Here’s where I’ll explain about my strong math background, and how it relates to my effectiveness as your representative.
I am not a mathematician, though I know some expected me to go that route. I excelled as a child, culminating with placing in the top 100 in the U.S. on the annual MAA competition, twice, and a perfect 800 on the SAT Math. I had a broader fascination with the real world and society, so while my career in software was well served by my math abilities, math was not my primary focus in life.
I did find that much of life, law, and politics is unavoidably mathematical — and also that most people have little reason to learn more than the basics. That gap creates enormous opportunity for the unscrupulous to mislead the public, and they do so, constantly. A big part of my job will be exposing and explaining this trickery. I know enough mathematics to work effectively with real experts, and I will include several on my staff for this very purpose.
Just one classic example for now:
If you ask people how much of their pay is withheld for Social Security, they’ll probably say “about 6%“, but it’s really about 12%. Why? Well, as most people know, the employer pays “the other 6%”. (It’s actually 6.2% for each.) But it makes no difference to the employer if they give the money to you, or to the government on your behalf. If they included the “other 6.2%” in your pay, you would see $1062 instead of $1000, say. The government would still get their $124. That’s 124 out of 1062, 11.7%, or about 12%.
A 6% deduction on one’s paycheck is easier to swallow than 12%. Back in 1935 when the split was designed, it was 1% versus about 2%, compared to a 4% income tax. Now don’t get me wrong, I’m a huge fan of Social Security and very glad that it’s been there for me, I just wish we didn’t have to play these games.
(There are further complications related to taxable income, particularly for the self-employed, but let’s not get into that right now.)