome. I roll with the numbers of important Packers; Aaron Rodgers’ 12 or Charles Woodson’s 21 always occupies the moneyball slot. Last week, I picked #4 on my ticket (in the pick-5 category, of course), a sign that I'm ready to forgive Brett Favre for his Vikings transgressions. 



So if the jackpot is $250 million, how much of a return can you expect on a $2.00 ticket? My conclusion was harrowing. After federal and state withholding taxes, my expected return is less than 94 cents. Ouch. Still probably worth my dimes and nickels as it’s not like they have a practical application that extends beyond sitting in a jar on my desk, but it was even less than I thought it’d be. Here's how I figured it out.



METHODOLOGY
The $250 million advertised jackpot is a little misleading. The jackpot is actually an annuity with 30 even payments of “just” $8,333,333.33 over 29 years (the first payment is immediate). The lottery also gives you the option of taking a lump sum payment, which, in this case, would be $156 million. Because only sissies would take the annuity payment, we will use the lump sum as the basis for our calculations.

 The $156 million is immediately subject to a 25% federal withholding tax, which brings us to $117 million. This is now subject to state (and, in New York City and Yonkers, municipal) withholding taxes. To calculate an average, I used the state tax withholding data from USAMega.com.

Because we want to figure out a representative average for the population who might be playing, an arithmetic average of the states’ rates would not fully account for the true proportions that each state contributes. To reconcile this issue, I used the electoral college as a guideline for proportions.

Using 270 To Win's electoral map, I subtracted out two electoral votes from each lottery-eligible state (42 of the 50 states + Washington D.C. have Powerball) to eliminate Senate equality, and calculated a weighted average (see Appendix 1 for Excel formulas) state withholding tax of about 4.6%. 

This now brings the lump sum payout to $111,611,351.58. Via Powerball's website, the odds of winning the jackpot are 1 in 175,223,510. Multiplying the payout and the odds together, we get an expected return of about 64 cents.



However, the jackpot is not the only way to win a prize on a Powerball ticket. This graph from the website shows other prizes that you can win and the odds of winning them:

Using the same methodology from above, the expected returns of the other prizes are, respectively, 14 cents, 1 cent, 1 cent, 1 cent, 2 cents, 1 cent, 4 cents, and 7 cents. Please see below for the Excel macro that details the calculations and places them in a table.

CONCLUSION
Add it all together and your average expected after-tax return on a $2 ticket (bought with after-tax income) is about 94 cents. It’s actually even a little bit lower because if multiple people win the jackpot, the prize is split evenly among them.

Simply put, a Powerball ticket is an absolutely terrible investment, far worse than any casino game. Via Insider LV, the house has a .6% advantage in a six-deck game of blackjack, 1.41% on Pass/Come Craps, and 8.1% on dollar slots.

In Powerball—when the jackpot is much higher than it is normally—you are relinquishing more than 53 cents per dollar in expected return after taxes.

I still don’t know that I have a particularly better use for dimes and nickels, but after this analysis, I’m likely almost completely done spending dollar bills or valuable laundry-eligible quarters in return for little more than the ability to daydream about what I’d do with the winnings.

(Download the Excel spreadsheet and appendices here.)



Ryan Glasspiegel is a freelance writer based in Chicago. He writes Sports Rapport. Follow him on Twitter @RGSpiegel .

---

See more posts by Ryan Glasspiegel

24 comments

]]>
http://www.theawl.com/2012/02/powerball-ticket-expected-return/feed 24
Trenne Is The Jonathan Richman Of Pastas http://www.theawl.com/2012/01/pasta-shapes http://www.theawl.com/2012/01/pasta-shapes#comments Tue, 10 Jan 2012 11:40:36 +0000 Dave Bry http://www.theawl.com/2012/01/pasta-shapes
"It’s a mirror universe where everything is pliant and groovy, and in that universe there’s someone that stands out, and it’s the boring-looking trenne with its sharp edges.”
Architect George L. Legendre, who along with his partner, Marco Guarnieri, has made an art book called Pasta by Design, which presents mathematical equations detailing the shapes of 92 different types of pasta, along with pictures and suggestions for accompanying sauces. That is a ridiculous and fun-sounding project. I wonder which pasta Legendre would say is the most pliant and groovy in the mirror noodle universe? Who is the Papa John Philips, the Jimi Hendrix of pastas? Maybe saccottini, which looks like a sort of vortex folding in upon itself, infinitely. (It's name also harkens to the grooviest of eras—"Sock it to me!") Man, stare at one of those saccottinis long enough, and the whole world is there for you to see.

---

See more posts by Dave Bry

1 comments

]]>

"It’s a mirror universe where everything is pliant and groovy, and in that universe there’s someone that stands out, and it’s the boring-looking trenne with its sharp edges.”
Architect George L. Legendre, who along with his partner, Marco Guarnieri, has made an art book called Pasta by Design, which presents mathematical equations detailing the shapes of 92 different types of pasta, along with pictures and suggestions for accompanying sauces. That is a ridiculous and fun-sounding project. I wonder which pasta Legendre would say is the most pliant and groovy in the mirror noodle universe? Who is the Papa John Philips, the Jimi Hendrix of pastas? Maybe saccottini, which looks like a sort of vortex folding in upon itself, infinitely. (It's name also harkens to the grooviest of eras—"Sock it to me!") Man, stare at one of those saccottinis long enough, and the whole world is there for you to see.

---

See more posts by Dave Bry

1 comments

]]>
http://www.theawl.com/2012/01/pasta-shapes/feed 1
Math Not Actually Hard, Girls Just Faking: Study http://www.theawl.com/2011/12/math-not-actually-hard-girls-just-faking-study http://www.theawl.com/2011/12/math-not-actually-hard-girls-just-faking-study#comments Tue, 13 Dec 2011 09:40:31 +0000 Alex Balk http://www.theawl.com/2011/12/math-not-actually-hard-girls-just-faking-study Bad news, ladies: Now you have no excuse for being bad at math.

---

See more posts by Alex Balk

5 comments

]]>
Bad news, ladies: Now you have no excuse for being bad at math.

---

See more posts by Alex Balk

5 comments

]]>
http://www.theawl.com/2011/12/math-not-actually-hard-girls-just-faking-study/feed 5
The Size of a Human Rolled Into a Sphere http://www.theawl.com/2011/10/the-size-of-a-human-rolled-into-a-sphere http://www.theawl.com/2011/10/the-size-of-a-human-rolled-into-a-sphere#comments Wed, 05 Oct 2011 12:50:19 +0000 Choire Sicha http://www.theawl.com/2011/10/the-size-of-a-human-rolled-into-a-sphere "If an average-sized human body were rolled into a sphere, how big would that sphere be?"

---

See more posts by Choire Sicha

6 comments

]]>
"If an average-sized human body were rolled into a sphere, how big would that sphere be?"

---

See more posts by Choire Sicha

6 comments

]]>
http://www.theawl.com/2011/10/the-size-of-a-human-rolled-into-a-sphere/feed 6
Blame Your Parents If You're Bad At Math http://www.theawl.com/2011/08/blame-your-parents-if-youre-bad-at-math http://www.theawl.com/2011/08/blame-your-parents-if-youre-bad-at-math#comments Wed, 10 Aug 2011 12:40:49 +0000 Alex Balk http://www.theawl.com/2011/08/blame-your-parents-if-youre-bad-at-math "People who are bad at maths were probably born that way, according to groundbreaking new research. The study found the ability to work with numbers may be something that is entirely pre-destined - you either have it or you don't."

---

See more posts by Alex Balk

22 comments

]]>
"People who are bad at maths were probably born that way, according to groundbreaking new research. The study found the ability to work with numbers may be something that is entirely pre-destined - you either have it or you don't."

---

See more posts by Alex Balk

22 comments

]]>
http://www.theawl.com/2011/08/blame-your-parents-if-youre-bad-at-math/feed 22
Paul Ryan WineGate Shows He Has a Hard Time with Basic Math http://www.theawl.com/2011/07/paul-ryan-winegate-shows-he-has-a-hard-time-with-basic-math http://www.theawl.com/2011/07/paul-ryan-winegate-shows-he-has-a-hard-time-with-basic-math#comments Mon, 11 Jul 2011 09:38:13 +0000 Choire Sicha http://www.theawl.com/2011/07/paul-ryan-winegate-shows-he-has-a-hard-time-with-basic-math Big night out last week for Wisconsin Congressman Paul Ryan!
The three men were spotted ordering the $700 worth of wine at Bistro Bis on Capitol Hill by an associate professor of business at Rutgers University named Susan Feinberg. After dining in the same restaurant with her husband, Feinberg confronted Ryan and his pals about the high-end wine. The exchange became contentious. Ryan professed not to know the price of the wine, and one of his buddies responded to Feinberg's chastisement by loudly saying, "Fuck her."
He has fun friends! The mouthy one is Cliff Asness, who runs a hedge fun and used to work at Goldman Sachs and has terrible ideas about economics. The threesome were approached by a Rutgers business prof, who wanted to ask how they could spend more on an evening's worth of beverages than a family makes on minimum wage in a week, which: fine point! I would however like to say that I agree 100% with his theories on tipping. (Which goes like: "Hmm, okay, well ten percent of the bill is $39, so double that and round up, oh rats, I forgot to carry the one, let me scratch out '$372' and write in '$472.'")

---

See more posts by Choire Sicha

66 comments

]]>
Big night out last week for Wisconsin Congressman Paul Ryan!
The three men were spotted ordering the $700 worth of wine at Bistro Bis on Capitol Hill by an associate professor of business at Rutgers University named Susan Feinberg. After dining in the same restaurant with her husband, Feinberg confronted Ryan and his pals about the high-end wine. The exchange became contentious. Ryan professed not to know the price of the wine, and one of his buddies responded to Feinberg's chastisement by loudly saying, "Fuck her."
He has fun friends! The mouthy one is Cliff Asness, who runs a hedge fun and used to work at Goldman Sachs and has terrible ideas about economics. The threesome were approached by a Rutgers business prof, who wanted to ask how they could spend more on an evening's worth of beverages than a family makes on minimum wage in a week, which: fine point! I would however like to say that I agree 100% with his theories on tipping. (Which goes like: "Hmm, okay, well ten percent of the bill is $39, so double that and round up, oh rats, I forgot to carry the one, let me scratch out '$372' and write in '$472.'")

---

See more posts by Choire Sicha

66 comments

]]>
http://www.theawl.com/2011/07/paul-ryan-winegate-shows-he-has-a-hard-time-with-basic-math/feed 66
Let's Do the Math on 'The Beached White Male' http://www.theawl.com/2011/04/lets-do-the-math-on-the-beached-white-male http://www.theawl.com/2011/04/lets-do-the-math-on-the-beached-white-male#comments Mon, 18 Apr 2011 11:26:29 +0000 Choire Sicha http://www.theawl.com/2011/04/lets-do-the-math-on-the-beached-white-male Not just two white men are without jobs, though they're the nice anecdotal evidence for the cover of Newsweek, which announced "The Beached White Male." Oh, you do not say: "Through the first quarter of 2011, nearly 600,000 college-educated white men ages 35 to 64 were unemployed." Oh but wait, do not make fun: "It might be tempting to snark at these former fat cats suffering lean times. But when Beached White Males suffer, so do their wives and children." (There are about 52 million married white men in the U.S., by the way.) But it's still safe to say this thesis doesn't have anything to do with numbers in the real world.

There are about 154 million Americans in the civilian labor force. About 140 million of them are employed. About 114 million of those employed are white people. White men who are older than 16 have 61 million of the jobs. So white men have 43% of all jobs, while white men make up about 36% of the U.S. population. White women 16 and older have about 53 million of the jobs (37%—about proportionate). That's already 114 million of the jobs (81% of all civilian jobs), leaving just 26 million jobs.

So there are about 15 million black people with civilian jobs in the U.S. (out of about 40 million black people in total), leaving 11 million jobs for the Asians and "Hispanics" and the "everyone else"—and the Asians have like 7 million of those.

---

See more posts by Choire Sicha

33 comments

]]>
Not just two white men are without jobs, though they're the nice anecdotal evidence for the cover of Newsweek, which announced "The Beached White Male." Oh, you do not say: "Through the first quarter of 2011, nearly 600,000 college-educated white men ages 35 to 64 were unemployed." Oh but wait, do not make fun: "It might be tempting to snark at these former fat cats suffering lean times. But when Beached White Males suffer, so do their wives and children." (There are about 52 million married white men in the U.S., by the way.) But it's still safe to say this thesis doesn't have anything to do with numbers in the real world.

There are about 154 million Americans in the civilian labor force. About 140 million of them are employed. About 114 million of those employed are white people. White men who are older than 16 have 61 million of the jobs. So white men have 43% of all jobs, while white men make up about 36% of the U.S. population. White women 16 and older have about 53 million of the jobs (37%—about proportionate). That's already 114 million of the jobs (81% of all civilian jobs), leaving just 26 million jobs.

So there are about 15 million black people with civilian jobs in the U.S. (out of about 40 million black people in total), leaving 11 million jobs for the Asians and "Hispanics" and the "everyone else"—and the Asians have like 7 million of those.

---

See more posts by Choire Sicha

33 comments

]]>
http://www.theawl.com/2011/04/lets-do-the-math-on-the-beached-white-male/feed 33
Do Extended Unemployment Benefits Increase Unemployment? No. http://www.theawl.com/2011/01/do-extended-unemployment-benefits-increase-unemployment-no http://www.theawl.com/2011/01/do-extended-unemployment-benefits-increase-unemployment-no#comments Mon, 17 Jan 2011 14:00:22 +0000 Choire Sicha http://www.theawl.com/2011/01/do-extended-unemployment-benefits-increase-unemployment-no LET'S ROLLGoldman Sachs released a report today Wednesday for its clients about unemployment, and finds that extension of unemployment benefits in a recession does not actually make workers lazy and unwilling to work.

Some commentators have argued that extended unemployment insurance (UI) benefits are the key reason for high unemployment in the United States. Using data from 20 OECD countries we present evidence to the contrary. Our results suggest that only ½ percentage point of the current 9.4% jobless rate can be explained by the extension of UI benefits. Moreover, our calculations suggest that this effect will fade when the extended benefits eventually expire. These estimates—broadly in line with a recent study by the San Francisco Fed—reinforce our view that the overwhelming share of unemployment is cyclical rather than structural.
Emphasis ours.

To the math!

We find that a 10 point increase in the replacement rate—broadly similar to what we saw during the Great Recession in the United States—is associated with a 0.2pt increase in the unemployment rate in the same year. Given the persistence in unemployment, the effect ultimately grows to just above 1 percentage point if the extension of the benefits is permanent (calculated as 0.2 divided by (1-0.83)). These estimates suggest that the unemployment rate is currently ½ percentage point higher due to the extension of the UI benefits than it otherwise would be.

So if you hear a politician saying this, please take away his job, because he's too misinformed to govern.

---

See more posts by Choire Sicha

4 comments

]]>
LET'S ROLLGoldman Sachs released a report today Wednesday for its clients about unemployment, and finds that extension of unemployment benefits in a recession does not actually make workers lazy and unwilling to work.

Some commentators have argued that extended unemployment insurance (UI) benefits are the key reason for high unemployment in the United States. Using data from 20 OECD countries we present evidence to the contrary. Our results suggest that only ½ percentage point of the current 9.4% jobless rate can be explained by the extension of UI benefits. Moreover, our calculations suggest that this effect will fade when the extended benefits eventually expire. These estimates—broadly in line with a recent study by the San Francisco Fed—reinforce our view that the overwhelming share of unemployment is cyclical rather than structural.
Emphasis ours.

To the math!

We find that a 10 point increase in the replacement rate—broadly similar to what we saw during the Great Recession in the United States—is associated with a 0.2pt increase in the unemployment rate in the same year. Given the persistence in unemployment, the effect ultimately grows to just above 1 percentage point if the extension of the benefits is permanent (calculated as 0.2 divided by (1-0.83)). These estimates suggest that the unemployment rate is currently ½ percentage point higher due to the extension of the UI benefits than it otherwise would be.

So if you hear a politician saying this, please take away his job, because he's too misinformed to govern.

---

See more posts by Choire Sicha

4 comments

]]>
http://www.theawl.com/2011/01/do-extended-unemployment-benefits-increase-unemployment-no/feed 4
Math–So Evil!–Destroys Young, Stupid Business http://www.theawl.com/2010/12/math-so-evil-destroys-young-stupid-business http://www.theawl.com/2010/12/math-so-evil-destroys-young-stupid-business#comments Tue, 21 Dec 2010 10:20:11 +0000 Choire Sicha http://www.theawl.com/2010/12/math-so-evil-destroys-young-stupid-business Do you know why investment banks and hedge funds and insurance companies actually work? If you just said "LAWYERS" or "THE FED WINDOW," you are technically correct. But on a more fundamental level, it's because there are thousands of Ivy League children assiduously doing math all day. These firms are the nation's number one consumer of nerds, and that is why, in the end, great amounts of money are made. (Though it's never the nerds that get the big bonuses, which is a shame.) So when businesses try to rip off a model—for instance, the fine people who mixed viatical settlements with derivative instruments, that is to say, who buy life insurance policies and spread them among investors, hedging against death—they often fail because they don't have enough kids doing math. This is what happened to "Life Partners Holdings Inc., which, by the way, really gay name much? But yeah, they got hosed on the math because their "life partners" (LOL!) just keep not dying: "In policies old enough to provide a measure, the insured people usually haven't died within the life expectancy Life Partners gave its clients, and often were still living beyond double or triple their projected span." Bam! Math does it again.

---

See more posts by Choire Sicha

23 comments

]]>
Do you know why investment banks and hedge funds and insurance companies actually work? If you just said "LAWYERS" or "THE FED WINDOW," you are technically correct. But on a more fundamental level, it's because there are thousands of Ivy League children assiduously doing math all day. These firms are the nation's number one consumer of nerds, and that is why, in the end, great amounts of money are made. (Though it's never the nerds that get the big bonuses, which is a shame.) So when businesses try to rip off a model—for instance, the fine people who mixed viatical settlements with derivative instruments, that is to say, who buy life insurance policies and spread them among investors, hedging against death—they often fail because they don't have enough kids doing math. This is what happened to "Life Partners Holdings Inc., which, by the way, really gay name much? But yeah, they got hosed on the math because their "life partners" (LOL!) just keep not dying: "In policies old enough to provide a measure, the insured people usually haven't died within the life expectancy Life Partners gave its clients, and often were still living beyond double or triple their projected span." Bam! Math does it again.

---

See more posts by Choire Sicha

23 comments

]]>
http://www.theawl.com/2010/12/math-so-evil-destroys-young-stupid-business/feed 23
Your New Taxes: Let the Frenzy of Wealth Transfer Begin! http://www.theawl.com/2010/12/your-new-taxes-let-the-frenzy-of-wealth-transfer-begin http://www.theawl.com/2010/12/your-new-taxes-let-the-frenzy-of-wealth-transfer-begin#comments Fri, 17 Dec 2010 09:11:03 +0000 Choire Sicha http://www.theawl.com/2010/12/your-new-taxes-let-the-frenzy-of-wealth-transfer-begin DEVIL SHEEPWith today's forthcoming signature by the President, the nation enters a frenzy of wealth transfer over both the next few weeks and the next two years. What does the tax bill do? Here is a fairly simple breakdown.

• The bill affirms the tax rates. They are: 10% (for couples with income up to $17,000), 15% (for a single person, $34,000), 25% ($82,400), 28% (up to $171,850), 33% (up to and $379,149) and 35% (more than that!); that last bracket would have gone up to 39.6%.

• Self-employment tax goes down from 12.4% to 10.4%.

• The Social Security payroll tax stays down at 4.2 percent, from 6.2 percent—for annual income up to $106,800. Except for the self-employed! They pay 10.4%.

• Continues the reduced taxes on dividends and capital gains: Those rates are 0% for people in the 25% tax bracket or lower; they are 15% for those in higher brackets.

• The tax on transfer of wealth after death (by which we mean wealth that isn't put into put in foundations or other instruments) will remain at 35%—of all money beyond $5 million (or, essentially, $10 million for giving and/or inheriting couples). Which is to say, all money up to $5 million may be passed along tax-free, so estate taxes affect fewer than .2% of Americans.

• The "gift" tax remains at 35%, beyond an exemption of $13,000 a year and $10 million over a lifetime. The GST tax (inheritance that skips a generation) is taxable above $5 million beginning in 2011.

• There is a tax credit of $1000 for each child in the household, plus a little somethin' extra now in the "Earned Income Tax Credit," for people who made very little money in the year.

• All income levels may now convert individual retirement accounts to a Roth IRA at the extended lower tax rates, and split the taxable proceeds between two years, if they perform the conversion by the end of 2010. Additionally, up to $100,000 of an individual IRA may be given tax-free to charity.

• Teachers may have a deduction of up to $250 for out-of-pocket expenses!

And a few other things that point out that, as BusinessWeek put it, it's a great time to be rich.

---

See more posts by Choire Sicha

14 comments

]]>
DEVIL SHEEPWith today's forthcoming signature by the President, the nation enters a frenzy of wealth transfer over both the next few weeks and the next two years. What does the tax bill do? Here is a fairly simple breakdown.

• The bill affirms the tax rates. They are: 10% (for couples with income up to $17,000), 15% (for a single person, $34,000), 25% ($82,400), 28% (up to $171,850), 33% (up to and $379,149) and 35% (more than that!); that last bracket would have gone up to 39.6%.

• Self-employment tax goes down from 12.4% to 10.4%.

• The Social Security payroll tax stays down at 4.2 percent, from 6.2 percent—for annual income up to $106,800. Except for the self-employed! They pay 10.4%.

• Continues the reduced taxes on dividends and capital gains: Those rates are 0% for people in the 25% tax bracket or lower; they are 15% for those in higher brackets.

• The tax on transfer of wealth after death (by which we mean wealth that isn't put into put in foundations or other instruments) will remain at 35%—of all money beyond $5 million (or, essentially, $10 million for giving and/or inheriting couples). Which is to say, all money up to $5 million may be passed along tax-free, so estate taxes affect fewer than .2% of Americans.

• The "gift" tax remains at 35%, beyond an exemption of $13,000 a year and $10 million over a lifetime. The GST tax (inheritance that skips a generation) is taxable above $5 million beginning in 2011.

• There is a tax credit of $1000 for each child in the household, plus a little somethin' extra now in the "Earned Income Tax Credit," for people who made very little money in the year.

• All income levels may now convert individual retirement accounts to a Roth IRA at the extended lower tax rates, and split the taxable proceeds between two years, if they perform the conversion by the end of 2010. Additionally, up to $100,000 of an individual IRA may be given tax-free to charity.

• Teachers may have a deduction of up to $250 for out-of-pocket expenses!

And a few other things that point out that, as BusinessWeek put it, it's a great time to be rich.

---

See more posts by Choire Sicha

14 comments

]]>
http://www.theawl.com/2010/12/your-new-taxes-let-the-frenzy-of-wealth-transfer-begin/feed 14