“Taxes” if it’s a boy

And, for that matter, “Taxes” if it’s a girl: WalletHub’s 2016 Tax Survey reveals that the desire for a tax-free future, were such a thing available, would motivate 8 percent of the respondents to name their firstborn child “Taxes” in an effort to ensure said future.

By comparison, 11 percent would be willing to clean toilets. For three years. At Chipotle.

(Via Nancy Man.)


  1. fillyjonk »

    4 April 2016 · 5:18 pm

    If it were genuinely a fully tax-free future, hand me the brush and the bleach….I’ve probably dealt with worse than fast-casual chain toilets (even ones suspected to harbor lurking E. coli) in my life.

    As for naming a hypothetical kid Taxes…..I am so not into ruining someone else’s life for my benefit.

  2. canadienne »

    4 April 2016 · 7:20 pm

    Just curious as to who pays for roads and firefighters, etc. if nobody pays taxes. Is there a different model for funding public services? Here in Canada we have a single payer system and I suspect that I am paying much less in taxes than I would in insurance (in fact I know I am, after talking to American friends.)

  3. CGHill »

    4 April 2016 · 7:35 pm

    I suspect there would be much less grousing about the federal income tax — which is the tax most often groused about — if it were massively simplified; one of the national sub-pastimes, a hair below baseball, is complaining about Other People’s Tax Breaks.

    Firefighters and such are usually handled at local levels, where government seems more trustworthy. (In this town, the local sales tax is 3.875 percent. 2.0 goes into the general fund, 0.75 to public safety — police and fire — 1.0 to finance capital improvements, and 0.125 to support the zoo; except for street conditions, residents are generally happy with what they get. City budget is around $1.2 billion annually and is always balanced.)

    As regards health care, our system here is pretty indefensible, so I’m not going to try to defend it.

  4. fillyjonk »

    4 April 2016 · 8:40 pm

    our state + local sales tax is 9.375%, and I pay that on groceries AND prescription meds as well as everything else. There’s talk of a 1 percent rise statewide “for education” and frankly I’d rather pay more in property taxes….I also suspect property taxes may get “pilfered” less by folks in the capital than a vague 1% sales tax rise “for education.”

    I would be much more in favor of some kind of flat tax with minimal deductions instead of the crazy arcane system we have now. If you have ANY investments at all, you usually wind up having to use a preparer to help you, because it gets really complex fast.

  5. CGHill »

    4 April 2016 · 8:47 pm

    Oklahoma levies a flat 4.5-percent sales tax. (Total in OKC is therefore 8.375 percent.) And by law, it can’t touch property taxes, which are levied by the county; a municipality within the county can draw from the property-tax pool, but only for debt service, not for current expenses.

RSS feed for comments on this post