Students in Massachusetts will get free lunch and breakfast at school thanks to a new 4% tax put on people who earn more than $1 million.

    • prole
      link
      fedilink
      302 years ago

      No shit. It literally says where the money that pays for it comes from right in the headline.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        202 years ago

        I think the point of the comment was that in the last few decades the rhetoric has been: “Taxes bad” “Government provides free bus passes to underprivileged people” Always divorcing taxes from their positive effects on society. Maybe they were trying to fight that by directly uniting the fact that the government is just a coordinator, collecting taxes and using it to buy lunches for kids.

        “4% tax on millionaires pays for breakfasts and lunches for all school children” unlike the above example, is a sentence that reminds people that taxes are what provides these many positive social benefits they recieve, not “the government”, not “for free”, and that taxes aren’t always “bad”.

        Or maybe I’m projecting!

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      12 years ago

      So you’re implying that people regularly make $1,000,000 in annual income by working? Only about 150,000 people in the US make that much. It’s their money.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    212 years ago

    It’s like the us is always 20 years behind the rest of the world when it comes to things that actually matter.

    • Bo7a
      link
      fedilink
      22 years ago

      I don’t know who said it. But one of my favorite lines about america goes: “America will always do the right thing. After it has tried everything else”

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      132 years ago

      Per the article, it’s an income tax on any income over a million dollars, so it’s essentially an additional state income tax bracket. So, if an entity makes exactly 1 million this year then they won’t pay any extra, but if they make 2 million, then they pay 4 percent on that additional 1 mill (40k), over whatever else they would owe before the additional tax.

      Like all income tax, there are ways to avoid it or reduce your burden, but not every person/company goes to those lengths.

      I personally think a wealth tax is fairer for society, but it’s pretty hard to implement and of course has a ton of very wealthy opposition.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        42 years ago

        I personally think a wealth tax is fairer for society

        The most reasonable way I’ve seen so far is to assume that your wealth passively creates x% of extra income for you, and then tax that amount as income. That also simplifies the tax system, since you only need enter your assets, and not what exacts trades and profits you made.

        • Buelldozer
          link
          fedilink
          1
          edit-2
          2 years ago

          The most reasonable way I’ve seen so far is to assume that your wealth passively creates x% of extra income for you, and then tax that amount as income.

          I can make it simpler yet and close the Billionaire Income Loophole, where their “income” is taking out loans against value of their investments by simply taxing those loans. No need to value something, they’ve already done it when they took out the loan. If you borrowed 10 Million against a portfolio of 50 Million then you should be taxed on the 10 Million. That’s the value you assigned and the benefit you received.

          This would also catch the “Buy, Borrow, Die” / Step-Up scheme that the ultra-wealthy use.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      202 years ago

      Yeah, most millionaires have no profit and they’re in the red. We need even more taxes on small aircrafts that are used for private charter, more taxes on purchasing and operating helicopters, taxes on the kerosene not used in military scope.

      Taxes on luxury cars that only the billionaire’s afford. Every car over 150.000 USD should have a 100% tax to feed the homeless and the kids

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    432 years ago

    Cool, but you know who isn’t getting a free lunch now? Those millionaires who worked so hard for that money. What have those kids done to earn theirs?

    /s, to be clear. I wish these cool places to live (e.g, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Michigan) weren’t so fucking cold. Why can’t there be a nice liberal southern state?

    • @[email protected]
      cake
      link
      fedilink
      82 years ago

      Uhh, the cold isn’t the problem. It’s too expensive to live here and the real fix for housing (forced upzoning by the State) is a political nonstarter.

      But I will gladly shovel snow versus face the heat, humidiity, snakes, bears, tornadoes, severe hurricanes, drought, wild fires, car oriented development, and whatever other nightmares the rest of the country has to offer. Just get a good coat, LL Bean boots, and a snowblower. It’s not that bad.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    252 years ago

    Slightly off topic. A lot of public schools already get free meals thanks to federal education dollars. The school lunches are free in my area because of this, even though the (red) state won’t act.

    The state has attempted to kill off those dollars in the past.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    432 years ago

    As a student who grew up attending Massachusetts public schools, this is fantastic news. Just wish that could have been me!

    I used to bring a lot of boxed lunch in most days instead because school lunches were an unnecessary expense, but sometimes I’d buy school lunch if it was one I liked.

    I don’t know if this applies everywhere, but my school district at least had a needs-based free lunch (and breakfast) program for those from low income families, but honestly all students deserve to eat a healthy and nutritious meal during school, which I am sure also takes quite a bit of stress off of parents.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      53
      edit-2
      2 years ago

      The trouble with needs based programs is that students who receive the free lunch then get shamed by other students for being poor. Thus the movement to give the lunch to everyone. The cost per student is fairly low compared to the other expenses of running a school. Plus there are savings resulting from getting rid of the bureaucracy that figures out who is needy enough to get a free lunch, getting rid of the payment collection operation, etc, that partly offset the cost of the additional free lunches.

      • shuzuko
        link
        fedilink
        72 years ago

        It depends on how you manage it. We had a system where parents could pay up front for your lunches, and students using that system got their lunches the same way the needs-based students did - the lunch lady just checked their name off the list for the day. You could guess at who had which, probably, but there was no way to confirm it.

        That being said, you’re right about the bureaucracy and I’m all in favor of free lunches for all students regardless of their parents’ income.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        2
        edit-2
        2 years ago

        Then, idk, sell the lunch program on a semester-by-semester basis and offer subsidies for students who can’t afford it? It isn’t rocket science.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          42 years ago

          You’re right that it isn’t rocket science, but you are still making it more complicated than it needs to be.

          The solution is like how the kids are now getting ot for free in that state because of the new tax.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          62 years ago

          Ok, but why not just not? Just feed the damn kids and quit worrying that someone somewhere is getting something they could live without.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      82 years ago

      Good point! These kids should starve if their parents don’t work hard enough. Those millions and billionaires worked hard for their money!

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        22 years ago

        You mean to tell me that people who work in the US dont get enough money to buy food? Lol, you have not been outisde of the US have you?

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      42 years ago

      They always say that and they never leave

      A lot of bluster and blubbering about what would happen if so and so law passed. Never works. They’re still making plenty and once they’re done whining they stay put

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      32 years ago

      Revenue from the new income tax is earmarked for public school meals.

      As the kids get free food now, some rich people must be left in the state. Maybe the ones with an actual heart?

      Looking at this from a community perspective, rich people that don’t contribute to the community is kind of worthless anyway.

  • sQuirrel
    link
    fedilink
    1052 years ago

    Free school meals should be a given since our taxes should go to what our elected officials have so thoughtfully decided where to apply them. What no one rarely brings up let alone tries to solve is the disgusting and unsafe food that the local, state and fed officials decide to make available. There’s too much politics in cafeteria food. They should focus there budget in getting healthy food not the cheapest, uncles cousins or corporate friend contract.

    • Dark Arc
      link
      fedilink
      382 years ago

      Yes, we 100% should be using our school kitchens as kitchens, not just reheating premade “GFS Food.”

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            42 years ago

            Aramark and Chartwells are two of the biggest companies, they are custom designing menus to fit the minimum requirements as cheaply as possible. They are getting food in the same tier as bargain frozen dinners or prison.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        232 years ago

        When making that argument, you’ll want to add a few examples.

        Otherwise people think you mean dictatorship.

          • Bo7a
            link
            fedilink
            1
            edit-2
            2 years ago

            I would wager you have never been to Switzerland, or if you have, you never left the tourist traps to interact with the ‘real Swiss’.

            I only lived there one year, but I can tell you right now, they are not ‘doing perfectly fine.’

            Their pretty tourism industry hides some of the ugliest racism, faux-nationalism in the form of cantonal squabbling, sexism, anti-lgbt+, and a general dislike of anyone who does not conform exactly to their specific ways of living. Fuck Switzerland.

      • @[email protected]
        cake
        link
        fedilink
        122 years ago

        The vast majority (262 out of 351) of Massachusetts municipalities are direct democracy. A further 31 are near enough that it’s not hard to be elected if you run (my precinct has empty rep. slots every year).

        Also in contrast to the rest of the US, there are no unincorporated areas (“county land”) in Massachusetts. Counties aren’t a useful demarcation here. Everything is a Town or a city.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        72 years ago

        I think what is missing is control over the representatives. When you elect someone, you give them your power, you should be able to take it back when they abuse it.

        In a representative democracy, transparency and control are key and when this is not enforced, people tend to think the system is broken and does not work. It would work if that is fixed

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          42 years ago

          Nah, I mean representative democracy. Trusting someone else to work in your best interests never works. The only one who has your best interests in mind is you, if that.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            22 years ago

            People rarely have their own best interests in mind. People are short-sighted, undereducated, impulsive, prone to groupthink, and overestimate their ability and control.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    72 years ago

    I was curious about the budgeting implications because enacting a increase to revenue doesn’t necessarily mean increased spending would be covered. For any one to lazy to go off site, but also interested:

    “$1 billion of the state’s record $56.2 billion fiscal budget for 2024 came from the state’s new 4% tax on millionaires.”

    “State lawmakers agreed to put $523 million of revenue from the new tax toward education and put $477 million aside for transportation.”

    Didn’t find the cost there but on one of their sources:

    “A portion of that money will go toward the $172 million needed to provide free school meals, the State House News Service reported.”

    • DessertStorms
      link
      fedilink
      2
      edit-2
      2 years ago

      So out of a billion extra dollars, they didn’t even spend 20% on the kids (it’s too early for me to do the calculation out of the total budget, but it’d be pitiful).
      Which is great, but using them as a headline all things considered seems manipulative and like they’re burying the lead.

      Good for the kids, don’t get me wrong, but somewhere along the way a lot more of that money has been spent on other things, and most likely is lining the pockets of the already rich and powerful.

      So yeah, it’s a great example of what a tiny hike in taxing the rich can do, but it not only doesn’t come close to being enough, it also feels like another scam where good publicity hides a whole manner of sins going on behind the scenes.

      • wrath-sedan
        link
        fedilink
        62 years ago

        I mean all we know so far is that half of the new tax is going to education (and 172mil of that has already gone towards an excellent cause) and half is going to transportation. Of course skimming off the top is incredibly common, but I think it’s far too early to call the amount misspent.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        12 years ago

        why spend more on something than you need to? plenty of others besides kids who could use the services the additional money will pay for.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        72 years ago

        Sorry if my quoting gave off the wrong impression. I believe it meant that of the total 1 billion dollars 523 million will be spent on education. Of the 523 million to be spent on education 172 million will be used to pay for lunches. The remaining 351 million I would assume is being used for other educational expenses like new equipment or for salaries.

        Perhaps there is miss management of the funds but I don’t think that it fair to conclude the 351 million has been misappropriated just based on this information.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      1022 years ago

      Unless you’re Waukesha, Wisconsin, where they specifically voted to stop giving kids handouts (i.e. free lunch). Because, you know, kids should work for their food or something instead of using their energy to learn.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        302 years ago

        kids just don’t want to work anymore these days. they’re too busy with their avocados and ipad games. meanwhile the child unemployment rates are at historical highs. won’t someone think of the economy?

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        152 years ago

        “It’s about time these kids had some skin in the game!”

        -Some Republican Somewhere I’m sure.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          92 years ago

          Of course it is. But you know, kids lives only really matter up until they are born. At that point the kids, their parents and their livelihoods and happiness…all that can fuck right off.

        • richieadler 🇦🇷
          link
          fedilink
          162 years ago

          I mean, cheap labor has to come from somewhere… Where do you find empoverished people to exploit if you don’t force births?

            • richieadler 🇦🇷
              link
              fedilink
              1
              edit-2
              2 years ago

              I’ll raise you the most voted pre-candidate to president in my country, who said that people should be able to sell their own organs if they want to. (He plans to worsen things for workers in such a way that they would need to.)

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        162 years ago

        Waukesha County is by far the most conservative in the state, and has been playing a massive role in destroying our state’s democratic process for a few decades now.

        Another fun fact about it is that they’ve been trying for years to glom onto the Lake Michigan watershed, which, geographically, it is not a part of. They want to straight up take our water, which they do not need, in exchange for nothing whatsoever of any real value.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          32 years ago

          Yeah it’s a cesspool that way.

          I live in the mke area and when looking for housing Waukesha was a tempting area because of how much more house you can get for the money, but I just don’t think I can handle living there. Not to mention I want my kids going to schools in a community that gives a shit about kids and their education.