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

1…3435373940…49

Replies

  • kshadows
    kshadows Posts: 1,315 Member
    edited February 2018
    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%"
  • whodeany1
    whodeany1 Posts: 13 Member
    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.
  • stanmann571
    stanmann571 Posts: 5,727 Member
    kshadows 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%.
  • kshadows
    kshadows Posts: 1,315 Member
    edited February 2018
    stanmann571 wrote: »
    kshadows 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.
  • stanmann571
    stanmann571 Posts: 5,727 Member
    kshadows wrote: »
    stanmann571 wrote: »
    kshadows 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!!
  • jseams1234
    jseams1234 Posts: 1,218 Member
    edited February 2018
    "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.
  • Packerjohn
    Packerjohn Posts: 4,855 Member
    edited February 2018
    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 credit
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    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.

    There are inherently limits on how it's used. It's used only for food (and non cooked food). While there could be a check that could be used for anything in theory, that's not what this is. I don't really have a strong feeling about this, but the idea that it is limited to certain kinds of food (or specifically not for beverages which have no nutrient benefit other than calories) need not be punitive, it can just be similar to how it can't be used for other things, such as non food treats, non food necessities, so on. The reasons not to limit it isn't that it's punitive to do so, IMO, it's that it might be more dignified not to have to make a big deal of it (and not having lots of detailed limits makes that more possible). With the simple "no soda," I don't think that's really an issue, but if we got into lots of other restrictions, I think it could be, and that it's not actually beneficial. What is beneficial is making it easier to use it on things like veg and fruit, and encouraging that, IMO.
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    kshadows wrote: »
    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.

    Personally, I'd say that's a safety net, and how it should work, and I am happy that my tax dollars go to our society having a safety net.
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    kshadows wrote: »
    stanmann571 wrote: »
    kshadows 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.

    What confuses people about that stat is that it includes retired people among those who don't pay federal income tax, and also many, many people assume they pay federal income taxes (and apparently get upset at the thought of those who do not), not realizing that the stat does not count state taxes or federal taxes that go to Social Security and Medicare, which is the entirety or vast majority of many people's taxes, even people who would say that they do pay federal income tax. Not saying this is you, but I think the stat confuses people.
  • MeanderingMammal
    MeanderingMammal Posts: 7,866 Member
    edited February 2018
    stanmann571 wrote: »
    kshadows 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%.

    This whole debate is always a fascinating insight into outlooks. In the UK we specifically identify two elements of tax; Income tax and national insurance. Different rates, and different abatements and legislation but it does help to identify that part that largely goes on benefits spending. There are also both local government taxes (community charge) and sales tax, but neither of them then contribute to social welfare spending.

    Benefit spending is also both state pension, and any form of assistance, whether for unemployment or incomes that don't allow a basic level of existence.

    I quite like the phrasing, it's insurance. We may succeed through an accident of birth, through access to good lawyers, access to education or access to healthcare that might allow one to continue earning despite our circumstances.

    Yes, any system can be abused. Again in the UK abuse of the benefit system is dwarfed by abuse of complexity in the tax environment. The big multinationals have a part in that, but disproportionately it's small businesses. The self employed are recognised to be the largest leak of tax equity in the British economy. You wouldn't know that from our media though.

    Of course the other side of the coin is the reason for the state spending money on those without the means. It's because it's cheaper than the alternative. We accept a degree of fraudulent usage, because without that support we'd have much more significant challenges, in the health service, in education and in burgeoning crime levels. Prevention certainly beats a problem for which there is no cure.

    I alluded upthread to the market driven reasons that lead to systemic, and generational, unemployment. The market in both the US and the U has changed markedly, yet we still train people for jobs that no longer exist.

    That's before we even highlight that it's the right thing to do in a liberal democracy (note I'm not using the US interpretation of liberal, but the classical one)
  • ccrdragon
    ccrdragon Posts: 3,371 Member
    spazztazztic wrote: »
    kshadows wrote: »
    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.

    Since you had SNAP while raising children and you mention WIC i will assume you are or ar least were a participant. WIC sucks big time. At least out where i live. The size of the package is stated on the check not just quantities and the exact items arent always available nearby. Only certain brands of some product are ok and not because they're healthier. I wasnt able to use my WIC checks to buy my dairy allergic daughter unsweetened soy milk for the longest time and i expressed my concern to my WIC office and their on site nutrotionists but they had no answers as to why that was or how it made sense. When we were able to make the trip, a store nearly 40 minutes away from us carries the only unsweetened WIC approved soy milk. Inflicting this kind of torture on SNAP recipients is an awful idea - i get that it simplifies things for everyone else but it makes our lives hell. There does need to be a regulatory system but i dont believe it should be going back to old school food stamps where we are told what to buy

    This sux... locally, the WIC center stocks all of the items that can be 'purchased', so all the participants have to do is pick the items off the shelves and have them checked off against their allowance. Makes it much easier and there is no stigma attached because the only people in there are WIC participants.
  • nic_27_grassisgreener
    nic_27_grassisgreener Posts: 193 Member
    edited February 2018
    Lounmoun wrote: »
    To the OP topic-
    I think SNAP recipients should be able to choose their own food and drinks just like anyone else. I think people who get huffy about poor people drinking soda on the tax payers dime are being petty and should think about ways to help people get out of poverty instead. If anything offering a free class on budgeting and nutrition would be more helpful.

    Agreed 100%! On this note - I absolutely love my local food bank and food pantry. They allow customers to come every single day that they are open. They offer cooking classes, home improvements, budgeting, etc, all for free and open to anyone in the community. They also offer a "rewards" system: if you attend classes, sign up for snap, volunteer, etc you earn points which with you can "buy" items that the pantry isn't allowed to hand out (diapers, bus passes, pots/pans, and so much more!)

Categories