4 ms·

I would be more than happy if my tax money could bring joy to these people who normally couldn’t afford these things. Make better to have the money spent on lu

I would be more than happy if my tax money could bring joy to these people who normally couldn’t afford these things. Make better to have the money spent on luxury food items than killing people in foreign countries.

pseudo0 3y ago
That's easy for us to say, most working well-compensated tech jobs. The guy working overtime hours for bullshit pay would rather the government pay for neither and give a few dollars of his taxes back. Also, for the folks calling this a conservative talking point, Marx and Engels weren't exactly well-disposed towards the lumpenproletariat... Someone who is chronically unemployed by definition is not working class.
- sumuyuda 3y ago
  > The guy working overtime hours for bullshit pay would rather the government pay for neither and give a few dollars of his taxes back. The problem is the person’s employer is allowed to pay too low a wage. That should be the focus rather than the government for wasting their taxes.
  - tourmalinetaco 3y ago
    If you raise the minimum wage then prices inflate equally. This happens literally every time some bonehead passes a law requiring it. It’s almost like printing more money never solves the problem. The problem is and always has been that the government is greedy and takes income tax, a tax that disproportionately affects the lower economic rungs, for no reason other than to line their own pockets. Alongside the black box that is the federal reserve, that is.
tivert 3y ago
> I would be more than happy if my tax money could bring joy to these people who normally couldn’t afford these things. But then think of the people who also can't afford these things, but are paying into the system rather than taking from it. They'd rightly feel shafted by people buying luxury items on their dime. The perspective of a well-off person who can easily afford to pay into the system and afford most of their chosen luxuries is probably not the right one to take in this case. The point of food stamps is not to give people a taste of luxury, it's to keep them alive and healthy by giving them access to food so they don't go hungry.
- archagon 3y ago
  I feel that setting up the infrastructure to specifically exclude certain “luxury” foods would not only be a giant waste of money, but weirdly cruel and punitive. Just give people the resources to buy what they need.
  - tivert 3y ago
    > I feel that setting up the infrastructure to specifically exclude certain “luxury” foods would not only be a giant waste of money, but weirdly cruel and punitive. It certainly wouldn't be "cruel and punitive." After all, as the saying goes, beggars can't be choosers. It would be valuable insofar as it would undercut one of the most biting criticisms of the program. > Just give people the resources to buy what they need. Exactly. People need good nutritious food; not expensive luxury food.
    - archagon 3y ago
      People on social programs should not be treated as “beggars.” They should be allowed to live their lives with dignity. (Even if it means getting a bit of ice cream every once in a while, the horror!)
      - tivert 3y ago
        > People on social programs should not be treated as “beggars.” They should be allowed to live their lives with dignity. Living their lives with dignity doesn't mean buying luxury items with benefits that many who don't get benefits can't afford. A lot of people support social programs to keep people from going hungry or being homeless, because those are serious problems. There's a lot less support for taking those programs farther, to providing free or subsidized luxuries. And taking them that far, frankly, is a short-sighted own-goal, because it serves to undermine support for the whole endeavor.
        archagon 3y ago
        Studies have shown that just giving people resources with no strings attached produces really positive results. It also keeps our welfare systems simple, less expensive to run, and less prone to moralistic posturing. ("How dare these people buy raw salmon when there's canned tuna available?") Personally, I'm happy if there's 9 people using EBT to get what they need without trouble for every crab leg lady. As for perception, the Republican dogma is starving the beast. "Welfare queens" are just an excuse: any remotely plausible reason will be used to defund social programs, crab legs or no.

pseudo0 3y ago

That's easy for us to say, most working well-compensated tech jobs. The guy working overtime hours for bullshit pay would rather the government pay for neither and give a few dollars of his taxes back. Also, for the folks calling this a conservative talking point, Marx and Engels weren't exactly well-disposed towards the lumpenproletariat... Someone who is chronically unemployed by definition is not working class.

sumuyuda 3y ago
> The guy working overtime hours for bullshit pay would rather the government pay for neither and give a few dollars of his taxes back. The problem is the person’s employer is allowed to pay too low a wage. That should be the focus rather than the government for wasting their taxes.
- tourmalinetaco 3y ago
  If you raise the minimum wage then prices inflate equally. This happens literally every time some bonehead passes a law requiring it. It’s almost like printing more money never solves the problem. The problem is and always has been that the government is greedy and takes income tax, a tax that disproportionately affects the lower economic rungs, for no reason other than to line their own pockets. Alongside the black box that is the federal reserve, that is.

tivert 3y ago

> I would be more than happy if my tax money could bring joy to these people who normally couldn’t afford these things. But then think of the people who also can't afford these things, but are paying into the system rather than taking from it. They'd rightly feel shafted by people buying luxury items on their dime. The perspective of a well-off person who can easily afford to pay into the system and afford most of their chosen luxuries is probably not the right one to take in this case. The point of food stamps is not to give people a taste of luxury, it's to keep them alive and healthy by giving them access to food so they don't go hungry.

archagon 3y ago
I feel that setting up the infrastructure to specifically exclude certain “luxury” foods would not only be a giant waste of money, but weirdly cruel and punitive. Just give people the resources to buy what they need.
- tivert 3y ago
  > I feel that setting up the infrastructure to specifically exclude certain “luxury” foods would not only be a giant waste of money, but weirdly cruel and punitive. It certainly wouldn't be "cruel and punitive." After all, as the saying goes, beggars can't be choosers. It would be valuable insofar as it would undercut one of the most biting criticisms of the program. > Just give people the resources to buy what they need. Exactly. People need good nutritious food; not expensive luxury food.
  - archagon 3y ago
    People on social programs should not be treated as “beggars.” They should be allowed to live their lives with dignity. (Even if it means getting a bit of ice cream every once in a while, the horror!)
    - tivert 3y ago
      > People on social programs should not be treated as “beggars.” They should be allowed to live their lives with dignity. Living their lives with dignity doesn't mean buying luxury items with benefits that many who don't get benefits can't afford. A lot of people support social programs to keep people from going hungry or being homeless, because those are serious problems. There's a lot less support for taking those programs farther, to providing free or subsidized luxuries. And taking them that far, frankly, is a short-sighted own-goal, because it serves to undermine support for the whole endeavor.
      - archagon 3y ago
        Studies have shown that just giving people resources with no strings attached produces really positive results. It also keeps our welfare systems simple, less expensive to run, and less prone to moralistic posturing. ("How dare these people buy raw salmon when there's canned tuna available?") Personally, I'm happy if there's 9 people using EBT to get what they need without trouble for every crab leg lady. As for perception, the Republican dogma is starving the beast. "Welfare queens" are just an excuse: any remotely plausible reason will be used to defund social programs, crab legs or no.