Overheard on Facebook

[JAYSLOL]

This is a common technique for getting tax increases passed.  It is all about the marketing. 
Another common lie is "for the children"  i.e. tax increases supposedly for education where the money never seems to get to the promised recipients. 

Yup, on all levels, too.  Our elections next month will include a referendum on increasing the property tax rate for the schools.  The school district is facing a shortfall caused by 1) the state not paying money it has promised, and 2) debt service because the school district borrowed $450 million about 12 years ago during the housing boom to build new (and fancy!) schools.  The past two years, they've made cuts and increased fees, but IMO there's still a  lot of fat that can be cut without impacting .  There aren't any easy, big targets, but there doesn't seem to be any effort to chase down the myriad small expenses that could add up to some serious money.  Simple things like "turn off the lights in the schools at night" or even "turn off the lights during the day when the school is filled with natural light from the sky lights."

It has taken them until the third straight year of cuts before they started taking a harder look at some of the perks enjoyed by the administration, like generous cell phone plans.

A few year back we legalized rec pot.  The sales pitch was that it would "end our school funding issues forever".  Nope.  The new revenue was earmarked for schools but wound up being spent on admin and admin raises, not in the classrooms as promised.

Same with lottery revenue in many places.  They say it funds education or healthcare or whatever, but what it really does is take the burden of funding those programs off the extremely wealthy via tax cuts, and the poor and/or uneducated members of society end up funding it through the stupidity tax known as the lottery instead.  Schools never get a budget increase when lottery revenues increase, but sure as anything those upper income taxes sure get a slash!

[Mississippi Mudstache]

This is a common technique for getting tax increases passed.  It is all about the marketing. 
Another common lie is "for the children"  i.e. tax increases supposedly for education where the money never seems to get to the promised recipients. 

Yup, on all levels, too.  Our elections next month will include a referendum on increasing the property tax rate for the schools.  The school district is facing a shortfall caused by 1) the state not paying money it has promised, and 2) debt service because the school district borrowed $450 million about 12 years ago during the housing boom to build new (and fancy!) schools.  The past two years, they've made cuts and increased fees, but IMO there's still a  lot of fat that can be cut without impacting .  There aren't any easy, big targets, but there doesn't seem to be any effort to chase down the myriad small expenses that could add up to some serious money.  Simple things like "turn off the lights in the schools at night" or even "turn off the lights during the day when the school is filled with natural light from the sky lights."

It has taken them until the third straight year of cuts before they started taking a harder look at some of the perks enjoyed by the administration, like generous cell phone plans.

A few year back we legalized rec pot.  The sales pitch was that it would "end our school funding issues forever".  Nope.  The new revenue was earmarked for schools but wound up being spent on admin and admin raises, not in the classrooms as promised.

Same with lottery revenue in many places.  They say it funds education or healthcare or whatever, but what it really does is take the burden of funding those programs off the extremely wealthy via tax cuts, and the poor and/or uneducated members of society end up funding it through the stupidity tax known as the lottery instead.  Schools never get a budget increase when lottery revenues increase, but sure as anything those upper income taxes sure get a slash!

In Georgia, the lottery was earmarked for state-funded pre-K and free instate college tuition for high schoolers with a B average. Paid for my entire tuition. The legislature slashed the college scholarship funding during the Great Recession (reasonable), but then neglected to reinstate the original benefits when state tax revenue recovered (unreasonable). Of course, the party that was in power when the educational programs were originally implemented now holds no sway in our state legislature, so really no surprise there.

[DadJokes]

This is a common technique for getting tax increases passed.  It is all about the marketing. 
Another common lie is "for the children"  i.e. tax increases supposedly for education where the money never seems to get to the promised recipients. 

Yup, on all levels, too.  Our elections next month will include a referendum on increasing the property tax rate for the schools.  The school district is facing a shortfall caused by 1) the state not paying money it has promised, and 2) debt service because the school district borrowed $450 million about 12 years ago during the housing boom to build new (and fancy!) schools.  The past two years, they've made cuts and increased fees, but IMO there's still a  lot of fat that can be cut without impacting .  There aren't any easy, big targets, but there doesn't seem to be any effort to chase down the myriad small expenses that could add up to some serious money.  Simple things like "turn off the lights in the schools at night" or even "turn off the lights during the day when the school is filled with natural light from the sky lights."

It has taken them until the third straight year of cuts before they started taking a harder look at some of the perks enjoyed by the administration, like generous cell phone plans.

A few year back we legalized rec pot.  The sales pitch was that it would "end our school funding issues forever".  Nope.  The new revenue was earmarked for schools but wound up being spent on admin and admin raises, not in the classrooms as promised.

This is true with every form of school funding. I live in the second wealthiest per capita county in my state, but our teachers are in the bottom half of pay. Rather than provide them with a much-needed raise, central office spent state money to convert an old high school into a new central office. There was nothing wrong with the old office, and the new office/old high school now looks better than any of the schools in the district.

It's so frustrating, and despite spreading awareness of their misuse of funds, the same board members keep getting elected.

[Just Joe]

Simple things like "turn off the lights in the schools at night" or even "turn off the lights during the day when the school is filled with natural light from the sky lights."

I so wish our school system would take things like that seriously. It might not move the needle very far. I drive by our neighborhood school and they leave the gymnasium lights on all night sometimes. Don't know if they are those sodium lights we had back when or LEDs but either they are wasting electricity or wearing out lights.

What else might be running unnecessarily in that building during weekends and vacations?

My alma mater was terrible about things like this too. They could turn off hundreds of computers, decrease lighting when the buildings were closed, put things on timers or motion detection. Instead they kept on paying that $1.5M electric bill.

[Proud Foot]

Same with lottery revenue in many places.  They say it funds education or healthcare or whatever, but what it really does is take the burden of funding those programs off the extremely wealthy via tax cuts, and the poor and/or uneducated members of society end up funding it through the stupidity tax known as the lottery instead.  Schools never get a budget increase when lottery revenues increase, but sure as anything those upper income taxes sure get a slash!

Lottery was passed in my state based upon the premise of a high percentage of revenues going to fund education. The only problem was the state legislature then cut the allocation from the annual budget by the same amount, effectively keeping education funding flat.

[HamsterStache]

Same with lottery revenue in many places.  They say it funds education or healthcare or whatever, but what it really does is take the burden of funding those programs off the extremely wealthy via tax cuts, and the poor and/or uneducated members of society end up funding it through the stupidity tax known as the lottery instead.  Schools never get a budget increase when lottery revenues increase, but sure as anything those upper income taxes sure get a slash!

Lottery was passed in my state based upon the premise of a high percentage of revenues going to fund education. The only problem was the state legislature then cut the allocation from the annual budget by the same amount, effectively keeping education funding flat.

Here in MD we've tried to fix that loophole with casinos, we'll see how it pans out...  https://ballotpedia.org/Maryland_Question_1,_Gambling_Revenue_Dedicated_to_Education_Lockbox_Amendment_(2018)

[mustachepungoeshere]

I've been watching this whole saga of entitlement play out in person and on Facebook over the past year or so.

An old work colleague had a son who finished school, bummed around for a year, lived at home, didn't pay board, wasn't interested in uni, wanted to be a video editor but didn't actually seek out training or experience.

Finally, old work colleague hired his son in a similar industry in the hope it would give him some direction. This wasn't just son's first job in our industry, it was son's first job anywhere.

Old work colleague bought his son a car to get to work, bought him tens of thousands of dollars of cameras and software to encourage him to learn editing on the side, and continued to let him live at home rent-free. Son wasn't at all interested in working, so he did the bare minimum, and old work colleague kept letting it slide, to the annoyance of the rest of the team.

Son has now quit. He didn't like working there. Thinks he might like to work an Apple store. He hasn't actually applied or anything though.

Old work colleague asked son how he plans to pay rent with no job.

Son *blank look*: But I don't pay rent.

It's a shame that it took old work colleague a year to work out what we all knew from the beginning.

[smoghat]

A friend told me the other day, "If I had to do it all over again, I wouldn't go to college." Said friend, BTW, went to grad school and would have done well a their job but was going to too many parties, doing too many drugs and drinking too much so basically couldn't handle their job at the time (they wouldn't recognize this then), so they changed careers to something more "fun," and "lifestyle compatible" and in the process has put himself into a job with a ceiling he won't ever be able to break through (since it's a one person job and he can't ever bill more). Oh, I thought, maybe he'd be a plumber or electrician, they do well around here. "It's more important to go to parties, that's where all the connections are made."

:0

[ysette9]

I wonder how much people actually factor in taxes “food” versus non-taxed food as the taxes do not show up in the price that you see on the label. America is somewhat unique in tacking on all of that extra junk at the end, so the prices you see on the shelves or on a restaurant menu are all false.

[Kyle Schuant]

Here the tax is only on prepared food, not whole ingredients. [https://www.ato.gov.au/General/Other-languages/In-detail/Information-in-other-languages/GST-and-food-for-small-business/] So cocoa and sugar are tax-free, but chocolate carries the tax. Likewise, a whole chicken is tax-free, unless it's a cooked chicken.

The sales tax is 10% so it's easy to calculate. At the supermarket, everything carrying sales tax has an asterisk by it. Everything at a restaurant carries the tax, even if it normally wouldn't, like a plain bread roll. Since it's all whole food, everything at the greengrocer, fishmonger or butcher is tax-free.

This has the interesting effect of making a tax-free diet tend to be a healthier one, too.

[Just Joe]

Kyle - that's really simple. I like it. Would never fly in the USA however. Too logical. ;)

[geekette]

Kyle - that's really simple. I like it. Would never fly in the USA however. Too logical. ;)

No kidding.  In our area, food is taxed at 2%, but candy is over 7%.  The definition of "candy" is interesting, though.  If it has flour in it, it's not considered candy, so M&M's are high tax, but Kit Kat, with the wafers are only 2% (if the store is paying attention, anyway).

[Kitsune]

That's more or less how it works in Quebec too. Sales tax isn't a nice round number, so that's a pain, but otherwise, food (ingredients) isn't taxed but prepared food (including soda, chips, frozen meals, etc) is.

[Threshkin]

Here the tax is only on prepared food, not whole ingredients. [https://www.ato.gov.au/General/Other-languages/In-detail/Information-in-other-languages/GST-and-food-for-small-business/] So cocoa and sugar are tax-free, but chocolate carries the tax. Likewise, a whole chicken is tax-free, unless it's a cooked chicken.

The sales tax is 10% so it's easy to calculate. At the supermarket, everything carrying sales tax has an asterisk by it. Everything at a restaurant carries the tax, even if it normally wouldn't, like a plain bread roll. Since it's all whole food, everything at the greengrocer, fishmonger or butcher is tax-free.

This has the interesting effect of making a tax-free diet tend to be a healthier one, too.

Isn't bread a prepared food?  I can see that it is a staple but someone had to make it.

[bluebelle]

Here the tax is only on prepared food, not whole ingredients. [https://www.ato.gov.au/General/Other-languages/In-detail/Information-in-other-languages/GST-and-food-for-small-business/] So cocoa and sugar are tax-free, but chocolate carries the tax. Likewise, a whole chicken is tax-free, unless it's a cooked chicken.

The sales tax is 10% so it's easy to calculate. At the supermarket, everything carrying sales tax has an asterisk by it. Everything at a restaurant carries the tax, even if it normally wouldn't, like a plain bread roll. Since it's all whole food, everything at the greengrocer, fishmonger or butcher is tax-free.

This has the interesting effect of making a tax-free diet tend to be a healthier one, too.

Isn't bread a prepared food?  I can see that it is a staple but someone had to make it.

Never try and understand what a government was/is thinking when they make up rules.....
'Basic groceries, including Bread/cereal, while 'prepared', is not subject to HST (harmonized sales tax), snack food - pop, chips etc is taxable....I consider it a 'sin tax' with respect to groceries, if it is 'healthy' food, it isn't taxable, if it 'crap', ie not really 'food', it's taxed.

[habanero]

So, most heavily taxed country? Don't make me cringe! And I know that several scandinavian countries are taxed a lot heavier than we are. Norway too I believe,

Yes, that is correct, however, the total picture is a tad more complex. To give the end answer first - an average Norwegian pays LESS in taxes during his lifetime that what he/she recieves in various public services through his/hers life.

To give you some rough numbers:
Tax on an average salary (equivalent of US$ 55-60k) would be around 25% (give or take some depending on actual salary, deductables etc). This includes social security.
VAT on pretty much every goods and service purchased: 25%. Some categories have a lower rate and a very few are exempt.
Tax on cars, fuel for the car, alcohol and tobacco: High (dont know the exact rates, but that shit is expensive over here)

The tax burden is, however, just one part of the equation. In return you get free health care, very subsidized day care for kids, cash for kids under 18, free schooling, free university education, a guaranteed minimu pension, maternty leave, paterneti leave, 12(?) sick days per year when kids are sick, 3 times 3 (?) own sick days per year without loss of pay, good social security if unable to work/can't find a job etcetcetc. So while we pay more taxes, some serious costs of running a life / a family don't really apply here as its provided as a public service for free or at very subsidized rates. Health care and higher educatin being the most obvious, both which are virtually free. Think I paid like 100 bucks per years in some adminsitrative fee to the university, and that was it (housing and living expenses come in addition, of course).

Also, the Norwegian income tax is rather progressive so the more you make, less the percantage you take home. Top marginal rate is just south of 50% and kicks in at around US$ 125.000 or so. And we have tax on wealth, which makes the 4% rule not quite apply over here.

If you have a salary of US$200k here, no other income and zero deductibles your actual tax rate would be 40% including social security contribution.
If you make 1 million / year the tax rate would be 45%

Capital gains are taxed at a flat rate, for equity gains its around 30%. There are however ways to postpone this for many, many years, especially if investing in funds that don't pay any dividends but reinvest them.

[marty998]

Never try and understand what a government was/is thinking when they make up rules.....

Or an opposition leader who, in 1993, lost an un-losable election, in the main because he couldn't articulate clearly whether a birthday cake would attract his proposed goods and services tax.

So famous it even has its own wiki page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birthday_cake_interview

[Kyle Schuant]

Kyle - that's really simple. I like it. Would never fly in the USA however. Too logical. ;)

Well, it was going to be on all food, but at the time a centre-left party held the balance of power in the Senate, so they had to remove it on "basic foods" to get it through.

Don't worry, they make up for GST's simplicity with income tax. Franking credits (so that some wealthy people actually receive money from the govt to make up for their share losses), negative gearing, this is deductible and that isn't, blah blah.

[penguintroopers]

Here the tax is only on prepared food, not whole ingredients. [https://www.ato.gov.au/General/Other-languages/In-detail/Information-in-other-languages/GST-and-food-for-small-business/] So cocoa and sugar are tax-free, but chocolate carries the tax. Likewise, a whole chicken is tax-free, unless it's a cooked chicken.

The sales tax is 10% so it's easy to calculate. At the supermarket, everything carrying sales tax has an asterisk by it. Everything at a restaurant carries the tax, even if it normally wouldn't, like a plain bread roll. Since it's all whole food, everything at the greengrocer, fishmonger or butcher is tax-free.

This has the interesting effect of making a tax-free diet tend to be a healthier one, too.

Kyle - that's really simple. I like it. Would never fly in the USA however. Too logical. ;)

Now I'm super confused, as my state and several others I know of and live in don't tax grocery products like vegetables, meats, grains, flour, milk, eggs, etc. Pretty much any staple/unprocessed ingredients. Taxed foods are the processed pizzas/sodas/chips etc.

Or, having taxed items marked in a store is too logical? I don't think they're marked at any grocery store I've been to, but they are generally consistent.

[RetiredAt63]

Here the tax is only on prepared food, not whole ingredients. [https://www.ato.gov.au/General/Other-languages/In-detail/Information-in-other-languages/GST-and-food-for-small-business/] So cocoa and sugar are tax-free, but chocolate carries the tax. Likewise, a whole chicken is tax-free, unless it's a cooked chicken.

The sales tax is 10% so it's easy to calculate. At the supermarket, everything carrying sales tax has an asterisk by it. Everything at a restaurant carries the tax, even if it normally wouldn't, like a plain bread roll. Since it's all whole food, everything at the greengrocer, fishmonger or butcher is tax-free.

This has the interesting effect of making a tax-free diet tend to be a healthier one, too.

Kyle - that's really simple. I like it. Would never fly in the USA however. Too logical. ;)

Now I'm super confused, as my state and several others I know of and live in don't tax grocery products like vegetables, meats, grains, flour, milk, eggs, etc. Pretty much any staple/unprocessed ingredients. Taxed foods are the processed pizzas/sodas/chips etc.

Or, having taxed items marked in a store is too logical? I don't think they're marked at any grocery store I've been to, but they are generally consistent.

Here groceries are not taxed, snack foods bought at a grocery store are taxed.  It isn't marked at the aisle, but the sales slip shows which items were taxed and which were not.  Basically anything seen as an essential of life is not taxed.

[sliverstorm]

I didn't get past the $200/week for groceries for a family of 4.

Yeah, that seemed excessive too.

I'm dying to understand how $200/week for a family of 4 can be excessive. How can you possibly eat well (not just subsist on rice & dried beans) with $1.20/person/meal, for example? My family of 2 (although we eat 3 people's worth, tall and active) struggles to hit $200/week. Best I can figure, the only way you can do it is to eat more cheap grains & cheap fats. We eat a lot of produce; even in season & on sale, it's not very good in calories per dollar.

Edit: I guess worth noting we refuse to buy anything made with soy or corn syrup. Mostly we make everything at home, but this does occasionally drive us to more expensive products.

[Imma]

In my experience eating healthy food is cheaper than unhealthy food. I'm not in the US so we can't really compare prices but some of the cheapest meals I make are fried rice with loads of vegetables and a vegan curry. I try to buy veggies from the ethnic grocery store or street market but even in regular stores seasonal vegetables Will be cheap.

Breakfast and lunch are pretty cheap if you bring them from home, so that means that you have a bit more to spend on dinner. I'm sure my overnight oats are less than €0,20/portion and I put lots of fancy ingredients in it. Basic oats would cost half, or less.

[Bloop Bloop]

My partner and I spend approx $380 ($260USD) per week on food. I don't consider that excessive at all.  We try to eat relatively nutritious things and we have no time to cook; by the time we get home from work, have a walk, go to the gym/swim, and have a wind-down, we don't have the time or energy remaining. Everyone's lifestyle is different.

Groceries e.g. fruit and fresh veg and breakfast items $50/week
lunch 20/day * 7 = $140
dinner 27.5/day *7 = $190
Total $380

[Kyle Schuant]

Wall of Shame and Comedy.

[Bloop Bloop]

If that is in response to me, our food bill for the week is equivalent to one hour of work for me, so given that getting fresh food made/delivered saves me a lot more than 1 hour a week, I don't see how it is at all problematic.

[Imma]

In the exceptional circumstances that you apparantly make $250/hour and the only way you can earn this money is by absolutely not preparing any kind of meal at all, this makes sense from a financial point of view.

It's still not mustachian as it's still wasteful spending. And spending $50 purely on breakfast items and fruit and veg to be eaten outside of meals is still spendypants. Many people manage to buy a whole week's worth of food for that. What do you eat for breakfast? Even the most fancy breakfast I can imagine doesn't cost much more than €1-2.

[Bloop Bloop]

In the exceptional circumstances that you apparantly make $250/hour and the only way you can earn this money is by absolutely not preparing any kind of meal at all, this makes sense from a financial point of view.

It's still not mustachian as it's still wasteful spending. And spending $50 purely on breakfast items and fruit and veg to be eaten outside of meals is still spendypants. Many people manage to buy a whole week's worth of food for that. What do you eat for breakfast? Even the most fancy breakfast I can imagine doesn't cost much more than €1-2.

I obviously could find the 30 minutes a day (give or take) that it would take to cook, on average, and save 2/3 on the food bill. But I don't want to spend that extra 30 minutes per day - it's a matter of time and mental labour as well. I prefer to have fewer things on my plate so that I have more energy for work, which is mentally draining. My partner also works full-time (she's just started a new job so is taking it very seriously) plus has a side hustle which earns her decent income. When we get down-time, we prefer to do something like gym, pool or walking as we find it more relaxing than cooking.

Breakfast - fresh fruit, granola and nuts, and soy milk / or salmon & avocado on toast plus a simple salad. Usually something like that.

[mm1970]

In the exceptional circumstances that you apparantly make $250/hour and the only way you can earn this money is by absolutely not preparing any kind of meal at all, this makes sense from a financial point of view.

It's still not mustachian as it's still wasteful spending. And spending $50 purely on breakfast items and fruit and veg to be eaten outside of meals is still spendypants. Many people manage to buy a whole week's worth of food for that. What do you eat for breakfast? Even the most fancy breakfast I can imagine doesn't cost much more than €1-2.

I obviously could find the 30 minutes a day (give or take) that it would take to cook, on average, and save 2/3 on the food bill. But I don't want to spend that extra 30 minutes per day - it's a matter of time and mental labour as well. I prefer to have fewer things on my plate so that I have more energy for work, which is mentally draining. My partner also works full-time (she's just started a new job so is taking it very seriously) plus has a side hustle which earns her decent income. When we get down-time, we prefer to do something like gym, pool or walking as we find it more relaxing than cooking.

Breakfast - fresh fruit, granola and nuts, and soy milk / or salmon & avocado on toast plus a simple salad. Usually something like that.

Yeah, it all really depends a lot on where you are in life and your goals.

I remember when my best friend years ago told me how she never had time to do laundry.  At the time, I was working FT, husband working FT, and we had an infant.  I kind of laughed.  Because I remembered!  She didn't have time for laundry because of work and fun.  She was working 50 hours a week, exercising daily (at least an hour, if not 1.5). Every day after work she was doing something fun or hanging out with her family (parents, nieces, brother, etc).

These days we meet once/ week at the gym and a lot of our convo is about how she can't do laundry!  But this time, it's because her POS washing machine errors out and it takes HOURS to get the thing to finish.

I used to eat out a LOT and spend $$ doing it too.  Before kids.  Now, man, it is SO MUCH EASIER to just cook stuff at home. Dragging two kids out is too painful.  But the time/ money calculations get a lot easier when you are cooking in bulk too.

[Just Joe]

Tell your friend to try smaller loads.

RE eating out: YEP! We hardly ever go out these days and our little kid days are behind us. It used to seem like a treat to blow $45 on a meal for a family of four and have someone wait on us.

Now it just isn't fun the same way.

Takes alot of time and restaurants seem to be like airplanes these days - how many people can we stuff into a room?

Occasionally we pick out a fancy recipe and stop by the grocery on the way home for nice ingredients.

[zolotiyeruki]

Takes alot of time and restaurants seem to be like airplanes these days - how many people can we stuff into a room?

Yes!  DW and I enjoy eating out, but we *don't* like it when we have to shout at each other in order to be heard across the table, which is depressingly common in the types of restaurants we typically visit.  It's exhausting, especially when "getting away from the noise at home" is a major reason to go on a date!

I have this dream of someday establishing a restaurant with a really classy atmosphere, but "normal person" food and prices.  So... soft lights, quiet classical music, lots of dark-stained wood, velvet, brass, and sound absorbing materials.  Toss in a menu from a casual dining restaurant of your choice (Friday's, Chilis, Texas Roadhouse, Red Robin, Chuy's...) and you have a recipe for a relaxing, pleasant, classy dining experience that isn't too hard on your wallet.

[RWD]

I didn't get past the $200/week for groceries for a family of 4.

Yeah, that seemed excessive too.

I'm dying to understand how $200/week for a family of 4 can be excessive. How can you possibly eat well (not just subsist on rice & dried beans) with $1.20/person/meal, for example? My family of 2 (although we eat 3 people's worth, tall and active) struggles to hit $200/week. Best I can figure, the only way you can do it is to eat more cheap grains & cheap fats. We eat a lot of produce; even in season & on sale, it's not very good in calories per dollar.

Edit: I guess worth noting we refuse to buy anything made with soy or corn syrup. Mostly we make everything at home, but this does occasionally drive us to more expensive products.

$200/week is not $1.20/person/meal. It's $2.38. $200/(4*3*7).

My family of 2 buys $60.85 worth of groceries per week. That's the average over seven year of tracking expenses. Last year was $60.39/week. I do not think we are particularly cheap in our grocery shopping (we are not subsisting on rice/beans). We buy what we want to eat.

If you double our expenses as an an estimate for 4 people then you get $121.70/week. Considering that 2 of the people in question are kids, yes, I think $200/week is excessive.

[Goldielocks]

If that is in response to me, our food bill for the week is equivalent to one hour of work for me, so given that getting fresh food made/delivered saves me a lot more than 1 hour a week, I don't see how it is at all problematic.

Your post defending a huge grocery spend (! It is huge, no doubt!)  as if it is "normal" is certainly out of context for the forum.   It would have been much less misleading as to your actual point to have said:

We spend a lot on food, but as I make a lot, it works out to only 2.5% of my take home, and I am well on track for FIRE in 5 years... it is all relative to income.. (or whatever).

[Goldielocks]

I didn't get past the $200/week for groceries for a family of 4.

Yeah, that seemed excessive too.

I'm dying to understand how $200/week for a family of 4 can be excessive. How can you possibly eat well (not just subsist on rice & dried beans) with $1.20/person/meal, for example? My family of 2 (although we eat 3 people's worth, tall and active) struggles to hit $200/week. Best I can figure, the only way you can do it is to eat more cheap grains & cheap fats. We eat a lot of produce; even in season & on sale, it's not very good in calories per dollar.

Edit: I guess worth noting we refuse to buy anything made with soy or corn syrup. Mostly we make everything at home, but this does occasionally drive us to more expensive products.

I used to work to reduce our grocery bill, and it was always at the $800 level, too.  I thought that was the norm.
Then I FIRED and had more time to really shop the ads, going to an out of the way store for bulk shopping 2-3 times a month, etc.   My grocery bill dropped by 35% or more, even with entertaining and being on a low carb type diet.

The past month, I picked up a part time contract that turned into full time (ugh) and I am overspending on groceries again.

I was shocked at how low my grocey bill became week in and week out when I had time to think about it.  The following were changes/ insights:

- Buy meat on sale / super low ad prices only.  Know what $/lb is your target.  Mine is $2/lb = buy.  >$3/lb = wait to buy.
- Eat more leftover roast / foods instead of buying deli meat for sandwiches
- Buy lots of milk.  Enjoy.  Make cheese and yogurt with your milk.
- eat a lot of eggs, enjoy nuts, value price cheese, etc.
- reduce fresh produce, except local in season plus 1-2 more items per week (it is very expensive here, especially from end of Jan to end of April).  Set a list of low cost produce foods that are a "yes" for lower costs like root veg, cabbage, onion, apples, bananas, sometimes oranges.   Use frozen more often.  Fresh produce is DAMN expensive here.  Ditto any juice sold ready to drink.  Flavoured yogurt.
- Do not buy something with a label or in a box.  Ever.. unless almost free..   (My bill is up a bit because I don't do this always ).
- Do not buy baked goods in store, other than the lower cost sliced bread. Happy baking means no corn syrup, too.
- Figure out price per meal size serving of your most common meals, and prioritize the ones that you like that are not as expensive.   Re-visit the recipes for the more expensive menus to see how you can update them.
- Make your own sauces and salad dressings, etc.  Use basic spices instead of sauce in a jar more of the time.


Read APowers' Journal tracking an entire year for a family of 4 on <$200/mo.   This helped me a lot.

[ducky19]

Seen on a local "For Sale" site on FB:

"I was selling my iPhone X, this guy messaged us and told us he wanted it. We met him in a public place (Lowes parking lot in front of cameras). Him and his girlfriend seemed decent and when my fiance let him hold the phone to look at the scratch he handed it to his girlfriend and ran off with it. We called the police and they are involved. He stole it after us telling him we needed the money for our daughter that is due to be here in seven days."

Followed by a comment later about how they are:

"...two parents who have no income..."

I mean, I feel for you - to an extent. It always sucks to be taken advantage of. What bothered me more than the fact they should have known well enough to meet at the police station is the fact that here we have two parents, no income, a child on the way... and a fucking iPhone X??? Of course all of the posts are either talking about what they did wrong or how bad it sucks - nobody's talking about the fact that there's no conceivable reason why they should even be in possession of a $1000 phone in the first place! I so badly wanted to comment, but if the forums have taught me nothing else, it's to stay out of those conversations unless you're looking to get crucified. Still, SMH...

[mm1970]

I didn't get past the $200/week for groceries for a family of 4.

Yeah, that seemed excessive too.

I'm dying to understand how $200/week for a family of 4 can be excessive. How can you possibly eat well (not just subsist on rice & dried beans) with $1.20/person/meal, for example? My family of 2 (although we eat 3 people's worth, tall and active) struggles to hit $200/week. Best I can figure, the only way you can do it is to eat more cheap grains & cheap fats. We eat a lot of produce; even in season & on sale, it's not very good in calories per dollar.

Edit: I guess worth noting we refuse to buy anything made with soy or corn syrup. Mostly we make everything at home, but this does occasionally drive us to more expensive products.

The thing is, it is going to depend a LOT on:
- where you live
- what you eat
- how you shop
- time

I spent years whittling my grocery bill down and down and down.  Down to a science!

It's definitely changed a lot.  Last year we came in at $150/week for 4.  And that was HARD, yo!  This year, I cannot even get it under $170/week.  And my kids get free lunch at school!  But mm1970, why is this?

1.  I live in California.  Food is more expensive here because of higher overhead and gas.
2.  I live in California.  I have access to year round fresh produce.  So yes, while I *could* shop for vegetables exclusively at Sprouts and the 99 cent store (and save BANK), I don't.  I prefer, honestly, to get my produce from the local farmers.  Which costs more.  And we eat a LOT of it.  Because we can.  My produce cost, per week, is about $65-70.  Just produce.
3.  I have two boys.  They are getting bigger.
4.  I like to eat fresh food.  And on top of that, I balance organic/ free range.   And packaging.  I pay a little extra to buy my rice and nuts from the bulk bins, because I can use my own containers and not generate more plastic.
5.  I can't tolerate wheat anymore.  Wheat products are cheap.
6.  I'm kind of over it.  When I was super duper saving money?  Yep, I bought cheaper veggies, I made my own bread.  I can't even eat bread, so I don't make it anymore.  I'm super tired of being the only person who figures out what the fuck to make for dinner too.  So, I buy some things that are just easier to prep because I don't do much of the weekday cooking any more.  I work late almost every day.

[Threshkin]

<Snip>

The thing is, it is going to depend a LOT on:
- where you live
- what you eat
- how you shop
- time

I spent years whittling my grocery bill down and down and down.  Down to a science!

It's definitely changed a lot.  Last year we came in at $150/week for 4.  And that was HARD, yo!  This year, I cannot even get it under $170/week.  And my kids get free lunch at school!  But mm1970, why is this?

1.  I live in California.  Food is more expensive here because of higher overhead and gas.
2.  I live in California.  I have access to year round fresh produce.  So yes, while I *could* shop for vegetables exclusively at Sprouts and the 99 cent store (and save BANK), I don't.  I prefer, honestly, to get my produce from the local farmers.  Which costs more.  And we eat a LOT of it.  Because we can.  My produce cost, per week, is about $65-70.  Just produce.
3.  I have two boys.  They are getting bigger.
4.  I like to eat fresh food.  And on top of that, I balance organic/ free range.   And packaging.  I pay a little extra to buy my rice and nuts from the bulk bins, because I can use my own containers and not generate more plastic.
5.  I can't tolerate wheat anymore.  Wheat products are cheap.
6.  I'm kind of over it.  When I was super duper saving money?  Yep, I bought cheaper veggies, I made my own bread.  I can't even eat bread, so I don't make it anymore.  I'm super tired of being the only person who figures out what the fuck to make for dinner too.  So, I buy some things that are just easier to prep because I don't do much of the weekday cooking any more.  I work late almost every day.

Farmer's markets used to be where you could go to get fresh locally produced food cheaply because the farmer could sell direct and cut out the middle man.

Now that they are trendy the prices are higher than retail and much of the food sold is not local or even grown by the "farmer" selling it.

[TheGrimSqueaker]

<Snip>

The thing is, it is going to depend a LOT on:
- where you live
- what you eat
- how you shop
- time

I spent years whittling my grocery bill down and down and down.  Down to a science!

It's definitely changed a lot.  Last year we came in at $150/week for 4.  And that was HARD, yo!  This year, I cannot even get it under $170/week.  And my kids get free lunch at school!  But mm1970, why is this?

1.  I live in California.  Food is more expensive here because of higher overhead and gas.
2.  I live in California.  I have access to year round fresh produce.  So yes, while I *could* shop for vegetables exclusively at Sprouts and the 99 cent store (and save BANK), I don't.  I prefer, honestly, to get my produce from the local farmers.  Which costs more.  And we eat a LOT of it.  Because we can.  My produce cost, per week, is about $65-70.  Just produce.
3.  I have two boys.  They are getting bigger.
4.  I like to eat fresh food.  And on top of that, I balance organic/ free range.   And packaging.  I pay a little extra to buy my rice and nuts from the bulk bins, because I can use my own containers and not generate more plastic.
5.  I can't tolerate wheat anymore.  Wheat products are cheap.
6.  I'm kind of over it.  When I was super duper saving money?  Yep, I bought cheaper veggies, I made my own bread.  I can't even eat bread, so I don't make it anymore.  I'm super tired of being the only person who figures out what the fuck to make for dinner too.  So, I buy some things that are just easier to prep because I don't do much of the weekday cooking any more.  I work late almost every day.

Farmer's markets used to be where you could go to get fresh locally produced food cheaply because the farmer could sell direct and cut out the middle man.

Now that they are trendy the prices are higher than retail and much of the food sold is not local or even grown by the "farmer" selling it.

Bulk bins used to be where you could get food more cheaply because the vendor and supplier didn't have to pay for packaging or multiple layers of handling.

[Fae]

Seen on a local "For Sale" site on FB:

"I was selling my iPhone X, this guy messaged us and told us he wanted it. We met him in a public place (Lowes parking lot in front of cameras). Him and his girlfriend seemed decent and when my fiance let him hold the phone to look at the scratch he handed it to his girlfriend and ran off with it. We called the police and they are involved. He stole it after us telling him we needed the money for our daughter that is due to be here in seven days."

Followed by a comment later about how they are:

"...two parents who have no income..."

I mean, I feel for you - to an extent. It always sucks to be taken advantage of. What bothered me more than the fact they should have known well enough to meet at the police station is the fact that here we have two parents, no income, a child on the way... and a fucking iPhone X??? Of course all of the posts are either talking about what they did wrong or how bad it sucks - nobody's talking about the fact that there's no conceivable reason why they should even be in possession of a $1000 phone in the first place! I so badly wanted to comment, but if the forums have taught me nothing else, it's to stay out of those conversations unless you're looking to get crucified. Still, SMH...

Did you ever consider that the phone was bought when they DID have income? I mean, yeah, nobody should have one of those stupid things but I find it way more likely that they went "oh hey we have money we can buy cool (stupid) thing that we want (like most consumer suckas) -> uh oh, now we've lost our job time to sell expensive (unnecessary) thing that we own. Then that they went oh hey we have no money let's go buy cool (stupid) thing that we want -> uh oh we finally realized we have no money time to sell expensive (unnecessary) thing that we own. In my experience, people who buy expensive things when they have no money will do just about anything to keep from selling whatever it is and very seldom realize that they should sell the thing.

[Bloop Bloop]

The iPhone X only came out a few years ago so anyone who can go from "being able to afford an iPhone X" to "having nil money and also having a kid" within the space of a couple of years is either very bad with money, or very very unlucky. Like, house destroyed by a tornado unlucky (and no home insurance unlucky).

I don't agree with the "no one should have an iPhone" crowd. If someone is earning a high income and can write off the iPhone as a business expense, it may well make mustachian sense to get one.

[Fae]

The iPhone X only came out a few years ago so anyone who can go from "being able to afford an iPhone X" to "having nil money and also having a kid" within the space of a couple of years is either very bad with money, or very very unlucky. Like, house destroyed by a tornado unlucky (and no home insurance unlucky).

I don't agree with the "no one should have an iPhone" crowd. If someone is earning a high income and can write off the iPhone as a business expense, it may well make mustachian sense to get one.

Having never seen the original facebook posts I don't know if the Iphone X owners were complaining about having no money, but the poster on this site said they had no money COMING in, not that they had NO money, which is two different situations.

[Bloop Bloop]

I assume if you resort to pawning electronics then you have no money (ie no savings), since it would otherwise be much more sensible to rely on your savings.

[ducky19]

The iPhone X only came out a few years ago so anyone who can go from "being able to afford an iPhone X" to "having nil money and also having a kid" within the space of a couple of years is either very bad with money, or very very unlucky. Like, house destroyed by a tornado unlucky (and no home insurance unlucky).

I don't agree with the "no one should have an iPhone" crowd. If someone is earning a high income and can write off the iPhone as a business expense, it may well make mustachian sense to get one.

Having never seen the original facebook posts I don't know if the Iphone X owners were complaining about having no money, but the poster on this site said they had no money COMING in, not that they had NO money, which is two different situations.

Based on the other comments being made by the couple selling the phone, they did not have money in addition to having no income. A quick look at their public profile confirms they have been in that situation for some time. I'm not saying that no one ever should own an iPhone X, only that if you're obviously struggling to make ends meet - and have been for some time - there's no excuse for owning one. Apologies for not sharing the full context of the post.

[Fae]

Based on the other comments being made by the couple selling the phone, they did not have money in addition to having no income. A quick look at their public profile confirms they have been in that situation for some time. I'm not saying that no one ever should own an iPhone X, only that if you're obviously struggling to make ends meet - and have been for some time - there's no excuse for owning one. Apologies for not sharing the full context of the post.

Well, they were trying to sell it. :)

I assume if you resort to pawning electronics then you have no money (ie no savings), since it would otherwise be much more sensible to rely on your savings.

While ducky19's update shows that in this case the couple actually doesn't have any money. I'm going to push back on your comment because if someone needs to rely on their savings for an indeterminate amount of time (i.e. job loss, etc) it is very sensible to maximize that by any means, including selling off expensive electronics especially if you can get a much cheaper replacement.

[sliverstorm]

mm1970, your experience more closely matches mine, I think. I don't worry about organic too much but I buy whole wheat, I look for pasture-raised eggs & grassfed dairy (dramatically changes their nutrition profile, for the better. Pasture-raised eggs have literally 2x many of the beneficial nutrients). None of those things are as cheap as the bottom shelf choice.

The other night I was thinking about this, and the people who explain they eat like kings with four people and $100/week. I had made pasta with a roasted tomato sauce. 2lbs of tomatoes, $2/lb. 1lb of whole wheat pasta, maybe $2/lb. 2 shallots, $0.50ea. Real parmesean, olive oil, spices, and some balsamic. Grow the basil myself. It's delicious, homemade, reasonably healthy. It also probably cost $8-10, and two people eat it in one sitting. It could be done cheaper but mostly only by compromising on quality or only making it in July when tomatoes are at their cheapest.

I'm going to pursue CSA's this year. Might be my saving grace.

Farmer's markets used to be where you could go to get fresh locally produced food cheaply because the farmer could sell direct and cut out the middle man.

Now that they are trendy the prices are higher than retail and much of the food sold is not local or even grown by the "farmer" selling it.

This has been my observation as well, most of the goods are not made by the sellers and the prices aren't awesome.

[habanero]

The other night I was thinking about this, and the people who explain they eat like kings with four people and $100/week. I had made pasta with a roasted tomato sauce. 2lbs of tomatoes, $2/lb. 1lb of whole wheat pasta, maybe $2/lb. 2 shallots, $0.50ea. Real parmesean, olive oil, spices, and some balsamic. Grow the basil myself. It's delicious, homemade, reasonably healthy. It also probably cost $8-10, and two people eat it in one sitting. It could be done cheaper but mostly only by compromising on quality or only making it in July when tomatoes are at their cheapest.

If you are making a veggie pasta dish and spend 4-5 bucks pr. capita its rather expensive. You measurements are also off the charts - you dont use 2lb (about 1kg) of tomatoes for 2 persons, nor 1lb of pasta.  I eat extremely well in one of the most expensive countries in the world and I dont think I even could manage to spend 8-10 bucks on a veggie pasta dish for 2 adults even if I tried (truffles excluded, of course). 

[habanero]

The other night I was thinking about this, and the people who explain they eat like kings with four people and $100/week. I had made pasta with a roasted tomato sauce. 2lbs of tomatoes, $2/lb. 1lb of whole wheat pasta, maybe $2/lb. 2 shallots, $0.50ea. Real parmesean, olive oil, spices, and some balsamic. Grow the basil myself. It's delicious, homemade, reasonably healthy. It also probably cost $8-10, and two people eat it in one sitting. It could be done cheaper but mostly only by compromising on quality or only making it in July when tomatoes are at their cheapest.

If you are making a veggie pasta dish and spend 4-5 bucks pr. capita its rather expensive. You measurements are also off the charts - you dont use 2lb (about 1kg) of tomatoes for 2 persons, nor 1lb of pasta.  I eat extremely well in one of the most expensive countries in the world and I dont think I even could manage to spend 8-10 bucks on a veggie pasta dish for 2 adults even if I tried (truffles excluded, of course).

If you want fancy pasta, get flour and eggs (or water if cutting costs) and a pasta machine. Fancy store-bought pasta doesn't make very much sense - its one of the simplest products there is. The ingredients cost next to nothing.

Same goes for bread. One can easily bake artisan sourdough bread at home at 1/10 of the cost in the store. Flour is cheap, sourdough is free (albeit a tiny maintance cost as you have to feed it every 3 weeks or so). Its nothing bout flour, salt and water and time. Nothing fancy. Key ingredient is time, which is free.
[/quote]

[Kitsune]

SNIP ... only making it in July when tomatoes are at their cheapest.

I'm going to pursue CSA's this year. Might be my saving grace.

Yeah. That's the trick with tomato sauce. Out-of-season tomatoes are expensive, there's just no getting around it (mind: I love tomatoes in salad and sandwiches, and do buy them sparingly for that in winter!) But if you're gonna eat out of season... there is a cost. (also: we use 1lb of pasta for 2 adults and 2 kids. 1.5lb if we want 2 lunches for the adults the next day. You sure your measurements are on?)

With regards to cost - I think that might have a lot to do with location (obv, but...). We buy pasture-raised pork from the farm down the hill: 3.25CAD/lb (and oh gawd that bacon *swoon*). The farmer's market has maybe 10 stalls total and is actually staffed by the local farmers/beekeepers/this one group of early-20s hipsters selling sprouts (side-note: if you're willing to put in minor amounts of time and have a window, sprouts are DIRT CHEAP to grow and super healthy to eat), and the cost is reasonable. Beef from the farm is 5$/lb if in bulk - grass-fed, pasture-raised, etc. A colleague has chickens, I get free-range eggs for 4$CAD/dozen (grocery store is 1$ cheaper for conventional eggs). I'm assuming no one in LA is getting those kinds of prices or has a decent actually-farmer farmer's market! That said, when I lived in Montreal: A 30$ CSA basket provided ample veggies for a mostly-vegetarian household of 2, so that's definitely an option - but again, you're getting what's in season, period.

But, y'know. Even without that kind of access, healthy eating on a budget is possible. I make a mindblowing whole wheat sourdough bread (15 mins hands-on effort over a 24h period), and 50% whole wheat flour and it is still light and fluffy bread - works out to 75c/loaf, because whole wheat flour is more expensive, but still not breaking the budget). Tuck these beans on top, maybe some salad or sprouts on the side... and it's a maybe-5$ dinner for 4: https://smittenkitchen.com/2019/04/cannellini-aglio-e-olio/ Per yesterday's example, and even the toddler chowed down. But yeah, if it's not in season, you pay. That's the balance for out-of-season: it's time/energy/transport.
 
ETA: for reference, according to my YNAB, we spend an average of 160CAD/week (about 120USD) on all in-home food (including alcohol - husband loves making cocktails, wine, coffee, tea, bulk meat - we set aside 90$/month on that and spend it all in the fall). I'm very much into cooking and cook fairly healthy - pasture-raised meats or otherwise vegetarian, good parmesan and olive oil, fresh herbs, whole wheat and whole grains when possible, etc. But also in-season, with access to direct-from-the-farm food. From experience, when we're tight, I can cut that down by about 100$ a month but then quality and interest goes down somewhat, and the savings aren't worth the loss of enjoyment if not necessary.

[sliverstorm]

You measurements are also off the charts - you dont use 2lb (about 1kg) of tomatoes for 2 persons, nor 1lb of pasta.

(You sure your measurements are on?)

Yup. We usually buy dry pasta in 16oz packages. One package, one dinner. Usually no leftovers. I struggle to keep on weight sometimes.

I do bake my own bread, and it's completely ruined store bought for me. Usually around a buck a loaf, cheap flour is about 0.$50/lb and nice flour (including whole wheat) is about $1.00/lb. They usually last a day.

I envy your access, those prices you quote on meat, eggs, and so forth are pretty good. Not sure if there's anything similar near me.

It does seem pretty clear we eat a lot. A loaf of bread, a can of beans, and some artichoke would be a really light dinner for two of us, not a filling dinner for 4. We'd be back in the kitchen raiding the fruit bowl in about an hour.

If you want fancy pasta, get flour and eggs (or water if cutting costs) and a pasta machine. Fancy store-bought pasta doesn't make very much sense - its one of the simplest products there is. The ingredients cost next to nothing.

I wouldn't call the pasta we get fancy, but that's a good idea. I'll look at how the cost would work out. Thanks.

[Kitsune]

(You sure your measurements are on?)

Yup. We usually buy dry pasta in 16oz packages. One package, one dinner. Usually no leftovers. I struggle to keep on weight sometimes.

I do bake my own bread, and it's completely ruined store bought for me. Usually around a buck a loaf, cheap flour is about 0.$50/lb and nice flour (including whole wheat) is about $1.00/lb. They usually last a day.

I envy your access, those prices you quote on meat, eggs, and so forth are pretty good. Not sure if there's anything similar near me.

It does seem pretty clear we eat a lot. A loaf of bread, a can of beans, and some artichoke would be a pretty light dinner for two of us, not a filling dinner for 4.

16oz of pasta leaves leftovers (looking at tonight's dinner) so... yeah, some of that might be quantity. For the beans: I had doubled that recipe. :)

Yeah... access definitely can determine overall spending. But to be clear: I live rural with VERY few grocery options within 50km, and the one grocery store is literally 40% more than the city store (and it's a chain, not a local small place where I could at least say I was supporting local commerce). I cobbled together a network of access to good food, but it wasn't easy. (Also, Quebec milk = 6.80/gallon, by law. And I have small children). So: we all have our limitations re: access. Sometimes the solution is spending more money (no shame! If it works and you have it...), but sometimes it's finding alternative options that are outside the box.

[habanero]

Eating (very) well on a (relatively) modest budget is, like most other things in life a skill that needs to be learnt. It involves cooking skills, shopping skills and planning skills. Knowing what is worth paying a premium for and what is not. Knowing what to make and what to buy. Knowing when to buy what (i.e. when sth is in season).

As everyone has to eat several times every day, this is one of the most profitable skills one can develop. Knowing how to do this can be repeated totally risk free every day, every month, every year for the rest of your life. In addition it probably has significant health benefits and general well-being.

When going to a fancy restaurant one is first and foremost paying for rent and salaries, not produce. If you go to a top notch restaurant (like Michelin-star quality) and total the cost of the ingredients used to make the 7-8-15-20 courses of the meal, it is likely to be far less than one would assume. The plates do however contain large ammounts of labour and skill.

I do by no means cook fancy restaurant food at home, but I do know how to cook reasonably well for an amateur and I do understand how to eat very well without paying a lot for it. In general, eating well does not require buying expensive products. The most humble ingredients can make up a great meal when done properly.