MHB Calculating Your Average Tax Refund: Tips for Filing Your Taxes in 2021

  • Thread starter Thread starter DawnC
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Percent
AI Thread Summary
The average tax refund for individual filers in January 2021 was $4,120, a decrease of 3.5% from the previous year. To find last year's average refund, the correct equation is x - 0.035x = 4120, which simplifies to 0.965x = 4120. Solving for x gives an approximate value of $4,269.43 for last year's average refund. The discussion clarifies how to combine like terms in the equation, demonstrating the process of factoring and simplifying. Understanding these calculations is essential for accurately determining tax refunds.
DawnC
Messages
11
Reaction score
0
I am wondering if I am starting this question the right way...

As of Jan, the average tax refund sent to individual fliers was \$4,120 down 3.5% from last year. What was the average tax refund last year?

Would the formula to start the problem be: x - 0.035 = \$4120?

Any suggestions would be great
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
DawnC said:
I am wondering if I am starting this question the right way...

As of Jan, the average tax refund sent to individual fliers was \$4,120 down 3.5% from last year. What was the average tax refund last year?

Would the formula to start the problem be: x - 0.035 = \$4120?

Any suggestions would be great

Welcome to MHB! (Sun)

You are very close...the equation you want is:

$$x-0.035x=4120$$

You see 3.5% of last years refund (which you are calling $x$) would be $0.035x$. Now, can you solve for $x$?
 
MarkFL said:
Welcome to MHB! (Sun)

You are very close...the equation you want is:

$$x-0.035x=4120$$

You see 3.5% of last years refund (which you are calling $x$) would be $0.035x$. Now, can you solve for $x$?

*** I would take x-0.035x = 4120 then I would add x -0.035x(+0.035x) = 4120 +0.035
4120 + 0.035 = 4120.03?
 
DawnC said:
*** I would take x-0.035x = 4120 then I would add x -0.035x(+0.035x) = 4120 +0.035
4120 + 0.035 = 4120.03?

No, you would combine terms on the left to get:

$$0.965x=4120$$

Next, divide both sides by $0.965$ to get (rounded to the nearest penny):

$$x\approx4269.43$$
 
MarkFL said:
No, you would combine terms on the left to get:

$$0.965x=4120$$

Next, divide both sides by $0.965$ to get (rounded to the nearest penny):

$$x\approx4269.43$$

** You mentioned combine like terms. You got 0.965x - how did you get that? Probably very dumb question

- - - Updated - - -

I just practiced on the problem - did you treat (x) as 1?
 
DawnC said:
** You mentioned combine like terms. You got 0.965x - how did you get that? Probably very dumb question

It's just like if you have:

$$a+2a$$

We have one of $a$ and we are adding two $a$'s to it to get three $a$'s:

$$a+2a=3a$$

We can see this also by factoring:

$$a+2a=a(1+2)=a\cdot3=3a$$

So, in your problem, we could write:

$$x-0.035x=x(1-0.035)=x\cdot0.965=0.965x$$

Recall that $x$ is just shorthand for $1\cdot x$. :D
 
Seemingly by some mathematical coincidence, a hexagon of sides 2,2,7,7, 11, and 11 can be inscribed in a circle of radius 7. The other day I saw a math problem on line, which they said came from a Polish Olympiad, where you compute the length x of the 3rd side which is the same as the radius, so that the sides of length 2,x, and 11 are inscribed on the arc of a semi-circle. The law of cosines applied twice gives the answer for x of exactly 7, but the arithmetic is so complex that the...
Thread 'Unit Circle Double Angle Derivations'
Here I made a terrible mistake of assuming this to be an equilateral triangle and set 2sinx=1 => x=pi/6. Although this did derive the double angle formulas it also led into a terrible mess trying to find all the combinations of sides. I must have been tired and just assumed 6x=180 and 2sinx=1. By that time, I was so mindset that I nearly scolded a person for even saying 90-x. I wonder if this is a case of biased observation that seeks to dis credit me like Jesus of Nazareth since in reality...
Thread 'Imaginary Pythagoras'
I posted this in the Lame Math thread, but it's got me thinking. Is there any validity to this? Or is it really just a mathematical trick? Naively, I see that i2 + plus 12 does equal zero2. But does this have a meaning? I know one can treat the imaginary number line as just another axis like the reals, but does that mean this does represent a triangle in the complex plane with a hypotenuse of length zero? Ibix offered a rendering of the diagram using what I assume is matrix* notation...
Back
Top