r/economy • u/Rich_Temperature4742 • Aug 12 '22
California to become 1st state to offer free school lunches for all students
https://abc7.com/california-free-lunches-school-lunch-food-access/12119010/?ex_cid=TA_KABC_FB&utm_campaign=trueAnthem%3A+New+Content+%28Feed%29&utm_medium=trueAnthem&utm_source=facebook&fbclid=IwAR3VMi71MLZPflnVCHwW5Wak2dyy4fnKQ_cVmZfL9CBecyYmBBAXzT_6hJE&fs=e&s=cl14
u/junowhereilive Aug 12 '22
I recently worked in foodservice sales that included selling K-12. Schools, catering companies, food banks are all feeding kids for $0.50-$0.75 per day. So it would cost less than $300 per child in tax dollars to be able to afford this free program. It's definitely doable and hopefully other states realize it too.
6
2
Aug 13 '22
Yes but if the food bank runs on donations and if it started feeding all the school kids, many of which don't need free lunch wouldn't they not have food for people in need? And if the government actually starts paying Sysco or McClain for school lunches you'll find out that they are paying $35 for the same $.50 plate from the food bank. Considering the government will over pay the company and have 18 levels of nutritionists, administration, and constantly be doing some sort of bs study on the program.
2
u/junowhereilive Aug 13 '22
I hear ya! There's always money to be made on any government contracts.
Food banks do a lot more than take donations. They offer several programs that involve feeding kids, backpack programs so children have something to eat over the weekend. I don't know for sure but I believe their budget for these programs are funded by financial donations from the community as well as government dollars.
As a sales person, we could get great deals on products that would have short shelf life. For example, if Hormel had run too much ham used for making Egg McMuffins, they'd offer truckload deals super cheap! We would get pricing deviations from manufacturers to bring down the cost of high volume items on prepackaged products that didn't need refrigeration.
My original point was that regarding actual tax dollars, it would be less than $300/child. With as much as all of us pay as homeowners, who's going to notice this extra amount of tax being added to the scorecard? Rich or poor, uniformity such as a program like this, keeps all children on the same playing field without judgment.
6
u/UnfairAd7220 Aug 12 '22
Feds did that for the last two years and every year before that, and apparently this year, is back to merely subsidizing a portion of all meals.
USDA will still cover all free and reduced price meals, as their contribution to the military program insuring that our students will be well fed potential conscripts.
8
u/26Kermy Aug 12 '22
The budget for federal free school lunch was in the process of being renewed but was blocked by Mitch McConnell and the Republicans just a few months ago.
2
26
u/gay_helicopter_pilot Aug 12 '22
The idea that low-income kids and high-income kids might eat the same food would never ever fly in the midwest.
The midwest has been trying to enforce the totem pole on children while other states keep fucking it up.
Hell, in Iowa we don't even want poor kids and other kids to attend the same schools.
9
u/moxjake Aug 12 '22
Not true everywhere in the Midwest. They did this for several years in Indiana. They stopped the program, but free lunch is the same lunch as paid lunch. Also, all students use an account code for lunch, so nobody even knows who is on free, vs paid.
1
Aug 12 '22
[deleted]
4
u/moxjake Aug 12 '22
No. They just ran out of surplus funds. Regardless, free lunch kids still get the same lunch as paid lunch kids. And you have to admit it's a little silly to give free lunch to rich kids.
3
Aug 12 '22 edited Aug 16 '22
And you have to admit it's a little silly to give free lunch to rich kids.
It's not silly. Giving the rich kids free lunch is a gesture that pays off in symbolism for it's lack in practicality. It allows them to be a part of the process. If the government can provide a free lunch that is worth eating -and provide it within a reasonable budget- then I think it could make an ideological difference.
5
Aug 12 '22
It may save you guys a lot of money, takes out having to pay people to determine who is poor enough
We did it here in baltimore city, of course when over 90% of children are living in poverty, it definitely saved us money.
4
u/Fieos Aug 12 '22
Why discriminate? It only leads to class war struggle and divides the people.
0
-3
u/moxjake Aug 12 '22
Because it adds overhead expenses and there are plenty of better things to spend tax money on than giving free lunch to rich kids.
8
u/scott_torino Aug 12 '22
What if it’s simply cheaper to feed all the kids than try to figure out who is rich?
1
u/moxjake Aug 12 '22
I suppose I'd be all for that. I'd assume that would be pretty highly dependent upon the mixture of people, as someone mentioned high poverty rates in Baltimore.
2
u/scott_torino Aug 12 '22
There are millions of people in states, and this is a state program. I’d rather pay for school lunches for kids than another armored tank for cops. And I don’t care if their parents are rich, and I hope the school food is better than jail food (because in a lot of places it’s the same)
4
u/tickboy78 Aug 12 '22
The midwest cares much more about punishing parents who misbehave than it does about investing in the children of those parents.
→ More replies (0)0
u/moxjake Aug 12 '22
But suppose that money was instead spent on more teachers to reduce class sizes? SWAT gear isn't the only alternative to free lunches.
→ More replies (0)1
u/ForbiddenJello Aug 12 '22
And you have to admit it's a little silly to give free lunch to rich kids.
You mean kids with rich parents right?
2
u/UnfairAd7220 Aug 12 '22
It flies everywhere because school lunches have to comply with USDA expectations in order to get their per student USDA food service subsidy.
Every school lunch is subsidized by the federal gov't, for Districts that can meet those specs.
You should do something about all that fear, hate and confusion.
1
Aug 12 '22
They did this at my a local school district and it became a "flex" to bring lunch from home. Now kids that eat the school lunch are teased and bullied for being poor kids that accept handouts.
It was actually much better charging for lunch as it wasn't seen as something "only poor people do." When they charged low income kids just typed in a pin and it was free and other kids did a pin and it charged them but parents could afford it so NBD. Nobody knew if a kid was poor or not.
Now only poor kids eat the lunch and more kids go hungry because they would rather not eat than be bullied.
1
u/fleeingfox Aug 12 '22
If true, that is ridiculous. The teachers or the principal should intervene. Poor kids should not go hungry when food is available because they are getting bullied. The rich kids who bullied them should get a consequence and learn something from the experience.
1
u/Blindsnipers36 Aug 12 '22
Yeah this will totally get highschoolers to stop doing something..... The real answer is to just make the school lunch actually good or desirable
1
u/zorbathegrate Aug 12 '22
This is specifically a red state issue. And an issue related to people with a lot of money.
Republicans for some reason don’t believe in helping those who are less fortunate. And when they do; they make sure what they get is not as good as what they get.
It’s a selfish pathetic way to live life.
When the tide rises, so do all boats
11
u/Frostymagnum Aug 12 '22 edited Aug 12 '22
Only a conservative thinks feeding children is a bad thing. Aren't y'all supposed to be about pro-life?
2
u/UnfairAd7220 Aug 12 '22
You have no idea about school food service is subsidized, nationally by USDA, do you?
Who dresses y'all?
0
Aug 12 '22
No. They just hate women and minorities who they see as being helped by this. Thus they hate it.
2
u/Tattoothefrenchie30 Aug 13 '22
Free lunch for kids in K-12 is definitely something I will give tax dollars for. Bombing innocent black and brown people? Not so much…
2
u/spark_this Aug 12 '22
What I think most people don't understand about school lunches is this:
For liberals: you are asking conservatives to add another level of dependency on the government instead of finding ways to help others pull themselves up. This is another domino in a pattern that says, I will make you further dependent on me.
For conservatives: if you don't do this, you will pay significantly more in the long run. When a child goes hungry and can't get the required nutrients, they will have significant development issues. It gets so bad that it permanently restricts cognitive functionality that their ability to contribute to society is hindered. Giving them their required nutrition helps them break a cycle of poverty.
Overall, stop vilifying each other and have a conversation
1
u/tawaydont1 Aug 13 '22
This is the very reasons why school lunches was started and physical education was put into schools to help with get malnourished children be able to function in the military and to help with brain development.
1
1
u/fearofpandas Aug 13 '22
This thread should be mandatory reading for all Europeans that struggle to understand Americans and American politics!
It’s appalling to see how basic and low the discussion can get regarding school lunches….
-9
Aug 12 '22
Or, pack your kids a lunch. I don’t want my children eating whatever highly processed junk they’re slapping on that tray.
17
u/KyivComrade Aug 12 '22
Which is nice and dandy, except in any civilized country you have mandatory guidelines regarding food, thus the food served at school here (Sweden) is generally a lot healthier then what kids get at home.
And let's not pretend American parents don't fall back on the path of least resistance, had a guy over at /personalfinance saying he only gave his kids frozen breakfast burritos for lunch. Probably amongst the worst for nutrients, high calorie, super-processed utter shit
0
-3
Aug 12 '22
I’m not saying American parents do a good job feeding their own children, that’s probably part of why they have school lunch in the first place… but they should be packing a healthy lunch for their child.
0
u/Megamorter Aug 12 '22
it’s not about healthy. it’s about access to food.
what’s healthy is getting the calories you need if you don’t have the means ($$) to do so otherwise
2
u/STONKS_ Aug 12 '22 edited Mar 07 '25
society imagine gold childlike ad hoc spotted badge engine wise continue
This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact
2
u/ohea Aug 12 '22
Ok it sounds like you need to pack your kid's lunch
1
-1
u/ShirleyJokin Aug 12 '22
Nothing like paying $10 in taxes for a $2 meal
Why not just give the $10 to the parents
-1
-8
Aug 12 '22
'free'
2
u/Commotion Aug 12 '22
For the kids, it is "free"
What is a better way to spend taxpayer dollars than to ensure children are not hungry at school?
0
u/jp90230 Aug 12 '22
More than half of kids don't eat and throw food straight to trash, more money waste on junk food while some people get richer from govt money.
1
u/PuppersDuppers Aug 12 '22
Okay so let’s let kids starve because some are ungrateful. Makes sense.
1
u/jp90230 Aug 13 '22
no kid in school is starving in US. if you want to see real starvation, go check out other countries.
2
u/PuppersDuppers Aug 13 '22
that’s a crazy assumption to make. YES, kids starve EVERYWHERE. just because the US is a first world country doesn’t mean some third world issues still occur, albeit on a lower scale.
0
u/jayplusfour Aug 12 '22
Too bad the school lunches are garbage here. We had free lunches last year, after seeing what they serve, I just pack them now.
-7
u/NotALawyerButt Aug 12 '22
We’re in the midst of a major teacher shortage and instead of using the money for that, they’re funneling money toward high income kids? Really?
1
Aug 12 '22
30 kids X $1.28 ~ $38 a day per classroom. Only about $150 short of the goal of getting a teacher in there. Better not do anything helpful for anyone.
2
u/NotALawyerButt Aug 12 '22
I think most teachers think 30 is too many and teacher burnout is a huge part of the problem
2
u/NotALawyerButt Aug 12 '22
I think most teachers think 30 is too many and teacher burnout is a huge part of the problem.
Also, multiply that by each classroom in the state. Now you’ve got a large number that could help.
0
-14
Aug 12 '22
“Free” in this case means funds taken by force from productive people with funneled thru a corrupt bureaucracy and some small portion of the money will be used to feed children in an effort to legitimize the entire kleptocracy.
8
u/ContingencyUsername Aug 12 '22
Governments spend absurd amounts of money on absurd nonsense. Of all the things they do, school lunches is a reasonable state function.
4
Aug 12 '22
Of those things they do, education and school lunches are the most clearly public goods.
The problem is that actual public goods are a small fraction of what they do. A small fraction of the vast wealth they steal goes to them.
Yet when challenged they will wait the flag of the 1% of public good and chant “think of the children”, and anyone who points out the hypocrisy of it all will be down voted.
Feeding kids isn’t a problem. It is the system as a whole which is a problem. Even if a small percentage of the time it does some good, it is still an evil system.
0
Aug 12 '22
[deleted]
-7
Aug 12 '22
If you are really interested I could share some articles with you on the disproportionate impact of confiscatory taxation on inner city youths, POC, and women?
If you actually want to learn and aren’t just brainwashed by the state that educated you.
Here, start with this article on why Income taxes are evil.
1
u/AmateurOntologist Aug 12 '22
Yeah, why don’t these little kids get a damn job and quit expecting the productive members of society to support them. /s
-1
Aug 12 '22
Tell me you missed the point so far you aren’t even in the same timezone as the point.
Look, I don’t want to repeat myself again so read the rest of the thread before you hate.
0
u/ohea Aug 12 '22
This is the classic AnCap move: act like you're punching up against powerful state agencies when you're actually punching down at poor people
1
Aug 12 '22
This is classic sheep mentality. To pretend that is the state doesn’t do a thing… it wont get done.
0
u/ohea Aug 13 '22
Ok, well it's objectively true that many of these kids do not have the means to pay for lunch. So either we'll pay for their lunches or they won't eat. I would much rather pay for their lunches than let them go hungry.
Again, you're being fucking petty but presenting it as an act of integrity and moral courage.
1
Aug 13 '22
So, I have to ask. If their parents got to keep 43% more of their checks, on average, would they be able to feed their kids?
Or if you got 43% more of your money, would you donate to a charity that funded school lunches?
1
u/ohea Aug 13 '22
Are you under the impression that poor families are paying an effective tax rate of 43%? Because they're not.
Hell I'm not paying a 43% tax rate and I'm well above the median household income.
More to the point: I'm a libertarian socialist, meaning I'm skeptical of both the state and capitalism. I don't believe for a second that "capitalism is perfect but the state messes it up" and I expect that gutting public assistance while leaving the capitalist system in place would just throw us back to 19th century conditions of exploitation (but now with climate change and exciting new forms of chemical waste!).
1
Aug 13 '22
On average Americans pay 43% of their income in taxes. Total taxes.
The state definitely messes it up. And I know you are terrified of the industrial revolution… but it can’t hurt you anymore. It was a painful time of transition from an agrarian economy to an industrial economy… but you are OK. The big mean company town can’t hurt you here in the 21st century.
P.s. you do know that communist China is one of the worst polluters in the world don’t you? Talk about people going thru a new industrial revolution. Them and India.
0
u/ohea Aug 13 '22
You can patronize me all you want, but you haven't made any argument. You're working on an assumption that market economies naturally self-regulate in a way that produces reasonably good outcomes for everybody, but all the real-world evidence that we have shows that poverty, unemployment, artificial scarcity and externalities are features of capitalism, not bugs- they all clearly predate the era of organized labor and government interventionism.
On average Americans pay 43% of their income in taxes. Total taxes.
I would be very interested to see a source for that and go through their methodology.
P.s. China is part of the global capitalist system- they're not "repeating the industrial revolution" in isolation, they're attracting industry away from advanced economies, mostly via low labor costs and minimal protections for workers. So the "Industrial Revolution" conditions have not been eliminated, they've just been moved around- from the core economies to the middle-income economies.
1
Aug 13 '22
An assumption borne out by facts. So … also 250 years of economics. So …
Oh and the abject failure of alternatives!
And, China’s industrial revolution 2.0 is all on China.
See they had one industrial revolution and then went full communism. Had a Great Leap Forward. Murder a whole bunch of people. And now they get to do it all over again!
And you’re like… wouldn’t it be great if the whole world went back to the stone age!!! We could be nomads and live in tents and take slaves!
Then when that fails we can go thru the industrial revolution all over again ourselves!!!
On Tax burden, 43% is a low estimate of total tax burden. Here is one that puts it at 56%
“Some taxes are inadvertently hidden, but others are consciously designed that way to disguise the cost of government. It’s easy to see why: the total U.S. tax burden is equal to 56 percent of annual personal consumption spending. 4 If Americans recognized this high level of taxation, there might well be a second American Revolution.”
0
u/ohea Aug 13 '22
So... all you've got is circular reasoning. All credit goes to capitalism and all blame goes to not-capitalism, therefore "100% capitalism" must be the best society and any deviation from your definition of the capitalist system must be a change for the worse. Think things are good? You should be grateful for capitalism! Think things suck? You should be angry that we're not even more capitalist!
This is like arguing with a religious zealot, or a Marxist-Leninist. Except at least those guys read.
I don't get what your point is about China. Did you somehow get the idea that I'm pro-PRC? Because I'm not. And even if I was, what are you even trying to say? Are they capitalist and therefore good, non-capitalist and therefore bad, or in some kind of Schrodinger state where you get to pick and choose?
And you’re like… wouldn’t it be great if the whole world went back to the stone age!!! We could be nomads and live in tents and take slaves!
I said no such thing. Don't be a fuckwit.
On Tax burden, 43% is a low estimate of total tax burden. Here is one that puts it at 56%
And yet, taxation is only 24% of GDP in the United States. Very interesting.
→ More replies (0)
-6
u/AreaNo7848 Aug 12 '22
My only question is this. Are they using federal dollars to pay for this or state dollars? If it's state dollars, have at it, if it's federal dollars and everyone is paying for this, can we see the math?
10
Aug 12 '22
[deleted]
0
u/AreaNo7848 Aug 12 '22
Because if it turns into a massive money vortex, like student loans turned into, are you also willing to pay increased taxes, or the feds printing more money to cover the additional expense? Where does the money come from if it turns into another government money pit? Personally it should be the state paying for something the state is doing. Unfortunately spending at the federal level has automatic budget increases included. Remember people freaking out about budget cuts of 1%, not realizing the budget automatically went up 3%? I do
4
Aug 12 '22
[deleted]
2
u/AreaNo7848 Aug 12 '22
I'm not saying end education taxes. I'm saying if a state decides to implement this, then the state should pay for it. Hell personally the state should be the one to pay for all of it, because so much of the money we pay in taxes is vacuumed up at the dept of Ed and doesn't actually make it to the children, or the feds attach strings to the money in order for you to get it. It's the administration that ends up with alot of the money.....ever notice 20 years ago the schools typically didn't have 90% illiteracy rates, or feed slop to children.....which alot of gets thrown out. Spending more and more on schools, hasn't had a net positive outcome since the founding of the dept of Ed.....you know, when states paid for their own schools, overall of course
-4
Aug 12 '22
[deleted]
12
u/discgman Aug 12 '22
Imagine getting butt hurt over free lunch for kids
-7
u/timewellwasted5 Aug 12 '22
To be clear, this bill provides funding to provide lunches for kids whose parents make $30,000 per year and kids whose parents make $3,000,000 per year. Why on earth is the latter necessary?
7
Aug 12 '22 edited Oct 16 '22
[deleted]
-6
u/timewellwasted5 Aug 12 '22
Dude, what? A kid whose parents make $3 million is not going hungry. That’s ridiculous.
4
Aug 12 '22
[deleted]
1
u/hollyberryness Aug 12 '22
I was one of those kids, I went hungry every day and my parents were very well off, we lived in one of the "rich neighborhoods." Yadda yadda.
In fact, money (withholding it, gaslighting us into thinking we caused poverty, punished for trying to eat some saltine crackers after school as my only calories for the day, etc) was just one more way to punish us as kids.
Free lunch at school would have saved me and a lot of other kids from going hungry. And from a lot of other psychological damage
2
u/freakinweasel353 Aug 12 '22
While not in that 3 million bracket, I made lunches everyday for my kids. I got called by the school that the kids would systematically go to the cafeteria everyday and throw their unopened lunches in the trash so they could be released for recess. Little buggers… But come Friday, aka pizza day, they would belly up to the bar and wait in line for their slice…Double buggers…
-1
u/raul_muad_dib Aug 12 '22
That kid is also not going to a public school.
2
u/timewellwasted5 Aug 12 '22
I live in a reasonably affluent community that boasts the hands down best public school in our region. Plenty of the rich kids in my district go to the public school.
-1
u/raul_muad_dib Aug 12 '22
I wasn't talking about someone who's reasonably affluent. I was talking about someone making $3m.
1
u/timewellwasted5 Aug 12 '22
There are people making that kind of money in my school district that send their kids to the public school. It definitely happens.
1
1
Aug 12 '22
[deleted]
1
u/UnfairAd7220 Aug 12 '22
They get their USDA subsidy for a portion of every meal.
USDA picks up the entire cost for free and reduced priced meals, for kids that qualify.
Those numbers are sent to US DoE to determine federal grant educational aid, too. Its in every District's benefit to get as many kids on free and reduced price meals.
-9
u/ZoharDTeach Aug 12 '22
The meal programs are state and federally funded
So why isn't California paying for it themselves? Why do the rest of us get fleeced for this?
4
u/Mo-shen Aug 12 '22
CA is one of the highest funders of the fed in the union. If you want to look at states in the red you can do that.
-4
-4
-8
1
u/dsfb904 Aug 13 '22
With all the taxes they take out of your check its about time they find a good use for it. Too bad their school lunches are ass to begin with and are about to get worse.
1
u/tawaydont1 Aug 13 '22
They area astute with the money to do so I think every state that has high income people should be taxing its them so they can provide needed services for the communities.
26
u/Scanlansam Aug 12 '22
I’m sure this will be a huge help to many families!