3 ms·

The problem with food stamps is program abuse: about 25% is spent on junk food. And then there's outright fraud, which as a percentage is small but still a lot

by aydyn 3y ago

The problem with food stamps is program abuse: about 25% is spent on junk food. And then there's outright fraud, which as a percentage is small but still a lot of money. Who knows how much is spent on uber eats/doordash. I'm fine with tax spending to feed the poor, but I don't agree with spending on luxury foods and luxury food services that I wouldn't even spend on myself.

rockemsockem 3y ago
That thinking is the problem. Every government program will see fraud and I don't even see how junk food is a real problem? The point is calories. Sure, healthier food would be better, but there are other efforts to get people of all income brackets to eat healthier. The government should not limit what people are permitted to eat just because they're poor enough to qualify.
- aydyn 3y ago
  How is "that thinking" the problem? A problem for what exactly? Junk food is a problem because it's vastly overpriced relative to the amount of nutritional value. In terms of material cost, the dollar amount actually necessary to feed poor people is a tiny insignificant fraction of what is being spent now. That's inefficient. Not to even mention how junk food contributes to obesity and other health problems, effectively creating a second-order tax unto the health care system.
jarjar2_ 3y ago
The max benefit for EBT in ND is $250-ish for a single person essentially making nothing. The whole point of EBT is to keep people fed. If they are eating junk food and not maximizing their nutritional value to your satisfaction that’s fine because they’re still eating. All prepared food is banned in ND for EBT. Meaning you can’t order Taco Bell through door dash. If you’re really worried about your tax expenditures look at defense contracting and spending. EBT fraud is a rounding error for some of those program overruns. Also at tax policy when it comes to revenue offshoring, inheritance and millionaires to billionaire tax evasion. The poors aren’t the ones screwing you.
- aydyn 3y ago
  > The whole point of EBT is to keep people fed. If they are eating junk food and not maximizing their nutritional value to your satisfaction that’s fine because they’re still eating. They could eat for much less than that. Again, why should the taxpayer be subsidizing luxury spending? Junk food is a luxury. > If you’re really worried about your tax expenditures look at defense contracting and spending. EBT fraud is a rounding error for some of those program overruns. Also at tax policy when it comes to revenue offshoring, inheritance and millionaires to billionaire tax evasion. Whataboutism. Two things can be true at once.
  - jarjar2_ 3y ago
    I would continue discussing this with you, but if you object to people buying a bag of chips, I can draw a relatively easy conclusion to your overall opinion on the social safety net and probably tax policy. It's not worth my time.
    - aydyn 3y ago
      That would be your assumption due to your own political bias. That reflects on you, not me. Like I legitimately just want the system to be more efficient lol. It must be hard for you to talk to people?
      - neuronerdgirl 3y ago
        If you "legitimately" want efficiency then you support just giving people $250 outright in cash, not locking it behind food stamps. How inefficient is it to give people 250 that theyre locked to spending on only one aspect of their lives? I would posit, having done it myself, that you could easily feed yourself and probably at least 2 people on half that. If the people are left with 125 that they can ONLY use on food, of course they'll use it for junk - at least that gives them some value at least as far as life enjoyment even if it's bad for them. Give them cash and I would bet they'd put it to much better use on bills, outstanding debts, laundry, etc.
  - 3y ago

by aydyn 3y ago

rockemsockem 3y ago

That thinking is the problem. Every government program will see fraud and I don't even see how junk food is a real problem? The point is calories. Sure, healthier food would be better, but there are other efforts to get people of all income brackets to eat healthier. The government should not limit what people are permitted to eat just because they're poor enough to qualify.

aydyn 3y ago
How is "that thinking" the problem? A problem for what exactly? Junk food is a problem because it's vastly overpriced relative to the amount of nutritional value. In terms of material cost, the dollar amount actually necessary to feed poor people is a tiny insignificant fraction of what is being spent now. That's inefficient. Not to even mention how junk food contributes to obesity and other health problems, effectively creating a second-order tax unto the health care system.

jarjar2_ 3y ago

The max benefit for EBT in ND is $250-ish for a single person essentially making nothing. The whole point of EBT is to keep people fed. If they are eating junk food and not maximizing their nutritional value to your satisfaction that’s fine because they’re still eating. All prepared food is banned in ND for EBT. Meaning you can’t order Taco Bell through door dash. If you’re really worried about your tax expenditures look at defense contracting and spending. EBT fraud is a rounding error for some of those program overruns. Also at tax policy when it comes to revenue offshoring, inheritance and millionaires to billionaire tax evasion. The poors aren’t the ones screwing you.

aydyn 3y ago
> The whole point of EBT is to keep people fed. If they are eating junk food and not maximizing their nutritional value to your satisfaction that’s fine because they’re still eating. They could eat for much less than that. Again, why should the taxpayer be subsidizing luxury spending? Junk food is a luxury. > If you’re really worried about your tax expenditures look at defense contracting and spending. EBT fraud is a rounding error for some of those program overruns. Also at tax policy when it comes to revenue offshoring, inheritance and millionaires to billionaire tax evasion. Whataboutism. Two things can be true at once.
- jarjar2_ 3y ago
  I would continue discussing this with you, but if you object to people buying a bag of chips, I can draw a relatively easy conclusion to your overall opinion on the social safety net and probably tax policy. It's not worth my time.
  - aydyn 3y ago
    That would be your assumption due to your own political bias. That reflects on you, not me. Like I legitimately just want the system to be more efficient lol. It must be hard for you to talk to people?
    - neuronerdgirl 3y ago
      If you "legitimately" want efficiency then you support just giving people $250 outright in cash, not locking it behind food stamps. How inefficient is it to give people 250 that theyre locked to spending on only one aspect of their lives? I would posit, having done it myself, that you could easily feed yourself and probably at least 2 people on half that. If the people are left with 125 that they can ONLY use on food, of course they'll use it for junk - at least that gives them some value at least as far as life enjoyment even if it's bad for them. Give them cash and I would bet they'd put it to much better use on bills, outstanding debts, laundry, etc.
- 3y ago