Help with tax formula for marginal tax rates

[Joe User]

PS....

Which now looks suspiciously like one of the solutions that I presented in
this thread two days ago, complete with relying on a row with 0%.

Actually, your table is different in design: it is limited to incomes of
less than $10 million, whereas mine is not. Not a big limitation,
admittedly; but an unnecessary one.

There is nothing wrong with Bob's approach [...] it is indeed the
most efficient formulation, I believe.

I meant the most efficient formulation presented so far in this thread.

Some years ago, I was posting a formula using MAX. I suspect it is more
efficient, although I am not taking the time to test the theory. I still
use the MAX formula sometimes for quick-and-dirty implementations. But I
have adopted a table-driven design for responses because I believe it is
less error-prone and easier to maintain (change from year to year). It is
certainly easier to remember ;-).


----- original message -----

I've been watching this part of the discussion, and it reminded me of
dialog between Dumb and Dumber (before Bob jumped in). I held my tongue
because everyone is entitled to post their opinions, no matter how
misguided they might.

Well..., for a salary of $ 50,000:
My formula returns: $ 8,687.50 and yours: $ 8,132.50

You are correct: $8687.50 is the right answer.

But you don't need to throw out the baby with the bath water. You might
have simply noted that Bob had written 8950 and 39500 instead of 8350 and
33950.



Which now looks suspiciously like one of the solutions that I presented in
this thread two days ago, complete with relying on a row with 0%.


You (Micky) fail to acknowledge the point that Bob is trying to educate
you about, namely: INDIRECT is a volatile function, which carries a huge
cost in terms of worksheet preformance. Your first solution at
http://img691.imageshack.us/img691/622/nonamecz.png was indeed unduly
cumbersome and complicated.


Micky wrote previously:
There is nothing wrong with Bob's approach. For my money, it is
error-prone, and it contains "simplifications" that deserved explanation;
but it is indeed the most efficient formulation, I believe. I can see why
it might have been a complete mystery to you, given that you did not even
know how US marginal tax rate tables work just 2 days ago.

I, for one, am getting sick and tired of your misguided sermonizing. It
reflects badly on you more than on the people you try to criticize. But
if you are going to berate people publicly, you should be a mensh and
admit your own mistakes publicly and up-front.

And do follow your own advice, misguided as it might have been in the
original context, namely:

``I would dare to say that 30-40% of the replies are Superfluous. I think
it will be a good idea that every supporter will adopt the "habit" of
pressing [F5] BEFORE(!) replying.``

[From: "מיכ×ל (מיקי) ×בידן" <micky-a*at*tapuz.co.il>, Newsgroups:
microsoft.public.excel.misc, Sent: Thursday, December 31, 2009 10:35 AM,
Subject: Re: excel decimal rounding down all numbers.]


----- original message -----

Well..., for a salary of $ 50,000:
My formula returns: $ 8,687.50 and yours: $ 8,132.50
Would you be so kind to calculate the Income Tax step by step...?
Micky

 

[Stefi]

I'm wondering what an active dispute is in process while the OP didn't
respond at all!
--
Regards!
Stefi



„MZ†ezt írta: