3 ms·

You can't opt out of free meals provided via taxation because you're paying for them regardless of whether or not you use them. If I'm going to give poor peopl

by throwaway22032 4y ago

You can't opt out of free meals provided via taxation because you're paying for them regardless of whether or not you use them. If I'm going to give poor people money I'd much rather just give them money. There's a ton of literature on this producing better results.

TSiege 4y ago
Sometimes I think people have gone too hard into behavioral economics thinking. The issue at hand isn't what is the best way to allocate resources. The issue is that we legally force children to spend all day at school 5 days a week, but we do not provide them food. If the government is mandating that, they are responsible for the children's safety and well being. One of the most basic parts of well being is being fed. There's a ton of studies that show that providing free meals improves test scores and behavior. It should be an option by default. And who cares if you don't use something directly, you benefit indirectly by having happier well fed children in your community
pessimizer 4y ago
> There's a ton of literature on this producing better results. "Better results" here revolves entirely around what outcome you're trying to achieve. The better results you're referring to are that the easiest way to provide a better lifestyle for poor people is to give them money. I'd submit that the best way to feed children is to give them food.
- throwaway22032 4y ago
  Right, my argument is that the best way to provide a better lifestyle for poor people is to give them money rather than food.
denton-scratch 4y ago
> You can't opt out of free meals provided via taxation because you're paying for them regardless of whether or not you use them. You're right; that's how taxation is used to provide public services. So ban all public services, and reduce taxation to zero. That's what the new UK government seems bent on, and over just a weekend they've crashed into a lampost and written-off the car.

TSiege 4y ago

Sometimes I think people have gone too hard into behavioral economics thinking. The issue at hand isn't what is the best way to allocate resources. The issue is that we legally force children to spend all day at school 5 days a week, but we do not provide them food. If the government is mandating that, they are responsible for the children's safety and well being. One of the most basic parts of well being is being fed. There's a ton of studies that show that providing free meals improves test scores and behavior. It should be an option by default. And who cares if you don't use something directly, you benefit indirectly by having happier well fed children in your community

pessimizer 4y ago

> There's a ton of literature on this producing better results. "Better results" here revolves entirely around what outcome you're trying to achieve. The better results you're referring to are that the easiest way to provide a better lifestyle for poor people is to give them money. I'd submit that the best way to feed children is to give them food.

throwaway22032 4y ago
Right, my argument is that the best way to provide a better lifestyle for poor people is to give them money rather than food.

denton-scratch 4y ago

> You can't opt out of free meals provided via taxation because you're paying for them regardless of whether or not you use them. You're right; that's how taxation is used to provide public services. So ban all public services, and reduce taxation to zero. That's what the new UK government seems bent on, and over just a weekend they've crashed into a lampost and written-off the car.