7 ms·

I think this is a good idea. That is the first time in a long time I have thought "wow, the state is doing something useful with my tax dollars"

tarr11 3y ago
also free lunches in schools https://www.nycfoodpolicy.org/states-that-have-passed-universal-free-school-meals/ https://www.nycfoodpolicy.org/states-that-have-passed-univer...
- megaman821 3y ago
  All school lunches and breakfasts should be free. It is abhorrent that any child in a country as rich as the United States should go hungry at school.
  - torstenvl 3y ago
    As a taxpayer who funds public schools, I find it acceptable to subsidize the food of those who are struggling, but I do not have any desire to subsidize the ruling elite (who, in many cases, intentionally keep working class pay low). They can pay for their own children's food.
    - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
      > I find it acceptable to subsidize the food of those who are struggling, but I do not have any desire to subsidize the food of those who keep my pay low. Doesn't the means-testing bureaucracy frequently outweigh any potential savings? Food is cheap. Bureaucrats are not.
      - brightlancer 3y ago
        > Doesn't the means-testing bureaucracy frequently outweigh any potential savings? Maybe. Don't assume yes.
        JumpCrisscross 3y ago
        > Maybe. Don't assume yes. I'm not. I'm positing yes based on the cheapness of food.
        ericd 3y ago
        The rich are going to be paying the majority of the taxes that fund this. Is it unacceptable that their children be allowed to get a small fraction of the food their parents paid for?
    - chowells 3y ago
      The ruling elite don't let their children eat school food in the first place.
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
    - MikeTheGreat 3y ago
      On the one hand I 100% agree On the other hand we've got the phrase "Programs for the poor become poor" for a reason. Having a program that benefits everyone means that we all can support it out of enlightened self-interest. We can reduce overhead by providing food for everyone and not putting in place a complex government bureaucracy to carefully approve some people but not others, to give lobbyists a chance to advocate for the benefit of their constituents at the expense of everyone else, etc, etc.
      - duskwuff 3y ago
        Moreover, if free food is only available to low-income students, having to eat that food can become a symbol of poverty, and some students may feel ashamed to receive it. Making it available to all students, without reservation, avoids that.
        pessimizer 3y ago
        Also, you can literally lower the quality of the food.
        deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
        l33t233372 3y ago
        People say that, but it’s not like they have a flashing light that says “TIMMY IS POOR AND THIS LUNCH IS FREE,” they just punch their code or swipe their card or whatever and it rings up as free.
    - reverend_gonzo 3y ago
      The ruling elite don’t go to public school. They already pay for their children’s food.
    - pessimizer 3y ago
      You shouldn't be a sucker. For the ruling elite, it's an insignificant tax rebate. The overhead of a means-testing system to make sure that people who have been taxed for 50 free lunches don't get one is a waste that wouldn't be tolerated, except for the fact that we know the hurdles of bureaucracy will eliminate most of the people who qualify, bringing down costs by leaving children hungry. edit: The idea that your tax dollars are going to pay for the universal benefit of someone who pays more taxes than you do is mathematically nonsensical. It's purely a gimmick. It's a shell game with no shells other than innumeracy.
      - confidantlake 3y ago
        If you have kids yes. If you don't then you could still being paying for some rich kid's food. Still I would have no problem with this since the alternative is to means test which is just wasteful bureaucracy. Plus I am perfectly willing to subsidize the one rich kid so the 10 poor ones can eat.
    - megaman821 3y ago
      There is no reason not make it universal. A lot of kids will still bring their own lunches. Teens in high school will choose paid lunch options some of time. The program would probably have a similar cost to SNAP. Hungry kids don't learn well, so feeding them will lead to a modest increase of academic achievement on average. Academic achievement correlates with higher earnings, thereby paying for the program with their future taxes.
      - giantg2 3y ago
        This seems to make sense on the surface, but I'm skeptical about the last part. It seems we're in a race to the bottom and "good" jobs are increasingly scarce. It seems there aren't enough good jobs for the population. Basically, the logic you laid out is probably sound for small marginal changes, but I'm skeptical it would scale well due to the competition and limited resources.
    - dymk 3y ago
      The number of ruling elite is laughably small compared to the number of poor in the United States
      - torstenvl 3y ago
        And that justifies regressive taxation policies... how?
        dymk 3y ago
        Sorry, where's the regressive tax policy? If this is being funded by a graduated income tax (like what most states have, or federal income tax), then it's being funded by a progressive tax.
    - spamizbad 3y ago
      The solution to this problem (Wealthy elites getting free stuff) is to just ensure they're taxed appropriately. I do not care if the children of the wealthy are receiving free lunches as long as they're paying their fair share of taxes. Chances are, even with California's weird tax system, they are paying more than your typical middle class family.
    - Rebelgecko 3y ago
      In theory I agree with you, but in practice I think means testing does more harm than good. Some parents aren't gonna fill out the paperwork and we shouldn't punish kids for that. It also adds overhead to the programs. And I don't think the ruling elite's kids are eating free lunch at public schools :)
      - Rebelgecko 3y ago
        Adding on to this a bit, if the ruling elite's children did eat the same cafeteria good, I think it would be a net boon for society. Think of how every family in Finland taking home a newborn baby gets a box of starter supplies. The box doubles as a crib, so most babies, regardless of their parents wealth, spend their first days sleeping in the same cardboard box. IMO it's cool as shit to start everyone off the same way like that. From what I understand it also helps reduce the sort of stigma that can hurt kids taking advantage of free lunch programs [1]: https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-22751415.amp https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-22751415.amp
    - ochoseis 3y ago
      What if you thought of it as: perhaps at your income level your taxes fund one kid's meals, and at the elite's income level their taxes fund ten kids' meals? IDK how the actual numbers work, but that would be the gist in a progressive tax system.
    - themitigating 3y ago
      Since the children of elites represent such a small percentage and the cost per child is low is it really that big of a hit?
    - weaksauce 3y ago
      > but I do not have any desire to subsidize the ruling elite (who, in many cases, intentionally keep working class pay low). They can pay for their own children's food. I would hope they get taxed more under this regime so it's not really you subsidizing it for them.
    - fpig 3y ago
      It's much simpler to provide public services to everyone and handle economic inequality through taxation. Means-tested benefits result in bureaucracy that sometimes costs more than the increase in cost from giving the benefit to everyone would be, they create poverty traps, and they screw over people in atypical situations (i.e. a kid whose parents care so little they can't even be bothered to get the paperwork done that proves their low income status).
    - Aperocky 3y ago
      By blanket helping everyone no matter the wealth, you end up helping mostly non-wealthy people. By helping specifically the poor/not wealthy, you end up with a massive bureaucracy trying to decide who is wealthy enough, and add paperwork on top of poorer people to "request" such benefit. The cost benefit just isn't there.
    - ericd 3y ago
      The rich will pay far more into the program for free lunches that include their kids than their kids will receive back. And it'll probably make the program more efficient, since there won't be a pointless bureaucracy devoted to making sure there's no one getting free lunches who doesn't deserve those low-quality free lunches (the horror).
  - SamReidHughes 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - jackson1442 3y ago
      The problem isn’t with the kids either, we shouldn’t be punishing kids for the wrongs of their parents.
    - Ecoste 3y ago
      And the country should just sit and watch those kids gets neglected and abused?
    - ericjmorey 3y ago
      Kids don't apply for SNAP. If their parents fail them, children should not be blamed. There's no excuse for governments in the USA to not provide free breakfast and lunch to any child, no questions asked. Not doing so is absolutely a problem with every level of government that fails to do so.
    - turtlesdown11 3y ago
      Your comment is dripping with ignorance and arrogance
    - hparadiz 3y ago
      Spending millions on the education of strangers only for them not to learn much because they are hungry over a meal worth $1.50 in state funding. Fiscal "conservative" everyone.
- WirelessGigabit 3y ago
  I love this policy. If it's free then no-one brings their own, and no-one is looked down at. BUT... I checked the menu of a school where I used to live... Pizza, hot dogs, fries... We can make the most delicious vegetables, roasted, ... And they get carbs. Nutrition taken from nature decomposed in its elemental components put back together for the perfect addictive meal...
  - steve_adams_86 3y ago
    I’m not opposed to the carbs. I think if they’re in a whole food form, the kids are so much better off than if they’re eating processed… Anything. Not teaching kids to eat whole foods is one of the greatest assaults on public health we’ve done in the last century, from what I can see. They become adults who normalize eating these perfect addictive meals, who allow their own kids access to the same junk, and then they their own kids as well, and so on. Until today when grocery stores are quite literally predominately food that you shouldn’t eat. You just shouldn’t. Most common diseases in north America are highly correlated with diet. I find that so profound. We’re all eating ourselves to death in some form or another, it seems. To have that start in a public school is a real affront to individual and social well-being.
    - armchairhacker 3y ago
      We teach kids to eat whole foods, we just don't teach them well. I remember in school we had a lot of programs for nutrition which were basically health-food propaganda. Yes it was the "Food Pyramid" so not ideal, but there was a clear message to eat minimally-processed foods (fruits, vegetables, dairy, grains) and avoid junk. We watched "Supersize Me" and a documentary which explained all these "vegan / whole foods" diets. But kids still eat junk because they're kids and they don't really understand or care, and everyone around them eats junk; and then grow up and continue to eat junk because it's cheaper/easier and they did as kids. Also, we had fruits and vegetables in every school lunch, as well as salads and wraps as alternatives to the hot meal. But the fruits were often wilted or bruised, and vegetables canned and/or overcooked. If we had good-tasting healthy food, I'm sure more kids would eat it; but the school lunch was school-lunch quality, and bad quality degrades healthy food more than it does junk food. The problem is, if we want to teach kids how to eat unprocessed food so that they actually listen, we need nuance and funding. To teach them "healthy <> bad tasting", we need to give them access to good-tasting healthy meals, which are hard to cook. Or if we just keep scaring them into eating less junk, we need to change society so that it's more ingrained that junk food is bad outside of school; right now they get mixed messages, where 1 semester of health class says "junk food bad", but few people care anywhere else. But nuance, funding, and affecting culture are things the government is really bad at, especially when it's an issue as "insignificant" as eating healthy.
- mertd 3y ago
  Universal pre-k was also a good move.
- KomoD 3y ago
  Children in the US had/have to pay for food in school?

tarr11 3y ago

also free lunches in schools https://www.nycfoodpolicy.org/states-that-have-passed-universal-free-school-meals/ https://www.nycfoodpolicy.org/states-that-have-passed-univer...

megaman821 3y ago
All school lunches and breakfasts should be free. It is abhorrent that any child in a country as rich as the United States should go hungry at school.
- torstenvl 3y ago
  As a taxpayer who funds public schools, I find it acceptable to subsidize the food of those who are struggling, but I do not have any desire to subsidize the ruling elite (who, in many cases, intentionally keep working class pay low). They can pay for their own children's food.
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > I find it acceptable to subsidize the food of those who are struggling, but I do not have any desire to subsidize the food of those who keep my pay low. Doesn't the means-testing bureaucracy frequently outweigh any potential savings? Food is cheap. Bureaucrats are not.
    - brightlancer 3y ago
      > Doesn't the means-testing bureaucracy frequently outweigh any potential savings? Maybe. Don't assume yes.
      - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
        > Maybe. Don't assume yes. I'm not. I'm positing yes based on the cheapness of food.
      - ericd 3y ago
        The rich are going to be paying the majority of the taxes that fund this. Is it unacceptable that their children be allowed to get a small fraction of the food their parents paid for?
  - chowells 3y ago
    The ruling elite don't let their children eat school food in the first place.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
  - MikeTheGreat 3y ago
    On the one hand I 100% agree On the other hand we've got the phrase "Programs for the poor become poor" for a reason. Having a program that benefits everyone means that we all can support it out of enlightened self-interest. We can reduce overhead by providing food for everyone and not putting in place a complex government bureaucracy to carefully approve some people but not others, to give lobbyists a chance to advocate for the benefit of their constituents at the expense of everyone else, etc, etc.
    - duskwuff 3y ago
      Moreover, if free food is only available to low-income students, having to eat that food can become a symbol of poverty, and some students may feel ashamed to receive it. Making it available to all students, without reservation, avoids that.
      - pessimizer 3y ago
        Also, you can literally lower the quality of the food.
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
      - l33t233372 3y ago
        People say that, but it’s not like they have a flashing light that says “TIMMY IS POOR AND THIS LUNCH IS FREE,” they just punch their code or swipe their card or whatever and it rings up as free.
  - reverend_gonzo 3y ago
    The ruling elite don’t go to public school. They already pay for their children’s food.
  - pessimizer 3y ago
    You shouldn't be a sucker. For the ruling elite, it's an insignificant tax rebate. The overhead of a means-testing system to make sure that people who have been taxed for 50 free lunches don't get one is a waste that wouldn't be tolerated, except for the fact that we know the hurdles of bureaucracy will eliminate most of the people who qualify, bringing down costs by leaving children hungry. edit: The idea that your tax dollars are going to pay for the universal benefit of someone who pays more taxes than you do is mathematically nonsensical. It's purely a gimmick. It's a shell game with no shells other than innumeracy.
    - confidantlake 3y ago
      If you have kids yes. If you don't then you could still being paying for some rich kid's food. Still I would have no problem with this since the alternative is to means test which is just wasteful bureaucracy. Plus I am perfectly willing to subsidize the one rich kid so the 10 poor ones can eat.
  - megaman821 3y ago
    There is no reason not make it universal. A lot of kids will still bring their own lunches. Teens in high school will choose paid lunch options some of time. The program would probably have a similar cost to SNAP. Hungry kids don't learn well, so feeding them will lead to a modest increase of academic achievement on average. Academic achievement correlates with higher earnings, thereby paying for the program with their future taxes.
    - giantg2 3y ago
      This seems to make sense on the surface, but I'm skeptical about the last part. It seems we're in a race to the bottom and "good" jobs are increasingly scarce. It seems there aren't enough good jobs for the population. Basically, the logic you laid out is probably sound for small marginal changes, but I'm skeptical it would scale well due to the competition and limited resources.
  - dymk 3y ago
    The number of ruling elite is laughably small compared to the number of poor in the United States
    - torstenvl 3y ago
      And that justifies regressive taxation policies... how?
      - dymk 3y ago
        Sorry, where's the regressive tax policy? If this is being funded by a graduated income tax (like what most states have, or federal income tax), then it's being funded by a progressive tax.
  - spamizbad 3y ago
    The solution to this problem (Wealthy elites getting free stuff) is to just ensure they're taxed appropriately. I do not care if the children of the wealthy are receiving free lunches as long as they're paying their fair share of taxes. Chances are, even with California's weird tax system, they are paying more than your typical middle class family.
  - Rebelgecko 3y ago
    In theory I agree with you, but in practice I think means testing does more harm than good. Some parents aren't gonna fill out the paperwork and we shouldn't punish kids for that. It also adds overhead to the programs. And I don't think the ruling elite's kids are eating free lunch at public schools :)
    - Rebelgecko 3y ago
      Adding on to this a bit, if the ruling elite's children did eat the same cafeteria good, I think it would be a net boon for society. Think of how every family in Finland taking home a newborn baby gets a box of starter supplies. The box doubles as a crib, so most babies, regardless of their parents wealth, spend their first days sleeping in the same cardboard box. IMO it's cool as shit to start everyone off the same way like that. From what I understand it also helps reduce the sort of stigma that can hurt kids taking advantage of free lunch programs [1]: https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-22751415.amp https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-22751415.amp
  - ochoseis 3y ago
    What if you thought of it as: perhaps at your income level your taxes fund one kid's meals, and at the elite's income level their taxes fund ten kids' meals? IDK how the actual numbers work, but that would be the gist in a progressive tax system.
  - themitigating 3y ago
    Since the children of elites represent such a small percentage and the cost per child is low is it really that big of a hit?
  - weaksauce 3y ago
    > but I do not have any desire to subsidize the ruling elite (who, in many cases, intentionally keep working class pay low). They can pay for their own children's food. I would hope they get taxed more under this regime so it's not really you subsidizing it for them.
  - fpig 3y ago
    It's much simpler to provide public services to everyone and handle economic inequality through taxation. Means-tested benefits result in bureaucracy that sometimes costs more than the increase in cost from giving the benefit to everyone would be, they create poverty traps, and they screw over people in atypical situations (i.e. a kid whose parents care so little they can't even be bothered to get the paperwork done that proves their low income status).
  - Aperocky 3y ago
    By blanket helping everyone no matter the wealth, you end up helping mostly non-wealthy people. By helping specifically the poor/not wealthy, you end up with a massive bureaucracy trying to decide who is wealthy enough, and add paperwork on top of poorer people to "request" such benefit. The cost benefit just isn't there.
  - ericd 3y ago
    The rich will pay far more into the program for free lunches that include their kids than their kids will receive back. And it'll probably make the program more efficient, since there won't be a pointless bureaucracy devoted to making sure there's no one getting free lunches who doesn't deserve those low-quality free lunches (the horror).
- SamReidHughes 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - jackson1442 3y ago
    The problem isn’t with the kids either, we shouldn’t be punishing kids for the wrongs of their parents.
  - Ecoste 3y ago
    And the country should just sit and watch those kids gets neglected and abused?
  - ericjmorey 3y ago
    Kids don't apply for SNAP. If their parents fail them, children should not be blamed. There's no excuse for governments in the USA to not provide free breakfast and lunch to any child, no questions asked. Not doing so is absolutely a problem with every level of government that fails to do so.
  - turtlesdown11 3y ago
    Your comment is dripping with ignorance and arrogance
  - hparadiz 3y ago
    Spending millions on the education of strangers only for them not to learn much because they are hungry over a meal worth $1.50 in state funding. Fiscal "conservative" everyone.
WirelessGigabit 3y ago
I love this policy. If it's free then no-one brings their own, and no-one is looked down at. BUT... I checked the menu of a school where I used to live... Pizza, hot dogs, fries... We can make the most delicious vegetables, roasted, ... And they get carbs. Nutrition taken from nature decomposed in its elemental components put back together for the perfect addictive meal...
- steve_adams_86 3y ago
  I’m not opposed to the carbs. I think if they’re in a whole food form, the kids are so much better off than if they’re eating processed… Anything. Not teaching kids to eat whole foods is one of the greatest assaults on public health we’ve done in the last century, from what I can see. They become adults who normalize eating these perfect addictive meals, who allow their own kids access to the same junk, and then they their own kids as well, and so on. Until today when grocery stores are quite literally predominately food that you shouldn’t eat. You just shouldn’t. Most common diseases in north America are highly correlated with diet. I find that so profound. We’re all eating ourselves to death in some form or another, it seems. To have that start in a public school is a real affront to individual and social well-being.
  - armchairhacker 3y ago
    We teach kids to eat whole foods, we just don't teach them well. I remember in school we had a lot of programs for nutrition which were basically health-food propaganda. Yes it was the "Food Pyramid" so not ideal, but there was a clear message to eat minimally-processed foods (fruits, vegetables, dairy, grains) and avoid junk. We watched "Supersize Me" and a documentary which explained all these "vegan / whole foods" diets. But kids still eat junk because they're kids and they don't really understand or care, and everyone around them eats junk; and then grow up and continue to eat junk because it's cheaper/easier and they did as kids. Also, we had fruits and vegetables in every school lunch, as well as salads and wraps as alternatives to the hot meal. But the fruits were often wilted or bruised, and vegetables canned and/or overcooked. If we had good-tasting healthy food, I'm sure more kids would eat it; but the school lunch was school-lunch quality, and bad quality degrades healthy food more than it does junk food. The problem is, if we want to teach kids how to eat unprocessed food so that they actually listen, we need nuance and funding. To teach them "healthy <> bad tasting", we need to give them access to good-tasting healthy meals, which are hard to cook. Or if we just keep scaring them into eating less junk, we need to change society so that it's more ingrained that junk food is bad outside of school; right now they get mixed messages, where 1 semester of health class says "junk food bad", but few people care anywhere else. But nuance, funding, and affecting culture are things the government is really bad at, especially when it's an issue as "insignificant" as eating healthy.
mertd 3y ago
Universal pre-k was also a good move.
KomoD 3y ago
Children in the US had/have to pay for food in school?