Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Food Stamps Restriction
Replies
-
spazztazztic wrote: »Chiming in here as a SNAP recipient. I work full time and have considtently been employed for my entire adult life the only lapse was while on bedrest during a high risk pregnancy and recovery time after delivery which makes sense. People can buy anything they want with their card as long as its edible. Honestly, it bothers me that the budget we get doesnt account for how we should be eating but that doesnt mean its impossible to work with. Dry beans and lentils are way cheaper than canned, shopping the weekly sales gives you more bang for your buck, you dont need to buy fancy boneless chicken breasts you can use bone in pieces and still have a delicious healthy meal. Furthermore, the NYC green market has a token incentive which plays off the aforementioned study. Customers on SNAP can purchase tokens with their card and receieve bonus tokens at certain amounts (ex - if i buy 10 dollars in tokens i get 13 to spend so my nice bunch of kale is totally free) also, i take advantage of my local freegan food share. This is something that isnt in all communities but if youre bold enough and your area isnt crazy dangerous going dumpster diving could be fun. I personally have never gone because the cost of hiring a babysitter makes it not worth it for me but everyones situation is different
It sounds like you're doing it the right way. I'd be all for increases for SNAP recipients in exchange for eliminating eligibility of junk food, premium products, etc.1 -
Really. You can make that decision for other people? I guess it's lucky we have you to make decisions for everyone.
While we're at it, coffee and tea also have no nutritional value. Why don't we just ban it for everyone. Would you feel good about that? BTW, we are all taxpayers, even people on EBT, many who are actually working at jobs still are liable to taxes, just like everyone else. A lot of disabled veterans and other people are also on EBT, and let's not forget the elderly people living on fixed incomes.
Personally, I have little use for sodas, but I would not prohibit them for others, if that's what they choose to spend their grocery money on. If I understand the system correctly, you get X amount of credit toward approved food item per month. If you blow it all on candy, chips, popcorn, etc..., well, that's your business. You will just be hungry for the rest of the month. I also think EBT should cover necessities like toilet paper, soap, toothpaste, deodorant, aspirin, etc... I don't know why it doesn't. These things are just as important to your health as eating is.
Just my opinion. I have a problem with people assuming the authority to make decisions for others, unless it's done through due process. I believe everyone has the right to go to Hell in their own hand-basket, if they choose to do so. You reap what you sow, most of the time.tcunbeliever wrote: »There's zero nutritional value in soda, so sure, as a taxpayer I am totally not into subsiding either the soda industry or the energy drink industry, they should both be banned.
There is a big difference in banning soda and not wanting your tax dollars to pay for it for others. It really strikes me as sad and weird that anyone would such a fuss over free soda. smh0 -
Packerjohn wrote: »spazztazztic wrote: »Chiming in here as a SNAP recipient. I work full time and have considtently been employed for my entire adult life the only lapse was while on bedrest during a high risk pregnancy and recovery time after delivery which makes sense. People can buy anything they want with their card as long as its edible. Honestly, it bothers me that the budget we get doesnt account for how we should be eating but that doesnt mean its impossible to work with. Dry beans and lentils are way cheaper than canned, shopping the weekly sales gives you more bang for your buck, you dont need to buy fancy boneless chicken breasts you can use bone in pieces and still have a delicious healthy meal. Furthermore, the NYC green market has a token incentive which plays off the aforementioned study. Customers on SNAP can purchase tokens with their card and receieve bonus tokens at certain amounts (ex - if i buy 10 dollars in tokens i get 13 to spend so my nice bunch of kale is totally free) also, i take advantage of my local freegan food share. This is something that isnt in all communities but if youre bold enough and your area isnt crazy dangerous going dumpster diving could be fun. I personally have never gone because the cost of hiring a babysitter makes it not worth it for me but everyones situation is different
It sounds like you're doing it the right way. I'd be all for increases for SNAP recipients in exchange for eliminating eligibility of junk food, premium products, etc.
Its a super slippery slope IMO. Who is deciding whats "junk" or a "premium product"? What about dietary needs such as allergies or celiac disease? If we are able to give extra allowances for them, why not kosher or halal (yes, the meat is more expensive) vegetarian and vegan are diets typically taken upon oneself by choice but whats to stop them from jumping on the bandwagon? If it was so easy to make it happen, it would have by now. I also believe it would be helpful if similar to how WIC has meetings with nutritionists we also had that for SNAP. Some people just dont know what to buy or how to prepare certain foods (or maybe any at all) and theyre intimidated. I scored 10 bags of riced broccoli at my local freegan food share because i was the only one who knew the potential it had - i know if anyone in the crowd knew what an amazing find that was i would have only gotten 1, maybe 2 of the bags i did.1 -
spazztazztic wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »spazztazztic wrote: »Chiming in here as a SNAP recipient. I work full time and have considtently been employed for my entire adult life the only lapse was while on bedrest during a high risk pregnancy and recovery time after delivery which makes sense. People can buy anything they want with their card as long as its edible. Honestly, it bothers me that the budget we get doesnt account for how we should be eating but that doesnt mean its impossible to work with. Dry beans and lentils are way cheaper than canned, shopping the weekly sales gives you more bang for your buck, you dont need to buy fancy boneless chicken breasts you can use bone in pieces and still have a delicious healthy meal. Furthermore, the NYC green market has a token incentive which plays off the aforementioned study. Customers on SNAP can purchase tokens with their card and receieve bonus tokens at certain amounts (ex - if i buy 10 dollars in tokens i get 13 to spend so my nice bunch of kale is totally free) also, i take advantage of my local freegan food share. This is something that isnt in all communities but if youre bold enough and your area isnt crazy dangerous going dumpster diving could be fun. I personally have never gone because the cost of hiring a babysitter makes it not worth it for me but everyones situation is different
It sounds like you're doing it the right way. I'd be all for increases for SNAP recipients in exchange for eliminating eligibility of junk food, premium products, etc.
Its a super slippery slope IMO. Who is deciding whats "junk" or a "premium product"? What about dietary needs such as allergies or celiac disease? If we are able to give extra allowances for them, why not kosher or halal (yes, the meat is more expensive) vegetarian and vegan are diets typically taken upon oneself by choice but whats to stop them from jumping on the bandwagon? If it was so easy to make it happen, it would have by now. I also believe it would be helpful if similar to how WIC has meetings with nutritionists we also had that for SNAP. Some people just dont know what to buy or how to prepare certain foods (or maybe any at all) and theyre intimidated. I scored 10 bags of riced broccoli at my local freegan food share because i was the only one who knew the potential it had - i know if anyone in the crowd knew what an amazing find that was i would have only gotten 1, maybe 2 of the bags i did.
Respectfully, I think you're overthinking things. This thread started out about soda restrictions for SNAP recipients... the S and the N stand for Supplemental Nutrition... Sure there are gray areas, but I think any reasonable person would agree that candy, soda, and the like are poor choices for supplementing nutrition.
I don't think it would be too difficult look at RDA nutrient values vs. overall calories and come up with a simple means to determine what would be effective (from both a cost and a nutrition perspective) supplementation.
I don't begrudge people help if they need it, but as a taxpayer, I'd like to think the government is getting the biggest assistance bang for my taxpayer buck. After all, the more you can drive down the cost per recipient, the more people you can help, right?3 -
bennettinfinity wrote: »spazztazztic wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »spazztazztic wrote: »Chiming in here as a SNAP recipient. I work full time and have considtently been employed for my entire adult life the only lapse was while on bedrest during a high risk pregnancy and recovery time after delivery which makes sense. People can buy anything they want with their card as long as its edible. Honestly, it bothers me that the budget we get doesnt account for how we should be eating but that doesnt mean its impossible to work with. Dry beans and lentils are way cheaper than canned, shopping the weekly sales gives you more bang for your buck, you dont need to buy fancy boneless chicken breasts you can use bone in pieces and still have a delicious healthy meal. Furthermore, the NYC green market has a token incentive which plays off the aforementioned study. Customers on SNAP can purchase tokens with their card and receieve bonus tokens at certain amounts (ex - if i buy 10 dollars in tokens i get 13 to spend so my nice bunch of kale is totally free) also, i take advantage of my local freegan food share. This is something that isnt in all communities but if youre bold enough and your area isnt crazy dangerous going dumpster diving could be fun. I personally have never gone because the cost of hiring a babysitter makes it not worth it for me but everyones situation is different
It sounds like you're doing it the right way. I'd be all for increases for SNAP recipients in exchange for eliminating eligibility of junk food, premium products, etc.
Its a super slippery slope IMO. Who is deciding whats "junk" or a "premium product"? What about dietary needs such as allergies or celiac disease? If we are able to give extra allowances for them, why not kosher or halal (yes, the meat is more expensive) vegetarian and vegan are diets typically taken upon oneself by choice but whats to stop them from jumping on the bandwagon? If it was so easy to make it happen, it would have by now. I also believe it would be helpful if similar to how WIC has meetings with nutritionists we also had that for SNAP. Some people just dont know what to buy or how to prepare certain foods (or maybe any at all) and theyre intimidated. I scored 10 bags of riced broccoli at my local freegan food share because i was the only one who knew the potential it had - i know if anyone in the crowd knew what an amazing find that was i would have only gotten 1, maybe 2 of the bags i did.
Respectfully, I think you're overthinking things. This thread started out about soda restrictions for SNAP recipients... the S and the N stand for Supplemental Nutrition... Sure there are gray areas, but I think any reasonable person would agree that candy, soda, and the like are poor choices for supplementing nutrition.
I don't think it would be too difficult look at RDA nutrient values vs. overall calories and come up with a simple means to determine what would be effective (from both a cost and a nutrition perspective) supplementation.
I don't begrudge people help if they need it, but as a taxpayer, I'd like to think the government is getting the biggest assistance bang for my taxpayer buck. After all, the more you can drive down the cost per recipient, the more people you can help, right?
Agree. Taxpayers expect the government to be good stewards of government funds. Shouldn't we expect/regulate recipients of government funds to do likewise?
Could take beverages with added sugar, the frozen dessert section, chip, candy and cookie aisles as a good start.4 -
Foodstamps: I’m on the fence about whether we should restrict it or not. OTOH - the occasional softdrink should be fine, it’s the people that have their kids drinking powdered sugar drinks daily, soft drinks with and without caffeine, even fruit juice is apparently bad these days but in moderation it’s not that big of a problem.
0 -
Some of the arguments in this debate are appalling! The people arguing that food stamps should be restricted to certain foods are basically saying that the people receiving them don't deserve treats. That attitude is straight out of the 18th and 19th century.9
-
SarahLascelles1 wrote: »Some of the arguments in this debate are appalling! The people arguing that food stamps should be restricted to certain foods are basically saying that the people receiving them don't deserve treats. That attitude is straight out of the 18th and 19th century.
I feel like there are a few steps of logic missing between "food stamps should be restricted to XYZ" and "people who receive food stamps don't deserve treats"... one doesn't follow from the other - care to elaborate how you reached that conclusion?
6 -
Rosemary7391 wrote: »SarahLascelles1 wrote: »Some of the arguments in this debate are appalling! The people arguing that food stamps should be restricted to certain foods are basically saying that the people receiving them don't deserve treats. That attitude is straight out of the 18th and 19th century.
I feel like there are a few steps of logic missing between "food stamps should be restricted to XYZ" and "people who receive food stamps don't deserve treats"... one doesn't follow from the other - care to elaborate how you reached that conclusion?
Those provided with subsistence rations should not be subject to dehumanizing or degrading treatment. No gruel
On the other hand, subsistence rations should be sufficiently simple/basic as to provide motivation to not remain on them for consecutive generations.
There ought to be a midpoint between gruel and caviar/lobster/gallons of soda by the small bottle. with coupons and sales, a 6 pack of soda costs about $2.50-3. at a "convenience store" a single bottle from that 6 pack can be 1.79. Allowing SNAP to be used to purchase that "convenience product" is reinforcing poor fiscal habits that ultimately ensure that escape from the poverty cycle remains just out of reach. A box of Kool aid powder costs under $2, and provides several gallons of beverage.5 -
By SNAP restricting what foods can be bought with an EBT card doesn't mean the recipient can't drink soft drinks....it just means the soft drinks (or any other less than healthy food) just won't be bought with an EBT card/money. Just like if I saw a person selling "The Contributor" newspaper at an intersection and they're smoking (or a homeless person drinking alcohol), why would I support them by supporting their ability to purchase cigarettes (or alcohol)?2
-
Rosemary7391 wrote: »SarahLascelles1 wrote: »Some of the arguments in this debate are appalling! The people arguing that food stamps should be restricted to certain foods are basically saying that the people receiving them don't deserve treats. That attitude is straight out of the 18th and 19th century.
...care to elaborate how you reached that conclusion?
Probably by reading some of the responses in the thread....4 -
SarahLascelles1 wrote: »Some of the arguments in this debate are appalling! The people arguing that food stamps should be restricted to certain foods are basically saying that the people receiving them don't deserve treats. That attitude is straight out of the 18th and 19th century.
No, that's not what they are saying at all. It's not about what someone deserves it's about what they expect for someone else to give them for free.2 -
I received SNAP benefits for just over 1 year, after my (now-ex) husband left. I went from 2 incomes to 1 with 2 children to support. I worked full-time and never stopped. The way people use their foodstamps irritates me because I was receiving roughly $170 a month. When I worked in the local grocery store in college, people who were known to be system-scammers (small town, it's not hard to tell who works, and who is able but refuses) who would come in with $900 balances every month. (And then use it to buy TV dinners, candy, and soda...then cash out their cash assistance and buy cigarettes and beer with it).
The WIC program gives out checks that very specifically state what you are and aren't able to buy. It's a pain but it gets the job done and ensures people are buying things that are nutritional or necessary. Not saying you can't have a treat on occasion but the inequity of the system is disgusting.
ETA - I picked up another job (part-time) after a few months when the ends weren't meeting... so 6 hours a week at minimum wage which was $9.00/hr at the time...and they dropped my benefit to $17 a month. That's when I gave up on it because I needed the money from my second job to make rent and pay the electric bill...I didn't have any extra to put toward groceries and then the axed it right down. Can't win.1 -
So far as I know, only adults receive food stamps. So treat them that way.2
-
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »SarahLascelles1 wrote: »Some of the arguments in this debate are appalling! The people arguing that food stamps should be restricted to certain foods are basically saying that the people receiving them don't deserve treats. That attitude is straight out of the 18th and 19th century.
No, that's not what they are saying at all. It's not about what someone deserves it's about what they expect for someone else to give them for free.
it's not "being given for free", it's being entitled to as a citizen of a supposedly civilised country. Is funded by taxes, which everyone pays.
The attitude that people receiving benefits should be subjected to arbitrary controls is appalling.
3 -
SarahLascelles1 wrote: »So far as I know, only adults receive food stamps. So treat them that way.
I agree, so unless they're unable to work or are working/actively looking for work cut the benefit off.
4 -
SarahLascelles1 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »SarahLascelles1 wrote: »Some of the arguments in this debate are appalling! The people arguing that food stamps should be restricted to certain foods are basically saying that the people receiving them don't deserve treats. That attitude is straight out of the 18th and 19th century.
No, that's not what they are saying at all. It's not about what someone deserves it's about what they expect for someone else to give them for free.
it's not "being given for free", it's being entitled to as a citizen of a supposedly civilised country. Is funded by taxes, which everyone pays.
The attitude that people receiving benefits should be subjected to arbitrary controls is appalling.
The flip side of that equation is that people who pay taxes have an arbitrary amount of money taken away from them to pay for this stuff. Everyone is subject to the arbitrary. There are always two sides to it - we have to find a balance.3 -
SarahLascelles1 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »SarahLascelles1 wrote: »Some of the arguments in this debate are appalling! The people arguing that food stamps should be restricted to certain foods are basically saying that the people receiving them don't deserve treats. That attitude is straight out of the 18th and 19th century.
No, that's not what they are saying at all. It's not about what someone deserves it's about what they expect for someone else to give them for free.
it's not "being given for free", it's being entitled to as a citizen of a supposedly civilised country. Is funded by taxes, which everyone pays.
The attitude that people receiving benefits should be subjected to arbitrary controls is appalling.
They aren't working for it. Therefore it's given for free.
You're not entitled to anything you don't work for.
This attitude that you're entitled to be fed from someone else's labor is absurd and obscene.7 -
SarahLascelles1 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »SarahLascelles1 wrote: »Some of the arguments in this debate are appalling! The people arguing that food stamps should be restricted to certain foods are basically saying that the people receiving them don't deserve treats. That attitude is straight out of the 18th and 19th century.
No, that's not what they are saying at all. It's not about what someone deserves it's about what they expect for someone else to give them for free.
it's not "being given for free", it's being entitled to as a citizen of a supposedly civilised country. Is funded by taxes, which everyone pays.
The attitude that people receiving benefits should be subjected to arbitrary controls is appalling.
I don't know how it works where you live, but here in the U.S. the bottom 40% of earners (on average) pay less than $0.00 Federal income tax... Since SNAP is a Federally funded program, I think it's safe to that, by and large, it's "being given for free".6 -
stanmann571 wrote: »SarahLascelles1 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »SarahLascelles1 wrote: »Some of the arguments in this debate are appalling! The people arguing that food stamps should be restricted to certain foods are basically saying that the people receiving them don't deserve treats. That attitude is straight out of the 18th and 19th century.
No, that's not what they are saying at all. It's not about what someone deserves it's about what they expect for someone else to give them for free.
it's not "being given for free", it's being entitled to as a citizen of a supposedly civilised country. Is funded by taxes, which everyone pays.
The attitude that people receiving benefits should be subjected to arbitrary controls is appalling.
They aren't working for it. Therefore it's given for free.
You're not entitled to anything you don't work for.
This attitude that you're entitled to be fed from someone else's labor is absurd and obscene.
So what about those (like myself) who work, and have worked their entire lives, paying IN to these sort of benefits, and then claiming them when needed? I've worked from the time I was 15 years old. I received SNAP benefits for just under a year at age 26.5 -
SarahLascelles1 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »SarahLascelles1 wrote: »Some of the arguments in this debate are appalling! The people arguing that food stamps should be restricted to certain foods are basically saying that the people receiving them don't deserve treats. That attitude is straight out of the 18th and 19th century.
No, that's not what they are saying at all. It's not about what someone deserves it's about what they expect for someone else to give them for free.
it's not "being given for free", it's being entitled to as a citizen of a supposedly civilised country. Is funded by taxes, which everyone pays.
The attitude that people receiving benefits should be subjected to arbitrary controls is appalling.
And herein lies the entire problem - what 'entitles them' to receive the benefit? How are they more entitled to receive the benefit than others? Aren't other benefits subjected to arbitrary controls? How about medical/dental insurance (whether paid for by deductions from your paycheck or received from a taxed/government issued program)? Can you use that insurance for anything in the medical field or are there 'arbitrary' controls on how that insurance is to be used?
As for this quote:SarahLascelles1 wrote: »So far as I know, only adults receive food stamps. So treat them that way.
Which set of adults are you talking about? The ones who riot in the streets because they don't get their way (think back a year ago if you need a concrete example) who are no better than children throwing hissy fits? You trust these types to make choices that will better their situations?
Oh, and not everyone pays taxes to the government - at least not in the USA. Those who make under a certain amount per year will get every bit of the taxes that they paid back (and in certain cases - more).6 -
bennettinfinity wrote: »SarahLascelles1 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »SarahLascelles1 wrote: »Some of the arguments in this debate are appalling! The people arguing that food stamps should be restricted to certain foods are basically saying that the people receiving them don't deserve treats. That attitude is straight out of the 18th and 19th century.
No, that's not what they are saying at all. It's not about what someone deserves it's about what they expect for someone else to give them for free.
it's not "being given for free", it's being entitled to as a citizen of a supposedly civilised country. Is funded by taxes, which everyone pays.
The attitude that people receiving benefits should be subjected to arbitrary controls is appalling.
I don't know how it works where you live, but here in the U.S. the bottom 40% of earners (on average) pay less than $0.00 Federal income tax... Since SNAP is a Federally funded program, I think it's safe to that, by and large, it's "being given for free".
This is insane to think about. I've worked and paid federal (and state) income taxes for my entire life.
ETA - and I don't seem to be considered "the bottom 40%"0 -
bennettinfinity wrote: »SarahLascelles1 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »SarahLascelles1 wrote: »Some of the arguments in this debate are appalling! The people arguing that food stamps should be restricted to certain foods are basically saying that the people receiving them don't deserve treats. That attitude is straight out of the 18th and 19th century.
No, that's not what they are saying at all. It's not about what someone deserves it's about what they expect for someone else to give them for free.
it's not "being given for free", it's being entitled to as a citizen of a supposedly civilised country. Is funded by taxes, which everyone pays.
The attitude that people receiving benefits should be subjected to arbitrary controls is appalling.
I don't know how it works where you live, but here in the U.S. the bottom 40% of earners (on average) pay less than $0.00 Federal income tax... Since SNAP is a Federally funded program, I think it's safe to that, by and large, it's "being given for free".
This is insane to think about. I've worked and paid federal (and state) income taxes for my entire life.
I don't think anyone is singling you out as representative of the issue being discussed. If I understand your circumstances correctly, you used the benefit as intended; for a short period of need until you were back on your feet.
I don't think anyone on this thread would take issue with that.6 -
Perhaps our government leaders can tell us which diet to use. Some of which say eat wheat, one says no wheat, one says brown rice, one says white rice...geesh. However, I think if they are able they should do something for their food stamps so they can have some respect and not just be given something without doing something in return. No one I know works so someone can sit home and no I know would ignore someone that really needs help. However, one needs to accept that help. I personally think the government creates too many rules. I also think people need to get a message that you will end up killing yourself if you smoke, eat to excess or sit around on the couch all day. It's your choice and I don't want to be dragged into it.1
-
stanmann571 wrote: »SarahLascelles1 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »SarahLascelles1 wrote: »Some of the arguments in this debate are appalling! The people arguing that food stamps should be restricted to certain foods are basically saying that the people receiving them don't deserve treats. That attitude is straight out of the 18th and 19th century.
No, that's not what they are saying at all. It's not about what someone deserves it's about what they expect for someone else to give them for free.
it's not "being given for free", it's being entitled to as a citizen of a supposedly civilised country. Is funded by taxes, which everyone pays.
The attitude that people receiving benefits should be subjected to arbitrary controls is appalling.
They aren't working for it. Therefore it's given for free.
You're not entitled to anything you don't work for.
This attitude that you're entitled to be fed from someone else's labor is absurd and obscene.
So what about those (like myself) who work, and have worked their entire lives, paying IN to these sort of benefits, and then claiming them when needed? I've worked from the time I was 15 years old. I received SNAP benefits for just under a year at age 26.stanmann571 wrote: »SarahLascelles1 wrote: »So far as I know, only adults receive food stamps. So treat them that way.
I agree, so unless they're unable to work or are working/actively looking for work cut the benefit off.
Already answered that one.
But to elaborate. Life sucks and life happens. I have little heartburn with anyone who finds themselves in need of assistance. I have a great deal of frustration with generational dependence and poverty subsidized to the point where there's no incentive to look for work.6 -
bennettinfinity wrote: »SarahLascelles1 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »SarahLascelles1 wrote: »Some of the arguments in this debate are appalling! The people arguing that food stamps should be restricted to certain foods are basically saying that the people receiving them don't deserve treats. That attitude is straight out of the 18th and 19th century.
No, that's not what they are saying at all. It's not about what someone deserves it's about what they expect for someone else to give them for free.
it's not "being given for free", it's being entitled to as a citizen of a supposedly civilised country. Is funded by taxes, which everyone pays.
The attitude that people receiving benefits should be subjected to arbitrary controls is appalling.
I don't know how it works where you live, but here in the U.S. the bottom 40% of earners (on average) pay less than $0.00 Federal income tax... Since SNAP is a Federally funded program, I think it's safe to that, by and large, it's "being given for free".
This is insane to think about. I've worked and paid federal (and state) income taxes for my entire life.
ETA - and I don't seem to be considered "the bottom 40%"
Review your "income tax returns". Compare the amount withheld to the amount owed. And yes, if you're earning more than about $30K annually as a single person you're above that bottom 40%.1 -
stanmann571 wrote: »bennettinfinity wrote: »SarahLascelles1 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »SarahLascelles1 wrote: »Some of the arguments in this debate are appalling! The people arguing that food stamps should be restricted to certain foods are basically saying that the people receiving them don't deserve treats. That attitude is straight out of the 18th and 19th century.
No, that's not what they are saying at all. It's not about what someone deserves it's about what they expect for someone else to give them for free.
it's not "being given for free", it's being entitled to as a citizen of a supposedly civilised country. Is funded by taxes, which everyone pays.
The attitude that people receiving benefits should be subjected to arbitrary controls is appalling.
I don't know how it works where you live, but here in the U.S. the bottom 40% of earners (on average) pay less than $0.00 Federal income tax... Since SNAP is a Federally funded program, I think it's safe to that, by and large, it's "being given for free".
This is insane to think about. I've worked and paid federal (and state) income taxes for my entire life.
ETA - and I don't seem to be considered "the bottom 40%"
Review your "income tax returns". Compare the amount withheld to the amount owed. And yes, if you're earning more than about $30K annually as a single person you're above that bottom 40%.
Then I'm on the cusp (as a single person with 2 dependents)
It doesn't help me to look at a W-2 because I have my withholdings adjusted to give the government the bare minimum.2 -
stanmann571 wrote: »bennettinfinity wrote: »SarahLascelles1 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »SarahLascelles1 wrote: »Some of the arguments in this debate are appalling! The people arguing that food stamps should be restricted to certain foods are basically saying that the people receiving them don't deserve treats. That attitude is straight out of the 18th and 19th century.
No, that's not what they are saying at all. It's not about what someone deserves it's about what they expect for someone else to give them for free.
it's not "being given for free", it's being entitled to as a citizen of a supposedly civilised country. Is funded by taxes, which everyone pays.
The attitude that people receiving benefits should be subjected to arbitrary controls is appalling.
I don't know how it works where you live, but here in the U.S. the bottom 40% of earners (on average) pay less than $0.00 Federal income tax... Since SNAP is a Federally funded program, I think it's safe to that, by and large, it's "being given for free".
This is insane to think about. I've worked and paid federal (and state) income taxes for my entire life.
ETA - and I don't seem to be considered "the bottom 40%"
Review your "income tax returns". Compare the amount withheld to the amount owed. And yes, if you're earning more than about $30K annually as a single person you're above that bottom 40%.
Then I'm on the cusp (as a single person with 2 dependents)
It doesn't help me to look at a W-2 because I have my withholdings adjusted to give the government the bare minimum.
So you're truly wise!!1 -
"By contrast, taxpayers with incomes below $30,000 filed nearly 44% of all returns but paid just 1.4% of all federal income tax – in fact, two-thirds of the nearly 66 million returns filed by people in that lowest income tier owed no tax at all."
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/10/06/a-closer-look-at-who-does-and-doesnt-pay-u-s-income-tax/
Doesn't really matter how much you adjust your exemptions/withholding - you would just receive less back at the end of the year. Two dependent children also qualifies you for the Child Tax Credit. So, you most likely received back most if not all federal income tax paid during the year but also a significant amount from that tax credit.0 -
SarahLascelles1 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »SarahLascelles1 wrote: »Some of the arguments in this debate are appalling! The people arguing that food stamps should be restricted to certain foods are basically saying that the people receiving them don't deserve treats. That attitude is straight out of the 18th and 19th century.
No, that's not what they are saying at all. It's not about what someone deserves it's about what they expect for someone else to give them for free.
it's not "being given for free", it's being entitled to as a citizen of a supposedly civilised country. Is funded by taxes, which everyone pays.
The attitude that people receiving benefits should be subjected to arbitrary controls is appalling.
It is appalling. They should be able to buy beer hard liquor,, cigs and pot whee legal with SNAP funds
The funds are provided by the government, if someone doesn't like any current or future restrictions nobody is saying they must be accepted.
PS not everyone pay the federal income taxes that support this. As mentioned earlier around 40% pay no income tax and many of those get a credit0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 424 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions