46 ms·
The problem with this idea is your premise that you shouldn't have to pay for school meals if you don't have children. Paying for school benefits everyone, even
by minikites 6y ago
The problem with this idea is your premise that you shouldn't have to pay for school meals if you don't have children. Paying for school benefits everyone, even the childless, because it's good for society. The idea of itemized taxes reduces your interaction with others and society down to a capitalist transaction, which is not a healthy foundation for civilization. People are more than their productivity and your system has no way of accounting for that.
- austincheney 6y agoThe premise is transparency. People can do whatever they want with that transparency as more informed voters. The only benefit of decreasing transparency in government spending is corruption.
- minikites 6y agoDoes this view extend to product labels like the California Prop 65 Warning?
- austincheney 6y agoI have no idea about any California laws.
- selfhoster11 6y ago> The problem with this idea is your premise that you shouldn't have to pay for school meals if you don't have children. Nothing about what parent wrote indicates that they are unwilling to pay for school meals, just that they want to know how much it cost them. Much like most people would want to know how much they are paying for socialised cancer treatments or food banks, but generally wouldn't oppose to paying in the first place.
- minikites 6y agoWhat actions can you take with that information? Which voters are making their candidate choices down to the dollars and cents level of school lunch (or any single issue) funding?
- jtbayly 6y agoSomehow you got confused. Paying for a meal for somebody at school is not the same thing as paying for that person to go to school.