They pay $34 for burgers.
-
@realtegan @mekkaokereke
My pet hate.
When you start to "means test" something that really should be universal the means test itself costs money to administer and you create a barrier to some of those who should be benefiting but may not be able to navigate the red tape required for many many reasons.
And we already have the right machinery to recover the money from those who don't need it: it's called the tax system. Fox that instead of introducing program-by-program assessments. -
And we already have the right machinery to recover the money from those who don't need it: it's called the tax system. Fox that instead of introducing program-by-program assessments.@EricLawton @realtegan @mekkaokereke @bonaventuresoft
Absolutely, if you tax those who can afford it then there should no complaints about them getting 'free' stuff as they are getting out from a system that they have paid the most into.
-
Trying to carve out a "special" class who are entitled to school lunch has always been a foolish approach that just adds layers of expensive policing that INEVITABLY wind up costing more than they save, and preventing some number of eligible students from getting serviced.
Unfortunately, some people are always more focused on the remote or insignificant risk of cheaters, than they are on make sure that they are servicing those who need it
Just make it free to all
@screwturn @realtegan @mekkaokereke
Yup. School lunch should be free for all.
Want to make sure that people who make more than some arbitrary amount don't get freebies? Tax the rich.
-
@screwturn @realtegan @mekkaokereke
Yup. School lunch should be free for all.
Want to make sure that people who make more than some arbitrary amount don't get freebies? Tax the rich.
School lunch
Education
Public transit
Basic healthcareShould all be free at point of use
-
School lunch
Education
Public transit
Basic healthcareShould all be free at point of use
@screwturn @wakejagr @mekkaokereke
Life = Basic healthcare, school lunch
Liberty = Public transit
Pursuit of Happiness = EducationAnd so on. You can map the basics to the preamble and come up with a good list of things that Promote the General Welfare of the people and should be free at point of use in order to make a more perfect union.
Not everything should be free, but providing the basics should be the main purpose of a good government.
-
Long answer:
Some of the first Americans were Puritans. They brought with them some of the most toxic viewpoints, and they are still present in US society:
1) Prosperity gospel: God blesses good people that work hard. Having money is a blessing! So if I'm rich? That means that God loves me! I can prove how much God loves me by getting richer!
2) Means Testing: "lazy" or "unworthy" people should get nothing. So if you are poor? That means that you are lazy, and that God hates you! You did this to yourself!
The reality, of course is that rich early Americans were rich because they owned things: land, slaves, mills, etc. And early poor Americans were poor because they didn't own things and worked for greedy people that did own things. Or in the case of Black people, because they were owned.
But it's beyond race: in this dichotomy of deserving and undeserving, an Irish American sharecropper or slave overseer, was lazy, undeserving and seeking a handout, but an English American land owner was hard working.
Gangs of New York opening scene:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=QqPqUcNKnVgIrish people and Catholics eventually "earned their whiteness" in the US, and adopted many of the Puritan ideals that were ones used against them.
What does this have to do with free childcare or free school? Or more accurately, public childcare or public school?
Well, in the United States, public schools are funded by local taxes of the community that the school is in. This creates a situation where the best schools are near the most expensive houses, not where the most students are, or where the best schools are needed.
This has a concentrating effect, where people buy expensive houses near good schools, which drives up the price of houses, which produces more money for the school district, which makes the schools better, which drives up the price of houses... ♾️
This is a free school in a rich part of the US:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Xm4dy25VmCwThis is a free school in a poor part of the US:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=nD3P-utKYZ0A homeless Black woman wanted her child to go to school, so she had to list an address. She listed her child's babysitter's address. This qualified her child to go to a good school. But the school district found out about it. What do you think they did?
a) Let the child keep going to the school
b) Force the child to transfer to a school in a district with her homeless shelter
c) charge the mother with a felony, convict her, giving her a five year prison sentence, and causing her to lose custody of her child -
@mekkaokereke one of the core lessons of public health is that bureaucracy is _expensive_. The entire “Who should pay what!?” Exercise slows the systems down and costs a ton of money and basically all it produces is spreadsheets that cruel selfish people use to be cruel and selfish, and that crowd can’t wrap their heads around the fact that the other thing that’s great about public services being public services is that it’s cheaper.
all sorts of services. education, food programs, health, public transportation, postal services.
they are public goods. they don't need to "make a profit". any decently run program won't have enough fraud to make it worth charging money and tracking the use. what they will save in costs and result in overall improvement in quality of life for all will more than make them worth it.
problem is, as soon as you say anything like that (or universal health care, UBI, etc.) there are screams of "that's communism" (no it isn't) or "socialism" (not exactly). capitalism (which we don't really have either) is a sacred cow. no one dares to criticize capitalism.
sigh...
-
@mekkaokereke
When school lunch programs throw out the "who deserves to get free lunches?" and just provide for every child, the entire program is cheaper due to the lack of an enforcement layer, all children get fed, and children learn more and pay attention better.Being overly concerned that someone might get something they don't "deserve" usually ends up screwing over the ones who need help most.
We're supposed to "promote the general welfare" of the public - not gate-keep who gets help.
@realtegan @mekkaokereke this was how it was at all my schools elementary through high school; it sure helps with shame around needing help too. kids should never be made to feel bad about not having money.
-
@realtegan @mekkaokereke this was how it was at all my schools elementary through high school; it sure helps with shame around needing help too. kids should never be made to feel bad about not having money.
@bipolaron @mekkaokereke
I grew up in the 1970s, and if you were poor you brought a sack lunch or went hungry. Buying a lunch was a luxury. Then they offered free lunch for some kids, but the process to get it was nasty to go through, and as I recall there was a voucher the child had to use - visible to all other students so they knew the kid was getting a free lunch. The teasing was enough to make some kids go hungry, because children are cruel.When everyone gets it, it's so much better.
-
They pay $34 for burgers. Should their fire department service be free? Opening a new fire department in one of NYC's richest neighborhoods has some of America's pettiest journalists asking silly questions in headlines again.
The article acknowledges the fire department analogy, then blows past it.
️The solve for "Sometimes when a service like free childcare is available to all, marginalized communities get squeezed out," is "Address that racism."
It's not "Therefore waste incredible amounts of time and money trying to means test something that society should just make available to all.
"@mekkaokereke Should we have a society if sometimes rich? I'm just asking questions.
-
@mekkaokereke
When school lunch programs throw out the "who deserves to get free lunches?" and just provide for every child, the entire program is cheaper due to the lack of an enforcement layer, all children get fed, and children learn more and pay attention better.Being overly concerned that someone might get something they don't "deserve" usually ends up screwing over the ones who need help most.
We're supposed to "promote the general welfare" of the public - not gate-keep who gets help.
@realtegan @mekkaokereke @paul_ipv6
If instead of means-testing they spent that money on tax audits to catch evasion by the very wealthyThey could quickly pay for the whole program
Tax audits are the most cost effective government spending possible
And get, unpopular with conservatives
-
They pay $34 for burgers. Should their fire department service be free? Opening a new fire department in one of NYC's richest neighborhoods has some of America's pettiest journalists asking silly questions in headlines again.
The article acknowledges the fire department analogy, then blows past it.
️The solve for "Sometimes when a service like free childcare is available to all, marginalized communities get squeezed out," is "Address that racism."
It's not "Therefore waste incredible amounts of time and money trying to means test something that society should just make available to all.
"@mekkaokereke aside from everything else I read in the replies (and mostly agree with).
If there’s something that rich people as a class are into is making sure everyone else understands that they are rich.
In other words almost all of those who are rich enough won’t be caught dead sending their kid to the commoners’ child care when they can send them to the Very Expensive Childcare Where They Only Mingle With Other Rich Kids.
-
They pay $34 for burgers. Should their fire department service be free? Opening a new fire department in one of NYC's richest neighborhoods has some of America's pettiest journalists asking silly questions in headlines again.
The article acknowledges the fire department analogy, then blows past it.
️The solve for "Sometimes when a service like free childcare is available to all, marginalized communities get squeezed out," is "Address that racism."
It's not "Therefore waste incredible amounts of time and money trying to means test something that society should just make available to all.
"@mekkaokereke journalists gotta eat too
-
@mekkaokereke
When school lunch programs throw out the "who deserves to get free lunches?" and just provide for every child, the entire program is cheaper due to the lack of an enforcement layer, all children get fed, and children learn more and pay attention better.Being overly concerned that someone might get something they don't "deserve" usually ends up screwing over the ones who need help most.
We're supposed to "promote the general welfare" of the public - not gate-keep who gets help.
@realtegan @mekkaokereke Free school lunches for all is what Democrats and Gov. Walz did in Minnesota.
-
@realtegan @mekkaokereke Free school lunches for all is what Democrats and Gov. Walz did in Minnesota.
@blainecross @mekkaokereke
When I saw how well it works locally - the general health of students went up, as well as attendance, grades, and graduation rates - I was completely won over to the idea of free lunches (and breakfasts) for all school children. I cheered when I heard what Walz did in Minnesota. -
@mekkaokereke I mean the obvious retort is - of course their childcare isn't free. What do you think taxes are?
@JessTheUnstill @mekkaokereke Also: "If you don't feel that the taxes that rich people pay are enough that they deserve whatever government services they receive, raise their rates until the feeling goes away."
Funny, by the way, that I never hear this about taxpayer-subsidized facilities used largely by the rich, like, say, Teterboro airport.
-
@mekkaokereke The "but then rich people get more of it" argument consistently feels like concern-trolling designed to provide an excuse to clamp down on means-testing, which of course makes the problem worse because rich people always have ways to get around bureaucratic obstacles.
(cf. buying a second house in another school-zone so you don't have to send your kids to the "bad" (underfunded) school.)
@woozle @mekkaokereke Espesh since rich people always get more of everything anyway, so wtf? Let it go.
-
@deirdrebeth @Fishercat @mekkaokereke That poor kids might get something that rich kids get.
-
@blainecross @mekkaokereke
When I saw how well it works locally - the general health of students went up, as well as attendance, grades, and graduation rates - I was completely won over to the idea of free lunches (and breakfasts) for all school children. I cheered when I heard what Walz did in Minnesota.@realtegan @blainecross @mekkaokereke
it's one of the cheapest and most humane ways to raise graduation rates & test scores, lower absenteeism.
if someone is all bent about "someone taking advantage of free school meals", that tells me more about that person than about problems with the program.
-
@CStamp @realtegan @mekkaokereke Is it even *possible* for anyone (a child in particular) to be undeserving?
Seems like a pretty vital assumption that the answer is yes, but I’m not convinced.
I *might* be willing to concede that people who can afford to (and do) put effort into keeping others from eating are [themselves undeserving].
That's about it tho.
