The CF who want to feed poor kids with tax dollars

https://old.reddit.com/r/childfree/comments/jgkuqw/i_love_this_community_but_the_last_24_hours_have/

I guess over in the UK the liberals voted for free meals for poor sprogs over the holidays and the elected Tories voted it down. A CF redditor claimed that cf people who are against feeding poor kids with tax dollars are heartless and that the cf and everyone else should not make poor sprogs pay with hunger just for having stupid sometimes uncaring parents.

The op is getting voted up with commenters saying that "just because we are cf, doesn't mean we have to be a-holes towards kids and parents" I don't think these people realize that the poor will keep breeding and will keep forcing more out of strangers who made better decisions, always using the kid to take, take, take

There needs to be strings attached to the food so it isn't so easy for those who don't plan.

+++++++++++++

Passive Aggressive
Master Of Anti-brat
Excuses!

If they're going to put an age limit on who should starve and who has a full belly I'll pass every time. Starving hurts everyone, regardless of age. Performing badly in school isn't going to get a kid fired but a badly performing adult at work (due to hunger) may be subjected to a firing.

I'm so sick of this "kids shouldn't suffer in the least but everyone else can go to hell" mentality.

I think everyone should have food and shelter. As long as we have resources, nobody should be suffering.

But I think it is paternalistic toward breeders to provide ready-made food for children. It's infantalizing to take responsibility away from adults and sets them and their sprogs up for a lifetime of dependence. Just go with universal basic income. After that I expect I should never have to hear about hungry school children, diaper need, and similar. If poverty is taken out of the equation, it becomes 100% crappy parenting which can be addressed by child protective services.

Quote
yurble
I think everyone should have food and shelter. As long as we have resources, nobody should be suffering.

But I think it is paternalistic toward breeders to provide ready-made food for children. It's infantalizing to take responsibility away from adults and sets them and their sprogs up for a lifetime of dependence. Just go with universal basic income. After that I expect I should never have to hear about hungry school children, diaper need, and similar. If poverty is taken out of the equation, it becomes 100% crappy parenting which can be addressed by child protective services.

The problem with UBI is that the rents continue to go up too fast for UBI to cover them, and improperly housed parents cannot prepare food for themselves and the brats. It is not the poor that is eliminating resources, but endless greed on behalf of the rich.

+++++++++++++

Passive Aggressive
Master Of Anti-brat
Excuses!

In an American context, poor parents already receive food stamps or an electronic-card equivalent earmarked for buying only food, and they receive enough to feed everyone in the family for the month. Poor children receiving free meals at school is actually double-dipping, though no one dares to point out that elephant in the room.

Also, parents abuse the system by selling stamps for cash or getting a grocer to fudge sales on the card, so they can get cigarettes, booze, or drugs. That means the family does without the food the stamps or card would have bought. Then the pahrunts demand the schools furnish their kids free meals to make up for it.

The only good part about making school lunches free is that the cafeteria staff do not have to deal with cash handling, and it also prevents kids stealing each others lunch money. But the parents should pay for the lunches. There should be a fee assessed to each parent to pay for part of the already federally funded lunches. If they don't pay, the school district can sue in small claims court. But I know, my idea makes sense so it will never happen.

Quote
kman
In an American context, poor parents already receive food stamps or an electronic-card equivalent earmarked for buying only food, and they receive enough to feed everyone in the family for the month. Poor children receiving free meals at school is actually double-dipping, though no one dares to point out that elephant in the room.

Food stamps are fine if you have access to a basic kitchen and a grocery store within safe walking distance. This is not available to most of the extremely poor. Most of them are homeless or living in cars or sheds.

Many don't even have access to a functioning sewer system, and their feces goes down the toilet and out onto the lawn of someone.

+++++++++++++

Passive Aggressive
Master Of Anti-brat
Excuses!

Quote

The problem with UBI is that the rents continue to go up too fast for UBI to cover them, and improperly housed parents cannot prepare food for themselves and the brats. It is not the poor that is eliminating resources, but endless greed on behalf of the rich..

I think greed is one factor but not nearly the only factor. Globalization is another factor. I think the amount of the UBI would is what's in contention. Many people feel it should be a bare bones subsistence level income because the idea is not to eliminate the incentive for people to work.

Nixon was actually a fan of UBI at one time, but he called it "negative income tax." This is a long article about why UBI failed under Nixon.

The concern with UBI is, if we give money to poor people, they will waste it, which while sometimes true, is a paternalistic attitude*. (More on that later.) The article does not mention another very real factor why it failed: the resistance from inside the Government--there are multiple bureaucratic entities that administer government programs: HHS, Education, HUD. A negative income tax would eliminate much of these organizations.

If I ran the world and had the power to make this happen, I would have negative income tax and UBI. Have the IRS administer it through the tax code. But other things would need to happen at the same time to make it affordable and worthwhile:

1. Get the Government out of the housing business. The government loses billions of dollars each year fixing up trashed properties and moving people in them, only to have them trash the properties again. (Do not get me started on the Section 8 program.) It's a universal tenant that people who are not paying money for something will not treat it with respect. The tenants know there is more where that came from.
2. Same with food stamps. Give people cash and it will eliminate the fraud. If they blow their money on drugs and starve, tough luck*.
3. Flat tax for all with one sole deduction: 100% deduction for genuine medical expenses because nobody asks to be sick or disabled. No deductions for kids or anything else.
4. Free birth control, sterilizations and abortions. People are going to fuck and we need to acknowledge that, while trying to minimize the birth of future criminals and/or wards of the state.
5. No more natalism. No kids is the default. Defend why you should be a parent, instead of vice versa.

The only problem with this plan is that it might at first lead to more kids being dumped into foster care because some parunts and foster parunts are only in it for the check.

Back to the reddit post, this person is obviously virtue signaling and patting himself/herself on the back while calling out the evil childfree. Why does he think this is a CF issue? There are PLENTY of people with kids and Right Wingers who only care about feti, but don't give a fuck about human beings who are starving. And if someone had a kid and cannot feed him/her, it's valid to ask why the Hell they did that.

Quote

However, these posts are by my fellow childfree peeps looking for kudos on their sassy and ignorant comments about how people should 'feed their kids' and how it's 'not the government's responsibility to feed your kid'.

Open your eyes and read carefully: Children do not deserve to starve because their parents had them. If you believe this then you are broken and possibly a sociopath.

I do not believe children deserve to starve but OTOH it's realistic to acknowledge this problem cannot be fully solved by legislation, public money or giveaways. Some people just are not fit to be parents. Give them money to support their kids, and they will use it for themselves, drugs or booze every time. It's been this way for decades, maybe since the beginning of civilization.

Quote
bell_flower
If I ran the world and had the power to make this happen, I would have negative income tax and UBI. Have the IRS administer it through the tax code. But other things would need to happen at the same time to make it affordable and worthwhile:

1. Get the Government out of the housing business. The government loses billions of dollars each year fixing up trashed properties and moving people in them, only to have them trash the properties again. (Do not get me started on the Section 8 program.) It's a universal tenant that people who are not paying money for something will not treat it with respect. The tenants know there is more where that came from.
2. Same with food stamps. Give people cash and it will eliminate the fraud. If they blow their money on drugs and starve, tough luck*.
3. Flat tax for all with one sole deduction: 100% deduction for genuine medical expenses because nobody asks to be sick or disabled. No deductions for kids or anything else.
4. Free birth control, sterilizations and abortions. People are going to fuck and we need to acknowledge that, while trying to minimize the birth of future criminals and/or wards of the state.
5. No more natalism. No kids is the default. Defend why you should be a parent, instead of vice versa.

I agree with these points. The only one I would add is mandatory finance courses throughout school, so budgeting is normalized from an early age. This would also help folks to budget who receive cash instead of food stamps.