So I got out my handy calculator and calculated what the indicated percentage of taxes translates into in terms of actual dollars paid in taxes. In turns out that for the 1970s family, paying 24% of its income in taxes works out to be $9,288. And for the 2000s family, paying 33% of its income (a higher rate presumably because of progressivity hitting the second wage-earners income) in taxes works out to be $22,374.

Thus, taxes increase in the example by $13,086. By contrast, annual mortgage obligations increased by only $3690 and automobile obligations by $2860 and health insurance $620. Those increases are not trivial, but they are swamped by the increase in tax obligations. Too put this in perspective, the increase in tax obligations is over three times as large as the increase in the mortgage

In my opinion, the author here is guilty of dramaticising the tax aspects. When we compare two families, one of which earns twice as much as the other, we would EXPECT that the second family paid twice as much tax, even if tax rates were flat.

So, only ~$6,000 of the tax burden can be seen as "debatable", while the $9700 in childcare expenses are a clear change.

Everything else has moved more or less on par with the change in incomes. Sometimes this seems perverse - healthcare costs have risen at a rate that seems to ASSUME a second income, while vehicle costs have not risen as fast as the growth in income.

of the significantly-changing items, 38% of the impost has come from taxes, and 62% from childcare costs.

Tax is NOT the incarnation of the devil. It is one of Ben Franklin's certainties and, as such, a fundamental aspect of the foundation of the USA, and all other "civilised" countries. All that remains is argue about HOW tax is applied, and articles like this which conflate the expected increase of base rate tax with the TOTAL increase of absolute tax are unhelpful and confusing - whether this deliberate or accidental.

The ultimate questions is:- "How should tax vary with income?"

Whilst I am at heart a believer in flat tax rates, I simply cannot abide by the obscene multi-million dollar remuneration packages of the ultra-rich, and a lessening of the burden (or some sort of social security) for the ultra-poor. At some point, tax must escalate. The issue is what shape the tax curve should be...