Talk me down...how realistic do you think the FDA cost of food plan is?

[kiana]

So would you argue that wine should count, too? Because there are calories in wine that I would have to eat of I were not drinking the wine... only any other source of these calories would be vastly cheaper than the wine, and the calories we consume via wine are negligible compared to actual food.

I do not consider wine part of  the grocery budget; it is a frivolous luxury item.

 

Personally I would agree more about the wine because that's a very expensive luxury source of calories. Non-diet soda is a comparatively cheap source, especially in 2L bottles (the off-brand ones here are about 75c) and so replacing those would cost more. I agree w/flyingiguana that I wouldn't count diet soda. 

 

Also, if one is consuming enough wine that it's a non-negligible part of the calorie budget, there are likely far more significant problems than a food budget. 

 

Edit: This discussion is interesting because it has me thinking quite a bit about it. I should try tracking food in more detail than "oh that bill was at Kroger, it was mostly food". 

Edited October 2, 2016 by kiana

[regentrude]

. I agree w/flyingiguana that I wouldn't count diet soda. 

 

 

But thinking more about it, the entire argument that what counts as "food" is about calories is an odd one.

Would bottled water be counted as a food cost? Zero calories there.

Tea? No calories.

Coffee? negligible calories.

Spices?

[Guest]

Personally I would agree more about the wine because that's a very expensive luxury source of calories. Non-diet soda is a comparatively cheap source, especially in 2L bottles (the off-brand ones here are about 75c) and so replacing those would cost more. I agree w/flyingiguana that I wouldn't count diet soda.

 

Also, if one is consuming enough wine that it's a non-negligible part of the calorie budget, there are likely far more significant problems than a food budget.

 

Edit: This discussion is interesting because it has me thinking quite a bit about it. I should try tracking food in more detail than "oh that bill was at Kroger, it was mostly food".

I do have a neurotically detailed categorization of grocery recipts from anywhere that I buy food, because it is rare that I go to Costco or Target or the food co-op and buy strictly food only. I track food separately from household goods, separately from health and hygiene, separately from pet care items, separately from gifts or clothing or kids activity items or books and hobbies. :) At Costco, for example, any of these other categories may have been part of my purchases.

 

It's just too vague to lump all those purchases in "groceries." It makes it impossible to tell what you actually spend on food and if it isn't accurate, I might either panic unnecessarily or sort of ignore the category entirely because I know I also bought the boys socks and new towels there or whatever.

[kiana]

But thinking more about it, the entire argument that what counts as "food" is about calories is an odd one.

Would bottled water be counted as a food cost? Zero calories there.

Tea? No calories.

Coffee? negligible calories.

Spices?

 

Well this is just me thinking out loud now, heh.

 

I wouldn't count tea or coffee. You could easily drink the water without them. I think those are luxuries.

 

I do count spices but I don't find them to be expensive. I mean yes the up-front cost is non-negligible but they are amortized over a decent lifespan. I could see a totally reasonable argument for not counting them as you could easily eat the food without them. But I do count them. 

 

Water is kind of a basic necessity, but I think bottled water is a luxury unless you're living in a place where you really can't drink the tap water. And in that case I'd probably count diet soda as well (why the ??? is soda cheaper than water? but that's another debate). 

 

Edit: But quite honestly I'm not firmly set on these -- you know -- what works for your family works for you -- I hadn't really thought in this level of detail before. But I do think that things that add a non-negligible number of calories to the diet should be counted. I'd probably count supplements too, because if I didn't supplement with some fish oil I'd have to eat a lot more fish, which is expensive. The things that don't add food value to the diet are a lot more arguable imo. 

Edited October 2, 2016 by kiana

[regentrude]

I wouldn't count tea or coffee. You could easily drink the water without them. I think those are luxuries.

 

Playing devil's advocate: The same argument goes for steak vs hamburger. Steak is a luxury, you can have the same calories and nutrition from cheap hamburger - so the extra cost should not count towards groceries. Nobody would think this makes sense.

People buy higher priced items because they like the taste. In that line of thinking, coffee should count as well.

 

ETA: I don't actually separate out categories. I try to be frugal, but I know I am not frivolously wasting money on toilet paper or dish detergent - they are part of the household budget just like potatoes and rice. It does not matter whether they count in the groceries category or separate - I need to buy them. Well yes, technically I don't *need* to have tp, but I'd think most people would consider it a need and not a want.

Edited October 2, 2016 by regentrude

[Guest]

Edit: But quite honestly I'm not firmly set on these -- you know -- what works for your family works for you -- I hadn't really thought in this level of detail before. But I do think that things that add a non-negligible number of calories to the diet should be counted. I'd probably count supplements too, because if I didn't supplement with some fish oil I'd have to eat a lot more fish, which is expensive. The things that don't add food value to the diet are a lot more arguable imo.

I don't do it by calories or what is nutritive or non-nutritive. I do it by family habit and consumption. We all drink some tea, for example. Tea goes in my food budget. If we're going on vacation or something and I buy soda or Fruit Loops as a treat, I count that as food budget. The cost is negligible anyway. If I buy a 6-pack of Mike's Hard for myself to drink, I put that in food budget because it is infrequent and it will probably be 3-6 months before I have had all six. Again, negligible. But DH's beer, as I said, is his own issue. He buys it often; I can't buy it at the grocery store in MD anyway (beer is not sold in grocery stores here, or, not where I live and vacation); nobody else in the family drinks his beer. That's his own "entertainment" cost or whatever.

 

I put supplements and vitamins in my "medical" category. (Not saying everyone should; this is what I do.)

[kiana]

Playing devil's advocate: The same argument goes for steak vs hamburger. Steak is a luxury, you can have the same calories and nutrition from cheap hamburger - so the extra cost should not count towards groceries. Nobody would think this makes sense.

People buy higher priced items because they like the taste. In that line of thinking, coffee should count as well.

 

ETA: I don't actually separate out categories. I try to be frugal, but I know I am not frivolously wasting money on toilet paper or dish detergent - they are part of the household budget just like potatoes and rice. It does not matter whether they count in the groceries category or separate - I need to buy them. Well yes, technically I don't *need* to have tp, but I'd think most people would consider it a need and not a want.

 

Ya, that's an argument I can easily see both ways. 

 

And haha, I would totally agree with you about tp being a need, not a want :D

 

Edit: As I think more about this, when I think about the non-nutritive, what I meant was more "I could see those being separated out as non-food luxuries" rather than "I think those should be separate non-food luxuries" if that makes a difference?

Edited October 2, 2016 by kiana

[cjzimmer1]

 

 

I did not know one could buy seeds for the garden with food stamps.  And pumpkins.

 

http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/eligible-food-items

 

You can also buy food producing plants, so herbs and any veggie plants. I'm not sure if fruit plants would count since most of those wouldn't produce in the same year they are bought.

 

[IfIOnly]

I don't do it by calories or what is nutritive or non-nutritive. I do it by family habit and consumption. We all drink some tea, for example. Tea goes in my food budget. If we're going on vacation or something and I buy soda or Fruit Loops as a treat, I count that as food budget. The cost is negligible anyway. If I buy a 6-pack of Mike's Hard for myself to drink, I put that in food budget because it is infrequent and it will probably be 3-6 months before I have had all six. Again, negligible. But DH's beer, as I said, is his own issue. He buys it often; I can't buy it at the grocery store in MD anyway (beer is not sold in grocery stores here, or, not where I live and vacation); nobody else in the family drinks his beer. That's his own "entertainment" cost or whatever.

 

I put supplements and vitamins in my "medical" category. (Not saying everyone should; this is what I do.)

Supplements are their own category now here, but it makes sense to lump them with medical.

[IfIOnly]

Are there any budgeting threads here with tips and how to advice? Dh and I want to start tracking what we spend better but can't come up with a simple system. We did a monthly financial checkist yesterday and already had a basic budget made.

[luuknam]

So would you argue that wine should count, too? Because there are calories in wine that I would have to eat of I were not drinking the wine... only any other source of these calories would be vastly cheaper than the wine, and the calories we consume via wine are negligible compared to actual food.

I do not consider wine part of  the grocery budget; it is a frivolous luxury item.

 

I would put wine in the food budget. Of course, I don't remember the last time I've spent more than $3 on a bottle of wine (actually, I think the last time I bought a bottle of wine was when we were still living in Texas). Most of the time the wine I buy ends up in the food anyway (I don't usually *drink* wine). But that's neither here nor there... I would put alcohol in the food budget. But hey, you're welcome to do w/e you want. I just think it'd be disingenuous to say you spend less than the thrifty amount if you have a few glasses of wine per day, a few cans of coke, a bag of candy, and one healthy lunch to round things out, and then only count the healthy lunch as 'food'. Not that you were saying that... I'm just saying that I think alcohol, soda, candy, etc should be counted. I would count spices and coffee/tea too, because they're things you consume for non-medical reasons (whereas the tea the podiatrist told me to buy to soak my kid's feet in for some foot issues would *not* be part of my food budget).

 

ETA: the fact that they're 'luxuries' just means to me that they'll push your food budget toward (or beyond) the 'liberal' level, instead of at 'thrifty' level or w/e.

Edited October 2, 2016 by luuknam

[luuknam]

It must be too early in the morning. I can't figure out how much for us. Husband and I both under 50. 7 kids still at home ages 2,3,6,8,11,14 and 16. If someone can give me a range I can say if we fall in it. 😂

 

Thrifty: 0.9(23.60*2+31.60*2+35.60+39.70*2+42.60+37.70)= $275.13/week

Liberal 0.9(44.30*2+62.70*2+71.40+81.10*2+84.90+75.10)= $546.84/week

[EmseB]

Also, if one is consuming enough wine that it's a non-negligible part of the calorie budget, there are likely far more significant problems than a food budget.

 

Ok, so just to clarify, not to rehash this all again, but that is exactly what I was trying (and failing :( ) to say about the soda.

[luuknam]

Thrifty: 0.9(23.60*2+31.60*2+35.60+39.70*2+42.60+37.70)= $275.13/week

Liberal 0.9(44.30*2+62.70*2+71.40+81.10*2+84.90+75.10)= $546.84/week

 

And now that I've posted that, I just realized that that would've made a good homeschool math assignment. Oh well.

Edited October 2, 2016 by luuknam

[luuknam]

Haha, this I totally agree on. It's not feeding YOUR family. It's feeding your friends. It shouldn't be in your food budget! 

 

Thinking about this some more, I probably would include it, since if I go to a party elsewhere, they're feeding me, so it all evens out in the end. Unless, of course, I throw a lot more parties than I go to (or vice versa, but that would be a non-issue, budget-wise).

[kiana]

Ok, so just to clarify, not to rehash this all again, but that is exactly what I was trying (and failing :( ) to say about the soda.

 

I'm really sorry if you felt like I was attacking you. That wasn't my intention -- I was just disagreeing with you.

 

I do think that alcohol is going to be worse -- not because of the nutritionally void calories, but because of the level of alcohol being consumed, which would probably be problematic. 

 

Soda is just nutritionally void calories -- but so are a lot of other things such as candy and oreos, which I would also count. 

[SparklyUnicorn]

I would put wine in the food budget. Of course, I don't remember the last time I've spent more than $3 on a bottle of wine (actually, I think the last time I bought a bottle of wine was when we were still living in Texas). Most of the time the wine I buy ends up in the food anyway (I don't usually *drink* wine). But that's neither here nor there... I would put alcohol in the food budget. But hey, you're welcome to do w/e you want. I just think it'd be disingenuous to say you spend less than the thrifty amount if you have a few glasses of wine per day, a few cans of coke, a bag of candy, and one healthy lunch to round things out, and then only count the healthy lunch as 'food'. Not that you were saying that... I'm just saying that I think alcohol, soda, candy, etc should be counted. I would count spices and coffee/tea too, because they're things you consume for non-medical reasons (whereas the tea the podiatrist told me to buy to soak my kid's feet in for some foot issues would *not* be part of my food budget).

 

ETA: the fact that they're 'luxuries' just means to me that they'll push your food budget toward (or beyond) the 'liberal' level, instead of at 'thrifty' level or w/e.

 

Where on earth do you find wine for $3?!

[kiana]

Where on earth do you find wine for $3?!

 

Aldi for one -- I bought some there recently. I don't use much and what I do use is for cooking so it's pretty reasonable. 

[SparklyUnicorn]

The soda might not have nutrition in it, but it is mostly water and water is essential.  So yeah I get it, you could just drink water from the tap, but it's not completely pointless and IMO is still within the realm of reasonable as a food purchase. 

 

I thought we are talking about averages of what people spend and not whether or not we think individual items meet people's ethical standards of frugality. 

[luuknam]

Where on earth do you find wine for $3?!

 

Walmart in North Texas about 5 years ago or something. My wife says it's not even bad (it's obviously not the world's greatest wine). But, I don't like wine, so I don't know.

[SparklyUnicorn]

Aldi for one -- I bought some there recently. I don't use much and what I do use is for cooking so it's pretty reasonable. 

 

Impossible here.  Aldi doesn't sell it.  For one thing we have this stupid bizarre law that wine can't be sold in grocery stores. 

[frogger]

I would argue that's *access* more than COL. California has a high COL, but you can get steals on produce. I live in a fairly rural area, mid COL but my family just can't afford the farmer's market prices here. They are higher than non-sale grocery store produce prices. Our area pays the exact same prices for farmer's market produce that the DC area pays 200 miles up the road. I assume that's because if they can't sell it for that price here, they'll just truck it up the road. That's fair - farmers have got to do what works.

 

We don't buy bulk items because co-ops and such don't serve our area. I know people in high COL areas that save a bundle on groceries because they have access to bulk buying opportunities.

 

I'm not convinced there's a correlation, but I could be wrong. It's not what the thread is about. :)

That is because you seem to only be counting housing prices. The lack of accessibility of housing is what makes it expensive and the same is true of food. If you are paying $10 for a gallon of milk in a village in Alaska (known to be a true price though I haven't looked it up currently) then that is factored into the cost of living there by definition. It is a cost that people must pay to live in that particular place.

Edited October 2, 2016 by frogger

[IfIOnly]

Where on earth do you find wine for $3?!

Trader Joe's and for even less! You can get the decent stuff for $3. :)

Edited October 2, 2016 by ifIonlyhadabrain

[SparklyUnicorn]

Trader Joe's and for even less! You can get the decent stuff for $3. :)

 

Nope, not here.

 

We have Trader Joe's.  They do not sell wine.

[IfIOnly]

Nope, not here.

 

We have Trader Joe's. They do not sell wine.

Oh, just saw your following post. That is a weird law.

[luuknam]

Nope, not here.

 

We have Trader Joe's.  They do not sell wine.

 

My wife says that some Trader Joe's in NY (near NYC) do get a liquor license apparently. I have no clue how/why she'd know that - she went to a conference in NYC once, but I doubt she went to TJ's. The one here doesn't sell wine either.

 

She does say that the cheapest wine here is $5.50, and sometimes goes on sale for $3.50. I asked her where, and she said Premier, or the liquor store owned by Wegman's in the Wegman's parking lot.

[SparklyUnicorn]

My wife says that some Trader Joe's in NY (near NYC) do get a liquor license apparently. I have no clue how/why she'd know that - she went to a conference in NYC once, but I doubt she went to TJ's. The one here doesn't sell wine either.

 

She does say that the cheapest wine here is $5.50, and sometimes goes on sale for $3.50. I asked her where, and she said Premier, or the liquor store owned by Wegman's in the Wegman's parking lot.

 

TJs sells beer.  They are allowed to sell beer.

 

Grocery stores can't sell wine or hard liquor.  Wine/hard liquor also cannot be sold in the same store as beer.  So you can't even go to a package store and buy wine and beer in the same store.  It's incredibly stupid.

 

Aldi here doesn't sell beer either and when I asked why they said there is some rule that the highest management must have a presence in the state and if not can't get a license.  No clue of the details of that, but that's what they said. 

[Upennmama]

They seem insanely high to me. We are in a NE city, have 9 people and I spend about 1200/month, no organics, but plenty of meat, dairy, fresh veg, and non-processed food. I do buy some chips, crackers etc, but not much. Very little junk food other than homemade.

[Upennmama]

Because inquiring minds seemed to want to know:

 

It's diet soda.

 

Possibly, the sugar substitute is tricking his body into using the calories he is eating more efficiently, but I think the research is not yet conclusive on that.  Still, if that is the case, he doesn't need the extra calories.  (Or if it were non-diet.)  Otoh, if he didn't get his caffeine fix from expensive soda, he'd probably eat a lot more chocolate and cookies.  Which would probably be in the grocery budget.

 

eta: Also, it's rarely bought on sale.  My husband doesn't go into a store and see it on sale and think, oh yeah, I'm gonna need that.  Should stock up.  It's more of an emergency trip to the store when he realizes he doesn't have his "fix".  And I WILL NOT buy it on sale because I don't want to carry that much.  My cart is usually full with other stuff too.

 

 

Does soda count as food in the budget?  Does it only count if it's bought at the grocery store?  What if he buys it from a vending machine or at a fast food place because I didn't bother to pick any up while at the store?  Is it my folly to skip buying it at the store for him if it drives him to buy it at a much more expensive place?

 

Just because I was interested in, I looked up the current SNAP regulations.  Soda does count as food for food stamp purposes.  They don't seem to make a distinction between diet and non-diet.  Although perhaps one could argue that non-diet is exactly food?  Unless water is classed as a nutrient?  Can one buy water with food stamps.

 

Also, apparently most live animals cannot be purchased with food stamps.  Except live lobsters and other shellfish.  There seems to be a bit of a cultural bias there.  Unless the thinking is that the only reason one would purchase a live goat to slaughter would be if you were having a party and meant to feed a bunch of people who were not food stamp recipients.

 

Lobsters, I guess, are single serving items.

 

I did not know one could buy seeds for the garden with food stamps.  And pumpkins.

 

http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/eligible-food-items

We used to get food stamps and there were no rules about what could be purchased, as long as it wasn't hot food, like pizza or fried chicken. Soda, candy, junk food, was all fine. But there are lots of places around here which do a shady thing where they sell, for example, at a cheesesteak shop, just the "cold meat" and bun and cheese, and then you buy that, hand it back to them, and they'll make you a cheesesteak for free. ;)   

[Guest]

Are there any budgeting threads here with tips and how to advice? Dh and I want to start tracking what we spend better but can't come up with a simple system. We did a monthly financial checkist yesterday and already had a basic budget made.

You're welcome to participate in the weekly "Nothing New/Mindful Spending" threads. It isn't a budgeting thread per se, but there are some ingenious ideas that pop up in that thread from time to time. Also, you can ask specific questions re: money in that thread and the participants will help you arrive at your goals.

[Guest]

TJs sells beer. They are allowed to sell beer.

 

Grocery stores can't sell wine or hard liquor. Wine/hard liquor also cannot be sold in the same store as beer. So you can't even go to a package store and buy wine and beer in the same store. It's incredibly stupid.

 

Aldi here doesn't sell beer either and when I asked why they said there is some rule that the highest management must have a presence in the state and if not can't get a license. No clue of the details of that, but that's what they said.

Lol, that IS a weird law! I thought Maryland was weird enough; AFAIK, no grocery store can carry wine, beer or spirits. You have to show ID to buy Nyquil. Although you can buy cooking Sherry or cooking wines at any grocery.

[EmseB]

Lol, that IS a weird law! I thought Maryland was weird enough; AFAIK, no grocery store can carry wine, beer or spirits. You have to show ID to buy Nyquil. Although you can buy cooking Sherry or cooking wines at any grocery.

Funny story: It took me six months of living here to figure this out because there is one grocery store in our county that is a local mom'n'pop and must be grandfathered or exempted from the law because they do have beer and wine. That's where my husband gets his beer most of the time and one of the first stores we shopped at during our move in. I don't shop there regularly because it's $$$$. Finally I asked in Giant once where the beer was and the lady looked at me funny before explaining.

 

I hate most liquor stores, though, and I'm not going to make an extra stop because I'm usually shopping with 4 kids, so we just end up saving money in that department these days.