Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

a kennedy

(29,669 posts)
Wed Apr 6, 2016, 11:10 PM Apr 2016

— Collectively, Americans will spend more on taxes in 2016 than they will on food, clothing, and

housing.

A tax advocacy group on Wednesday revealed that Americans spend more on taxes than their whole budget for food, clothing and housing.

The Tax Foundation, in its annual report on when the nation as a whole has earned enough to pay its taxes, announced the date as April 24.

"Tax Freedom Day gives us a vivid representation of how much federal, state, and local tax revenue is collected each year to pay for government goods and services," said Tax Foundation Analyst Scott Greenberg. "Arguments can be made that the tax bill is too high or too low, but in order to have an honest discussion, it's important for taxpayers to understand the cost of government. Tax Freedom Day helps people relate to that cost."

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/americans-spend-more-on-taxes-than-food-clothing-housing-combined/article/2587799

Is this true?? WOW if it is.

14 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
— Collectively, Americans will spend more on taxes in 2016 than they will on food, clothing, and (Original Post) a kennedy Apr 2016 OP
This is right wing garbage Sam_Fields Apr 2016 #1
Indeed it is. cheapdate Apr 2016 #2
Duh jberryhill Apr 2016 #3
I was just looking at my 2015 spreadsheet madville Apr 2016 #4
If your income tripled, would you eat more? jberryhill Apr 2016 #8
and if my income went to zero madville Apr 2016 #12
Well you'd quit paying taxes well before then jberryhill Apr 2016 #14
It's garbage. NutmegYankee Apr 2016 #5
Lots of variables madville Apr 2016 #7
Depends on who you are jberryhill Apr 2016 #10
Well, sure. Remember the original TEA Party? HassleCat Apr 2016 #6
Take that right wing bullshit and peddle it elsewhere. Stinky The Clown Apr 2016 #9
Is it true? Good grief. cheapdate Apr 2016 #11
"Collectively" X_Digger Apr 2016 #13
 

jberryhill

(62,444 posts)
3. Duh
Wed Apr 6, 2016, 11:27 PM
Apr 2016

And if your head is in a furnace and your feet are in a freezer then, on average, you feel fine.

That is a tremendously irrelevant metric of anything. As it turns out, people who aren't making enough money to feed, clothe and house themselves are also not paying any significant amount of taxes either. People who are paying substantial amounts of taxes are not really worried about affording food, clothes or housing. But this ridiculous comparison is aimed at making it seem that people are going hungry, naked or homeless because their taxes are too high. That's just s stupid notion.

As if there is some guy living on the street and hungry because he had unexpectedly high capital gains last year.

madville

(7,410 posts)
4. I was just looking at my 2015 spreadsheet
Wed Apr 6, 2016, 11:28 PM
Apr 2016

Taxes were a total of about $11,000 last year (federal income, FL state sales tax, utility and property taxes). Edit: Forgot about social security and Medicare, that's an extra $5,000 as well, so about $16,000 total counting those as taxes.

Food was about $5,000, clothing was $1,500, and housing was $7,000($9,300 if you count utilities).

They're both in the same ballpark, paying any and all of it sucks though!

 

jberryhill

(62,444 posts)
8. If your income tripled, would you eat more?
Wed Apr 6, 2016, 11:33 PM
Apr 2016

That's the problem with this meaningless comparison.

If your income tripled, your food expenses wouldn't.
 

jberryhill

(62,444 posts)
14. Well you'd quit paying taxes well before then
Wed Apr 6, 2016, 11:55 PM
Apr 2016

Nobody paying a substantial amount in taxes is going hungry.

What I pay in taxes is much more than what I spend on food, clothing and housing. But that's because what I pay in taxes is also more than the median US income.

There's only so much food a person can buy.

madville

(7,410 posts)
7. Lots of variables
Wed Apr 6, 2016, 11:33 PM
Apr 2016

If someone owns their house with no payment it's completely believable that total taxes would be much higher than housing costs.

 

jberryhill

(62,444 posts)
10. Depends on who you are
Wed Apr 6, 2016, 11:36 PM
Apr 2016

I own my home and run a business. Next to the practically nothing I pay for housing, my federal taxes are orders of magnitude higher. Likewise I easily pay ten times more in taxes than on food. So, for the purposes of keeping the "collective" tax/necessities figure over unity, I probably have most of my neighborhood covered.
 

HassleCat

(6,409 posts)
6. Well, sure. Remember the original TEA Party?
Wed Apr 6, 2016, 11:31 PM
Apr 2016

Somebody has to pay for F-35 fighters, surveillance by a dozen different agencies, arming city police forces with tanks and rockets, the for-profit prison system, and so on. I was sympathetic to the TEA Party when they first came out, before they became just the crazy wing of the crazy party. The TEA in their name stood for "taxed enough already," and I agree with that. We pay sufficient taxes that we should expect, maybe even demand, healthcare for everybody, good public education, a solid infrastructure, and so on. We are taxed enough, and we should get good government in return.

cheapdate

(3,811 posts)
11. Is it true? Good grief.
Wed Apr 6, 2016, 11:38 PM
Apr 2016

Look at your pay stub and your tax return. Add up your SSI and Medicaid payroll deductions. Add your federal and state income taxes paid and your property tax, if any. Is it 1/3 of your gross?

Mine is not, it's about 15%, slightly more than Mitt Romney's. My "tax freedom" day is around the end of February.

Regardless, I pay my taxes as is my civic obligation.

X_Digger

(18,585 posts)
13. "Collectively"
Wed Apr 6, 2016, 11:44 PM
Apr 2016

I see something similar when folks talk about how back in the days of the Roman Empire, the average life expectancy was 25 years-- they imagine senior citizens being rare, and 30 year old folks dropping like something from Logan's Run.

The reason that wasn't the case (Socrates was 70 when he committed suicide, Plato as 75/76) is that 'collectively' the average skews to the left when you take into account all the infants who never saw their first birthday. If you made it to adulthood, chances are you'd live to about the same age you do today.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»— Collectively, Americans...