zlacker

>>pessim+(OP)
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"

>>starsi+H
also free lunches in schools

https://www.nycfoodpolicy.org/states-that-have-passed-univer...

>>tarr11+95
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.

>>megama+N6
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.

>>torste+v7
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.

>>pessim+w9
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.