Overheard on Facebook

[Sugaree]

I ran across this gem this morning.

snippety snip

This makes the tax geek in me cringe.  I did enjoy pointing out how this hypothetical family would likely get more back in refundable CTCs than they paid in ($52k/year MFJ - $24k standard deduction = $28k taxable income  --> $2982 tax plus two CTCs that are at least partially refundable).

OK, so my salary is about 3500 gross per month (just above mean for a family), assume I make 4k per month to make a reasonable comparrison. My "usage" is the same, tax is localised.

Salary 1k per week: 23% tax (first 8k per year (about) is tax-free, after that it's bracketed where I average at 23%) = 230
Groceries (assuming food only, so no Coca Cola etc): 9% tax = 18 (in reality, anything not meat or vegetable is 21% VAT)
Gas (VAT and other taxes): 63% = 249,48 (assuming 1 gallon = 4 liters, at 1.65 per liter petrol current price for 2 cars)

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, @Linda_Norway?

But my car is also taxed seperately, just for sitting still on the road (weight-bracketed, I have a small 1200kg mid-class) so another 50 per month (times 2 if you have 2 cars, of course). We also pay 21% VAT on elektric, water and other utilities. My house, property and sewer usage is also taxed. They want to tax the overproduction of my solar panels too.

The list, of course, goes on...

Do you feel like you get a decent return on your tax dollars though?  Alabama is about to institute a 10 cent per gallon tax on gas to "fix the infrastructure."  In reality, I imagine that very little of that money will actually go to fix our crumbling roads and bridges.

[RWD]

I ran across this gem this morning.

30 gallons of gas a week? That's 47k miles of driving per year at 30 mpg! Their "family cars" must be Ford F-350s...

[Sugaree]

I ran across this gem this morning.

30 gallons of gas a week? That's 47k miles of driving per year at 30 mpg! Their "family cars" must be Ford F-350s...

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

[RWD]

I ran across this gem this morning.

30 gallons of gas a week? That's 47k miles of driving per year at 30 mpg! Their "family cars" must be Ford F-350s...

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

Yeah, that seemed excessive too.

[penguintroopers]

I ran across this gem this morning.

30 gallons of gas a week? That's 47k miles of driving per year at 30 mpg! Their "family cars" must be Ford F-350s...

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

Yeah, that seemed excessive too.

I too got stuck on how on earth they chugged 30 gallons of gas in a week. I use about 9 gallons a week by myself, but I drive MORE than the American average (granted, its in a prius).

I shrugged past the groceries as $800/mo for a family of 4 in some of my circles would be seen as average to frugal. We get looks like we have three heads if we ever mention our food spending (Hubs had the mistake of sharing at work one day).

Also, this example doesn't seem to compare marginal vs effective tax rate (which would likely decrease the taxed amount?).

[Sugaree]

Also, this example doesn't seem to compare marginal vs effective tax rate (which would likely decrease the taxed amount?).

Exactly.  To start with this would be 12%, not 22%.  And a family that is parents and two kids (as you'd expect from a family of four with two cars) making $52k a year filing MFJ would immediately get the standard deduction for $24k, reducing their taxable income down to $28k.  Tax on that for MFJ is $2982 for the year, or $57.35 per week.  But once you apply the child tax credits for each child the tax liability will come down to zero or below (I'm unclear in which order the refundable vs. non-refundable portions of the CTC are applied). 

[Alfred J Quack]

I ran across this gem this morning.

snippety snip

This makes the tax geek in me cringe.  I did enjoy pointing out how this hypothetical family would likely get more back in refundable CTCs than they paid in ($52k/year MFJ - $24k standard deduction = $28k taxable income  --> $2982 tax plus two CTCs that are at least partially refundable).

OK, so my salary is about 3500 gross per month (just above mean for a family), assume I make 4k per month to make a reasonable comparrison. My "usage" is the same, tax is localised.

Salary 1k per week: 23% tax (first 8k per year (about) is tax-free, after that it's bracketed where I average at 23%) = 230
Groceries (assuming food only, so no Coca Cola etc): 9% tax = 18 (in reality, anything not meat or vegetable is 21% VAT)
Gas (VAT and other taxes): 63% = 249,48 (assuming 1 gallon = 4 liters, at 1.65 per liter petrol current price for 2 cars)

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, @Linda_Norway?

But my car is also taxed seperately, just for sitting still on the road (weight-bracketed, I have a small 1200kg mid-class) so another 50 per month (times 2 if you have 2 cars, of course). We also pay 21% VAT on elektric, water and other utilities. My house, property and sewer usage is also taxed. They want to tax the overproduction of my solar panels too.

The list, of course, goes on...

Do you feel like you get a decent return on your tax dollars though?  Alabama is about to institute a 10 cent per gallon tax on gas to "fix the infrastructure."  In reality, I imagine that very little of that money will actually go to fix our crumbling roads and bridges.

Lets just say that I had a hospital and other medical bill of around 200k the last 5 years due to various causes (appendectomy, run over by a motor bike, son with downsyndrome and all related medical checks and some not so related, other son with severe speech problems etc.). Annual healthcare cost is around 2500 with free healthcare for the kids until their 18th birthday.

Also, we have, just about, the smoothest roads in Europe ;)

[BlueHouse]

I love love love that kind of ice. They actually have one at work next to the sparkling water dispenser. I joked at orientation that the best perk of joining this company is sparkling water on tap. I’m so spoiled.

I would quit.  I can't stand people chewing ice near me and if a company provided something that drove half the people crazy, I just would have to leave!

[jinga nation]

I ran across this gem this morning.

<snippedtosavedearreadersvaluablebandwidth>

This makes the tax geek in me cringe.  I did enjoy pointing out how this hypothetical family would likely get more back in refundable CTCs than they paid in ($52k/year MFJ - $24k standard deduction = $28k taxable income  --> $2982 tax plus two CTCs that are at least partially refundable).

I stopped reading at "Most Alabam...". But just to verify that it would be stupid, I had to read it. Because if it's on them internets it must be gospel truths.

I promise that we aren't all that stupid.

Every population has statistical outliers. Anomalies. Fake data points. :-p

[horsepoor]

I ran across this gem this morning.

30 gallons of gas a week? That's 47k miles of driving per year at 30 mpg! Their "family cars" must be Ford F-350s...

Even if I drove my V-10 F-250 everywhere, I wouldn't run through that much gas.  WTF.

I also like how this doesn't differentiate between federal and state, it's just DA' GUBMINT!

[JAYSLOL]

I'm trying to sell some brand new Levi's on Facebook marketplace, I had 2 pair that were 30 length and 2 pair that were 34 length.  The 30s sold right away, and like 6 more people wrote but were only interested in the 30s, and were super disappointed I only had the 34s left.  I'm selling them for ~1/4 of retail price and they still have all the stickers on them, it amazes me no one is willing or able to shorten the 34s to the right size themselves to get a great deal...

And yet you haven't done it to sell them, either.

I'm not going to alter brand new jeans, then they won't be brand new and I'd be lucky to sell them at all.  Plus, it's Facebook marketplace, a dozen people will say they will buy something and then back out before someone finally shows up, I don't want to alter something for someone who may or may not actually show up and pay.

What is the waist size on your jeans? I wear a 36, would be interested if that's what they are! ;)

Yeah, actually those were 36, but I sold them shortly after posting my little rant lol.  A month ago I went to a liquidation place that was having a clothing sale and bought a bunch of really good clothes for pennies on the dollar (brand new Levi's jeans, brand new Helly Hansen fleece etc) and figured I would clean them out of all the Levi's, I got 5 pairs for myself, 3 for a relative and 17 extra pairs to resell, I only started posting them at the beginning of march and have sold 11 of the 17 and am well into the black :)

[mustachepungoeshere]

An acquaintance bragged that she has decided to do the frugal thing and take her daughter to the US rather than drop $7000 on a 16th birthday party.

Experience over gifts? Absolutely.

$7000 for a teen birthday party? Hell no.

[I'm a red panda]

An acquaintance bragged that she has decided to do the frugal thing and take her daughter to the US rather than drop $7000 on a 16th birthday party.

Experience over gifts? Absolutely.

$7000 for a teen birthday party? Hell no.

1) OMG that's insane.

2) Unless flights TO here cost a lot less than flights from here to Oz (we so badly want to go but can't stomach that cost); I have a hard time believing this is a "Frugal" option.  The kind of person who drops $7000 on a birthday party is not going to have a US holiday for less than that... I doubt she's going to be staying at $80/night hotels...

[Just Joe]

I wonder if that parent will supply the teen with a car and how much they'll spend...

[jinga nation]

An acquaintance bragged that she has decided to do the frugal thing and take her daughter to the US rather than drop $7000 on a 16th birthday party.

Experience over gifts? Absolutely.

$7000 for a teen birthday party? Hell no.

1) OMG that's insane.

2) Unless flights TO here cost a lot less than flights from here to Oz (we so badly want to go but can't stomach that cost); I have a hard time believing this is a "Frugal" option.  The kind of person who drops $7000 on a birthday party is not going to have a US holiday for less than that... I doubt she's going to be staying at $80/night hotels...

A quick search shows plane tickets from Orlando to Sydney just over USD 1000. I'm guessing the mom realized that for AUD 7k she and daughter could fly to Disney World and have a grand time and not deal with a house full of 16yos. Frugal on the mind maybe, def not on the wallet. But if you believe the claptrap of "once if your life you must visit the Swamp Rat"... great deal. Best. Deal. Ever.

[HamsterStache]

$7000 for a teen birthday party? Hell no.

I've been to a sweet 16 and a bar mitzvah that each had to be budgeted far over that, (not including gifts like a BMW for the 16 y/o). I don't know how much renting out an entire nightclub two blocks from time square for a whole Saturday evening runs you, but that can't be cheap.

[Dave1442397]

$7000 for a teen birthday party? Hell no.

I've been to a sweet 16 and a bar mitzvah that each had to be budgeted far over that, (not including gifts like a BMW for the 16 y/o). I don't know how much renting out an entire nightclub two blocks from time square for a whole Saturday evening runs you, but that can't be cheap.

A co-worker had been complaining that she couldn't afford to replace her old minivan, and then told us that she had given her twins the option of having a bar mitzvah party or going on a family cruise. She said either option was going to cost $20,000. They picked the cruise.

I wanted to say, "Why don't you have a cheap bar mitzvah party and buy yourself a new (used) minivan?". 

We might have spent $100 on a party for my daughter when she was 13. She invited all her friends over, we set up back yard party games, had burgers, hot dogs, etc, and an ice cream buffet for dessert. The kids loved it, and I feel like I saved $19,900 :)

[letsdoit]

i'm gonna teach my son to say with attitude,
'if someone says the word budget again, i am gonna POP!'
like they do on those reality TV shows about spoiled kids

[Mississippi Mudstache]

I ran across this gem this morning.

30 gallons of gas a week? That's 47k miles of driving per year at 30 mpg! Their "family cars" must be Ford F-350s...

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

I was also about to point out that groceries are tax exempt in most states, but it looks like Alabama is one of the few states that charges full sales tax on them.

[dragoncar]

Maybe an economist can explain to me.. if you remove taxes on groceries does the price of groceries just go up by the amount of the tax?  I suppose that’s not the case with EVs, but it must also depend on how free the market is (opportunity for seller collusion)

[merula]

Maybe an economist can explain to me.. if you remove taxes on groceries does the price of groceries just go up by the amount of the tax?  I suppose that’s not the case with EVs, but it must also depend on how free the market is (opportunity for seller collusion)

Ooo! OOO! I love demand curves!



This is from a blog talking about adding a cigarette tax, but the principles apply to any good, you just have to reverse the movement of the arrows (instead of going from supply to supply+tax, we're going from supply+tax to supply).

Under the economic principle of rational actors, buyers are adjusting their purchases of groceries because of the tax. People who would buy a gallon of milk when it's $2.50, but not when it's $3 are currently not buying milk. If we removed the taxes, those buyers would buy milk. This is shown by the difference in quantity purchased between "supply+tax" and "supply".

On the production side, if we assume sellers are only making $2 per gallon of milk, so the same number of producers are willing to sell at $2 with and without tax. This is shown by the vertical line at 400 quantity in the graph between supply and supply+tax.

Without the tax, the price and quantity would equalize at the market rate. People who are willing to buy milk at $3 and can now get it at $2.50 have a "demand surplus". Sellers who are willing to sell at $2 but can sell at $2.50 have a supply surplus. Those groups are economically better off than they were with the tax. This is represented by the sum of the areas in green, red and blue.

The government is worse off economically because it doesn't have the revenue that resulted from the demand and supply surpluses (areas in red and green).

Overall, the economy is better off by the area in blue without tax, the "dead weight loss". However, if we're talking about the cigarette example, we need to weigh the economic loss against the public policy gain of lower rates of smoking.

[TexasRunner]

Overall, the economy is better off by the area in blue without tax, the "dead weight loss". However, if we're talking about the cigarette example, we need to weigh the economic loss against the public policy gain of lower rates of smoking.

Great post!  I think the main things is that groceries (and food in general) has a minimum mandatory purchase for each person, ergo the traditional laws of economics go out the window...  People have to eat something...  In reality it isn't 'more demand' vs 'more expense' in as much as purchase XX vs YY.  IE purchase groceries vs takeout, etc.

Overall, I would say people buying groceries typically leads to people eating somewhat healthier foods (Texas doesn't tax-exclude pre-made items), and as such it makes sense to push people towards those options as public policy.

Also is the theory (or sentiment) that people shouldn't have to pay taxes to merely exist / survive.  Obviously this isn't fully implemented in society but it does factor into the 'should we tax food' equation.

[Threshkin]

Big Snip

Do you feel like you get a decent return on your tax dollars though?  Alabama is about to institute a 10 cent per gallon tax on gas to "fix the infrastructure."  In reality, I imagine that very little of that money will actually go to fix our crumbling roads and bridges.

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. 

Politicians, can't trust any of them except for one thing.  That they will F you over.

[zolotiyeruki]

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.

[Threshkin]

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. 

[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.