I’m Going to Spend My $2.84 on Peanut M&Ms, I Can Tell You Right Now

Oh lord, Governor Baby has announced his big tax break for working Tennesseans. He wants to lower the state’s portion of the sales tax on groceries from 5.5% to 5%, which Jim Voorhies points out will save each of us $2.84 a year.

Believe me, I find this funny just at the level of “guy who’s never been poor a day in his life ‘helps’ by lowering taxes but so slightly that it shows how out of touch he is.”

But I do feel a little bad for Republicans. I mean, you can’t expect people to take your desire to lower taxes seriously when you’re lowering them by an amount of money most of us have on the floor of our cars. This isn’t tax reform. It’s tax “reform.” It’s a soundbite disguised as doing something to help people.

And, when people see that $18 million dollars, spread across all of us is $2.84, it really seems like an insult.

And fucking Craig Fitzhugh is agreeing with this? Dude, keep my $2.84, buy me a shake at Sonic and we’ll call it even.

Honestly, it’s as if they have no idea how to fix the state, so they’re just handing us each three dollars.

Um, thanks, I guess.

And, frankly, releasing news that each of us will get three dollars in a move that will cost the state $18 million on the same day that you announce you’re going to lower the estate tax in a way that costs the state $14 million and that benefits about 200 people (meaning they’ll all get an extra $70,000 a piece) is so boneheaded I almost think Haslam should fire his communications staff. I get three bucks, but some dead rich person’s daughter gets $70,000 just because of who her dad is?

It’s hilarious. They’re so populist until push comes to shove. Then we get three bucks and the special people get $70,000.

The governor’s the baby, but I’m the one who feels like pitching a fit.

About these ads

11 thoughts on “I’m Going to Spend My $2.84 on Peanut M&Ms, I Can Tell You Right Now

  1. well, you get not quite $3 next year, when the decrease is only 0.2%. It will take two more years to drop the other 0.3%, so your savings will be slightly more – maybe even $7

    think of all the M&Ms!!

    But I like that number too because it is the same as the 70,000 minus 4 zeros

    assholes. assholes who think enough people won’t do the math but will be happy that they’ve cut taxes while the rich will do the math and use their wealth to keep the status quo in place

  2. The way I’m reading the AP article that Jim quoted, the $2.84 is for the first cut from %5.5 to %5.3. If they then cut it down the same amount from 5.3 to 5.1 the next year you’d assume it would be a similar savings of $2.84. And then then in the last year they’d go from 5.1 to 5.0. If the proportions stay the same then that would be about $1.42. So your total would be 2.84+2.84+1.42 so you’d be keeping an extra $7.10 per year.

    The math isn’t adding up. If %.05 is 2.84, then the actual spending is $568. That’s approximately a month’s groceries for my family of four.

  3. This is honestly something I’d like even above and beyond “Name the names of these people who are having these problems that supposedly need fixing–even one person.”

    I’m sure the $2.84 number comes from taking $18 million and dividing by the number of people in the state. But I agree that this can’t be right. Food is a huge chunk of most people’s budgets. There’s just two of us and I think we spend $300 a month on groceries (give or take, depending on the month).

    Now, I suck at math, but this would seem to lower my tax per month from $16.50 a month to $15 a month, which would save me $18 a year. Or $9 for me and $9 for the Butcher.

    So, there’s no way that the hit the state coffers would take is ONLY $18 million. Right? A I figuring wrong?

    That seems to me to be where the problem is. Lowering the food tax would have a small, but noticeable impact on people’s food bill. But the impact on the state budget would have to be more than $18 million.

  4. Your math seems about right. I’m getting the impression that the actual cost to the state would be more like $18 million per month rather than per year.

  5. Oh, well. That’s much better. If I can afford to buy two more diet Cokes a month than before, instead of two a year. that is so much of a difference that it just has to fill the definition of significant, doesn’t it? Let me go look it up. BRB.

    Oops, no. It’s still chicken shit. And I got all excited about it there for a minute. Bummer. First this and on top of it I still didn’t win the lottery. Total bummer.

  6. Pingback: And in the Useless Sham Appearance Category the winner is: | jimvoorhies.com

  7. There must be a few ways to figure this. I’m no expert on TN revenue data, but if I use the $6,156,776,292 from the 2010 summary of collections in the food sales tax line, and divide out by the 6,296,254 the Census says we had in the state in 2009 (2010 wasn’t handy), that’s more like $98 per person per year. .02% of that would be in the neighborhood of a couple of cents. I think I must have not had enough coffee yet for math…

  8. If you buy $100 in taxable groceries, cutting the tax rate from 5.5% ($105.50) to 5% ($105.00) means you’ve saved $0.50.

    Now, if I spend that same $100 in Kentucky, my savings is $5.50 over the current 5.5% in Tennessee.

    So, which is more meaningful: A resident of Kentucky continuing to pay $0 in added expense at the grocery, or a resident of Tennessee realizing half a dollar net savings per every $100 spent?

    (The assumed income tax rate in Kentucky is 5.8%, seeing as how that’s what people pay if they make between $8K and $75,000. The top tax burden is a whopping .2% more, but I doubt that there are people trying desperately to hit an adjusted gross of $74,999 to realize that savings.)

Comments are closed.