Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Math time!

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Math time!

    Okay forum, here's a math question for you. Ex and I are arguing about how to round our S7 ratios to the nearest half-percentage point. (Yes, I know this is completely ridiculous, but it is very very very important to the ex).

    Here's an example (numbers changed slightly):

    Our incomes are in a ratio of 64.4152% to 35.5842% How would you round these figures to the nearest .5%?

    Just curious as to how others would calculate this.

  • #2
    64.0 and 36.0 which is accurate to the rounding rules. 64.41 rounds down to 64 because the digit after the 6.4 is less than 5 and 35.58 rounds up to 36 because the digit after the 36.5 is more than 5.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by stripes View Post
      Okay forum, here's a math question for you. Ex and I are arguing about how to round our S7 ratios to the nearest half-percentage point. (Yes, I know this is completely ridiculous, but it is very very very important to the ex).

      Here's an example (numbers changed slightly):

      Our incomes are in a ratio of % to 35.5842% How would you round these figures to the nearest .5%?

      Just curious as to how others would calculate this.
      to me the 64.4152 would be 64.4 and the other would be 35.6.

      try this website
      Rounding Worksheets | Rounding Worksheets for Practice

      or this one
      http://www.math-aids.com/Rounding/
      Last edited by standing on the sidelines; 06-13-2015, 06:16 PM. Reason: added website

      Comment


      • #4
        64.5 and 35.5 just cause she clearly doesn't want to pay 36%

        Comment


        • #5
          64.4 and 35.6 according to my grade school math...

          Stripes your ex is a bit of tool yes?

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by OntarioDaddy View Post
            If you're rounding to the nearest . 5%, I believe it would be 64.5 and 35.5%.

            .0 -. 2 =. O
            .3 -. 7 =. 5
            .8-.9 = 1
            Agree with Ontario Daddy

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by rockscan View Post
              64.4 and 35.6 according to my grade school math...

              Stripes your ex is a bit of tool yes?
              Uh, yeah, sort of. He's one of those pompous asses who is always sure he's the smartest person in the room. He used to send me long rants about legal issues, full of misused technical terms, which I think were supposed to intimidate me. (In the midst of arguing about equalization, he informed me that if I did not accede to his wishes, he "would be forced to file a motion to remove [my] legal standing in front of the courts". I still have no idea what that was supposed to mean).

              Anyway, with the math, I got OntarioDaddy's result and ex got YoungDad's result, which I suppose means there is more than one possible answer.

              I've suggested a compromise: we split S7 64/36. At the end of the year, we calculate how much .5% of Kid's S7 would be, and I put that amount into her RESP. That way I am out of pocket for the equivalent of 64.5% of S7 and he is out of pocket 36% of S7. Neither of us gets exactly the solution we want, but we both get a solution we can live with, and in the end, Kid benefits from the money. I doubt he will go for this, but at least I tried for a reasonable compromise.

              (BTW the numbers I gave aren't the real ones).

              Comment


              • #8
                pay through MEP and he can argue with them every day of the week.

                Comment


                • #9
                  The total amount of money in play here is maybe $100 at the absolute most (the difference between a 64/36 split and a 64.5/35.5 split). Total annual S7 expenses for Kid have never yet topped $8000, so half of one percent of that ... When I was writing our divorce order, I never imagined I'd wish I had specified the number of decimal places to which amounts would be calculated. It seems obvious to me that you use full numbers. But what was obvious to me was not obvious to the ex.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    I hear you! Currently working with lawyers because my daughters ex is arguing over $290. His lawyer bills out at $450/ hr and we just sent him a 8 page letter of calculations proving he in fact does owe the money.

                    So he requested her to provide the proof so she did. Her spreadsheet and financial analysis of incomes and daycare fees was free. As I did it.

                    Makes no sense really. But such is family law. It would be interesting to know how much parents spend on lawyers versus how much they spend on the children. The amount lots of separated parents spend often equals a year of university. But then no doubt that will be a whole different battle in 12 years!

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      It was me that was rounding to the nearest whole number - ex wanted to use half percentages. The dollar amount is so small that I would be tempted to say "okay, fine, we'll use your numbers", but I know from experience that doing so would invite even more weird calculations and plans to get more money out of me - because if I "give in" to this one, maybe I'll "give in" to lots of other strategies. So I try to find solutions in which neither party "wins" or "loses" (except in cases where there's really obviously only one possible interpretation, such as a recent battle over the AED).

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Just got the expected ranting email back from the ex, about how the way I round off decimal places "violates the basic principles of Canadian federal law" and puts me in grave jeopardy of an unspecified sort. It's so over-the-top pompous that I'm not sure whether to laugh or cry.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          ^^ laugh. I'm interested though in knowing his thoughts behind how the math above violates the basic principles of federal law, lol. You'll have to update if he ever reveals that info to you.

                          fwiw, I would have calculated as per OntarioDaddy.

                          You could ask him if he wants to follow the rounding-up/down strategy that Rev Can promoted when we phased the penny? See the Rev Can link below - do these numbers, if applied to your percentage, work to your favor or his? [although I recognize, adding another path in the discussion might make it even more contentious];

                          Phasing out the penny
                          Start a discussion, not a fire. Post with kindness.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Don't you have any sort of precedent from previous years that you can just follow?

                            Some days I really love my 100% s7 proportion.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by mcdreamy View Post
                              ^^ laugh. I'm interested though in knowing his thoughts behind how the math above violates the basic principles of federal law, lol. You'll have to update if he ever reveals that info to you.

                              fwiw, I would have calculated as per OntarioDaddy.

                              You could ask him if he wants to follow the rounding-up/down strategy that Rev Can promoted when we phased the penny? See the Rev Can link below - do these numbers, if applied to your percentage, work to your favor or his? [although I recognize, adding another path in the discussion might make it even more contentious];

                              Phasing out the penny
                              Mcdreamy, you can only imagine how much fun it was dealing with Captain Logic over equalization. I told my bf about the "violating the principles of Canadian federal law" bit and he suggested I tell the ex to call Justin Trudeau - never mind Bill C-51, grade five math is the true enemy of Canadian freedoms!

                              This one goes in the scrapbook, along with the convoluted reasoning for why I should give him half my tax refund, the S7 claim for a Halloween costume and a haircut, and the retroactive invoice for $48 when Kid stayed with him for an extra night when I was out of town on business "to compensate for the additional costs of feeding and entertaining [Kid] in [Dad's] home".

                              What still gets me is how unnecessary these things are - I calculated the ratio one way, using reasonable assumptions, and got a valid result; he calculated it another way, also using reasonable assumptions, and got a different but not invalid result. To me, this suggests that you compromise and meet in the middle, especially as the difference between the estimates is so small. To him, this suggests that you throw a big fit.

                              In the words of Elvis Costello, I used to be disgusted, now I try to be amused.

                              Comment

                              Our Divorce Forums
                              Forums dedicated to helping people all across Canada get through the separation and divorce process, with discussions about legal issues, parenting issues, financial issues and more.
                              Working...
                              X