On Jul 9, 3:31 am, Ron Rosenfeld wrote:
On Sun, 08 Jul 2007 20:18:20 -0700, joeu2004 wrote:
But a year or two ago, I discovered that the Georgia tables did not
have that nice property. Arrgghh!

I just looked at the Georgia Tax Rate Schedule for 2006 and your notion that it
is constructed differently then the Federal Tax Table does not seem to be the
case.

What am I missing?

Probably nothing.

First, I did say that my observation was "a year or two ago". Since
the earlier tables were screwed up (IMHO), it would not surprise me if
they were an anomaly that has been corrected. (I asked about a
correction at the time, but I never got a response, as I recall.)

Second -- and I hate to admit this -- I probably should have said "one
state's tables" instead of "Georgia's tables". I am "pretty sure" it
was indeed Georgia; but my recollection could be wrong. Moreover, I
cannot remember if they were withholding tables or actual tax tables.
I posted something about this in misc.taxes.moderated at the time.
But it is too difficult to find it now (sigh).

Finally, I did not say that the state table was "constructed
differently". Superficially, it looked the same. The devil was in
the details.

First, as I recall, the columns were labeled ambiguously -- not "over"
and "not over", but "is" and "not over". Thus, two brackets would
seem to apply to the boundary amount.

Second -- and this is the kicker -- the amount added was not always
the cumulative tax based on applying the earlier marginal rates.
Sometimes it was; sometimes it was higher; sometimes it was lower. Of
course, the difference was very small; you would notice it only if you
bothered to check. (I checked only because of the ambiguous labeling
of the columns, which caught my attention.)

So again, much ado about nothing.