For the most part, I read DailyKos through my Google Reader. It's easier to read, share, note things for later, etc. Usually, at the bottom of the posts, there'll be an ad of some kind. Being from New Jersey, I've been getting a lot of ads about our upcoming gubernatorial election. Most of them have been the usual fare: "He said this. "Well he said this." "You're stupid." "No you're stupid." I haven't given them much thought, but this one caught my eye. These are screen grabs from a Flash ad. See if you can catch what's off:
I clearly remember when sales taxes went up. The rate increased from 6% to 7%. In other words we pay one penny more per dollar. So I was left scratching my head at the claim of a "16% sales tax hike". Then I had a revelation, and some quick math quickly confirmed my suspicion.
The rate went from 6% to 7%, an increase of 1%. That is, 1% of the purchase price. So where is the Republican Governor's Association getting it's 16%? You would have to look at the increase as a percentage of the original rate. That is, 1 (the increase) divided by 6 (the original rate):
1/6 = .16667 (six repeats infinitely, rounded to 7 here)
Written as a percentage, that's 16%. Of course this is a dishonest representation, but it's worse than that. This calculation and the percentage generated change dramatically depending on what the original values are.
For example, if the tax rate was 75% and is raised to 76%, it would still be a one point increase and the math would look like this:
1/75 = 0.01333 (three repeats infinitely)
Or as a percentage, 1.3%. Well, that's not a very big increase at all! Never mind the fact that the original sales tax is 75%. It's even more telling if you look at an increase from 1% to 2%:
1/1 = 1.00
Saints preserve us! A 100% tax rate increase!
According to this logic, the RGA would be more upset about raising sales taxes from 1% to 2% (a 100% increase) than they would be about going from 75% to 76% (a 1.3% increase). You tell me, would you rather pay a 2% or 76% sales tax? In trying to exaggerate the NJ state sales tax increase, the RGA painted a completely unrealistic scenario where the meaning of value changes depending on the previous value.
Why not just say that sales taxes increased by 1%? Because it doesn't sound that bad. In fact, it isn't that bad. Sound arguments based on facts don't mean anything to people who only care about winning. Best of all, this ad campaign was started under the previous head of the RGA. Who was that? Mark Sanford.