I'm disappointed to see no separate category for childcare. This is easily my family's biggest expense.

I'm thinking that childcare is a huge hit for a limited number of years. It doesn't apply to households without children or with grown children, and it shrinks dramatically when the youngest starts school. When you average all the households, I suspect you'd see a little percentage overall--not much help in understanding how big it is for your family right now.

It's a lot until Kindergarten. If the 2nd spouse working doesn't earn well above an average wage, the family tends to be treading water, since the working spouse can't cook at home quite as easily, so food costs go up, along with the child care, extra driving, extra visits to doctor (childhood illnesses come more often with child care obviously).... On a per hour basis in most cities, you are looking at above $7/hr for the childcare or preschool.
So, if the working spouse is earning like $15 hour, sure you can pull ahead somewhat financially, but....you buy that modest gain at the cost of stress and someone else raising your 3 yr. old. Sometimes that can be okay, sometimes not so much.

I spent a ton on pie this year, but I don't know how to visually represent that.

Let's make the pie bigger so we can get proportionally the same, or even less if we allow the 1% to take more. ;)

I'm afraid that when it comes to pie consumption, I am the 1%.

Re: that paragraph at the end about the behavior of the poor. Believe it or not, a writer at the humor site Cracked.com, John Cheese, writes spot on about being poor (since he was for a long time). Worth reading:

http://www.cracked.com/blog...

OK am I the only one who read this "John Cleese"?

Wow as some one who broke free from poverty that was almost a freaky read.

Especially the point about knowing exactly how much money is in your bank account, I still haven't stopped obsessing over that number on a daily basis.

I love Cracked.

.

Okay, the charts tell us what we already knew. If you work for a living or can't find work, you are screwed. Rather than stating the obvious, let's come up with some solutions.

let's come up with some solutions.

Eat the rich.

Eating the rich would only concentrate their wealth further... All their financial assets would be given to a smaller and smaller percentage of their family members and peers as a result of living wills. So, in order for this solution to work, we would first have to eat all of the children of the rich, thereby ending the cycle of wealth passing from one generation to the next. Jonathon Swift is smiling somewhere right now...

Only if they're grass-fed and pastured! :)

I would, but I couldn't afford the health care.

I'm thinking something is missing from the chart. I can't quite see it. Something big ... Hmmm, what could it be? Oh, wait a second ... maybe I see it ... I think I got it ....

OH YEAH, YOU MISSED TAXES!

The average American will 29.4% of their income on taxes this year at all levels. That's a lager slice of the pie than any of the pieces mentioned.

That's the piece that's making it hard to make ends meet. It's also the piece that causes people to create less economic activity that would allow people to afford more of items on in the chart instead of supporting bureaucrats.

if less individual income were spent on taxes, the outlays to the other categories would be astronomically higher. I don't know about you, but I don't actually live in Libertopia. I can't afford to pave my own roads, operate my own air traffic control towers, inspect my own meat, launch my own weather satellites, hire my own private mercenary forces, treat my own polluted water, or contract my own private fire brigade and EMS service.

Edit: I can however afford the 29.4% of my income it takes to live in a world where I don't have to worry about dying at any moment from dysentery or at the hands of lawless marauders around the next bend of every dirt road.

Amongst other things, I find people's obsession with public air-traffic control systems very odd. Canada and most European countries have private air traffic control systems and are hardly libertarian. If you've ever sent a package UPS you've managed to help fund the FAA's non-federal control tower program. Even the federal towers were meant to be funded largely by taxes on aviation gasoline and kerosene.

If we only spent on everything you mentioned, we could cut federal spending by 90%, state and local by 50%.

How dumb do you have to be to think that's an exhaustive list? That nothing else the gov't does matters?

The biggest items missing from his list are medicare and social security. Take away those and the poorest Americans have a huge extra burden in their expenses and a huge income loss. That kills economic activity, and for what? To let the rich pad their bank accounts more and add to the idle $2T in excess reserves that the banks can't find safe borrowers for?

God knows the feds have ENOUGH of our money to throw around--witness the invention of PRISM...

Silly! If the NRA has taught us anything is that all of life's problems can be solved with a bullet! We don't need taxes, just more guns!

If only you realized how little of your tax money goes to things like that, or how few of those things are done by the government.

I understand very well where my tax dollars go, that many of the services I listed are contracted out to the private sector. That doesn't change the fact that the initiative, organization, cooperation, oversight, and funding to accomplish it all comes from the public sphere.

As someone who has traveled a bit overseas, I'm going to profoundly disagree with you about the value we get from our taxes.
You don't have to travel to archetypal Somalia or a 3rd world country. Go to many "western" countries outside of Europe. It's quite eye opening. It changed my perspective COMPLETELY.
It's a shame more citizens of U.S.A. can't be exposed to the outside world. Perspective is a wonderful thing.

Wait. I thought we wanted to get rid of corporate welfare... Now you have 29.4% to give for that...

I'm guessing that these numbers are after tax. It would be interesting to see gross comparisons between rich and poor.

Because the United States is such an unequal society the 'average' or mean figures are highly distorted by a small number of super-rich at the top.

Because of this the median (i.e. the exact middle point) is usually more reflective of the reality of most Americans.

And the bottom 50%+ that pay nothing. Distortion goes both ways.

Pays not Federal Income tax, but if you do you research instead of using talking points like a parrot begging for a cracker, you'll realize they pay payroll taxes. And it equates to about thirty percent of their income as well..

If you had any freaking idea what you were actually talking about, you'd be more incline to complain about the capital gains tax, which is at a rate of about half of payroll or income tax. Why should a person making money by having money, pay less on that income then the people who break their back earning money?

They also pay sales tax. Everybody who goes to a checkout--illegals, poor, rich, etc.--pays sales tax.

I'm from Montana, we don't have sales tax.

The biggest reason capital gains is taxed at a lower rate is because the individual uses his/her already taxed income to invest in activty X or stock Y at the personal risk of losing that money in the hopes that their investment generates a return. If you raise the capital gains tax, levels of investment will greatly decrease, mainly in the form of middle class investors with a stock portfolio, trying to save for retirement.

Also incorrect. Most moneys used to generate capital gains is at this point inherited wealth, not created wealth. Add to that the reality that most highly compensated individuals dodge income taxes in the first place, and you quickly realize that the "double taxation" myth is just a myth.

Oh, and sorry, but investments as a ratio of GDP have fallen since the capital gains taxes were lowered. You have fallen for the libertarian propaganda.

EDIT: Had to add a third point. So, you're saying that they should be taxed less because they're playing casino with the stock market, risking money to try to make more? So, by that logic, individuals that win at casinos should never pay taxes on those winnings, correct? Gambling cuts both ways....

"""""Also incorrect. Most moneys used to generate capital gains is at this point inherited wealth, not created wealth.""""

Not true. You should stop buying the socialist propaganda.

[quote]
1. According to a study of Federal Reserve data conducted by NYU professor Edward Wolff, for the nation’s richest 1%, inherited wealth accounted for only 9% of their net worth in 2001, down from 23% in 1989. (The 2001 number was the latest available.)

2. According to a study by Prince & Associates, less than 10% of today’s multi-millionaires cited “inheritance” as their source of wealth.

3. A study by Spectrem Group found that among today’s millionaires, inherited wealth accounted for just 2% of their total sources of wealth.
[/quote]

http://blogs.wsj.com/wealth...

I'll allow your study cherry picking for the moment, but I decline to interact without further research time that I don't feel like spending right now. How about my other two points?

What do you say about investments as a ratio of GDP having fallen since capital gains taxes were lowered? Shouldn't investments have taken off exponentially with more investment moneys available to be re-used? By the by, this is a similar fallacy to "trickle down" economics; with taxes lowered on the richest for over a decade, the richest have simply gotten richer, no jobs or any other mythical "trickle down" events have come to pass.

Then, by your logic, should winnings in lotteries and casinos be taxed? That is risking money on uncertain venture in hope to earn more, is it not? That is exactly what investors and stock market players do, and claim the double taxation myth as their bulletproof shield. Casino gamblers are actually being double taxed on their casino winnings, but I don't see you crying about that.

"""Then, by your logic, should winnings in lotteries and casinos be taxed?"""

Absolutely not. Neither should gifts.

""""Casino gamblers are actually being double taxed on their casino winnings, but I don't see you crying about that."""

Really? That's where you're going to make your stand?

I'm not making a stand on any one thing, I asked what you had to say about it. At least we agree that those activities represent actual double taxation and should not be taxed, or at the very least should not be taxed so highly.

I pointed out those things because they're always missing from impassioned defense of "job creators" being "double taxed." My feeling is those activities are never mentioned because they fall outside the current libertarian propaganda since the beneficiaries there would not be the ultra-rich, but that's just an opinion without evidentiary backing; call it a hunch.

""""I pointed out those things because they're always missing from impassioned defense of "job creators" being "double taxed.""""

That's because liberals are never screaming about gamblers not paying their fair share!! I never see protest signs saying "Tax the gamblers!!!"

Jesus Christ, man. We'd like to lower everybody's taxes, You're the ones who always single out and harp on and on about capital gains, so that's what we talk about! Christ! How can you be so un-self-aware???

That's because gamblers do pay, so why would we cry that they aren't? My personal opinion is that all forms of "free" money, be it gambling, stock market playing, investment gambling, inheritance or any number of other things, should be taxed MORE than payroll, income and true investment. One is using money to merely make more money for oneself, with no added benefit to anyone at all, the other is producing benefit to society which should lower tax burden. Those are just my opinions of course, since I have no data on what the consequences of such an arrangement would be.

And, dude, you can't lower everyone's taxes, or all you do is shift the burden of taxation down the social rungs. Oh, but wait, that's just what libertarians want, isn't it? I forgot....

"""My personal opinion is that all forms of "free" money, be it gambling, stock market playing, investment gambling"""

Why? If it's gambling, then it's a closed system, and the winners are just taking from the losers. So they're already paying, ie, when they lose. If you're going to tax the winners, then it would make sense to subsidize the losers.

Which, of course, is the typical socialist mindset.

""""inheritance""""

Why should productive people be punished by not letting them give their money to whomever they want? This is terrible for the incentive structure, since most parents are strongly driven by wanting to provide for their children's future.

""""And, dude, you can't lower everyone's taxes, or all you do is shift the burden of taxation down the social rungs. Oh, but wait, that's just what libertarians want, isn't it?""""

Not if we had a flat tax. And I'd like to see a flat tax, not because I lovezzz the richezzz, but because flat taxes are fair, and progressive taxes are not.

A flat tax will and does shift burdens to lower income participants in said tax system.

Simple example, flat tax of 20%:
$30,000 x .20 = $6,000 leaving remaining income of $24,000

$100,000 x .20 = $20,000 leaving remaining income of $80,000

$1 mil x .20 = .2 mil leaving remaining income of .8 mil

Just on its face, you are leaving the poorer of the spectrum with less disposable income. Just looking at the division of wealth in the US, there are far more lower income than higher income individuals. That means the more you take away from lower income individuals, the less disposable income they have to spend within our economy. By having a flat tax, you are greatly reducing disposable income which is the engine of our economy. This is hurtful to everyone, plain and simple.

Fair, then, needs some context. Is it fair to hurt all of society because you perceive that a flat tax is fairer when it is not fairer in the context of the entire society? I don't think that is fair, but you seem to think so.

EDIT: Wanted to take one bit separately:

""Why? If it's gambling, then it's a closed system, and the winners are just taking from the losers. So they're already paying, ie, when they lose. If you're going to tax the winners, then it would make sense to subsidize the losers.

Which, of course, is the typical socialist mindset.""

Sales are the same then, by your logic, someone is taking money from someone else to make a profit (purchaser = loser, profiteer = winner), so then why tax anything at all ever?

1. That's not what tax burden means. It has nothing to do with disposable income.
2. Shifting the tax burden doesn't reduce total disposable income. Disposable income is just income minus taxation. It follows that, Ceteris paribus, under a flat tax proposal the total gross income would remain the same, and the total tax revenue would remain the same, ergo the total disposal income is the same.
3. Disposable income isn't the engine of the economy. Capital goods and technological or efficiency gains are the engine of an economy.
4. By definition, there cant be more lower income people than higher income people, since those two terms are relative.
5. Sales are not the same. In a sale both parties gain. If Person A sells a widget to Person B, its because Person A values the money more then the widget, and Person B values the widget more than the money. Since they both gain what they valued more, they both win.

If all you can do is attack my choices of words, then you have a poor argument. Not to mention basic math and the last two decades of this failed tax policy are apparently too much evidence to sway your opinion.

Have a nice day. :)

I attack your words because I can't make sense out of anything you say because you don't know what you're talking about. Say what you mean and I could respond to it. And your basic math makes no sense either. My math is correct.

And the last two decades aren't failed tax policy. That's an empty phrase devoid of specifics. I have no idea what you're talking about.

The bottom line is that the ideas in your head are completely muddled. All you're trying to do is rationalize petty class war emotionalism with a disconnected hodge-podge of catch-phrases and slogans you've been fed that you don't even understand.

No, sorry, your math is for crap. You say everything would be equal if percentages change, but you forget that there are only 1% rich folks, and 99% that aren't. That changes the entire landscape of these mathematics, but you prattle on as if that doesn't exist at all, and I just don't have the patience for that kind of troll nonsense.

EDIT: deleted the rest, I don't feel like interacting any more.

Too bad, I got the rest of it in an email. And you deleted the rest because you realized it was just more confused gobbledegook. A flat tax structure can be revenue neutral relative to a progressive structure or not revenue neutral, whatever you want. If you want it neutral, you just set the rate such that it's neutral. If you want less revenue, set the rates so that it's less. If you want more, same thing. The total revenues are irrelevant. The point remains that it's unfair that some get government services they don't pay for. I'll even submit that the poorest could be relieved of their tax burden, since it doesn't amount to much anyway. But you don't do it out of FAIRNESS, maybe out of sympathy.

The last thing I'll say on this is that you either see fairness in relation to only yourself, or you see fairness in relation to what benefits all of society most.

It's obvious which version of fairness we each ascribe to. :)

I see fairness in relation to both the individual and society. Society is just a collection of individuals, ergo social justice is just the aggregation of individual justice. There is nothing that can be arrived at regarding social justice that can't be arrived at also by looking at the justice at an individual level, and if you treat an individual unfairly (by making him pay for something he does not use), it only makes society as a whole less fair as well.