Search

Our tax code is stuck in the Middle Ages. The Internal Revenue Code (“the Code”), codified at 26 U.S.C., uses the concepts of addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division, as one might expect of a tax code. But, disdaining the 1500s invention of the elementary math symbols ‘+,’ ‘–,’ ‘×,’ and ‘÷,’ the Code instead uses complicated English constructions such as “any amount of X which bears the same ratio to that amount as Y bears to Z.” I propose that we use these elementary math symbols in our tax laws. To see whether this would increase the laws’ legibility, I conducted a preregistered, randomized, controlled trial involving 161 participants. One group received the actual Code, the other, a translation using math symbols. Both groups were asked to solve the same two Code-based tax problems. For the first problem, use of the translation with math symbols increased answer accuracy from 25% to 70%. For the second problem, answer accuracy increased from 11% to 50%. This result, I argue, can be extrapolated to the broader population and to the Code as a whole, confirming the plausible intuition that math symbols would increase the understandability of the Code. I then argue that this would be a good thing, answering various objections along the way, with a particular appeal to the rule of law and the spirit of democracy. People ought to be able to understand the laws that govern them. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In high-income countries, rates of atherosclerotic complications in type 2 diabetes have declined markedly over time due to better management of traditional risk factors including lipids, blood pressure, and glycemia levels. Population-wide reductions in smoking have also helped lower atherosclerotic complications and so reduce premature mortality in type 2 diabetes. However, as excess adiposity is a stronger driver for heart failure (HF), and obesity levels have remained largely unchanged, HF risks have not declined as much and may even be rising in the increasing number of people developing type 2 diabetes at younger ages. Excess weight is also an underrecognized risk factor for chronic kidney disease (CKD). Based on evidence from a range of sources, we explain how excess adiposity must be influencing most risks well before diabetes develops, particularly in younger-onset diabetes, which is linked to greater excess adiposity. We also review potential mechanisms linking excess adiposity to HF and CKD and speculate on how some of the responsible pathways—e.g., hemodynamic, cellular overnutrition, and inflammatory—could be favorably influenced by intentional weight loss (via lifestyle or drugs). On the basis of available evidence, we suggest that the cardiorenal outcome benefits seen with sodium–glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors may partially derive from their interference of some of these same pathways. We also note that many other complications common in diabetes (e.g., hepatic, joint disease, perhaps mental health) are also variably linked to excess adiposity, the aggregated exposure to which has now increased in type 2 diabetes. All such observations suggest a greater need to tackle excess adiposity earlier in type 2 diabetes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]