POLL: Should free lunch kids be allowed to buy from snackline at tax payer's expense?

Page 7 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

mithrandir2001

Diamond Member
May 1, 2001
6,545
1
0
Elmentary kids? Well, I'm reading this from jerboy's original post and I know he isn't in elementary school so I can assume this is a high school lunch issue.

But even if we are talking about elementary kids, you have to leave them alone. The trauma would certainly be high if Johnny Poorman was denied access to the snack food line while Jane Rockefeller could buy up all she'd like (assuming they each have a buck in their pocket to spend). Remember these are kids, not adults. They haven't had a chance to assert their economic potential, so I don't feel they should be needlessly subjected to economic segregation in the cafeteria. The low-income kids do get a "free ride" with the reduced/free lunch program, but again, this is because they are kids and shouldn't have to suffer from consequences beyond their control.
 

Jerboy

Banned
Oct 27, 2001
5,190
0
0



On Tuesday, February 19, 2002 1:48 PM pyonir wrote:


<< Jerboy, i think you are pretty closeminded and selfish. think about it. what is a treat for you, or a hightlight of the day. >>



Ofcourse I'm concerned about people that abuse the system or whose in system even though they don't really need it. Are you saying I'm close minded, because I think it's not fair that people with wealth have to pay for the poors and that I don't think its not the upperclass' responsibility to feed them?(due to way our tax system works...)



<< maybe driving a BMW? >>



My parents denied that request, because I got bad grades :eek:



<< going to a restaurant that charges $15 a plate? >>



I do that on weekly or bimonthly basis



<< Buying the latest game for your PC or PS2? >>



Yeah right.. NES and SNES for life :D :D


continued quote from pyonir:


<< well how about the kids that are on reduced or free lunch? their highlight may be that donut or cookie. do you think that just because they are poor or their parents are going thru some troubles in work that they don't deserve little pleasures in life as well? get off your high horse and start to realize what life is like for people in the real world.

you say it is a prep-school? do you have to pay for it then? maybe the parents are trying to get their child a better education so they sacrifice some of their own luxuries to make that happen. ever think of that? so children back in 1941 when the war was going on and the families didn't have enough money for the essentials should not have allowed their children to use a penny and get some candy? cause that penny could have gone towards their main meal? that was the highlight of many of those childs' young lives! Ask anyone that was a child during that era, what it was like to get a piece of chocolate or candy. get in touch with reality.

:|
rolleye.gif
>>

 

poopaskoopa

Diamond Member
Sep 12, 2000
4,836
1
81
WTF? Let these kids have the cookies. I'm very much at peace with the fact that some of my tax money is going towards letting kids live like kids at school. If you want to improve things in your community, that's great, but I get this uneasy feeling that that's not where you're coming from.
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
56,536
16,306
146


<< Jerboy, lets play... LETS MAKE A BUDGET!

Want to know what a normal slighly conservative budget is?

Family of 4 (2 adults, 2 children) Average monthly budget
$1000 Mortgage on Home
$150 Utilites (High fuel cost area, heating, a/c, computer usage)
$45 Telephone
$40 Cell Phone
$40 Cable Tv
$50 High speed Internet Access
$450 Car Payments (Assumes no 2nd car or 2nd car paid for)
$100 Auto & homeowners insurance
$500 Groceries, eating out a couple of times a month
$100 School lunches for kids @ $5 a day for both kids.
$100 Clothing
$50 Credit Card
$80 Misc
--------------------------------
$2705 a month = $32460 a year

Estimating the government takes out 30% in federal, state, local, and ssi taxes a family has to make about $47,000 a year.
This is what just a normal family spends a month.

Now lets look at a lower income 2 adult, 2 child family and what they spend.
$600 2 or 3 bedroom apartment
$130 Utilites (High fuel cost area, heating, a/c, computer usage)
$40 Telephone
$35 Cell Phone
$35 Cable Tv
$20 Dial up Internet Access
$200 Used car payments (Assumes no 2nd car or 2nd car paid for)
$80 Auto & renters insurance
$350 Groceries, eating out every couple of months
$100 School lunches for kids @ $5 a day for both kids.
$60 Clothing
$50 Credit Card
$50 Misc
---------------------------------------
$1750 a month = $21,000 a year

Estimating the government takes out 30% in federal, state, local, and ssi taxes a family has to make about $30,000 a year.
Note: My figures may not be correct, if you correct them, don't eat me alive please.

Based on these rough figures, if any free or reduced lunch kid has parents making less than $30,000 a year, they are not cheating anyone to do so.

Unless I miss my guess, your parents make much more than the average family if your bitching about your parents not getting you a $30,000 sports car.
If your school district is allowing parents who make more than 30k a year to get this you may have valid reason to complain, otherwise quit your griping, not everyone can get jobs that pay great.
Most jobs out there pay less than 30k a year.

As for the snack line, if I had kids I'd sacrifice something so my kids could get something from the snack line now and then.
>>



OMFG, let's look at the absurdity in this.

<<$40 Telephone
$35 Cell Phone
$35 Cable Tv
$20 Dial up Internet Access
$50 Credit Card>>

NONE of that is needed. THIS is what I'm talking about. There is a rampant sense of entitlement out there.


 

Jerboy

Banned
Oct 27, 2001
5,190
0
0

Garfang wrote:


<<

Free lunch programs are just abuse ridden handouts for kids of lazy parents.
>>

I couldn't disagree with you more. Why should kids of poor parents be made to suffer? When I was young, my mother qualified for FREE lunches. She was and is as far from lazy as one could be. You try being a University student maintaining a straight A average while raising your two small children, and scraping up enough each month for a mortgage payment. She gave me life and a house to grow up in.[/i] >>



This is actually a problem, but actually not your fault.

If she was still busy in university on her own, why did she freaking have kids?
gopunk made a point. One shouldn't have a kids until they're financially capable of supporting them fully.
 

Jerboy

Banned
Oct 27, 2001
5,190
0
0


<< Of course creature comforts are not a right. Never have been, never will be. And, in the case of ATDF (food coupon) recipients, I completely agree. That program is a disaster that has proven in the long term to be of more harm then benefit. >>



Yes food stamps are constantly being abused and I almost got involved in it. Was at a convenience store with my friends and this poor guy wanted to pay for our junk food and have us give him the equivalent amount in cash. That clearly shows he didn't need food. Had he been in need of food, he would spend the stamps on food. I believe he wanted to exchange it for cash so he could blow it on narcotics and/or alcohol. Ofcourse I said "F... NO!"
 

Geekbabe

Moderator Emeritus<br>Elite Member
Oct 16, 1999
32,200
2,452
126
www.theshoppinqueen.com


<<

<< Of course creature comforts are not a right. Never have been, never will be. And, in the case of ATDF (food coupon) recipients, I completely agree. That program is a disaster that has proven in the long term to be of more harm then benefit. >>



Yes food stamps are constantly being abused and I almost got involved in it. Was at a convenience store with my friends and this poor guy wanted to pay for our junk food and have us give him the equivalent amount in cash. That clearly shows he didn't need food. Had he been in need of food, he would spend the stamps on food. I believe he wanted to exchange it for cash so he could blow it on narcotics and/or alcohol. Ofcourse I said "F... NO!"
>>




you know Jerboy after listening to you on this subject, I agree it's totally unfair that those other kids get free cookies and ding dongs so I;ve decided to do something about that !!!!!

 

Thegonagle

Diamond Member
Jun 8, 2000
9,773
0
71


<< Garfang. . .

This is actually a problem, but actually not your fault.

If she was still busy in university on her own, why did she freaking have kids?
gopunk made a point. One shouldn't have a kids until they're financially capable of supporting them fully.
>>

It happens sometimes that two people get married, they have kids, "feelings change," and they get divorced. My mom decided she needed to have an education. I get the feeling that certain assumptions are being made that are not necessarily correct. :frown:
 

toshiba3020

Banned
Sep 25, 2001
851
0
0
My counsiler said if I could somehow get on the free lunch program I could easily get $1000 scholarship. This is pretty important because im a white male.

At my school there are several options for lunch. Free lunch kids get an entre, milk, and a fruit. It dosent matter where they eat, they are given the same thing, just diffrent types of food. They can opt to pay more though for other food.
 

AmusedOne: right on. But, you have to consider how many of us cannot do our daily jobs with out some of thoes things.

Kids should not be barred from the snack line if they have money. The standards should be changed for the free lunch privilege.

And why do so many of you flame jerboy for bringing up things like this?
He was not born very poor, wtf should he live or act like it?
That is where his point of view is coming from. And for that all he gets his slack from you whiners, you are as bad as him.

So you were poor, had to walk to school barefoot in the snow uphill both ways, CRY ME A RIVER.
Thoes were the "good ole days" right? And since you are all so about loving what you have, you must have LOVED every SECOND of your lives.
You NEVER EVER complained in this manner.

Please people, get off your collective high horses.

 

BaliBabyDoc

Lifer
Jan 20, 2001
10,737
0
0
It only matters, because with the way our tax system works, people in middle and upper classes are paying for various different kinds of support for the lower class' living, the needle exchange program for druggies, free condoms for people that can't afford it, free STD clinic, and etcetra etcetra etcetra.. What do they pay us? Absolutely NOTHING!

Why is it the upperclass' responsiblity to make sure druggies get to use drug with nice clean needle and ensure that poor prostitute don't die from chlamydia?


You know that needle exchange program (of which there are relatively few in the US) they keep the crack ho that your neighbor visits from infecting him and his wife and potentially her next child. Oh and if the druggie gets HIV and can find a treatment facility who do you think pads Pfizer's pockets for antiretrovirals . . . your tax dollars at work(10 cent needle vs $1K/mo). The free condoms should keep po' people from breeding. Money does not make a good family but condoms make for one less welfare baby (25 cent condom vs two years welfare plus up to their teens in supplementals). . . nevermind welfare families almost NEVER have just one baby (that's not slander just fact). Free STD clinic; well go back and ask your neighbor b/c guess what when he catches the world's least favorite flower he may or may not go to his family physician (depends on where the wife goes) but he knows he can go to the free clinic for treatment.

Deaths from chlamydia are very rare. Pelvic inflammatory disease (PID) is quite possible, though. And when the poor prostitute shows up in the ER for treatment who do you think pays . . . your tax dollars at work (cheap as condom vs $300-$1000 workup).

As for the thread topic . . . ALL of you fat, sloppy PS2 playing children need to put down the twinkies and chocolate milk. I would make lunch free for everyone . . . but you wouldn't be able to buy a Coke or Lil' Debbie anywhere within a 5 mile radius of a school and I hope you like broccoli . . .
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
56,536
16,306
146


<<

<< Garfang. . .

This is actually a problem, but actually not your fault.

If she was still busy in university on her own, why did she freaking have kids?
gopunk made a point. One shouldn't have a kids until they're financially capable of supporting them fully.
>>

It happens sometimes that two people get married, they have kids, "feelings change," and they get divorced. My mom decided she needed to have an education. I get the feeling that certain assumptions are being made that are not necessarily correct. :frown:
>>



Then your father should support you. Divorce is no excuse to neglect your children.
 

Thegonagle

Diamond Member
Jun 8, 2000
9,773
0
71


<< Then your father should support you. Divorce is no excuse to neglect your children. >>

Did I say I was neglected? Did I say my father did not support me? Let me ask you, where are your assumptions are coming from?

:frown: turning to :|
 

rgwalt

Diamond Member
Apr 22, 2000
7,393
0
0
My family wasn't poor, but I never bought snacks at school. My parents wouldn't give me money for them, and wouldn't let me use my allowance on them. Why? Because they felt it was a waste of money. It was just how it was, and I grew up just fine... but that is besides the point.

SammySon- The reason that we flame him is that his viewpoints are elitest. He doesn't want to take responsibility for his fellow man. He blames the "ghetto" schools and their poor tax support base for large class sizes at his school. I say get over it or go to a private school. Everyone is gauranteed a free education, and equal protection under the law. Jerboy should know about equal protection under the law considering his alternative lifestyle choice. The fact that my neighbors don't make as much money as I do doesn't mean that their children should have less of an opportunity to receive a good education. On the other hand, I think Jerboy has every right to buy every toy his parents will pay for. By the same token, if parents obviously have money to give it to their kids for snacks (and buy them nice clothes, etc) then the free lunch system should be re-evaluated. The requirements should be changed rather than stopping kids from buying snacks. Limiting snacks is just plain dumb.

Ryan
 

Jerboy

Banned
Oct 27, 2001
5,190
0
0


<< Estimating the government takes out 30% in federal, state, local, and ssi taxes a family has to make about $30,000 a year.
Note: My figures may not be correct, if you correct them, don't eat me alive please.
>>



Yes I think your figure is incorrect in my OPINION.

$600 2 or 3 bedroom apartment <nod nod
$130 Utilites (High fuel cost area, heating, a/c, computer usage)< make that $100. Since when did AC become a must? I lived one summer without AC. I was spending time at friend's home by the ocean and there was no A/C

$40 Telephone
$35 Cell Phone< are you joking? My parents didn't have cellphone when they were kids. I seldom use my cellie and I can say they don't need a cellphone $0

$35 Cable Tv, not necessary $0
$20 Dial up Internet Access, not necessary $0

$200 Used car payments (Assumes no 2nd car or 2nd car paid for)
$80 Auto & renters insurance
$350 Groceries, eating out every couple of months
$100 School lunches for kids @ $5 a day for both kids.
$60 Clothing, does it really cost this much to buy bare minimum at Ross? $40

$50 Credit Card
$50 Misc
---------------------------------------
$1610 a month = $19,320 a year
 

Bignate603

Lifer
Sep 5, 2000
13,897
1
0
I was on afree lunch program fora year and i think it'sa good thing, even though my family's financial sitation isway better and we don't qualify. You make it sound like the people don't want to work, they may be doing all they can to make ends meet and every dollar adds up. If you're trying get money to pay rent or something the money to pay for a kid's lunch through the year adds up. One kid for ayear at 2.25 a day comes up to 450 a year. If you'reworking minimum wage that's over TWO WEEKS of wages. Yes, I don't like giving up money, but if you think it' completely their fault and people on free lunch are LAZY then you should be ashamed. Ther are people that cheat it, yes, but most people do it because it's the only way to pay the bills. If you think this country can't afford to help the lower class you are sorely mistaken.
 

BD2003

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
16,815
1
81
My god, where do you get these figures from? Those are nothing near a low income family's spending.
 

rgwalt

Diamond Member
Apr 22, 2000
7,393
0
0


<< Are you saying I'm close minded, because I think it's not fair that people with wealth have to pay for the poors and that I don't think its not the upperclass' responsibility to feed them?(due to way our tax system works...) >>



Raises hand...

Yes, you are close-minded because of this. Who will support the poor if the people with money don't? Maybe poor people shouldn't be allowed to walk on the sidewalks, drive on the roads, etc because they don't pay as much in taxes? I hate paying taxes just as much as the next guy, but that doesn't mean I won't take responsibility for the poor.

Ryan
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
56,536
16,306
146


<< SammySon- The reason that we flame him is that his viewpoints are elitest. He doesn't want to take responsibility for his fellow man. >>



WTF??? Since when did my fellow man become my burden? If I CHOOSE to help people through charity (and I do) that's fine and good. The problem with these programs is there is NO choice, and NO accountability. We have NO power over who does, and doesn't qualify, abuse is rampant, and only found out through vague statistics after the fact. And finally, manditory charity is nothing more than forced labor, i.e. slavery. This makes someone else ENTITLED to the fruits of MY labor.

My "fellow man" needs to take responsibility for his own damn self.

BTW, I see Jerboy's point here. If they can afford the freakin snacks everyday, they could be buying their own damn food. Instead, they mooch off the taxpayers, then turn around and buy extra food.
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
56,536
16,306
146


<<

<< Are you saying I'm close minded, because I think it's not fair that people with wealth have to pay for the poors and that I don't think its not the upperclass' responsibility to feed them?(due to way our tax system works...) >>



Raises hand...

Yes, you are close-minded because of this. Who will support the poor if the people with money don't? Maybe poor people shouldn't be allowed to walk on the sidewalks, drive on the roads, etc because they don't pay as much in taxes? I hate paying taxes just as much as the next guy, but that doesn't mean I won't take responsibility for the poor.

Ryan
>>



Oh good gawd. Talk about taking things to ridiculous extremes. Who will support the poor? How about THEMSELVES. Unless they are physically or mentally disabled, they should WORK for their damn living.
 



<< Jerboy should know about equal protection under the law considering his alternative lifestyle choice >>


What is his lifestyle and how is it "alternative", and on the same note, I never knew there was a "norm".
Except what people were spoonfed and brainwashed with.

If his viewpoints are elitest, mabey thats because he was born into it. What if his family is just $500 - $1000 below the cut-off line? Is he then considered a wealthy and privileged person? Is he ultra-elite, unable to be affected by the trials of normal man? No, he has a very legitimate point.

So next time you complain about a raise in taxes, raise in service fee's, or any other spike in the amount of money you have to shell out of your own pocket. Think about how "insignificant" it is and just brush it away.

And this thread is NOT about a fair education. It's about HANDOUTS at school.

When you add in how tax money is distributed amongst districts you get into VERY heated debate.
Especially when you are paying thousands of dollars of difference in your property tax, but not a cent is going to a school your child attends. Really, grilling jerboy for his thread is more elitest then ANY comment he has EVER made. But being educated adults you already knew that right?



<< BTW, I see Jerboy's point here. If they can afford the freakin snacks everyday, they could be buying their own damn food. Instead, they mooch off the taxpayers, then turn around and buy extra food. >>


Exactly. Your post was right on. No matter how much I have, no one deserves it. They can get their own.
 

Zwingle

Golden Member
Jan 1, 2001
1,925
0
0
Quote from History of the World Part I:


<< Should we continue to build more palaces for the rich? Or should we build houses for the homeless? >>


FVCK THE POOR

Thought it was appropriate.........;)
 

rgwalt

Diamond Member
Apr 22, 2000
7,393
0
0
Read one of Jerboy's first posts in this thread. He talks about how his school has a large tax support base, but it is being drawn away by "ghetto" schools. He complains that his parent's tax dollars are going to fund the education of people that don't make as much money. Here is the post in question:



<< To make the matter worse, my school is basically a prep school, but there is a few ghetto ultra-poor schools within the same district and funds are shared equally among all schools in the district. We only have a few poor kids and they stand out real well. The parents of students that goes to my school pays alot more taxes than the parents of the kids that goes to ghetto school, meaning ghetto schools are draining the district's limited budget. Had the ghetto schools been separated, my classes won't be 30studnets per class. If 2,500 kids around the district were getting free lunch, thats $5,625 A DAY from district's fund, enough to add about twenty teachers.


ok lets put it in different words

For simplicity sake lets make it into an example:

District wide tax income $40,000

Lets say my school and second prep schools generates $15,000 each totalling $30,000 from tax.

On the other hand ghetto school neighborhood residents tax payment would equate to $5000 per school.

Since the school district budget must be fairy distributed among all schools on the district, tax money from prep-school local areas are being drained into ghetto schools, thus leaving each school with $10,000.

Had the ghetto schools been on a different district, they'd be stuck with well deserved $5,000 per school and we'd have $15,000 for our school since we don't have to drain it to ghetto side.
>>



Someone has to support those ghetto schools. Someone has to pony up the tax dollars, or the kids in those schools won't receive the same kind of education as other students. There is already a HUGE disparity in the quality of education from district to district. I went to a city, public high school. My district didn't have much money, so I didn't have the newest computers and the highest quality equipment that other schools did. My education didn't suffer because of it, but was it right for someone else to have better equipment than me just because they lived in a different zip code?!? Hell no. This is what I was getting at with equal protection under the law.

AmusedOne- I agree with you that there is rampent abuse in the system. That doesn't mean we should just do away with the system though... what it means is that we should CHANGE the system. Many people don't have the training to get jobs, and there may not be enough unskilled labor available for everyone. Granted, there are the people that are just plain lazy and abuse the system, but that doesn't mean we should punish those who have legitiment claims and are in need of some help. I would LOVE to see a work-fare program implemented. Something like the Tennesse Vally Authority, but better managed. We do have to recognize that if government assistance programs were abolished, charities wouldn't be able to handle the load.

Ryan