Your annual expenditure poll

[Guest]

Hey guys,

 

I wanted to give you an update.

 

I went to my parents place tonight. Mom made some vegetable soup and I got leftovers.  8)

 

[given2invest]

Hey guys,

 

I wanted to give you an update.

 

I went to my parents place tonight. Mom made some vegetable soup and I got leftovers.  8)

 

Let me give you my update:  Still sounds awful  :P

[Guest]

Hey guys,

 

I wanted to give you an update.

 

I went to my parents place tonight. Mom made some vegetable soup and I got leftovers.  8)

 

Let me give you my update:  Still sounds awful  :P

 

hahaha. It's not too bad, man, seriously.

 

Also, the dating life ain't too bad either.  :o

[Liberty]

I guess that in the end, all of this depends on the "why" you want to have money.

 

If it's to have a nice car and party all night and buy nice things, then don't wait too long, do it now and enjoy life.

 

But for me, I wouldn't live much differently if I had a few millions. I'd have a nice house and a few more electronic gadgets, but that's not why I do it. I do it for the security. To know that I can do whatever I want, and it's ok. I can work on my projects all day and read my books and listen to my music and explore whatever piques my interest and never be forced to do stuff I don't want to do just for money. That's the end goal for me.

 

So being a bit frugal doesn't feel like a sacrifice to me because saving the money is helping me get something that is worth so much more. I don't want a ferrari or a yacht, I want personal independence.

[Parsad]

Hey guys,

 

I wanted to give you an update.

 

I went to my parents place tonight. Mom made some vegetable soup and I got leftovers.  8)

 

Paul, that's pretty funny!  Cheers!

[Parsad]

stahleyp - more power to you!

 

I would much rather pass on Paul's frugality and morals to my children, then anybody elses.  The fact that he enjoys his life, is comfortable with what he has, and is working towards making something more, is a lesson for much of that 99% out there.  By the way, I think Given is just jealous, because he knows how good Mom's cooking can be!  ;D  Cheers! 

[ERICOPOLY]

By the way, this whole fast food and soft drinks are killing our children thing falls into the NRA philosophy:  Guns don't kill people, people kill people...so Coca-cola doesn't kill people, but bad habits kill people.  They shouldn't tax fast food or soft drink manufacturers, just force them to limit portion sizes.  Cheers!

 

I was sitting here thinking about what I saw at the grocery store today.

 

Pork loin $2 per pound

tomatoes $2 per pound

cauliflower $3 a head

 

Now, how is this even possible?  Oh yes, the corn subsidy.  I wonder what they feed to the pigs?

 

How about dropping corn and instead instituting a broccoli subsidy or a tomato subsidy, huh?  As long as the government is on the hook for health care costs, perhaps it ought to encourage better behavior with the subsidies.

 

I read that this country's greenhouse gas footprint from transportation is smaller than the greenhouse gas footprint from livestock.  So why are we subsidizing animal feed?  Seems backwards.  The cheaper the corn, the more livestock we'll eat.  The more livestock we'll eat, the more health costs go up.  The more livestock we'll eat, the less we can drive our cars.  Seems like bad policy.

 

[Myth465]

I just walked outside and there's two more roosters flopping around on the lawn.  She's in there wringing their necks bare handed right in front of the kids!  That's more than I was willing to do. 

 

"I'm doing all of them (the roosters) I just decided" she says.  I tell you... I married a tough lady.

 

Damn

[VAL9000]

I just walked outside and there's two more roosters flopping around on the lawn.  She's in there wringing their necks bare handed right in front of the kids!  That's more than I was willing to do. 

 

Wait, did you just tell us that your wife is choking your chicken?  In front of the KIDS?!

 

;)

 

[ERICOPOLY]

It is true that in the US, vegetables cost more than meat. Meat lends itself to storage better compared to vegetables. Also, in the supermarket, all the fruits/vegetables look like they are the same size.

 

I wonder about all that farmland dedicated to growing food for the livestock -- does it drive up the price of fresh produce?

 

Would you grow corn without the subsidy?  Or would you be growing a higher sticker price item?

 

In other words, would the price of fresh produce be boosted by scarcity of arable land?  Ten calories of grain expended per calorie of meat produced. 

[Guest Hester]

It is true that in the US, vegetables cost more than meat. Meat lends itself to storage better compared to vegetables. Also, in the supermarket, all the fruits/vegetables look like they are the same size.

 

I wonder about all that farmland dedicated to growing food for the livestock -- does it drive up the price of fresh produce?

 

Would you grow corn without the subsidy?  Or would you be growing a higher sticker price item?

 

In other words, would the price of fresh produce be boosted by scarcity of arable land?  Ten calories of grain expended per pound of meat produced.

 

I think it depends on the produce we're talking about. A lot of produce is grown in different areas, even different countries, than grains and thus probably wouldn't be effected by scarcity of land from corn growing; and the produce that is grown with grains couldn't get priced too far ahead of the other produce because people would stop buying in favor of the cheaper produce. So maybe the subsidies shape eating behaviour more than price.

 

Then again I really have no idea, just thinking out loud.

 

In any case it would be difficult, politically, to ever change the status quo. About my entire family consists of people who are all staunch small government conservatives, some even radical.

 

But they are all in favor of corn subsidies  ::)

 

[SmallCap]

This has been a good thread, I will toss in my input here as well.

 

I am 35 married with 2 children ages 3 and 2

 

Own a house free and clear and two cars

 

I own my own business and it pays for extreme high deductible health insurance (10,000) and cell phones

 

Estimated annual expenses

Property taxes - 2000

Insurance on house and cars - 1800

food and other household items - 3600-4000 - can't seem to pin this one down and it changes with kids all the time.

Clothing - 400

car repair and gas - 2500 - this is an estimate because we just moved and haven't established a baseline, I now walk the 9 blocks to my office.

Health care - 2000 on an average year, when we have a new child it jumps

Entertainment, eating out - 600

Utilities, gas, electric, water, waste - 1500    no home phone and our cell phones take care of our internet at home.

 

this totals out to around 15,000 per year, I am sure I am missing something here.

 

there are some things that are left off of here that are very inconsistent:

 

Home repair - this year I have put around 15,000 into home repair but don't expect it to always be that way.

Travel - I believe in mixing business with pleasure so sometimes our travel expenses are mostly covered by the business and frankly with the children at the age they are we haven't traveled much outside of business for the last 3 years.

[ERICOPOLY]

Dont think it is the scarcity of arable land - U.S has the most arable land in the world followed by India. It is more likely wastage, labor, storage and transportation in addition to subsidies needed. This paper notes the impact of meat bases vs plant based diets and the way the world eats.

 

http://www.ajcn.org/content/78/3/660S.full

 

ABSTRACT

Worldwide, an estimated 2 billion people live primarily on a meat-based diet, while an estimated 4 billion live primarily on a plant-based diet. The US food production system uses about 50% of the total US land area, 80% of the fresh water, and 17% of the fossil energy used in the country. The heavy dependence on fossil energy suggests that the US food system, whether meat-based or plant-based, is not sustainable. The use of land and energy resources devoted to an average meat-based diet compared with a lactoovovegetarian (plant-based) diet is analyzed in this report. In both diets, the daily quantity of calories consumed are kept constant at about 3533 kcal per person. The meat-based food system requires more energy, land, and water resources than the lactoovovegetarian diet. In this limited sense, the lactoovovegetarian diet is more sustainable than the average American meat-based diet.

 

Incorrect,

lactoovovegetarian is not a plant-based diet.  You are including dairy and eggs.  Is dairy a plant?

 

vegan is a plant-based diet.

 

So they have produced a meaningless study in terms of comparing plant-based diet to an animal-based diet.

 

Question:

Why do people believe that species A cannot be healthy be it not for the milk from species B?  Do deer drink milk from cows in nature?

 

[given2invest]

This has been a good thread, I will toss in my input here as well.

 

I am 35 married with 2 children ages 3 and 2

 

Own a house free and clear and two cars

 

I own my own business and it pays for extreme high deductible health insurance (10,000) and cell phones

 

Estimated annual expenses

Property taxes - 2000

Insurance on house and cars - 1800

food and other household items - 3600-4000 - can't seem to pin this one down and it changes with kids all the time.

Clothing - 400

car repair and gas - 2500 - this is an estimate because we just moved and haven't established a baseline, I now walk the 9 blocks to my office.

Health care - 2000 on an average year, when we have a new child it jumps

Entertainment, eating out - 600

Utilities, gas, electric, water, waste - 1500    no home phone and our cell phones take care of our internet at home.

 

this totals out to around 15,000 per year, I am sure I am missing something here.

 

there are some things that are left off of here that are very inconsistent:

 

Home repair - this year I have put around 15,000 into home repair but don't expect it to always be that way.

Travel - I believe in mixing business with pleasure so sometimes our travel expenses are mostly covered by the business and frankly with the children at the age they are we haven't traveled much outside of business for the last 3 years.

 

400 for clothing?  600 for an entire year of entertainment and eating out?

[StubbleJumper]

It is true that in the US, vegetables cost more than meat. Meat lends itself to storage better compared to vegetables. Also, in the supermarket, all the fruits/vegetables look like they are the same size.

 

I wonder about all that farmland dedicated to growing food for the livestock -- does it drive up the price of fresh produce?

 

Would you grow corn without the subsidy?  Or would you be growing a higher sticker price item?

 

In other words, would the price of fresh produce be boosted by scarcity of arable land?  Ten calories of grain expended per calorie of meat produced.

 

 

There's not really much of a trade-off between corn and vegetables.  The amount of fertile land required to produce the US requirement for fresh vegetables is minimal (the yields on an acre of tomatoes or potatoes are really mind boggling).  Area planted to corn tends to be around 80 million acres in the US, which if it were in potatoes instead would yield about 16 billion hundred-weight...or about 1.6 trillion pounds of potatoes.  That's about 50,000 lbs per capita.  Clearly, US demand for potatoes (and other vegetables) is satisfied with only a tiny fraction of the land currently dedicated to corn.

 

The price differences that you noted are not primarily driven by subsidies (but they do have some impact).  Rather, cost of production is the reason why tomatoes cost more than corn (or even hogs).  Corn can be produced in Iowa for about $0.10 per pound (irrespective of subsidy levels).  With a feed conversion ratio of even 4:1, it's pretty obvious why live hogs can be raised for $0.90/lb, and certain cuts of pork can be retailed for $2/lb.  Tomatoes, on the other hand, are expensive to produce because they are more labour intensive, require significant chemical inputs, are very difficult to handle and transport, and are very vulnerable to spoilage.

 

That being said, I fully agree that the subsidisation of various agriculture products is baffling.

[ERICOPOLY]

Regarding the subsidy:

 

Even more baffling is that cattle aren't send to the finishing yards to put on protein.  And they are fed corn at the finishing yards because of it's high fructose content (to put on fat quickly).  Once taken off of their grass diet when sent to the finishing yards, the omega-3 content of their fat plummets (because they get their healthy omega-3 from eating grass).  Omega-3 is in green leafy stuff -- not in grains.  So you wind up with not only more fat, but more unhealthy fat.  Omega-3 (from what I've read on lipid synthesis) is essential for regulating inflammation -- without it, you have more risk of heart disease (and you are deliberately pouring excess fat on this fire).

 

The cattle are ready for the table before they even get to the finishing yards.  Thus the fossil fuel energy expended to produce the corn is 100% wasted on fat production.  And this is subsidized by the same government that wants to reduce health care entitlement deficits???

 

 

[ERICOPOLY]

apparently the coronoary heart failure is putting fewer people in the hospital.

 

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203658804576639360226103584.html

 

 

Less smoking.

[StubbleJumper]

Regarding the subsidy:

 

Even more baffling is that cattle aren't send to the finishing yards to put on protein.  And they are fed corn at the finishing yards because of it's high fructose content (to put on fat quickly).  Once taken off of their grass diet when sent to the finishing yards, the omega-3 content of their fat plummets (because they get their healthy omega-3 from eating grass).  Omega-3 is in green leafy stuff -- not in grains.  So you wind up with not only more fat, but more unhealthy fat.  Omega-3 (from what I've read on lipid synthesis) is essential for regulating inflammation -- without it, you have more risk of heart disease (and you are deliberately pouring excess fat on this fire).

 

The cattle are ready for the table before they even get to the finishing yards.  Thus the fossil fuel energy expended to produce the corn is 100% wasted on fat production.  And this is subsidized by the same government that wants to reduce health care entitlement deficits???

 

 

That's not necessarily true in all cases.  Most feedlot placements are stockers (around 600 lb) or feeders (around 800 lb) and they are fed up to about a 1,300 lb undressed carcass weight.  Some of this is fat, but much of the weight gain is actually meat, particularly when you place stockers.  Health concerns aside, the fat is actually a positive quality attribute because that's what gives beef much of its flavour and its moist tenderness.  While coarse grains (corn, sorghum, barley) dominate the ration, it also includes some forage and protein meal.

 

The fossil fuel issue is an interesting question.  What uses more fuel?  To produce corn which enables feedlots to achieve a rate of gain of 3 lb/day for a steer, or producing hay so that cattle can overwinter at a rate of gain of 1 lb per day?  It would be interesting to see the arithmetic!

 

 

[ERICOPOLY]

Regarding the subsidy:

 

Even more baffling is that cattle aren't send to the finishing yards to put on protein.  And they are fed corn at the finishing yards because of it's high fructose content (to put on fat quickly).  Once taken off of their grass diet when sent to the finishing yards, the omega-3 content of their fat plummets (because they get their healthy omega-3 from eating grass).  Omega-3 is in green leafy stuff -- not in grains.  So you wind up with not only more fat, but more unhealthy fat.  Omega-3 (from what I've read on lipid synthesis) is essential for regulating inflammation -- without it, you have more risk of heart disease (and you are deliberately pouring excess fat on this fire).

 

The cattle are ready for the table before they even get to the finishing yards.  Thus the fossil fuel energy expended to produce the corn is 100% wasted on fat production.  And this is subsidized by the same government that wants to reduce health care entitlement deficits???

 

 

That's not necessarily true in all cases.  Most feedlot placements are stockers (around 600 lb) or feeders (around 800 lb) and they are fed up to about a 1,300 lb undressed carcass weight.  Some of this is fat, but much of the weight gain is actually meat, particularly when you place stockers.  Health concerns aside, the fat is actually a positive quality attribute because that's what gives beef much of its flavour and its moist tenderness.  While coarse grains (corn, sorghum, barley) dominate the ration, it also includes some forage and protein meal.

 

The fossil fuel issue is an interesting question.  What uses more fuel?  To produce corn which enables feedlots to achieve a rate of gain of 3 lb/day for a steer, or producing hay so that cattle can overwinter at a rate of gain of 1 lb per day?  It would be interesting to see the arithmetic!

 

I agree that fat makes it taste better.  Health concerns aside, sugar adds flavor to candy.  My father grew up with bread fried in bacon grease -- it also improved the flavor.  For some reason if the animal is slaughtered with all the fat already on it we think of it differently than, say, just soaking toast in it.

 

Could you imagine if people were forced to consciously ask for more fat trimmings to be added to their lean grass-fed beef.  I doubt they would do it.  I mean, you can always ask for extra butter on your fish.  Do you?

 

It's more expensive in Australia to buy the marbled feedlot beef.  True!  They don't have a huge corn industry.  So most of the beef is pastured, grass fed beef (and healthier). 

 

[StubbleJumper]

Regarding the subsidy:

 

Even more baffling is that cattle aren't send to the finishing yards to put on protein.  And they are fed corn at the finishing yards because of it's high fructose content (to put on fat quickly).  Once taken off of their grass diet when sent to the finishing yards, the omega-3 content of their fat plummets (because they get their healthy omega-3 from eating grass).  Omega-3 is in green leafy stuff -- not in grains.  So you wind up with not only more fat, but more unhealthy fat.  Omega-3 (from what I've read on lipid synthesis) is essential for regulating inflammation -- without it, you have more risk of heart disease (and you are deliberately pouring excess fat on this fire).

 

The cattle are ready for the table before they even get to the finishing yards.  Thus the fossil fuel energy expended to produce the corn is 100% wasted on fat production.  And this is subsidized by the same government that wants to reduce health care entitlement deficits???

 

 

That's not necessarily true in all cases.  Most feedlot placements are stockers (around 600 lb) or feeders (around 800 lb) and they are fed up to about a 1,300 lb undressed carcass weight.  Some of this is fat, but much of the weight gain is actually meat, particularly when you place stockers.  Health concerns aside, the fat is actually a positive quality attribute because that's what gives beef much of its flavour and its moist tenderness.  While coarse grains (corn, sorghum, barley) dominate the ration, it also includes some forage and protein meal.

 

The fossil fuel issue is an interesting question.  What uses more fuel?  To produce corn which enables feedlots to achieve a rate of gain of 3 lb/day for a steer, or producing hay so that cattle can overwinter at a rate of gain of 1 lb per day?  It would be interesting to see the arithmetic!

 

I agree that fat makes it taste better.  Health concerns aside, sugar adds flavor to candy.  My father grew up with bread fried in bacon grease -- it also improved the flavor.  For some reason if the animal is slaughtered with all the fat already on it we think of it differently than, say, just soaking toast in it.

 

Could you imagine if people were forced to consciously ask for more fat trimmings to be added to their lean grass-fed beef.  I doubt they would do it.  I mean, you can always ask for extra butter on your fish.  Do you?

 

It's more expensive in Australia to buy the marbled feedlot beef.  True!  They don't have a huge corn industry.  So most of the beef is pastured, grass fed beef (and healthier).

 

 

Interesting. 

 

We didn't really soak our toast in fat, but McDonalds used to fry their french fries in beef tallow (they have since switched to canola oil).  I must confess that I always preferred the flavour of the fries when they were cooked the old way and coated with a liberal dose of salt!  The health issue was never a concern when I ate McDonalds fries, and I guess it's probably still not the destination of choice for a healthy meal!

 

I also DO actively seek cuts of beef with a greater fat content and grades of beef that have better marbling.  When I eat red meat, I want the flavour and I fully understand the potential disadvantages of saturated fat.  Despite the lower price, I actively avoid eating Australian beef as I find it drier and a little bit gamey.  My preference is actually barley-fed Canadian beef which has pure white fat, and if I can't get that then I'll sometimes buy the corn-fed US beef with the yellowish fat.  But, I guess I'm a bit fussy about the beef I eat!

 

Ultimately, it's all about eating this stuff in reasonable quantities.  Give me my fatty primal cuts, but not 7 days per week!

[Parsad]

I just walked outside and there's two more roosters flopping around on the lawn.  She's in there wringing their necks bare handed right in front of the kids!  That's more than I was willing to do. 

 

Wait, did you just tell us that your wife is choking your chicken?  In front of the KIDS?!

 

;)

 

That's just wrong!  Just wrong!  ;D  Cheers!

[Parsad]

It is true that in the US, vegetables cost more than meat. Meat lends itself to storage better compared to vegetables. Also, in the supermarket, all the fruits/vegetables look like they are the same size.

 

I wonder about all that farmland dedicated to growing food for the livestock -- does it drive up the price of fresh produce?

 

Would you grow corn without the subsidy?  Or would you be growing a higher sticker price item?

 

In other words, would the price of fresh produce be boosted by scarcity of arable land?  Ten calories of grain expended per calorie of meat produced.

 

No, not really.  There have been massive, and I mean massive, improvements in farming over the last 20 years, let alone the last 50 years.  With certain products used for biofuels, animal feed, etc, the cost to consumers is driven up somewhat, but for the most part, U.S. farmers have been getting incredible amounts of productivity from the land presently in use for farming.  The subsidies for certain goods certainly drive some farmers to certain goods, but for the most part, they still make up a relatively small percentage of all farmland. 

 

The increase cost in fruits and vegetables has been occurring since the price of oil increased over the last two years.  You guys have had a spike in the price per gallon in the last six months, and it takes about another 2-3 months for that to trickle down to consumer prices.  Increased fuel costs, increase the cost of transport of the fruits and vegetables, and that shows up in the price as you know.  Cheers!

[Parsad]

 

I agree that fat makes it taste better.  Health concerns aside, sugar adds flavor to candy.  My father grew up with bread fried in bacon grease -- it also improved the flavor.  For some reason if the animal is slaughtered with all the fat already on it we think of it differently than, say, just soaking toast in it.

 

Could you imagine if people were forced to consciously ask for more fat trimmings to be added to their lean grass-fed beef.  I doubt they would do it.  I mean, you can always ask for extra butter on your fish.  Do you?

 

It's more expensive in Australia to buy the marbled feedlot beef.  True!  They don't have a huge corn industry.  So most of the beef is pastured, grass fed beef (and healthier).

 

Mmmm...Bacon!  Twenty years ago, so many people would eat bacon and eggs for breakfast almost every other day...some still do!  I have bacon maybe only three times a year...usually holiday mornings (Christmas, Thanksgiving, Easter) for breakfast.  Otherwise, I don't really eat bacon, even though I love the damn stuff.

 

Now marbled beef is something else.  How could you not love the flavour.  Small portions once in a while is perfectly fine.  Now if I could only get rid of my addiction for good burgers!  ;D  Cheers! 

 

 

[Parsad]

This has been a good thread, I will toss in my input here as well.

 

I am 35 married with 2 children ages 3 and 2

 

Own a house free and clear and two cars

 

I own my own business and it pays for extreme high deductible health insurance (10,000) and cell phones

 

Estimated annual expenses

Property taxes - 2000

Insurance on house and cars - 1800

food and other household items - 3600-4000 - can't seem to pin this one down and it changes with kids all the time.

Clothing - 400

car repair and gas - 2500 - this is an estimate because we just moved and haven't established a baseline, I now walk the 9 blocks to my office.

Health care - 2000 on an average year, when we have a new child it jumps

Entertainment, eating out - 600

Utilities, gas, electric, water, waste - 1500    no home phone and our cell phones take care of our internet at home.

 

this totals out to around 15,000 per year, I am sure I am missing something here.

 

there are some things that are left off of here that are very inconsistent:

 

Home repair - this year I have put around 15,000 into home repair but don't expect it to always be that way.

Travel - I believe in mixing business with pleasure so sometimes our travel expenses are mostly covered by the business and frankly with the children at the age they are we haven't traveled much outside of business for the last 3 years.

 

Smallcap, what's your trick with the food budget?  Do you grow some of your own produce?  Mostly homecooked meals?  That's pretty darn good for a couple and two hungry little kids.  Cheers!

[Kraven]

 

Now if I could only get rid of my addiction for good burgers!  ;D  Cheers!

 

Watch the movie Fast Food Nation.